A STUDY OF THE FARMING SYSTEM AND TECHNOLGY ADOPTION

IN YADÉ-BOHOU, TOGO

BY

GREER GURGANUS

submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN FORESTRY

MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY

2004

ii

This project paper, "A Study of the Farming System and Technology Adoption in Yadé-

Bohou, Togo," is hereby approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree

of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN FORESTRY.

School of Forest Resources and Environmental Science

Signatures:

Advisor: ___________________________________ Dr. Blair D. Orr

Dean: ___________________________________ Dr. Margaret R. Gale

Date: ___________________________________

iii

PREFACE

“Through these interactions I have learnt that however innovative technical

inputs may be, they are useless if they do not provide for and support the individuals,

families and communities in which they are to be practiced.”

Peter Huxley (Author of Tropical Agroforestry)

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures ………………………………………………………………… v

List of Tables ………………………………………………………………… v

Acknowledgement ………………………………………………………… vi

Chapter 1: Introduction ………………………………………………… 1

Chapter 2: Background ………………………………………………………… 3

Study Region ………………………………………………………… 7

Chapter 3: Methods…………………………………………………………….. 14

Participant Observation ………………………………………… 16

Informal/Formal Questionnaires ………………………………………. 17

Analysis of Questionnaire Responses …………………………………. 26

Chapter 4: Results and Discussion …………………………………………. 31

Farming System Definition …………………………………………. 32

Agricultural Extension Initiatives …………………………………. 38

Technology Adoption in the Farming System ………………………….. 44

Chapter 5: Conclusion and Recommendations .…………………………………. 55

Summary …………………………………………………………. 55

Recommendations …………………………………………………. 57

General Conclusion …………………………………………………. 59

Literature Cited …………………………………………………………. 60

Appendix I …………………………………………………………………. 68

Appendix II ……………………………………………………………………. 96

v

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Continent of Africa Map …………………………………………… 4

Figure 2. Togo Regional Map …………………………………………………… 6

Figure 3. Kara Region …………………………………………………………… 8

Figure 4. Market Day in Yadé …………………………………………………… 9

Figure 5. Kabyé compounds at the base of the mountain ….……………………... 11

Figure 6. Terraces …………………………………………………………… 12

Figure 7. Samuel working on the questionnaire …………………………… 24

Figure 8. Field Drawing Q14 …………………………………………………… 27

Figure 9. Field Drawing Q25 …………………………………………………… 28

Figure 10. Field Drawing Q26 …………………………………………………… 29

Figure 11. Farm fields around the family compound …………………………… 33

Figure 12. Chouc Preparation …………………………………………………… 34

Figure 13. Traditional Field Preparation …………………………………… 37

Figure 14. Seasonal Activities Calendar …………………………………… 38

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Questionnaire …………………………………………………………… 19-21

Table 2: Farming Techniques …………………………………………………….. 40

Table 3: Summary of Correlations……………………………………………….... 53

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

To begin I would like to thank Blair Orr for his unfailing assistance and sense of

humor while I was both at Michigan Technological University and in Togo. His support and

confidence encouraged me every step of the way. I would also like to thank the members of

my committee, Dr. Glen Mroz, Linda Nagel and Charles Young.

I could not have completed this study without the assistance of PAGNA Samuel

Koffi. He was always there for support and translation. Je voudrais vous remercier pour

toute l’assistance que vous m’avez donnée. The family I joined in Togo was incredibly

patient, loving and gentle with me, even when I insisted that sweeping dirt is not necessary.

The community and groupements of Yadé-Bohou were also overwhelmingly accepting and

accommodating. The sense of community and contentment I learned through living in their

midst will never leave me.

Even when other Peace Corps Volunteer’s families think they are crazy for deciding

to join, mine was completely accepting. Their confidence in me is priceless and I could not

have developed into the person I am today without them. Thank you.

1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

During the eleven weeks of Peace Corps training I lived with an Ewe family in a

quiet, isolated village in southern Togo. Immediately after swearing-in as a Volunteer, I

moved 300 kilometers north to Yadé-Bohou, in the heart of Kabyé country. It is said that

the Ewe eat cat. The Kabyé definitely eat dog. The two groups have other differences in

terms of dress, community organization and hierarchy. Because of their geographical

separation, the two cultures also have very different environmental influences.

Learning about agricultural practices in the southern part of the country did not

prepare me for extension work in the north. The composting and gardening practices of the

south require considerable water inputs not easily obtained in the north. Northern groups

tend to cultivate more sorghum, millet and root crops. Environmental differences allow

southern groups to focus more on fruit and palm tree production. Peace Corps training

activities focusing on the field application of agricultural techniques did not address these

differences or the implications of them for Volunteer agricultural activities. Therefore the

training activities that focused on agricultural technologies encouraged through the Peace

Corps were essentially inappropriate for the environment of my assigned community. The

purpose of this study is to explain and define the farming system in Yadé-Bohou along with

its implications for technology adoption and extension work.

In order to be an effective Peace Corps Volunteer, working on improved agricultural

methods and techniques, an understanding of the farming system and current technology

adoption in the area were necessary. Over the period of a year I observed and participated

in all forms of agricultural and community activities. As I became acquainted with the

farming system of Yadé-Bohou, the people became accustomed to me. Using this

2

relationship I developed and administered a farming questionnaire throughout the two

cantons. Participant observation, direct and indirect questionnaire responses were combined

to create a holistic definition of the farming system and agricultural technology adoption in

Yadé-Bohou.

In Chapter 2, a brief background of Togo and the study area will be given. In order

to understand the communities of Yadé and Bohou in the larger context, their role in the

country must be understood. Agricultural practices are sculpted by governmental policies,

environmental conditions and geographical locations. Therefore these issues will be

addressed in this chapter.

Chapter 3 is a discussion of the research methodology involved in the execution of

this study. Participant observation and its role in the development of individual in-depth

interviews is defined. The questionnaire and interviewing processes are then explained.

Finally the factors involved in the analysis and interpretation of study are explained.

The results of this study are explained and discussed in Chapter 4. In the first

section, the agricultural aspects of the farming system are defined through statistical analysis

of the questionnaire responses, participant commentary and personal observations.

Secondly, the current methods in correlation to technology adoption are explained. A

discussion of the promoted technologies and their appropriateness to the community

conclude the chapter.

In Chapter 5 the conclusions and recommendations based on the results of this

study are found. Concise descriptions of the farming system and technology adoption in

Yadé-Bohou are explained. Final recommendations for future work by extension agents are

then provided.

3

CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND

Togo, officially the Togolese Republic, is a small Sub-Saharan West African country

about the size of the state of West Virginia (CIA Factbook 2004). It stretches 600 km north

into the Sahel from the Bight of Benin (Figure 1). Located between 6º N and 11º N and

centered on 1º E, Togo is bordered to the east by the country of Benin, to the west by

Ghana and to the north by Burkina Faso. With an average population growth rate of 2.27%

the current population is estimated to be 5,556,812, roughly 6% of this population is living

with the AIDS virus leading to a higher mortality rate (CIA Factbook 2004). The population

is clustered in the southernmost region and along the national highway (Farlex 2004). For

such a small country an abundance of diversity is found in the number of distinctly different

people groups living within its borders. Although French is the national language, there are

42 languages currently spoken in the country, among these Ewe, Mina, Kabyé and Kotokoli

are the most common (SIL International 2004).

The present-day country of Togo was created from a fraction of the area once

occupied by Togoland. During the 17th and 18th centuries, Togoland was frequently the

target of raids in search of slaves. As the slave trade declined, the European countries

involved in them began exploring more and more of the West African countryside. Because

of these explorations the Germans became the first Europeans to claim protectorate status

over Togo, signing treaties with both France and Great Britain for the claim. Their

initiatives to both control and develop the country continued until 1914 when Togoland fell

to the British and French as the first allied victory of World War I. Only eight years later the

country was divided into two territories. It was not until 1960 that the western portion of

4

Figure 1: Continent of Africa (CIA World Factbook 2004)

5

Togoland would gain its independence from France and become known as the Togolese

Republic (Cornevin 1969).

In 1961 an election took place in the newly independent Republic of Togo that

installed Sylvanus Olympio as the president. He was killed only three years later on January

13, 1963, in a military revolt. Exactly four years elapsed until his successor was deposed in

the military coup that would eventually place its leader, Lt. Col. Gnassingbe Eyadéma, in the

role of president (Anon 2000). In 2004, Gen. Eyadéma continues to hold the presidency

and is considered the longest serving president in the world (Infoplease 2004).

Togo is divided into five political regions (Figure 2). From south to north they are

known as the Maritime, Plateaux, Centrale, Kara and Savanes regions (CIA Factbook 2004).

Within each region there are both administrative and local subdivisions. Each region is

divided into a number of prefectures. A prefecture is composed of a series of cantons,

which in turn can be divided into a number of villages. At each step in this ladder there are

authority figures. The Prefect at the Prefectural level has authority over the Canton Chief

who in turn has authority over the Village Chief.

Togo’s most spectacular geographical feature is the Togo Mountains that cut across

the country from the southwest to the northeast (Peace Corps World Wise Schools 2004).

The range extends diagonally across the country into neighboring Ghana and Benin (Farlex

2004). Mount Agou, Togo’s highest point, attaining a lofty 986 m, is located near the city of

Kpalimé in the Plateaux region (CIA Factbook 2004). While the whole country is

considered to be savanna, the rainfall to the south of the range is considerably higher than in

the north (Infoplease 2004).

The seasons, known by their primary characteristics, rainy or dry, vary from south to

north. In the south there are two rainy seasons, one from April to June and another from

6

Figure 2: Togo Regional Map

September to October (Farlex 2004). The north's one rainy season from June to September

leaves the area more arid and less suited to plantation and cash crop agriculture (Farlex

2004). Therefore, the majority of the country’s agricultural resources are found in the

Plateau and Maritime regions. For example, plantations of palm, cacao and coffee are

cultivated here as cash crops (Decalo 1987). Along with phosphates, cacao and coffee,

cotton is one of the primary exports from Togo. It is cultivated in the north where the

environment is better suited to this task (Infoplease 2004). Centered in and around the town

7

of Tabligbo, mining of the richest first-grade calcium phosphate resources in the world is

one of the most important industries in Togo today (Anon 2000). Even with developments

such as these, the average yearly income in Togo remains one of the lowest in the world at

approximately 300 United States dollars (Anon 1996). This average takes into consideration

that the people of the north are less financially secure and have a greater agricultural focus

than their neighbors to the south. The study area is located in the second most northern

region in the country.

STUDY REGION:

Kara, located at 9.6º N, 1.2º E, is the largest town and administrative capital of the

Kara region of northern Togo (Figure 3). With an estimated population of 580,000 in seven

prefectures, the Kara region holds approximately 11% of the total population. Because of its

close proximity to Pya, President Eyadéma's birthplace, Kara has had more infrastructure

development than other cities of its size in Togo. The most common ethnic group found

here is the Kabyé (Kabre, Kabiye or Cabrais in various literature). And approximately 14%

of all Togolese are of Kabyé origin. Other prominent ethic groups in the region include the

Bassar, Konkomba, Kotokoli, Losso and Tamberma peoples (Tendresse 2004).

8

Figure 3: Kara Region Map

Just north of Kara along the national highway are the cantons of Yadé and Bohou.

Bohou's canton borders that of Kara to the south and Yadé to the north. Yadé extends

farther north to the village of Tchitchao. Bohou, the larger of the two cantons has an

observed population of 8000. Yadé, with only about 2000 people, is comparatively smaller

in population and area than its neighbor. While both cantons have market days once a week,

Yadé's Sunday afternoon market is larger and livelier than the one held in Bohou on Monday

(Figure 4).

9

Figure 4: Market Day in Yadé

The two cantons are commonly known throughout the country as Yadé-Bohou. In

variably when I would tell someone that I lived in Yadé they would look confused and then

begin to nod and say, "Oh, yes, Yadé-Bohou." In the same way as the name, many aspects of

the cantons are intertwined. Elementary age schools remain separated in individual village

quartiers but secondary schools, middle and high school equivalents are combined between

the cantons. The Catholic Church is located on the Yadé-Bohou border in order to

accommodate both villages without isolating either population. Yet, while some things are

combined and many of the homesteads who consider themselves residents of Bohou clearly

lie within the canton of Yadé, none of their political hierarchies are combined. I, for

10

example, lived in the Yaoude quartier of the village of Yadé-Pou in the canton of Yadé.

There are individual chiefs for each of these divisions.

Though many of Togo’s cantons and villages of this scale are ethnically

heterogeneous, almost the entire Yadé-Bohou population is made up of Kabyé. The Kabyé

are an ethnic group who, through oral tradition, trace their beginnings to a man descended

from the sky. This man landed in the valley between the two mountain ranges occupied by

present-day Kabyé. They moved up to reside on the mountainsides during the time of the

great slave trades, the 1700 and 1800s. The mountains served as a deterrent to raiders and as

geographical protection for the people. While the mountainsides are still occupied, the

majority of the Kabyé population has moved onto the flatter, lower elevations because of

population and agricultural pressures (Piot 1999) (Figure 5).

The Kabyé are a people rich in tradition. Their celebrations through the year are

times of remembrance, celebrations of adulthood and of joy. Each year is welcomed with an

elaborate New Year's Day celebration. The months of December and January are known as

the 'funeral season.' During this time, familial celebrations are held for those elderly

members deceased during the previous year. In July the boys initiation ceremony, Evala, is

11

Figure 5: Kabyé compounds at the base of the mountain.

celebrated through a series of wrestling tournaments. Two weeks later the young women

participate in Akpema, declaring themselves to be virgin women of marriageable age. Every

five years the animist purification celebration of Habye is performed (Decalo 1987). As

many of the Kabyé people come to identify with the practices of the Catholic Church,

brought into the area by European missionaries, these celebrations are being adapted and

altered.

To the north, just over the mountain range from the current locations of Yadé and

Bohou, is the ancestral home of the Kabyé. Remaining in approximately the same area as

their ancestors has allowed them to preserve traditions and continue farming with the same

methods as their forefathers. Yet, while their population increases with time, the land base

remains the same. People must feed more and more people from the same limited amount

12

of land. When this is the case, the fallow periods decrease and as a result soil fertility

decreases.

The Kabyé have often been referred to as 'rock farmers' (Cornevin 1969). In order

to use the available land to their best advantage, the Kabyé became well known for their

terracing, or rock farming (Figure 6). As a result of moving down and away from the

mountain, terracing has become less commonplace and more sensational. Yadé-Haut and

Bohou-Haut are the two exceptions to this rule as the people in these villages continue to

reside on the mountainside. Their terraces are well established and maintained.

Figure 6: Terraces

Beets (1990) defines seven farming systems commonly used in the tropics. Based on

observations made over the course of two years, the Kabyé system could best be classified as

a 'small-scale mixed system of farming.' Although it is not the case that animal husbandry is

13

completely integrated into the Kabyé methods, those farmers who are raising pigs, sheep,

goats and chickens tend to use manure as fertilizer and feed crop residues back to their

animals. The principal cereals grown here include maize (Zea mays), sorghum (Sorghum

bicolor), millet (Panicum decompositum), peanuts (Arachis hypogaea), black-eyed peas (Vigna

unguiculata), rice (Aryza sativa), soy (Glycine max), manioc (Manihot esculenta), ignames (Dioscorea

spp), and sweet potatoes (Ipomoea batatas). On a smaller scale, okra (Abelmoschus esculentus),

tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum), onions (Allium cepa) and peppers (Capsicum chinense) are

cultivated. Various leafy vegetables are also grown for sauce preparation.

With the few options available, the Kabyé diet tends to be monotonous. A large

plate of pâte, generally a cornmeal or sorghum paste, and a vegetarian sauce, is the dietary

staple of the majority. With celebrations, rice, sokoro (pounded igname), pastas and meats

are prepared but rarely otherwise. This falls into line with the definition of subsistence

agriculture. With roughly 65% of the population farming at the subsistence level, the Kabyé

diet is typical of the entire country (Farlex 2004).

The population pressure on the land in Yadé and Bohou is tremendous. As the

population increases, more and more is required from the same amount of land. Soil fertility

naturally decreases when the land is exploited in this way. Because of this many farmers

have to increase their soil enrichment activities in order to continue to harvest acceptable

quantities from their land. Several soil enrichment methods are being adopted and adapted

with varying rates of success in the two cantons. Understanding these activities is an

important step in understanding the farming methods taking place today.

14

CHAPTER 3: METHODS

When farmers consume the majority of the crops they produce, they are considered

to be farming at the subsistence level (Beets 1990). The farmers in Yadé-Bohou are

categorized as such. They depend on the land for their livelihoods and in turn are restricted

by it. It was this paradox that most intrigued me. There are a number of new and simple

technologies that are adapted specifically for this environment, yet so few farmers adopt

them. When such small activities would improve their soil fertility and therefore their

harvests, why would someone not adopt? In this chapter I will describe the methods used to

research this topic in the cantons of Yadé and Bohou.

I arrived in Togo in June of 2002. For the following eleven weeks I lived in a small

village in the south of the country with my fellow trainees. During this time I became

acclimated to the new environment, learned to speak French and was introduced to the

appropriate technologies that were encouraged by the Peace Corps. After completing

training I was assigned to live in the village of Yadé for two years. The community

requested a Peace Corps Volunteer to work with the active groupements in not only Yadé

but also Bohou. Their official request for a volunteer stated the desire for someone to

address issues in business, reforestation, agriculture and animal husbandry. When I arrived

they assumed that I was an expert on all of these issues and acted as such.

Groupement is the French word for group or association. It is used in Togo to

describe a group of people who come together to address a problem or combine their work

efforts. Groupement organization is heavily encouraged by the government and has become

a small-scale phenomenon in Togo. Documentation for each groupement, in the form of

Statuts and Regulement Interieur, refer to the activities of the groupement and their internal

15

organization and is based on French Legislation of 1901 (K. Ramsey, pers. comm.). These

documents are legal, binding and recognized through the government and organizations as

evidence of organizational status (Peace Corps Training Document 2004). With this type of

organization, information is more easily dispersed and project funding more easily obtained.

The communities of Yadé and Bohou are unusual in the fact that they have so many

established and active groupements.

Regardless of main objective, all groupements have a few things in common. Each

group has at least five members, a communal field, and a meeting space. Minimally, five

members are needed to form the basic organizational and voting body of the groupement.

The majority of the groupements are focused on agricultural practices. For this reason, each

groupement has a communal field where, during the growing season, the members farm

collectively. The products of their combined efforts are used to further the activities of the

groupement. In addition to communal work, groupements hold regular meetings to discuss

their activities. Meetings are generally informal and located either under a mango tree or

near the groupement president’s house. My integration into the activities of the

groupements started with these meetings.

In most cases it takes a volunteer about six months to adapt to and be tentatively

accepted by their new community. These are months full of questions, explorations, trials

and errors. By walking all over the community and beyond, I became widely known

throughout the villages. I wanted to be an active member of the community and by visiting

even the most remote groups I was able to demonstrate this in a way that most extension

agents do not. This would not have happened as quickly without the schedule of

groupement meetings.

16

Working with the groupements was more the role of a man than a woman. I did not

want to alienate the women or be seen as someone above their activities. Therefore I

insisted on doing my own household chores. I simply did not know how to do many of

these activities. Washing my clothes by hand, fetching and carrying water from the pump,

and working in the fields were all new activities for me. The youngest of children in Togo

can do all of these things. The women were amused by my efforts in the beginning. But as I

became more accomplished, I was viewed as less of an outsider and more as a member of

the community. This acceptance played a large part in the acceptance of my ideas and

activities as a Peace Corps Volunteer in the community. It also allowed me to observe and

participate on such a level that I grew to understand the community. Approaching research

through observation and participation, in order to better understand the activities and people

performing a specific task, is the basic definition of participant observation (Bernard 2002).

PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION

While I learned the nuances through observation of the Kabyé culture and the

people of Yadé-Bohou, I focused my preliminary research efforts on how farmers improved

their farms and adopted agricultural techniques. With my growing confidence I began to ask

more and more questions of the farmers I was meeting in their fields. The questions were

varied and numerous, but centered around their activities on composting, tree planting, and

field preparation. I asked farmer after farmer if they knew about specific soil enrichment

activities including compost. The majority of people I talked with said they did know about

compost, although it was not something that was widely done. The same was true for other

topics. I found the awareness of these activities on the part of the average farmer to be a

17

good sign. But why were they not trying them out? Each is a very simple idea, which could

easily be adopted by the poorest farmers.

INFORMAL/FORMAL QUESTIONNAIRES

The best way to address this topic was through individual, in-depth interviews in the

form of a questionnaire. I started by listing all the questions that I was interested in and had

asked myself over the past year. The questions needed to be direct and as short as possible.

The farming system, especially in subsistence societies, includes not only the agricultural

aspect, but also the socioeconomic values, land tenure, labor inputs, culture and politics

involved in daily life (Beets 1990). So questions regarding the whole farming system were

necessary in order to understand the broader farming technologies adoption picture.

Therefore through combination and elimination, twenty-five questions were selected to

cover cultivation, harvest, tool usage, external inputs, soil improvement and introduced

technologies.

Classification of participant wealth was determined through four socio-economic

questions (Table 1). In a social society, where immediate family obligations are more

important than planning for the future, accumulated monetary wealth is not the most

accurate measure of overall wealth. Instead money is stored through the purchase of goods:

materials for construction, livestock, transportation, cookware, and furniture (Vieryra-Odilon

and Vibrans 2001). Through observation I determined that the most accurate wealth

qualifiers for the residents of Yadé and Bohou were in their living conditions. Monetary

inputs can transform thatch roofs into tin, mud brick into cement, and add electricity to a

household. Improved conditions are an indication of wealth; therefore the four socio-

18

economic qualifiers chosen were universally applicable and reasonably accurate. Consistency

of response is also guaranteed by the simple fact that I was able to observe the households in

question.

I then tested the questionnaire on three separate farmers to determine the validity of

the questions (Kitchen et al. 2000). Through these trials a number of changes were made in

the format, style and execution of the questionnaire. Ideas are easily lost or twisted through

translation. It was imperative that the meaning behind the questions be understood.

Therefore through rewording and reorganization of the original 25 questions, a more concise

questionnaire was produced with just twenty questions (Table 1). Another result of the trial

was determining the best method for recording participant responses. In these trials I had

computer printout questionnaires made that had pre-determined spaces available for

recording answers. The respondents were able to see the notes I took on each response.

They were disturbed by the fact that their answers did not completely fill up the space

available and would either supply me with more information than needed or cut themselves

off when the space provided on the questionnaire was full. The computer printout also

made the survey appear more formal. People were hesitant when answering questions in a

formal setting. I discussed this phenomenon with my groupement counterparts and the

three individual test participants. Together we decided that the best method of recording

responses would be to write out answers on blank paper. This method allowed for free

expression without expectations. I should note at this time that none of the participants

expressed discomfort with note taking during the interview. Many found it amusing that I

wrote in a mixture of French, Kabyé and English.

19

Table 1: Questionnaire (page 1)

Name: Name of quarter: Name of Co-operative (if applicable): Questionnaire number: Questionnaire Information of the Farm Worker: Village name: Age: Sex: Socioeconomic Classification: Type of house: Mud brick, concrete Type of roof: Thatch, Tin Electricity: Yes or No Water availability: well or pump, shared or private Cultivation: 1. How many minutes does it take you to walk to your field(s)? 2. Do you have the rights to use the land? Rented? Used without rights? 3. What is the area of your field? How many days are necessary to sow it? 4. What do you grow in your field? Is it the same each year, or do you change? Do you buy new grains each year, or save them from the past year? 5. How do you prepare the land? By yourself or with assistance? Paid? 6. What tools do you use in the field? 7. Is the land of your field flat or is there a slope? If yes, is the slope gentle or steep? 8. What types of soils are there in your field(s)? 9. What do you use to enrich your soil? 10. Do you use insecticides or herbicides? 11. Do you weed? If so when and how often?

20

Table 1: Questionnaire (page 2)

Harvest: 12. What was the quantity of your harvest last year? How does that compare to previous years? 13. How do you use the harvest? (consummation, selling) Other: 14. What do you do with the land during the dry season? Burn? When? Cultivate? What? 15. Are there any trees on your land? Did you plant them yourself? Or did they already exist? What type and where? 16. Are there things that grow on your land that you use but you did not plant? How do you use them? 17. Are there things that you would like to grow but have found to be impossible? 18. Have you had any formal training in new methods or technologies? When? Do you do them? Why or why not? 19. Do you know of any new methods that you would like to try? If yes: What? Is it possible in the future? Why or why not? Why not yet? 20. Have you worked with any technical agents? In your village? Do you know the ICAT agent in your village?

21

Table 1: Questionnaire (page 3)

Number of questionnaire: Design of Field:

22

The final questionnaire and research plan were submitted to the Michigan

Technological University Institutional Review Board and approved. All participants were

made aware of their rights with regards to this research project.

Kabyé is a difficult language full of nuances and tonal classes. Therefore Samuel

Pagna was contracted to translate the questions into Kabyé for the extent of the research.

Working together, we analyzed the questions, wording and organization so that they would

be more easily understood. In addition, each question was open-ended so the participants

could respond with as much or little information as they chose.

During the rainy season people did not have enough free time to spend an hour

answering questions. For this reason the study was conducted in the dry season. In Yadé-

Bohou this is from October through May. Harvesting occurs in October through December

when the fields are dry and the crops mature. Following this period, through the beginning

of February, is the Kabyé funeral season. It is a social time set aside to honor the elderly

family members who died in the previous year. Celebration preparations are too intricate

and time consuming during the months of December and January to ask people to

participate in a research study. Therefore in late January of 2004 Samuel and I planned the

interview schedule. We believed we would be able to perform two questionnaires a day, and

so we organized a schedule that would last through the month of March.

Various methods are used by researchers to sample populations (Nichols 2000;

Bernard 2002). In this case the simple random sampling techniques were eliminated because

we did not have access to a list of the entire population. Without street names, house

numbers or village delineations, randomly choosing a sample of the population is difficult.

Therefore, a sample population was chosen through the random walk sampling method

23

(Nichols 2000). Each morning we were scheduled to do questionnaires, Samuel and I would

walk in a randomly chosen direction. From that direction we would look for farmers either

in their fields or in their family compounds. Together Samuel and I would explain the study

and ask if they were willing to be participants. In this way, the farmers who participated

were randomly selected and enthusiastic about the project. The final sample of participants

is representative of the population because none of the farmers declined to participate in the

study.

Research in a foreign environment is difficult. The significance and value of

activities can be perplexing to the outsider without translation or explanation. Key

informants aid researchers through translation and information sharing where complete

understanding is essential (Bernard 2002). They speak the local language and the language of

the researcher (Boa et al. 2001). The house donated by the community for my use was in the

Pagna family compound. Samuel, one of the sons of the family, lives and works in Yadé.

His oral and written fluency in French and Kabyé reflect his elevated educational level

(Figure 7). Additionally, Samuel was democratically elected as the Secretary for the

Federation of Groupements, demonstrating that he is devoted to community development

and well liked among his peers. As translator, he was actively involved in the research from

questionnaire development to administration. As a key informant Samuel assisted me in

understanding statements made by participants and the cultural significance of many

activities.

24

Figure 7: Samuel working on the questionnaire.

Accuracy of information gathered by an outside researcher in many situations has

been questionable (Bernard 2002). I was able to field check many responses. The

information supplied by participants in this study was given freely and in a candid

environment. I was widely familiar to the participants as their Peace Corps Volunteer and

had lived in Yadé for seventeen months before beginning the formal questionnaires. Samuel

was well respected and liked throughout the community. We were both familiar with the

activities and actions of the community. Therefore questions were answered honestly and

with confidence (Godoy et al. 2000). These factors, in combination with the similarities

between responses and observations, lead me to believe that the information gathered in this

study is accurate and representative of the community.

25

There were certain responses to questions that did not correspond to observations

that I had made. One participant, when asked if she had worked with any outside agents,

responded in the affirmative. I was a little surprised by this fact since I had known her for

the past year and a half and was unaware of this association. When prompted, she explained

the relationship. The agent came to her house every few years to take measurements and ask

questions regarding her productivity levels. There was no exchange of ideas or technology

transfer, although she did note that the extension agent once gave her a machete. This

relationship did not negatively affect her productivity levels and so she was not averse to

working with these agents. Her explanation was detailed and descriptive of the relationship,

yet without observations I would not have known that the responses required further

investigation.

Responses were also supplied that confirmed my observations. When asked what

types of trees existed or were planted on their farmed land, the species listed by the

participants were consistent with what I saw. The ronier (Borassus aethiopum), for example, a

well-known palm with a variety of household, artesian and medicinal uses, was not included

on the majority of farmers' lists, even though it is native and well dispersed throughout the

region (Maydell 1983). Weaver birds, of the family Ploceidae, weave hanging nests out of

grass and twigs. They eat seeds and grains and have been known to devastate crop yields

(Wikipedia 2004). Weaver bird’s preferred habitat in the area is the ronier palm. Therefore

having ronier palms in your fields could contribute to reduced crop yields.

Each survey took approximately an hour and a half, depending on the participant’s

level of French, their enthusiasm for the project, and their time constraints. Because we did

the survey in the dry season when crops are not being grown, it was impossible to picture

agricultural practices without a drawing and explanation. Therefore, following the

26

questionnaire itself, I asked each participant to draw one of his or her fields. Examples of

the drawings can be seen in Figures 8, 9 and 10. For this task a box of crayons and a sheet

of paper were supplied. On each drawing they were asked to identify the type of field

preparation done, crops grown, man-made structures, trees (planted or natural), and

boundaries. The data supplied in this manner was direct and accurate without the need for

interpretation. Many of the older participants were reluctant to draw their fields but

described them in detail to a family member, Samuel, or me and we would draw them.

Forty-five of the fifty questionnaires include a drawing. Of these, 64 percent were done by

the participant themselves.

The last questionnaire was finished in June of the same year. At the time of

completion, all information obtained was packaged and kept anonymous.

ANALYSIS OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES:

Analysis of the questionnaires was completed when I returned to Michigan

Technological University in the month of September 2004. For each questionnaire there

were three pages of hand-written information. The first two sheets were the responses to

the actual questions. The third was the drawing of the fields. Each questionnaire was

translated and data was entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. In addition, each

narrative response was changed into a numeric code (Bernard 2002). On average,

participants surveyed farmed more than one field. Where applicable supplemental

information on each of these fields was provided. The data was organized into two

spreadsheets to reflect these additions. The first contained questions that pertained to each

27

Figure 8: Field Drawing Q14

28

Figure 9: Field Drawing Q25

29

Figure 10: Field Drawing Q26

30

farmer and their activities (Appendix I), and the second held information regarding

individual field applications (Appendix II).

Statistical analysis was performed using SAS (Delwiche et al. 1995). The correlation

function of this statistical analysis program was used to determine the strength of the

relationships between individual questions and responses (Steele and Torrie 1960; Larose et

al 1998).

This multi-dimensional research methodology was developed to study the farming

activities in Yadé and Bohou. Beginning with participant observation, the questions,

methods and time frame of the study were determined. Fifty respondents participated in a

randomly administered questionnaire over a period of five months. All surveys were

performed at either the participants’ home or on their property, enabling the researcher to

observe each environment in question. The questionnaire itself contained questions of a

quantitative and qualitative nature. Quantitative responses were analyzed statistically and

objectively. In the end, observations, qualitative responses and statistical correlations were

combined to obtain a holistic view of the agricultural technologies embedded in the farming

system.

31

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Research on technology adoption has been conducted in a large variety of subject

areas and situations. However, in order to understand the technologies adopted in an area,

one must study the current practices and trends. Technology adoption in the farming

systems in Yadé-Bohou is the focus of this study. After observing and participating in

farming activities for a year, I developed a questionnaire to directly question farmers about

their practices. The results of these questionnaires, in conjunction with the observations and

commentary from the participants will be used to define the agricultural and technology

adoption practices as they currently stand and provide inferences for the future.

A discussion of technology adoption and farming systems however cannot only

focus on agricultural practices. It is important to understand agriculture practices in their

proper context. This context may include the cereal prices set by the government,

transportation costs, climatic variations, social and family interactions, animal husbandry

practices, labor requirements and crop varieties. Each of these considerations in turn

depends on many other factors. Transportation costs, for example, may include the cost of

gas, the number of times your bicycle tire needs to be repaired, or how many pairs of sandals

you are required to buy in a year, among other things. These costs are as integral to the

farming system as water is to the crops.

In order to better address all aspect of the farming system, the results and discussion

of this study will be divided into three parts. The first will focus on the farming system and

current agricultural practices of the people of Yadé-Bohou. Technologies and practices

encouraged by extension agents will make up the second part. In the final section the rates

32

and realities of technological adoption as they relate to agricultural practices and what this

means for the future will be discussed.

FARMING SYSTEM DEFINITION

Through this study, base line information on the farming system and socioeconomic

status were established. Before discussing results of technology adoptions within the

community, the current farming system and situation must be defined. Through this

definition, the discussion of technologies adoption results will be more easily understood.

In Yadé-Bohou there are few parcels of land not being exploited agriculturally.

Family compounds are not centralized. Each family lives in the middle of a small field, so

the compounds are, in essence, separated by fields. The land immediately surrounding the

homes is farmed in the same cropping pattern as more distant parcels (Figure 11). Farming

practices differ however based on land tenure and accessibility. The land farmed directly

adjacent to the compound, considered one field even if it contains several different cropping

patterns, is usually owned by the family. Additional fields are, on average, reached after a 30

minute walk by the farmer. Each farmer has, on average, two to three fields with a

combined total area of approximately 1.6 hectares. Multi-cropping is traditionally practiced

by the Kabyé. Therefore one plot of land will support three or more staple crops with

supplementary crops inter-planted.

The most commonly cultivated crop in Yadé-Bohou is sorghum. It is grown by

approximately 98% of farmers. The cultural significance and varied uses make it an

attractive crop. Sorghum’s main use is in the preparation of chouc, locally prepared beer

(Figure 12). The preparation process is simple: for two days a mixture of ground sorghum

33

and water are boiled, mixed, and strained. The mixture then settles, cools and ferments in

order to be consumed on the third day. Chouc is used as payment for hired labor, during

celebrations and in traditional ceremonies. The by-product of chouc production is used as

animal feed. Other than its use in beer preparation, sorghum flour can be used to prepare

pâte, a starchy paste eaten with a sauce. The sorghum stalks, once dried, are also used as

cooking fuel.

Figure 11: Farm fields around the family compound.

With an 86% cultivation rate, maize is the second most prevalent crop. Traditionally

it is intercropped with sorghum and peanuts. The strong correlation of these crops is

demonstrated by the increasing quantities of each when compared to the other. The

Pearson's correlation coefficient for quantity of grown maize and sorghum on a farm is 0.43

34

(P = .002), maize and peanuts is 0.39 (P = .005) and sorghum and peanuts is 0.52 (P <.001).

Maize flour is used to prepare pâte. Although it can be prepared with sorghum, millet,

manioc or rice, maize is the preferred base for the meal. Maize is also used as feed for

animals, in the preparation of breakfast soups, and as a supplementary grain in chouc

preparation. Other non-grain uses of maize include using the dried stalks as fuel, as fence

building material and corn cobs for hygiene purposes.

Figure 12: Chouc Preparation

The main source of protein in the diet does not come from meat but through the

consumption of peanuts. Peanuts, generally intercropped with sorghum and maize, are the

third most common crop. They are grown by approximately 80% of the farmers in the area.

35

Once harvested peanuts are primarily consumed raw, boiled or hand ground for use as the

base for a rich sauce. Because they are a good source of protein, peanut and soy flour are

being increasingly added to breakfast porridges, traditionally a mix of maize and rice,

especially for young children. Pre-packaged powders, introduced into the community by

Catholic nuns as a means to decrease malnutrition rates in small children, contain ingredients

that are all available in the community. By creating the mixtures themselves, families save

money, improve nutritional rates and decrease their dependency on imported goods.

Farming in Yadé-Bohou is done without the aid of mechanized equipment or

animal traction. Each participant in the study was asked what tools they used in the fields.

Although this question was left open-ended and allowed for multiple responses, 92% of

respondents listed at least one of four tools: large hoe, small hoe, machete, and a seeder.

The large hoe is an L-shaped tree branch fitted with a spade-shaped steel plate. It is used to

turn over the land into lines suitable for cultivation. Small hoes are similarly constructed

though smaller, and more suited to gardening and weeding. Machetes are used for land

clearing, sowing seeds, weeding and harvesting. A seeder is any instrument, generally the

handle of a small hoe without the steel plate, used by women for sowing a field. Only four

participants said that they used a tool other than one of these. Two of them named using a

baton, or large wooden pole, for rock leverage when clearing the field. The calabash was used

for holding seeds while seeding, and a basket for harvesting were the final two.

During training one of the Peace Corps Volunteer’s families sent them a book on

small-scale farming. On the cover was a picture of a gentleman running a tractor over his

field. I think this is the idea people have when they hear small-scale farming. If this is the

definition of small-scale then we must further divide the systems based on mechanization

36

utilization. Therefore the farming system in Yadé-Bohou can be categorized as an

unmechanized small-scale farming system.

In order to explain the farming system in more detail, I will explain the farming

methods as I observed them. During the dry season there is no rainfall. The land is left to

dry out and harden under the intense equatorial sun. The first rains of the rainy season

soften the ground for land preparation. The land is initially weeded. The weeds are

collected in piles and burned. Once this has been completed and more rain has fallen, the

land is tilled into lines, mounds or in paddies depending on the crop to be cultivated.

Culturally, men perform this task. Approximately 75% of respondents mentioned hiring one

or more people to help them till their land. A negative Pearson's correlation coefficient of

-0.26 (P = .072), between farmers using ash as their main soil improvement technique and

hiring help shows us that the poorer farmers are less likely to hire help than not. The

advantages of additional help are decreased time needed for land preparation, leading to

earlier sowing times and longer growing seasons, which therefore, may be out of reach for

the poorest farmers. Ash is therefore the poor farmer’s fertilizer.

After the land is prepared and the rainy season has fully started, the women’s task of

sowing the fields begins. Traditionally, the crops are inter-planted. Therefore sorghum,

maize and peanuts are sown in the same lines, with sorghum and maize on the outsides and

peanuts growing in between them (Figure 13). Okra, ginger (Zingiber officinale), and herbs are

sown on the fringes of the fields and on marginal land around the home.

37

Figure 13: Traditional Field Preparation

Although the majority of fields are cultivated as shown in Figure 13, other crops

require different methods of field preparation. The three root crops; ignames, manioc and

sweet potatoes, are grown in mounds. The mound sizes are indicative of the root. Ignames

are large roots of the yam variety. The mounds for these are sizably larger than for the other

two roots. In between mounds, maize, millet and okra are sown. Upland rice is grown by

approximately 40% of the farmers. It is grown in unirrigated paddies on flat or gently

sloping land. The area of Bohou to the southwest is well suited to the cultivation of rice.

To the north and east of Yadé and Bohou, the rise of the Kabyé Mountains limit

cultivatable land. Village boundaries to the north and south mean that expansion in those

directions is also limited. Therefore, to find more and more land for cultivation, people

must expand to the west. Unfortunately no roads run in this direction, leaving the fields

inaccessible to anything other than foot traffic.

Harvesting, traditionally women’s work, is done during the months following the

rainy season. A calendar of seasons and activities is displayed in Figure 14.

My initial hypothesis in regards to the non-adoption of techniques was developed as

I walked with my neighbor to her field in this western area of the cantons. The walk there

Aisle x o x o x o x o x o x o x o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ x o x o x o x o x o x o x o

Aisle x o x o x o x o x o x o x o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ x o x o x o x o x o x o x o

x = sorghum; o = maize; ~ = peanuts

38

took an hour and a half. After two and a half hours of harvesting, enough maize was

collected to fill the head pans we brought. Loaded down with head-pans full of harvested

maize, the walk home took two hours. Without carrying anything to the field other than the

head-pans and a small bowl for drinking, we were laden down on the walk home. After this

first experience I hypothesized that people did not adopt new technologies because they

required inputs that were too labor intensive. Bringing compost to a field an hour an a half

away would increase the burden on the woman, decrease her energy levels once at the field

and therefore increase her workload without showing an exceptionally improved harvest.

Any new technology introduced to the farmers of Yadé-Bohou must be cost and labor

effective in a community with limited land, time and capital resources.

Seasonal Activity Calendar Rainy Season

Dry Season Dry Season

Seas

ons

Field Prep. Sowing Harvest Periodic Weeding F

arm

ing

Evala/Akpema

Funeral Season

Cu

ltu

ral

J F M A M J J A S O N D

Figure 14: Seasonal Activities Calendar

AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION INITIATIVES

The Natural Resource Management Peace Corps Volunteers are assigned to work

with the Togolese government appointed ICAT agents. ICAT, the Institut de Conseil et

39

d’Appui Technique (Institute for Advice and Technical Support), is a government initiative

to increase the amount of technical assistance to rural farmers (Koffi-Tessio et al. 2000).

ICAT agents are trained on the field application of agricultural techniques. Once they have

completed their education and training, agents are sent to sites throughout the country. Due

to internal government spending irregularities, these agents are not paid for long periods of

time. Without a regular salary they are less inclined to work for or in the communities unless

compensated by the people they should be assisting. In fact, many of the agents work on

outside projects that provide them with an income or contract their agricultural services out

for pay.

Yet there are few other options for the rural Togolese farmers. With the current

political situation in Togo, most international aid organizations have left the country.

Therefore, some financial, technical and informational aids have been suspended indefinitely.

Recommencement of these and other programs could be vital to further development in the

country.

In addition to a lack of international aid, the farmers in Togo face difficulties on the

domestic front. The government sets the prices for cereals. The demand for the traditional

preparation of goods decreases with an increase of inexpensive imported goods (Shao 2002).

Rural communities are seeing their educated young people leave in the search of work.

AIDS, a serious epidemic throughout West Africa, continues to spread, weakening the adult

labor force. Even facing all of these obstacles, perhaps because of them, farmers are

interested in new agricultural technologies that could improve their situations.

At the end of the questionnaire, each participant was asked if they had any

knowledge of new farming techniques. They were also asked if they had tried them, were

still employing the technique, and why or why not. Forty percent of participants said that

40

they did not know of any techniques. The remaining 60 percent provided a list of 15 new

methods. These techniques along with the number of times they were mentioned in the

questionnaires are listed in Table 2.

Field burning has been a problem for farmers in the area. During the dry season

(Figure 14, page 37) if a field is not prepared properly before burning, the fire can escape and

burn a large section of the countryside. For this and other reasons, farmers are increasingly

apprehensive of field burning. Therefore it does not surprise me that the most frequently

mentioned new agricultural technique, turning weeds under, dealt with weeding. In fact if the

two weeding techniques mentioned were combined they would have been mentioned two

times more than any other technique.

Table 2: Type of new farming techniques introduced to study participants, and the number

of times mentioned by participants.

Technique Times Mentioned

by Participants Animal Traction 2

Companion planting 2 Compost 3

Contour planting 1 Fertilizer 3

Manure Compost 4 Mechanized 1 Plat farming 2 Rice farming 2

Rotation 4 Soy 1

Tree plantation 1 Turning weeds under 5

Weeding methods 3 Yam methods 2

None 20

41

The method itself is very simple. During the dry season nothing is cultivated.

Therefore the fields are left to fallow for approximately five months. Without cultivation,

weeds spring up early in the dry season to take advantage of the remaining moisture before

everything dries out. These weeds, dry and brittle, are easily removed and burned at the start

of each rainy season. The new method of field preparation encourages farmers to turn the

weeds under tilled rows instead of burning them. That means that the work of tilling is

more difficult, but more organic matter is incorporated into the soil than with burning. Yes,

burning can be a useful tool in farming practices, but generally the time between burning and

field preparation in this area is too long to take full advantage of the nutrients made available

in ash. Instead of traditional weeding done periodically throughout the growing season, the

weeds are turned under in much the same manner. By doing this, not only are the exposed

roots of the crops recovered, but the organic material lost through traditional weeding and

burning remains on the land.

The land in Yadé-Bohou has been farmed continually for as long as any of the

participants could remember. Without fallow periods, the soil fertility does not have the

capacity to rejuvenate itself. Decreased soil fertility leads to decreased harvests. Therefore

in order to continue harvesting the same quantities, soil fertility must be increased through

human activities. While intercropping does not damage the soil as much as monocropping,

continuous intercropping still leads to reduced soil fertility (Innis 1997). A depleted soil

cannot continue to produce the same or increased harvests year after year. Of the remaining

techniques mentioned, three deal with soil enrichment: compost, composting using manure,

and fertilizer applications.

42

Approximately 60 % of the participants said that they used compost to improve their

soil fertility. Traditional composting techniques are simple and efficient. In order to begin

composting one must simply dig a large pit. The pit is lined with large stones to ensure that

the walls are not washed away during the rainy season. As crops are harvested the organic

waste - leaves, vines, husks and weeds - are thrown into the pit. Throughout the year as

supplemental crop are used, more matter is added to the pile. Occasionally wash water is

thrown on the pit during the months of the dry season, but otherwise the material is left to

decompose. The following year after the fields have been sown, the compost pit will be

excavated and the compost added in pockets near the sprouting crops.

New techniques in composting require more human inputs, but result in more

thoroughly decomposed compost that is ready for use in a much shorter time span. The

composting technique encouraged by the Peace Corps agricultural trainers involved using a

specific compost pile recipe. The recipe called for layer upon layer of dry and green

vegetation, manure, soil, and ash. Once built up to the desired height, the pile was watered

twice daily for 45 days. During that time the pile was rotated twice in order to ensure proper

mixing of ingredients. After 45 days the pile was said to be ready for use.

While the focus of this study was crop based, the farming system in Yadé-Bohou

encompassed animal and human activities. For this reason many agricultural extension

activities are centered around animals. The ICAT agent who was assigned to Yadé, Bohou,

and Tchitchao near the end of my service, was an animal specialist and spent the majority of

her time focusing on animal vaccinations. Although the role of animals in the farming

systems can be significant, the use of manure for soil enrichment was the only use

mentioned by the participants in this study. Compost made with manure is a prized

substance and regarded as more valuable than commercial fertilizer by most farmers.

43

Chemical fertilizer itself is used by over 60% of the farmers. It can be purchased by

the 50 Kg sack or in smaller quantities in the local markets. A 50 Kg sack costs

approximately 15 US dollars. There are two types of fertilizer available in the area. The first,

locally known as NPK or 15/15, is a catch-all chemical fertilizer. The N, P and K stand for

nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium. The 15/15 refers to an application scheme promoted

by agents. Fifteen days after the seeds have been sown in a field is the first time that NPK

should be put on the field. The second application should take place fifteen days after the

initial one. Urea, the second available fertilizer, adds nitrogen to the soil. Even though the

majority of the participants in this study employ fertilizer, only roughly 10 % rely on it alone.

Fertilizer methods taught by extension agents focus on application techniques, amounts and

timetables.

The other methods of soil enrichment are used less frequently across the wider

population. Among these are the cultivation of nitrogen-fixing leguminous plants, use of ash

as fertilizer, and the introduction of trees into the agricultural system. Nitrogen fixing crops,

less encouraged by extension agents than fertilizer, are a longer-term and less costly solution

to decreasing soil fertility rates. Soy, for example, is one such nitrogen fixing crop. It grows

well in most soil types and can leave the soil more nitrogen rich than before its cultivation

(Sanginga et al. 2001). Soy, consumed in the form of cheese, cous-cous and as a protein rich

flour, is increasingly in demand around the region (Shao 2002). As the demand increases,

more farmers are likely to plant soy for its market value rather than simply for its nitrogen

fixing properties.

In Yadé-Bohou the main cooking fuel is charcoal. Wood, sorghum stalks, and palm

branches are also used, but to a lesser extent. Cooking with these fuels produces large

amounts of ash. Ash, a versatile product, is used to ward off termites, decrease odors and as

44

a fertilizer. Just as burning the weeds on fields will release nutrients confined in organic

matter, ash from fuelwood placed on fields is intended to allow the released nutrients to be

immediately used by the crops (Sanchez 1976). Fourteen percent of the participants in this

study use ash as a form of soil enrichment.

There are tree species in the area that are nitrogen fixing and would be beneficial to

crops if used in an agroforestry system. Agroforestry systems are systems where trees and

crops are deliberately cultivated on the same parcel of land (Huxley 1999). Very few of the

farms in the study area can be classified as such; trees are being actively cultivated by only 10

percent of the farmers, all of whom are growing Anacardium occidentale, or cashew, a tree

prized for its fruit and nut production. The trees encouraged by agricultural extension

agents are not widely adopted because they do not produce fruit, large amounts of wood or

have medicinal uses.

In contrast to this, approximately 85% of farmers in the study have at least one

species of palm growing on their land. Palms, specifically, are left to grow in fields for their

non-timber uses and because their presence does not interfere with cultivation. Other tree

species are not cultivated because they attract animals in their early growing stages, have a

tendency to shade out crops and for land tenure reasons.

TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION IN THE FARMING SYSTEM

Farmers in Yadé-Bohou are adopting few new technologies. By combining the

knowledge of the farming system with the information obtained on the technologies known

by the farmers, the limited adoption can be explained. With an understanding of the reasons

45

why people do not adopt, new technologies or methods can be introduced that will be more

likely to be adopted.

I originally hypothesized that farmers were not adopting new technologies into their

farming systems because of the distances between their family compounds and their farm

fields. Longer distances require more labor for the farmer and would decrease their interest

in techniques that increase the amount of labor already required. Therefore it was surprising

to discover that there were no strong correlations between distance and knowledge of

techniques. Only one technique being adopted by various farmers in the community,

involving weeding techniques, showed a negative Pearson's correlation coefficient of -0.16 (P

= .27) in the community at large when compared to distance. The weeding technique does

not increase the field workload, require monetary input or additional tool usage. Farmers

with distant fields would be expected to use this technique.

The agricultural initiatives that have been most widely adopted in Yadé-Bohou deal

with the soil. Because the rainy season is reliably predictable, rain is not necessarily the

limiting factor in cultivation. The nutrients in the soil, however, can limit the quantity and

type of crops that can be grown. Improving soil fertility can increase the harvest of crops as

well as allow for variety among species. All of the participants in the study included at least

one type of soil enrichment activity into their farming practices. The least used method

involved the use of ash. The use of ash as the only means of soil improvement is negatively

correlated with total field size, -0.27 (P = .061) and with number of fields cultivated by a

farmer, -0.29 (P = .039). Wealthy farmers have more land; therefore the strength of this

correlation shows that it is primarily a method used by the poorer farmers. This is not a

technology that is actively encouraged by extension agents, but one that has been passed

along through family lines. A negative correlation of -0.25 (P = .078) between farmers in

46

agricultural groupements and use of ash as the solitary soil enrichment initiative, supports

this by saying that more formally educated groupement members are less likely to use ash as

their only means of soil enrichment. It is also a method that requires no monetary input and

little labor for application. The ash used on the crops is intended to ward off pests as well as

add nutrients to the soil. It is not uncommon to see vegetables grown on the outskirts of

the fields to be covered in a light layer of ash to ward off pests. The ash from cooking is

available and plentiful. Even though only eight percent of farmers use this method

exclusively, it is often used in combination with other methods because of its simplicity.

This method was not listed among the techniques because it is one that has been

traditionally practiced.

Animal manure use for soil enrichment was used only slightly more than ash. Its use

was negatively correlated with the use of compost with a Pearson's correlation coefficient of

-0.55 (P <.001). Animal husbandry practices are expensive and time consuming. In addition

to the initial purchase, each animal must be provided with food and shelter daily. Only

farmers doing well enough to be able to feed themselves as well as their animals would be

able to use manure on their fields. A strong positive correlation of 0.28 (P = 0.049) between

manure use and farmers who have worked with an extension agent helps to show that the

agents tend to work with more wealthy farmers.

Traditional composting of farm waste done at the home is sustainable and simple if

the field is close to the home. A Pearson's correlation coefficient of - 0.26 (P = .064) shows

that composting practices decrease with the number of fields a farmer farms. Farmers must

walk an average of thirty minutes to reach additional farm fields. Large loads are

traditionally transported by women on their heads. A woman who has the task of

transporting crops from the field to the home will remove as many of the wastes as possible

47

before transportation to lighten the load or decrease the number of times she has to return

to the field. Asking a woman to transport compost from the house to the distant fields is an

incredible increase in workload. When I suggested that a compost pit be created out in the

field to keep farm wastes on the field, I was informed that it was unsafe. Without

protection, your compost would be stolen and all the work you had put into it would be lost.

Compost, therefore, though simple in execution, is only an acceptable form of soil

improvement when the field is located near the compound. Composting practices that

require watering, layering and multiple rotations are seen as too labor intensive and are not

practiced.

Fertilizer, the final type of soil enrichment used by the people of Yadé-Bohou, while

being used by 60% of farmers it is only exclusively used by 10%. When fertilizer is so

heavily encouraged, why is this percentage so low? A positive correlation of 0.28 (P = .045),

between fertilizer use and electricity in the house, shows that fertilizer use increases with

wealth. Chemical fertilizer is expensive. It is sold by the sack in the large cities. Taxi fares

to and from the city for the farmer and additional transportation costs for the sack would

increase the base price of 15 US dollars to at least 17 US dollars. Depending upon the

accessibility of your house to a road this price could triple. If you are unable to go to the

city, there are women who sell fertilizer by the bowl in the weekly village market. While this

method is more costly to the farmer who intends to buy a large quantity of fertilizer, it

affords farmers who are less financially secure the opportunity to buy small quantities when

they have the resources. The price can be doubled or tripled by the market seller in order to

make a profit. Many times, even with the application of fertilizer, the harvest will not

significantly increase, therefore farmers cold lose money on their harvest by buying fertilizer.

While doing background research on farming practices in the area I was told by a fertilizer

48

research company that in many instances fertilizer use in the north of Togo is inappropriate.

The farmers need to use such a quantity of fertilizer on their fields that even with an

improved crop yield, they could not recover the money spent on fertilizer.

Some of the most telling information on fertilizer uses came in the comments from

the participants in the study. One woman, when asked if she used anything to improve her

soil, stated that she used ash around the peanuts, but not around the maize. Only fertilizer

would help the maize. She could not afford the fertilizer so the maize would just have to

suffer. Many times I was told that fertilizer was too expensive. With the rate of current use,

I would expect that if the price of fertilizer were decreased, fertilizer use would increase. As

it stands now, an increase in wealth among farmers corresponds with an increased use of

fertilizer.

Fertilizer, like ash, manure and compost, is applied without the aid of machinery.

Therefore there are no limitations to application once purchased other than procedure for

any of these techniques.

Study participants mentioned only ten other farming techniques. The techniques

were wide ranging, encompassing the use of trees in the field, improved methods of planting

common crops, mechanization and animal traction methods.

Trees are of great importance to the people of Yadé-Bohou. Wood is used to make

farming and cooking utensils, for food preparation and as construction material. Palm

branches are used for roof construction, beverage preparation and in traditional ceremonies.

Fruit, medicinal flowers and nuts are only a few of the many other non-timber uses of trees

in the area. Yet even when the importance of trees in the community is recognized, the act

of planting a tree on your farm field is rarely done. The primary reason has to do with land

tenure.

49

An average farmer in Yadé-Bohou has more than two farm fields. The first field for

each farmer is the land adjacent to their family compound. This field is generally owned by

the farmer, either through the family or independently. Additional fields, located at a

considerable distance to the compound, are farmed without ownership rights. If you do not

own the land you farm, you do not have the right to plant a permanent figure, such as a tree,

on the land. Additionally, without the security that comes with ownership, one would not

want to initiate a long-term project such as agroforestry. Initial investments in an

agroforestry project where the trees take years before producing fruit, could be entirely lost

if the land was reclaimed by the owner. Trees also require a large amount of care and

protection from animals as they mature. For fields that are a long distance from the family

compound, the capital and labor investments are increased. Many farmers were reluctant to

say that they had improved the crop yields on unowned land for fear that the owner would

come and take it back. An agroforestry project on unowned land would be a visible

improvement and one more likely to draw attention to the exploitation of an unowned field

than a simple soil enrichment project.

Trees that do not require attention from the farmer and do not detract from their

farming practices are more likely to be left growing in the fields. Because all fields are

prepared by hand, working around trees in the fields is no more difficult than the simple act

of tilling. Palms are the most common trees, both in fields and around the community.

Animals do not eat the palm leaves as they do those other species; therefore they do not

need protection. Unfortunately no extension activities focus on agroforestry practices

involving palms. The trees chosen by extension agents are 'ideal' species because of their

nitrogen fixing qualities, their limited canopies or because of their aesthetics. In my

experience, even when the farmers own the land, they are not willing to plant a tree that will

50

not prove beneficial to them in immediate tangible terms. A grafted mango tree, though it

does not produce fruit for two to three years after planting, is seen as a solid investment.

Mangos not eaten by the family can be sold for a profit in the market. In contrast,

Leucaena, Leucaena leucocephala, a tree that is heavily encouraged by extension agents because

it fixes nitrogen, has a leaf fall that acts as a rich fertilizer for crops, its small stature when

mature does not compete with crops for sunlight and for its use as animal fodder, is not a

valued tree among the Kabyé. It is not a fast growing species in this climate and does not

produce enough leaves to make it a viable tree to cultivate for fodder purposes alone.

Without medicinal uses or fruit, this and other similar varieties are undesirable to the

farmers. In order to encourage agroforestry practices, native tree species, most especially

palms, with identified and valued non-timber uses, must be utilized.

Only once in the entire study was any form of mechanization mentioned. When

asked if he knew of any techniques he would like to try, one farmer said that he would like to

learn how to run a tractor, but it was too expensive. Not only would this type of

mechanization be expensive, but completely inappropriate for the environment. Average

field size is just over a half a hectare and the majority of fields are inaccessible by road. The

soil is rocky and the landscape rolling, few of the fields are flat and obstacle free. Using a

tractor in many circumstances would be difficult and potentially damaging to the tractor.

Included in the cost of tractor usage would be the gas, a knowledgeable tractor driver and

repairs. Paying human labor to plow a field is much cheaper. Many of the young men who

work in fields for pay are in school. The money they earn is used to pay for their school fees

and to help support the family. Hiring a tractor from outside the community would decrease

the income for many families who rely on being hired as farm laborers.

51

While large-scale, inappropriate equipment has been heard of in the community, very

few, if any, small-scale designs have been introduced. The extension agents in the area

spend the majority of their time working with wealthy farmers promoting fertilizer.

Therefore labor-saving small-scale devices especially designed for the farming systems in the

area are left unpromoted.

Techniques aside, only 38% of the participants in this study said they had ever

worked with an extension agent. Of that number, 53% were members of a groupement.

Only one participant in the study identified me as an extension agent, probably because I did

not actively encourage fertilizer use, therefore the numbers are indicative of extension agents

either sent by the government or local non-governmental organizations. These numbers

indicate that only about half of the population is being reached by extension activities. The

number of farmers reached through community created groupements however is

significantly higher.

Groupement activity in Yadé-Bohou is higher than in surrounding villages.

Participation in this type of organization was encouraged by a charismatic and successful

extension agent years before I arrived in the community. Significant agricultural differences

between groupement members and unassociated farmers can be measured because of the

groupement activity. The Pearson's correlation coefficient for members of an agriculturally

focused groupement and the number of fields farmed is 0.25 (P = .084). Because the

individual members of the groupements have more fields than average, they are increasingly

interested in improved farming practices. The Pearson's correlation coefficient for

agricultural groupements and formal agriculture training of 0.25 (P = .086) suggests that

agriculture groupement members are also more likely to learn about agricultural techniques

in a formal setting. Extension agents are more likely to teach about new methods in group

52

settings. Groupements organized for the express purpose of improving their agricultural

practices are the ideal setting for formal instruction of this kind.

In a groupement, the members are accountable to each other. They are able to

combine their efforts to try new ideas, thereby decreasing the risk for each individual. If,

through their group work, a technique is found to be simple and beneficial, the method is

likely to be adopted by the individual members. In this manner one idea, introduced to one

groupement, spreads to the members and is eventually adopted on their individual fields.

Through observation and imitation, the new ideas then spread through each member to

surrounding farmers. Numerous farmers mentioned trying a new farming method after

having seen the success of their neighbor the year before. One of the most adopted

technologies was the integration of cashew trees into fields. The positive correlation of 0.44

(P = .0013) between tree planting and mountainside farming shows that the farmers on the

mountain are integrating trees into their farming systems. There are positive correlations

between the members of groupements involved in reforestation activities, many of whom

farm on the mountain, and active cultivation of various types of trees. The Pearson's

correlation coefficient between reforestation groupement members and eucalyptus

(Eucalyptus camaldulensis) is 0.27 (P = .06), cashew is 0.30 (P = .036) and teak (Tectona grandis)

is 0.27 (P = .086), showing that the groupement members are embracing many types of tree

planting. Tree planting techniques are therefore being spread to the larger community

through these groupements. Based on these findings, this type of farmer-to-farmer

extension appears to be effective and appropriate for the community at large (Selener et al.

1997).

53

A summary of the most important significant statistical correlations determined in

this study are in Table 3. The majority of these statistics deal with the use of traditional soil

improvement methods in their relation to other agricultural variables.

Table 3: Summary of important significant Pearson's correlation coefficients

The farming system in Yadé-Bohou relies on the agricultural knowledge that has

been passed down through families for hundreds of years. As their population has grown,

they have intensified agricultural practices and expanded to outlying areas of the community.

Traditional intercropping practices allow the farmers to grow more on one parcel of land

than in monocropping systems. No forms of mechanization have been adopted into the

farming system, though many other West African groups in similar situations have

successfully adopted small-scale agricultural equipment.

Agricultural extension agents alone are not effective in the dispersion of information

or technology. Without the information available, farmers cannot adopt new technologies.

Variable 1 Variable 2 r PTraditional Compost Use Number of Fields Farmed -0.26 .064Manure Use Collaboration with an Extension Agent 0.28 .049Manure Use Traditional Compost Use -0.55 <.001Ash Use Member of an Agricultural Groupement -0.25 .078Ash Use Total Cultivated Area -0.27 .061Ash Use Number of Fields Farmed 0.29 .039Ash Use Amount of Hired Help Used -0.26 .072Fertilizer Use Use of Electricity 0.28 .045Quantity of Maize Grown Quantity of Sorghum Grown 0.43 .002Quantity of Maize Grown Quantity of Peanuts Grown 0.39 .005Quantity of Sorghum Grown Quantity of Peanuts Grown 0.52 <.001Member of an Agricultural Groupement Number of Fields Farmed 0.25 .084Member of an Agricultural Groupement Formal Farming Training 0.25 .086Tree Planting in Farm Fields Fields Located on a Mountainside 0.44 .001No-Weeding Farming Techniques Average Distance to Farm Fields -0.16 .271

54

Instead of having a single extension agent responsible for information dispersal over an

entire community, farming groups, such as the groupements in Yadé-Bohou, should be

encouraged. Farming groups not developed by the farmers, however, will not succeed. The

groupements in Yadé-Bohou have been voluntarily working together for an extended period

of time, driven by the demands of farming. Through groups such as this an extension agent

can spread information to a much larger community.

It is not only the lack of information sharing that takes place in the community, but

the lack of appropriate technologies. In one respect the technologies introduced by

extension agents are too expensive for the average farmer. A small investment in fertilizer,

for example, will not result in substantially increased yields that are expected, but a larger

investment is not feasible. Additionally, fixed cereal prices limit the profit one can make by

selling their surplus harvest. Large-scale mechanization, at this point in time is an

inappropriate type of technology in Yadé-Bohou. The fields are too small and inaccessible

for large machinery. The equipment itself is ill suited to the environment and much more

costly than hiring help. It is likely though that simple, small, labor-reducing devices,

especially oriented to the agricultural tasks performed by the women, would be adopted and

embraced by the larger population.

In addition to being too expensive, and labor-intensive, the methods and

technologies introduced by extension agents do not immediately improve the lives of the

farmers. Demonstrations of improved composting methods in the area did not result in

significantly increased crop yields as compared to traditional methods. Trees, when planted,

require years of patience before their fruits can be harvested. Technologies that require

long-term investments and increased risk to the farmer are best tested by farming groups

that can share the risk or be supported through locally working non-governmental agencies.

55

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Life in Yadé-Bohou is intricately tied to farming. Family compounds are surrounded

by cultivated land, crops are primarily grown for personal consumption and traditional

ceremonies and cultural events are all organized around the agricultural calendar.

Historically the adoption of maize, soy and other crops, as well as the use of protein rich

flours in traditional porridges shows that households are not averse to technology adoption

in the farming system. Current types of technology being adopted by farmers in Yadé-

Bohou focus on small-scale and soil enrichment initiatives rather than long-term, large-scale

activities, which are also being promoted. This research conducted through participation,

observation and interviewing, identifies the farming system, types of technology adoption

and future implications for technology introduction in the area.

SUMMARY

The farming system in Yadé-Bohou can be defined as a small-scale, unmechanized,

mixed cropping system. Each farmer cultivates between two and three farm fields of

approximately 1.5 hectares of total area. No mechanization is used for any of the farming

practices. Land preparation, sowing, weeding and harvesting are, therefore, all done by

hand. The traditional tools used for all of these activities are fabricated and purchased

locally. Using traditional tools and manual labor, intercropping, the traditional cropping

pattern of the area, is easily executed.

56

This farming system has been adapted to the environment over time. As the

population of the cantons increases, the farming methods are adapting with the demand.

Intercropping methods rely on traditional knowledge of crops to increase the total yield of a

field (Innis 1997). Maize, a cereal limited by the amount of nitrogen in the soil, is

intercropped with peanuts, a leguminous nitrogen-fixing crop. Maintaining soil fertility is

essential to subsistence farming practices where the available land is limited. Therefore soil

enrichment activities are being increasingly adopted. Ash, an available, abundant and free

resource, is typically used by the most resource poor farmers. Traditionally prepared

compost is applied to farm fields located near family compounds. Fertilizer is increasingly

used throughout the cantons, though the cost limits the quantities applied. New techniques

involving weeding and use of leguminous plants are also being adopted to combat decreasing

soil fertility. The labor intensive composting technique was not adopted.

Mechanized farming practices have not been adopted. The fields farmed in Yadé-

Bohou are small and inaccessible to large equipment. Rocky soil accompanied by random

obstacles like trees, boulders and pathways, would make the use of large-scale machinery

very difficult. The capital costs associated with rental, repair and maintenance of such a

machine would outweigh the benefits. Human labor, cheap, abundant and available, is used

for all farming practices. By employing community members, the farmers are investing their

financial resources back into the community. If there were fewer available laborers in the

community, perhaps large-scale mechanization would be increasingly adopted, but with

current conditions, it is an inappropriate use of resources.

Land tenure is another limiting factor in this farming system. Ownership rights

dictate farming methods. There are few restrictions on farmers who own their land.

Farmers without such security however have a more limited set of management options. If

57

they invest in a portion of land and show an increased yield, their investment is lost when

the owner reclaims the land. These farmers are adopting small-scale techniques into their

farming practices that do not directly draw the attention of the landowners. These

techniques do not involve abundant inputs or long-term commitments from the farmers,

thereby decreasing the risk involved in adoption.

Technologies that are adopted into the farming system are cost effective, require

minimal labor inputs and have been shown to improve crop yields. One example of an

increasingly adopted method is the no weeding method of field preparation. It does not

require monetary input, uses less labor than traditional methods and increases the quantity of

organic matter in the soil. Agroforestry practices are also being increasingly adopted as trees

are integrated into fields farmed by groupement members.

The increase of interest in tree cultivation, accelerated through the groupements

interested in the reforestation of the mountain, is one example of the efficiency of

technology introduction attained through farming associations. Farmers with an extensive

knowledge of their environment are more likely to trust a fellow farmer and member of the

community rather than an outside extension agent (Selener et al. 1997). Therefore farming

groups can play an integral role in technology introduction and adoption in farming societies.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Through this study of the farming system and technology adoption in Yadé-Bohou,

the following recommendations for extension agents and Peace Corps Volunteers working

in similar environments were developed.

58

Develop an Understanding of the Community

An extension agent cannot be successful if they do not have a basic understanding of

the community in which they are working. In a society dominated by farming activities, an

extension agent should understand the agricultural practices of the farming system in place.

Identification and understanding of the farming system will aid the extension agent in

distinguishing between the appropriateness of technologies promoted to farmers in the area.

Less time promoting inappropriate technologies would be spent if extension agents simply

understood their communities.

Work Through Voluntary Community Groups

The groupement organization in Yadé-Bohou is completely voluntary. This type of

organization is encouraged by the government and non-government organizations, but there

are currently no extrinsic benefits to groupement membership. Because the farmers’ desire

to work together is based on dedication to improving their situations and not on external

capital incentive, outside extension agents can easily work with these groups. Individual

farmers working together on a project or idea through a groupement decrease the amount of

risk assumed by each member. With success, they, therefore, increase the adoption rates in

the community through simple farmer-to-farmer extension.

Introduce Appropriate Technologies

In general, new technologies and methods that focus on decreasing the demand on

the female labor sector, increasing crop yields and producing tangible results in a timely

manner would be appropriate for this community. There are numerous other factors that

should be considered when working on integrating new techniques into the farming system.

59

Environmental constraints, amounts of initial capital investment and degree of risk are

among a long list. Techniques and technologies that are appropriate to the population,

environment and needs of the community should be the goal of extension agents. The

incorporation of all of these ideas are essential if technologies are to be adopted into the

farming system in Yadé-Bohou.

GENERAL CONCLUSION

The farmers of Yadé-Bohou are able to blend new technology and introduced crops

into traditional methods of farming. Their thorough knowledge of past and present farming

practices allow them to maintain soil fertility and crop yields even as population pressures

increase. With the introduction of appropriate technology, farmers could see their crop

yields increase and labor inputs decrease. The people of Yadé-Bohou have been able to

incorporate new techniques into their farming activities and I am confident that with

discernment and knowledge they will be able to continue to successfully farm the land for

years to come.

60

LITERATURE CITED

Anon. 1996. Britannica Book of the Year 1996. "Togo." Miriam-Webster, Inc. Anon. 2000. Europa. "Togo" ps. 3562-3577. Beets, W.C. 1990. Raising and Sustaining Productivity of Smallholder Farming Systems in

the Tropics. AgBé Publishing, Holland. Bernard, H.R. 2002. Research Methods in Anthropology; Qualitative and Quantitative

Approaches, Third Edition. Altamira Press. Walnut Creek, CA. ISBN 0-7591-0148-5

Boa et al. 2001. Standing on all Three Legs: The Técnico as a Cross-Cultural Occupational

Group. New York Botanical Garden Press, Bronx, NY. Economic Botany 55(3) ps. 363-369.

Cornevin, Robert. 1969. Histoire du Togo, Éditions Berger-Levrault, Paris. CIA Factbook. 2004. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ (Accessed August

2004) Decalo, S. 1987. Historical Dictionary of Togo, Second Edition. The Scarecrow Press, Inc,

New Jersey. ISBN 0-8108-1954-6 Delwiche, L.D. and S.J. Slaughter. 1995. The Little SAS Book; A Primer. SAS Institute, Inc.

Cary, NC, USA. ISBN 1-55544-215-3 Farlex, The Free Dictionary.com, 2004. http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com

(Accessed September 2004) Godoy, R. et al. 2000. Human Capital, Wealth, Property Rights, and the Adoption of New

Farm Technologies: The Tawahka Indians of Honduras. Human Organization. Vol. 59 (2). ps. 222-233.

Huxley, P. 1999. Tropical Agroforestry. Blackwell Science Ltd. Malden, MA.

ISBN 0-632-04047-5 Infoplease. s.v. "Togo." © 2000–2004 Pearson Education, publishing as Infoplease.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0108038.html. (Accessed 11 Sep. 2004)

Innis, D.Q. 1997. Intercropping and the Scientific Basis of Traditional Agriculture. Intermediate Technology Publications. London, UK. ISBN 1-85339-328-2

Kitchen, R. and N.J. Tate. 2000. Conducting Research into Human Geography: Theory,

Methodology and Practice. Pearson Education Limited. Singapore.

61

ISBN: 0-582-29797-4 Koffi-Tessio, M.E. et al. 2000. Situation of Education and Training in Togo. Foundation

SADAOC. Lomé, Togo. http://www.tg.refer.org/togo_ct/rec/sadaoc/ educa_va.htm (Accessed November 8, 2004)

Larose, D.T. and C. Jin. 1998. Ready, Set, Run: A Student Guide to SAS Software for Microsoft Windows. Mayfield Publishing Company, Mountain View, CA. ISBN 076740422-x

Maydell, H.-J von. 1983. Arbes et Arbustes du Sahel: Leurs Charactétistiques et Leurs

Utilisations (Trees and Shrubs of the Sahel: Their Uses and Characteristics). Office Allemand de la Coopération Technique (GTZ). Eschborn, Germany. ISBN 3-88085-195-6

Nicols, P. 2000. Social Survey Methods; A field Guide for Development Workers. Oxfam

GB. Oxford, UK. ISBN: 085598-126-1 Peace Corps Training Document. 2004. Statuts and Liste des Pieces a Fournir pour Creer

une Association. Lomé, Togo. Peace Corps World Wise Schools, 2004. "Togo." http://www.peacecorps.gov/wws/

(Accessed September 2004) Piot, Charles. 1999. Remotely Global: Village Modernity in West Africa. University of

Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. ISBN: 0226669696 Sanchez, P.A. 1976. Properties and Management of Soils in the Tropics. Wiley-Interscience

Publication: John Wiley and Sons. New York. ISBN 0-471-75200-2 Sanginga, N. et al. 2001. Nitrogen Contributions of Promiscuous Soybeans in Maize-Based

Cropping Systems. Soil Science Society of America and American Society of Agronomy. SSSA Special Publication no. 58: Sustaining Soil Fertility in West Africa. Madison, WI. ps.157-177. ISBN 0-89118-838-X

Selener, D, J. Chenier, R. Zelaya et al, 1997. Farmer to Farmer Extension: Lessons from the

Field. IIRR: New York. ISBN 9978-04-324-1 Shao, M. 2002. Parkia bigliobosa: Changes in Resource Allocation in Kandiga, Ghana.

Master's Thesis, Michigan Technological University. SIL International. 2004. Ethnologue.com (Accessed September 2004). Steel and Torrie, 1960. Principals and Procedures of Statistics. McGraw-Hill Book

Company, New York. ISBN 07-060925-X Tendresse, 1995-2004. http://membres.lycos.fr/karatg/ (Accessed September 2004)

62

Vieryra-Odilon, L. and H. Vibrans. 2001. Weeds as Crops: The Value of Maize Weeds in the Valley of Tolica, Mexico. Economic Botany. Vol 55(3). pp. 426-443.

Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. 2004. s.v. "Weaver Bird,"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weaver (Accessed October 25, 2004)

63

APPENDICES

64

Explanation of Appendix Variables Variable Explanation

Person Number of Questionnaire TotSow Total number of days needed to sow the fields Nfields The number of fields cultivated by the farmers TotSize The total area of land cultivated Wt1Dist Average distance to fields weighted by number of fields. Wt2Dist Average distance to fields weighted by size of fields.

Crop cultivated by the farmer: 1 = yes, 0 = no.

maize maize sorghum sorghum

millet millet rice Upland rice

yams Large African Igname varieties manioc manioc peanuts peanuts beans black-eyed peas soy soy

sweetpot Sweet potatoes trees Any variety of tree sauce Includes leaves and vegetables grown for sauce preparation

rotate Is the farmer using a crop rotation pattern. 1 = yes, 0 = no help Does the farmer hire help? 1 = yes, 0 = no

machete Uses a Machete. 1 = mentioned, 0 = not mentioned lgHoe Uses a Large Hoe (Daba). 1 = mentioned, 0 = not mentioned smHoe Uses a Small Hoe. 1 = mentioned, 0 = not mentioned seeder Uses a tool for sowing. 1 = mentioned, 0 = not mentioned other Uses any other tool for farming. 1 = mentioned, 0 = not mentioned

horiz Field is Horizontal. (1 = yes, 0 = no) slope Field is on a slope (1 = yes, 0 = no) hill Field is on a Hill. (1 = yes, 0 = no)

mountain Field is on the mountainside. (1 = yes, 0 = no) Soil Varieties: (1 = present, 0 = not present)

blackVar Varieties of Black soil red Red soil

RedVar Varieties of Red soil clay Clay soil

clayVar Varieties of clay soil. sand Sandy soil

sandVar Varieties of sandy soil. rock Rocky soil

65

compost Uses compost for soil enrichment (1 = yes, 0 = no)

ash Uses ash for soil enrichment (1 = yes, 0 = no) fert Uses fertilizer for soil enrichment (1 = yes, 0 = no)

manure Uses manure for soil enrichment (1 = yes, 0 = no) Quantities of Crops grown (number 50kg sized sacks)

Qmaize Maize Qsorgo Sorghum

Qpeanuts Peanuts Qbeans black-eyed peas Qrice upland rice

Qmanioc Manioc Qyams Ignames

Qsweetpt sweet potatoes Qmillet Millet Qsoy Soy

Type of trees found in fields (1 = yes, 0 = no)

baobab Adansonia digitata albezia Albezia spp. acajou Anacardium occidentale neem Azadirachta indica kapok Bombax Costatum ronier Borassus aethiopum karite Butrospermum parkii, Vitellaria paradoxa

papaya Carica papaya cassia Cassia siamea citrus Citrus spp.

eucalypt Eucalyptus camaldulensis mahogen Khaya senegalensis leucaena Leucaena leucocephala mango Mangifera indica nere Parkia Bigliobosa

palmier Hyphaene thebaica, Phoenix dactylifera teak Tectona grandis

teakInd Tectona spp. wild Unknown native/wild species names

Types of Non-cultivated uses gained from fields (1=yes, 0 = no)

med Medicinal eat Edible plants

fodder Animal fodder seedling Tree seedlings nothing Nothing

66

Where farming methods/techniques were learned. (1 = yes, 0 = no) formal In a formal agricultural setting school In a school setting family From family members, learned from parent/family practices. none Not specifically 'learned'

Technique or method introduced (1 = knowledge of, 0 = no knowledge.)

Tmech Mechanization TaniTrac Animal Traction

TmanComp Composting with manure Tcompost Improved compost Tcontour Contour planting TcompPla Companion planting

Trice Upland rice techniques Tplat One culture/paddy farming

Trotate Crop rotation. Tsoy Soy cultivation Tfert Fertilizer techniques

TnoWeeds No weeding methods. Tweed Weeding schedules Tyams Various improved Igname methods. Ttrees Agroforestry Tnone No techniques

agent 1 = Has worked with an agent, 0 = never worked with an agent

Socioeconomic Classification Questions

SEbBas 1 = Lives in Bohou-bas, 0 = doesn’t SEbHaut 1 = Lives in Bohou-haut, 0 = doesn't SEyLoa 1 = Lives in Yade Loa, 0 = doesn't SEyPou 1 = Lives in Yade Pou, 0 = doesn't SEage Age of the participant SEsex Sex of the participant

SEhouse Type of House Construction: Mud brick – 1 Mud brick/cement plaster – 2 Cement brick – 3 Cement brick/cement plaster – 4

SEroof Type of Roof Construction: Thatch – 1 Thatch/Tin – 2 Tin – 3 Concrete – 4

SEelect Does the participant have electricity: (1 = no, 2 = yes/wired) SEwater How does the participant get water for the household:

Shared well – 1 Shared Pump – 2 Private well – 3

67

Ownership/Land Tenure questions

own Type of field ownership: Personal - 1 Rented - 2 Familial - 3 Government Land - 4 Village land - 5 Given - 6 Uses/No rights - 7

Operson Personal (1 = yes, 0 = no) Orented Rented (1 = yes, 0 = no) Ofamily Family land (1 = yes, 0 = no) Ogovmt Government land (1 = yes, 0 = no) Ovillage Communal village property (1 = yes, 0 = no)

OnoRight Has no rights to the land (1 = yes, 0 = no) Oranked Type of field ownership ranked by security of land tenure:

Personal - 1 Familial - 2 Rented - 3 Uses/No rights - 4 Government Land - 5 Given - 6 Village land - 7

size area of each field in hectares tosow total time needed for sowing the field in days

68

APPENDIX I:

Questionnaire responses by farmer.

Person TotSow Nfields TotSize Wt1Dist Wt2Dist maize sorghum millet 1 4 2 2.5 92.5 63.3 1 1 0 2 99 2 1 15 11.7 0 1 0 3 2 2 0.75 10 8.3 0 1 1 4 31 3 2.75 70 41.7 0 1 0 5 24 2 1.25 17.5 15 1 1 0 6 1.5 3 1.67 10 8 1 1 0 7 3.5 1 0.5 60 60 1 1 0 8 41 5 0.525 1 30 1 1 0 9 99 3 4.25 53.3 46 1 1 0 10 15 3 1.25 36.7 36.7 1 1 0 11 99 4 1.265 36.7 36.7 1 1 0 12 1.5 1 0.25 60 60 1 1 0 13 4 2 0.75 47.5 33.3 0 1 0 14 14 2 2.5 42.5 23.75 1 1 0 15 6 3 1.41 30 25 1 1 0 16 2 2 0.84 17.5 13.3 0 1 0 17 4 2 0.91 30 25 1 1 0 18 3 1 1 10 10 1 1 0 19 6 3 2.75 23.3 23.3 1 1 0 20 99 2 5.5 45 30 1 1 1 21 5 2 1.375 40 40 1 1 0 22 3 2 2 22.5 22.5 1 1 0 23 3 2 1.75 17.5 13.3 1 1 0 24 8 2 2 40 33.3 1 1 0 25 5 2 2 32.5 32.5 1 1 0

69

Person TotSow Nfields TotSize Wt1Dist Wt2Dist maize sorghum millet 26 2 2 0.875 37.5 37.5 1 1 0 27 12.5 3 1 5 5 1 0 1 28 99 3 1 6.7 6.7 1 1 0 29 5 4 2 6.25 6.25 1 1 0 30 99 2 3.25 52.5 33.75 1 1 0 31 99 2 1.25 20 15 1 1 1 32 6 5 1.29 12 12 1 1 0 33 3 3 3 36.7 22.5 1 1 0 34 3 3 1 36.7 28.75 1 1 0 35 3 3 0.6 13.3 10 1 1 0 36 7 1 0.5 30 30 1 1 0 37 3 3 2 18.3 18.3 0 1 0 38 3 2 0.5 15 15 0 1 0 39 3 2 0.75 7.5 7.5 1 1 1 40 4 2 1.25 30 21.7 1 1 0 41 7 1 0.2 75 75 1 1 0 42 2 3 3 33.3 25 1 1 0 43 2 2 1.8 32.5 32.5 1 1 0 44 6 2 1.5 52.5 36.7 1 1 0 45 2 2 4 67.5 50 1 1 0 46 6 2 0.75 17.5 17.5 1 1 0 47 3 3 1.2 36.7 36.7 1 1 0 48 2 2 0.45 10 10 1 1 0 49 4 3 0.65 8.3 8.3 1 1 0 50 4.5 7 1.8 56.43 28.125 1 1 1

70

Person rice yams manioc peanuts beans soy sweetpot trees 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 6 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 7 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 8 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 9 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 10 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 14 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 15 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 16 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 17 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 18 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 19 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 20 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 21 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 22 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 25 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0

71

Person rice yams manioc peanuts beans soy sweetpot trees 26 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 28 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 29 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 30 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 31 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 32 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 33 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 34 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 35 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 36 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 37 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 38 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 39 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 40 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 41 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 42 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 43 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 44 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 45 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 46 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 47 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 49 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1

72

Person sauce rotate help machete lgHoe smHoe seeder other 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 5 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 6 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 7 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 8 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 10 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 11 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 12 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 13 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 14 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 15 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 16 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 17 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 18 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 19 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 20 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 21 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 22 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 23 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 24 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 25 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0

73

Person sauce rotate help machete lgHoe smHoe seeder other 26 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 27 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 28 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 29 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 30 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 31 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 32 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 33 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 34 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 35 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 36 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 37 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 38 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 39 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 40 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 41 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 42 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 43 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 44 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 45 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 46 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 47 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 48 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 49 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 50 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0

74

Person horiz slope hill mountain blackVar red RedVar clay 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 5 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 6 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 9 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 10 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 11 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 15 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 16 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 17 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 18 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 19 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 20 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 22 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 23 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 24 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 25 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

75

Person horiz slope hill mountain blackVar red RedVar clay 26 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 27 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 28 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 29 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 30 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 32 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 33 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 34 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 37 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 38 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 39 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 40 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 41 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 42 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 46 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 47 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 48 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 49 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

76

Person clayVar sand sandVar rock compost ash fert manure1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 6 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 7 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 8 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 10 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 11 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 12 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 13 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 14 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 15 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 16 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 17 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 18 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 19 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 20 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 21 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 22 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 23 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 24 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 25 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0

77

Person clayVar sand sandVar rock compost ash fert manure26 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 27 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 28 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 29 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 30 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 31 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 32 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 33 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 34 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 35 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 36 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 37 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 40 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 41 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 42 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 43 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 44 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 45 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 46 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 47 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 48 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 49 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 50 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0

78

Person Qmaize Qsorgo Qpeanuts Qbeans Qrice Qmanioc Qyams Qsweetpt1 0 0.2 0 0 4.5 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 3 1 0 0 0 2 0 0.25 8 6 0 4 1.5 0 0 0 0 9 4 1 0 0.35 2 0 0 0 10 4.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0.075 0.5 2 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 14 2 2.5 3 0.175 2.5 2 2.4 0 15 4 2.5 0 0.5 2.5 0.5 0 0 16 0 0.475 0.2 0 0 1 0 0 17 0.5 2 2.5 0.25 0 0 0 0 18 5 5 8 1 0 0 0 0 19 15 1 3 0.075 5 0 0 0 20 7 1 0 0 0 2 40 0 21 1 4 1.5 0 2.5 0 0 0 22 3.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 10 7 2.5 0 0 8 0 0 24 6 4 3 0 0 0 10 0 25 4.5 0.2 1 0 0 0 15 0

79

Person Qmaize Qsorgo Qpeanuts Qbeans Qrice Qmanioc Qyams Qsweetpt26 3 2 0 0 3.5 0 0 0 27 1 0.5 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 28 0.75 1.5 1.5 0.15 0 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 12 5 2 1 0 10 0 0 31 1 3 1 0 0 0 2 0 32 13 3 5 0 0 4 3 0 33 7 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 34 1.5 1 1.5 0.5 1.5 0 0 0 35 1 0.5 0.3 0 0 1.5 0 0 36 1 3 3 1.5 0 0 0 0 37 0 1.5 0.5 0 0 2 0 0 38 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 39 2 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 1 2.9 0.35 0 1 0 0 0 41 3 1 0.5 0 0 5 0 0 42 5 3 2 0.75 0 2 5 0 43 9 3 3 1 5 0 0 0 44 4 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 45 9 3.5 0.475 0.15 0 0 0 0 46 2 0.15 3 0.225 0 0 0 0 47 4.5 0 0 0.125 0 0 0.25 0 48 2 0 0 0 0.125 0 0 0 49 0.75 0.65 0.375 0 0 1 0 0 50 9 0.5 1 0 1.5 0 2 0

80

Person Qmillet Qsoy baobab albezia acajou neem kapok 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0.5 0 0 0 1 0 0 9 0 0.5 0 0 1 0 1 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

81

Person Qmillet Qsoy baobab albezia acajou neem kapok 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0.1625 0 1 0 1 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 0.45 0 0 1 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 37 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 38 0 0.375 0 0 0 0 0 39 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

82

Person ronier karite papaya cassia citrus eucalypt mahogen 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 15 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 16 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 25 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

83

Person ronier karite papaya cassia citrus eucalypt mahogen 26 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 31 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 41 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 45 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 46 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 47 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 48 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 49 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

84

Person leucaena mango nere palmier Teak teakInd wild 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 4 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 5 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 6 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 9 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 10 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 15 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 16 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 17 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 18 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 20 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 21 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 22 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 23 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 24 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 25 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

85

Person leucaena mango nere palmier Teak teakInd wild 26 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 27 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 28 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 29 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 30 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 31 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 32 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 33 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 34 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 35 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 36 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 37 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 38 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 39 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 40 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 41 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 42 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 44 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 45 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 46 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 47 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 48 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

86

Person med eat fodder seedling nothing formal school 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 12 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 13 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 15 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 17 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 19 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 20 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 23 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 24 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 25 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

87

Person med eat fodder seedling nothing formal school 26 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 27 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 28 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 30 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 31 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 32 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 33 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 36 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 37 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 38 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 39 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 40 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 41 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 42 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 43 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 44 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 45 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 46 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 47 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 48 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 49 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

88

Person family none Tmech TaniTrac TmanCompTcompost Tcontour1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 18 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 25 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

89

Person family none Tmech TaniTrac TmanCompTcompost Tcontour26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 29 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 34 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 37 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 42 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 43 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 44 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 45 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 48 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 50 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

90

Person TcompPla Trice Tplat Trotate Tsoy Tfert TnoWeeds1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

91

Person TcompPla Trice Tplat Trotate Tsoy Tfert TnoWeeds26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 32 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 50 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

92

Person Tweed Tyams Ttrees Tnone agent SEbBas SEbHaut 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 15 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 18 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 20 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 21 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 25 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

93

Person Tweed Tyams Ttrees Tnone agent SEbBas SEbHaut 26 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 27 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 28 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 29 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 30 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 31 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 32 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 33 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 34 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 35 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 36 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 37 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 39 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 40 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 41 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 44 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 45 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 46 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

94

Person SEyLoa SEyPou SEage SEsex SEhouse SEroof SEelect SEwater1 1 0 68 1 1 3 2 2 2 1 0 90 1 1 2 1 2 3 0 1 80 1 1 2 1 2 4 0 1 90 1 2 3 1 2 5 0 1 47 0 4 3 2 3 6 0 1 60 1 1 2 1 1 7 0 1 34 0 2 3 2 2 8 0 1 60 1 3 3 2 3 9 0 1 46 1 1 3 1 2 10 0 1 39 1 1 3 1 1 11 0 1 57 1 2 3 2 2 12 1 0 75 0 2 3 1 2 13 1 0 45 0 1 3 1 2 14 0 0 37 1 1 3 1 1 15 0 1 23 1 1 3 1 2 16 0 0 45 1 1 1 1 2 17 0 0 70 0 1 3 1 2 18 0 1 61 1 3 3 2 1 19 0 1 69 1 2 3 1 1 20 0 0 42 1 2 3 1 3 21 0 1 45 1 1 3 1 1 22 0 1 52 1 4 3 2 2 23 0 1 64 1 1 3 2 1 24 1 0 60 1 1 2 1 3 25 0 1 75 1 1 3 1 2

95

Person SEyLoa SEyPou SEage SEsex SEhouse SEroof SEelect SEwater26 1 0 26 1 1 3 1 2 27 0 1 60 0 1 3 2 1 28 0 0 75 1 2 3 2 2 29 0 0 65 1 1 3 1 2 30 1 0 45 1 1 1 1 2 31 1 0 75 1 4 3 2 1 32 0 1 32 1 1 1 1 2 33 0 1 40 1 1 2 1 1 34 1 0 65 0 1 3 1 2 35 1 0 59 0 1 3 1 2 36 0 1 60 1 1 1 1 1 37 0 1 38 1 1 1 1 1 38 0 0 35 0 2 3 1 1 39 0 0 55 1 1 2 1 1 40 0 1 50 0 1 3 1 2 41 0 1 54 1 1 3 1 2 42 0 1 43 1 1 3 1 1 43 0 1 28 1 1 1 1 1 44 0 0 45 1 4 3 1 2 45 0 1 40 0 2 3 1 1 46 0 1 50 0 3 4 1 2 47 1 0 29 0 3 3 1 2 48 0 1 60 0 3 3 2 2 49 0 1 50 0 1 1 1 2 50 1 0 40 1 1 2 1 1

96

APPENDIX II

Questionnaire responses by field.

Person Field dist own Operson Orented Ofamily Ogovmt 1 1 180 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 5 1 1 0 0 0 2 1 5 1 1 0 0 0 2 2 25 1 1 0 0 0 3 1 5 1 1 0 0 0 3 2 15 1 1 0 0 0 4 1 180 1 1 0 0 0 4 2 10 3 0 1 0 0 4 3 20 3 0 1 0 0 5 1 10 3 0 1 0 0 5 2 25 1 1 0 0 0 6 1 20 1 1 0 0 0 6 2 5 1 1 0 0 0 6 3 5 1 1 0 0 0 7 1 60 4 0 0 0 0 8 1 5 1 1 0 0 0 8 2 25 1 1 0 0 0 8 3 25 1 1 0 0 0 8 4 30 1 1 0 0 0 8 5 90 1 1 0 0 0 9 1 30 1 1 0 0 0 9 2 40 1 1 0 0 0 9 3 90 5 0 0 0 1 10 1 30 1 1 0 0 0 10 2 20 1 1 0 0 0 10 3 60 6 0 0 0 0 11 1 15 1 1 0 0 0 11 2 5 4 0 0 0 0 11 3 15 6 0 0 0 0 11 4 5 1 1 0 0 0 12 1 60 6 0 0 0 0 13 1 5 6 0 0 0 0 13 2 90 6 0 0 0 0 14 1 5 1 1 0 0 0 14 2 80 6 0 0 0 0 15 1 20 6 0 0 0 0 15 2 60 1 1 0 0 0 15 3 10 4 0 0 0 0 16 1 5 6 0 0 0 0 16 2 30 6 0 0 0 0

97

Person Ovillage Ogiven OnoRight Oranked Size tosow 1 0 0 0 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 1 0.5 2 2 0 0 0 1 0.5 2 0 0 0 1 0.5 3 0 0 0 1 0.25 1 3 0 0 0 1 0.5 1 4 0 0 0 1 2 7 4 0 0 0 2 0.5 10 4 0 0 0 2 0.25 14 5 0 0 0 2 0.5 3 5 0 0 0 1 0.75 21 6 0 0 0 1 1 1 6 0 0 0 1 0.34 0.5 6 0 0 0 1 0.34 7 0 0 1 7 0.5 3.5 8 0 0 0 1 0.525 7 8 0 0 0 1 0.5 7 8 0 0 0 1 0.25 6 8 0 0 0 1 0.5 7 8 0 0 0 1 1 14 9 0 0 0 1 2.5 9 0 0 0 1 1.5 9 0 0 0 4 0.25 10 0 0 0 1 0.5 5 10 0 0 0 1 0.5 7 10 0 1 0 6 0.25 3 11 0 0 0 1 0.225 11 0 0 1 7 0.5 11 0 1 0 6 0.34 11 0 0 0 1 0.2 12 0 1 0 6 0.25 1.5 13 0 1 0 6 0.5 2 13 0 1 0 6 0.25 2 14 0 0 0 1 1 .5 5 14 0 1 0 6 1 9 15 0 1 0 6 0.5 3 15 0 0 0 1 0.66 1 15 0 0 1 7 0.25 2 16 0 1 0 6 0.5 1 16 0 1 0 6 0.34 1

98

Person Field dist own Operson Orented Ofamily Ogovmt 17 1 30 2 0 0 1 0 17 2 30 6 0 0 0 0 18 1 10 1 1 0 0 0 20 1 75 2 0 0 1 0 20 2 15 2 0 0 1 0 21 1 50 6 0 0 0 0 21 2 30 1 1 0 0 0 22 1 15 1 1 0 0 0 22 2 30 1 1 0 0 0 23 1 30 1 1 0 0 0 23 2 5 1 1 0 0 0 24 1 60 6 0 0 0 0 24 2 20 1 1 0 0 0 25 1 60 6 0 0 0 0 25 2 5 1 1 0 0 0 26 1 60 6 0 0 0 0 26 2 15 2 0 0 1 0 27 1 5 2 0 0 1 0 27 2 5 2 0 0 1 0 27 3 5 2 0 0 1 0 28 1 10 1 1 0 0 0 28 2 5 6 0 0 0 0 28 3 5 6 0 0 0 0 29 1 5 1 1 0 0 0 29 2 5 1 1 0 0 0 29 3 10 1 1 0 0 0 29 4 5 1 1 0 0 0 30 1 90 6 0 0 0 0 30 2 15 2 0 0 1 0 31 1 35 1 1 0 0 0 31 2 5 1 1 0 0 0 32 1 10 2 0 0 1 0 32 2 15 2 0 0 1 0 32 3 15 2 0 0 1 0 32 4 10 2 0 0 1 0 32 5 10 2 0 0 1 0 33 1 90 2 0 0 1 0 33 2 5 2 0 0 1 0 33 3 15 2 0 0 1 0 34 1 45 6 0 0 0 0 34 2 5 1 1 0 0 0 34 3 60 6 0 0 0 0

99

Person Ovillage Ogiven OnoRight Oranked Size tosow 17 0 0 0 3 0.66 3 17 0 1 0 6 0.25 1 18 0 0 0 1 1 3 20 0 0 0 3 1.5 1 20 0 0 0 3 4 21 0 1 0 6 0.75 3 21 0 0 0 1 0.625 2 22 0 0 0 1 0.5 1 22 0 0 0 1 1.5 2 23 0 0 0 1 0.75 1 23 0 0 0 1 1 2 24 0 1 0 6 0.5 1 24 0 0 0 1 1.5 7 25 0 1 0 6 1.5 4 25 0 0 0 1 0.5 1 26 0 1 0 6 0.75 1 26 0 0 0 3 0.125 1 27 0 0 0 3 0.25 3 27 0 0 0 3 0.25 2.5 27 0 0 0 3 0.5 7 28 0 0 0 1 0.25 28 0 1 0 6 0.25 28 0 1 0 6 0.5 29 0 0 0 1 0.25 1 29 0 0 0 1 0.5 1 29 0 0 0 1 0.75 1 29 0 0 0 1 0.5 2 30 0 1 0 6 0.75 30 0 0 0 3 2.5 31 0 0 0 1 0.5 31 0 0 0 1 0.75 32 0 0 0 3 0.25 1 32 0 0 0 3 0.34 2 32 0 0 0 3 0.25 1 32 0 0 0 3 0.2 1 32 0 0 0 3 0.25 1 33 0 0 0 3 1 1 33 0 0 0 3 1 1 33 0 0 0 3 1 1 34 0 1 0 6 0.25 1 34 0 0 0 1 0.25 1 34 0 1 0 6 0.5 1

100

Person Field dist own Operson Orented Ofamily Ogovmt 35 1 5 2 0 0 1 0 35 2 5 2 0 0 1 0 35 3 30 2 0 0 1 0 36 1 30 1 1 0 0 0 37 1 30 1 1 0 0 0 37 2 10 6 0 0 0 0 37 3 15 1 1 0 0 0 38 1 20 2 0 0 1 0 38 2 10 6 0 0 0 0 39 1 10 6 0 0 0 0 39 2 5 1 1 0 0 0 40 1 55 6 0 0 0 0 40 2 5 6 0 0 0 0 41 1 5 2 0 0 1 0 42 1 75 7 0 0 0 0 42 2 20 2 0 0 1 0 42 3 5 2 0 0 1 0 43 1 60 6 1 0 0 0 43 2 5 1 0 0 0 0 44 1 100 6 1 0 0 0 44 2 5 1 0 0 0 0 45 1 120 6 1 0 0 0 45 2 15 1 0 0 0 0 46 1 30 1 1 0 0 0 46 2 5 1 1 0 0 0 47 1 60 2 0 0 1 0 47 2 5 6 0 0 0 0 47 3 5 2 0 0 1 0 48 1 5 2 0 0 1 0 48 2 15 2 0 0 1 0 49 1 5 2 0 0 1 0 49 2 10 2 0 0 1 0 49 3 10 2 0 0 1 0 50 1 5 4 0 0 0 0 50 2 5 4 0 0 0 0 50 3 5 4 0 0 0 0 50 4 15 4 0 0 0 0 50 5 5 4 0 0 0 0 50 6 180 4 0 0 0 0 50 7 180 4 0 0 0 0

101

Person Ovillage Ogiven OnoRight Oranked Size tosow 35 0 0 0 3 0.2 1 35 0 0 0 3 0.2 1 35 0 0 0 3 0.2 1 36 0 0 0 1 1 7 37 0 0 0 1 0.5 1 37 0 1 0 6 0.75 1 37 0 0 0 1 0.75 1 38 0 0 0 3 0.25 2 38 0 1 0 6 0.25 1 39 0 1 0 6 0.25 1 39 0 0 0 1 0.5 2 40 0 1 0 6 0.5 1 40 0 1 0 6 0.75 3 41 0 0 0 3 0.2 7 42 1 0 0 5 2.5 42 0 0 0 3 0.25 1 42 0 0 0 3 0.25 1 43 0 0 0 6 1.5 1 43 0 1 0 1 0.3 1 44 0 0 0 6 1.25 6 44 0 1 0 1 0.25 45 0 0 0 6 2.5 1 45 0 1 0 1 1.5 1 46 0 0 0 1 0.5 4 46 0 0 0 1 0.25 2 47 0 0 0 3 0.75 1 47 0 1 0 6 0.2 1 47 0 0 0 3 0.25 1 48 0 0 0 3 0.25 1 48 0 0 0 3 0.2 1

49 0 0 0 3 0.25 1 49 0 0 0 3 0.2 3 49 0 0 0 3 0.2 1 50 0 0 1 7 0.2 0.5 50 0 0 1 7 0.2 1 50 0 0 1 7 0.2 1 50 0 0 1 7 0.25 1 50 0 0 1 7 0.2 1 50 0 0 1 7 0.5 50 0 0 1 7 0.25