Conservation!Agriculture! Based!On!Ten!Co6designed!Field!Experiments!In!The! Lake!Alaotra!Region,!Madagascar!

! Smallholder!perceptions!of!conservation!agriculture! based!on!ten!co6designed!field!experiments!in!the! Lake!Alaotra!region,!Madagascar!

! !

Jennifer!Kendzior! !

WUR$Student$number:$821109427060$

Thesis$report$in$fulfillment$of$the$double$degree$MSc$Agroecology$

Under$the$major$responsibility$of$Wageningen$University$(Farming$Systems$Ecology$Chair$Group)$$

ISARANLyon$

September$2013$

! Table!of!Contents! Executive!summary!...... !5! 1.!Introduction!...... !4! 1.1.!Conservation!agriculture!(CA):!definition!and!claims!...... !4! 1.2.!CA!and!subASaharan!Africa!...... !6! 1.3.!Madagascar!and!the!Lake!Alaotra!region!...... !8! 1.4.!Action,!participatory,!innovation!research!and!the!ABACO!pilot!project!...... !13! 1.5.!Research!aim!and!questions,!hypotheses!...... !15! 2.!Methods!and!Materials!...... !16! 2.1.!Overview!...... !16! 2.2.!Study!sites!...... !16! 2.3.!Project!background:!forming!two!farmer!groups!and!designing!field!experiments!...... !19! 2.4.!SocioAtechnical!methodology!...... !22! 2.5.!Report!structure!...... !27! 3.!Results!and!Discussion:!Part!I!...... !28! 3.1.!Field!experiments:!overview!of!objectives!...... !28! 3.2.!Conclusions!from!achieved!and!partially!achieved!objectives!...... !31! 3.3.!Farmer!suggestions!for!next!year’s!field!experiments!...... !38! 3.4.!OnAfarm!use!of!zeroAtillage!!and!soil!cover!techniques!over!time!...... !40! 4.!Results!and!Discussion:!Part!II!...... !44! 4.1.!Perceptions!of!cover!crops!...... !44! 4.2.!Perception!of!constraints!and!advantages!of!CA!techniques!...... !46! 4.3.!High!impact!experiments!...... !47! 4.4.!Use!of!zeroAtillage!!and!soil!cover!over!time!...... !48! 4.5.!Land!use!A!preferences!for!CA!practices!...... !49! 4.6.!Land!use!A!tenure!...... !49! 4.7.!Motivation!for!participation!in!field!experiments!...... !50! 4.8.!Social!networks!and!sharing!knowledge!amongst!farmers!...... !50! 4.9.!Gender!and!CA!...... !53! 4.10.!Comprehension!of!experimental!procedures!...... !53! 4.11.!Limitations!of!this!research!...... !54! 5.!Synthesis!...... !58! 5.1.!Field!experiments:!biophysical!results,!farmers’!interpretations,!and!their!potential!impact!on! future!(ABACO)!experiments!and!onAfarm!decisions!...... !58! 5.2.!Farmer!perceptions!of!CA,!participation!in!the!project,!and!knowledge!sharing!...... !61! 5.3.!Gender!...... !62! 5.4.!Year!two!of!ABACO!experiments:!reflections!and!suggestions!...... !62! 5.5.!Research!findings!in!the!context!of!CA!innovation!development!in!the!Lake!Alaotra!region!....!65! 6.!Conclusions!...... !69! 6.1.!Future!recommendations!...... !69! Acknowledgements!...... !71! References!...... !72! $

Appendices$are$available$in$a$separate$file$ List!of!Tables!

Table!1.!Potential!benefits!attributed!to!conservation!agriculture!(CA).!...... !5!

Table!2.!Constraints!and!research!focus!areas!relevant!to!conservation!agriculture!(CA)!adoption!in! subASaharan!Africa!(SSA).!...... !6!

Table!3.!Key!agronomic!!features!of!the!ten!field!experiments!in!two!study!sites!(north,!south)! conducted!in!2012A13!with!the!ABACO!project!in!the!Lake!Alaotra!region.!...... !28!

Table!4.!Actual!bean!yield!(weighed!in!pods)!per!subAplot!(experiment!2!south!of!the!ABACO!project! 2012A13,!Lake!Alaotra).!!Each!subplot!was!70m2.!...... !35!

Table!5.!Selected!rice!yield!components!per!treatment!(experiment!2!south!of!the!ABACO!project! 2012A13,!Lake!Alaotra).!!Each!subplot!was!70m2.!...... !35!

Table!6.!Bambara!groundnut!yield!(!t/ha)!(experiment!5!south!of!the!ABACO!project!2012A13,!Lake! Alaotra).!...... !36!

Table!7.!Farm!and!household!characteristics!of!interviewed!farmers!who!participated!in!the!2012A13! ABACO!field!experiments!in!the!Lake!Alaotra!region..!...... !43!

Table!8.!Overview!of!hypothesis!components!and!results.!...... !67! List!of!Figures!

Figure!1.!Map!of!Madagcascar!and!the!Lake!Alaotra!region.!...... !9! Figure!2.!Average!precipitation!and!temperature!in!the!Lake!Alaotra!region!(2002A2012)...... !9! Figure!3.!General!representation!of!toposequences!in!the!Lake!Alaotra!region..!...... !10! Figure!4.!Rate!of!abandonment!of!conservation!agriculture!management!per!fields,!according!to!age! under!conservation!agriculture..!...... !12! Figure!5.!Research!workflow.!...... !16! Figure!6.!Map!and!photos!of!the!study!sites..!...... !17! Figure!7.!Typical!toposequences!and!landscape!use!for!the!northern!and!southern!study!sites.!...... !18! Figure!8.!Maps!depicting!locations!in!the!Lake!Alaotra!region!of!the!ten!experimental!sites!of!the! ABACO!project!2012A13!and!principal!villages!where!participating!farmers!lived.!...... !19! Figure!9.!Examples!of!crop!rotations!discussed!during!the!coAdesign!of!field!experiments!between! farmers!and!technicians..!...... !21! Figure!10.!Overview!of!objectives!and!toposequences!for!the!ten!field!experiments!in!two!study! regions!(north!and!south)!of!the!ABACO!project!2012A13,!Lake!Alaotra..!...... !30! Figure!11.!Biomass!(t/ha)!of!cover!crops!associated!with!maize!in!three!different!field!experiments!(2! north,!1!south,!3!south)!of!the!ABACO!project!2012A13,!Lake!Alaotra..!...... !32! Figure!12.!Maize!yield!(t/ha)!associated!with!different!cover!crops!in!three!experiments!(2!north,!1! south,!3!south)!of!the!ABACO!project!2012A13,!Lake!Alaotra..!...... !33! Figure!13.!Relationship!between!cover!crop!biomass!and!maize!yield!in!three!experiments!(2!north,!1! south,!3!south)!of!the!ABACO!project!2012A13,!Lake!Alaotra..!...... !34! Figure!14.!Rice!yield!(t/ha)!per!fertilization!treatment!and!variety!in!experiment!1!north!of!the!ABACO! project!2012A13,!Lake!Alaotra.!...... !36! Figure!15.!Rice!yield!(t/ha)!per!variety!for!two!experiments!(left:!1!north;!right:!3!north)!of!the!ABACO! project!2012A13,!Lake!Alaotra..!...... !37! Figure!16.!Rice!yield!(t/ha)!per!variety!and!sowing!density!for!experiment!1!north,!of!the!ABACO! project!2012A13,!Lake!Alaotra.!...... !38! Figure!17.!Maize!stover!estimates!(kg/ha)!in!experiments!with!maize!associated!with!a!cover!crop..!55! ! Executive!summary! Conservation!agriculture!(CA)!encompasses!three!components!(minimal!soil!disturbance,!permanent!soil!cover,! and! crop! rotations).! It! has! been! widely! promulgated! to! smallholders! throughout! subASaharan! Africa! and! Madagascar!for!over!ten!years!as!a!strategy!to!enhance!crop!productivity!by!restoring!inherent!soil!fertility.!The! low!adoption!rates,!however,!spurred!increased!interest!to!better!understand!the!challenges!and!constraints! farmers!face!when!implementing!this!technology,!as!affected!by!regional!and!farmAspecific!factors.!Parallel!to! this,! there! have! been! observations! of! partial! adoption! of! the! CA! package,! or! soAcalled! innovative! cropping! systems.!This!process!has!resulted!in!a!heightened!interest!in!participatory!research,!aiming!to!value!existing! farmer! knowledge! and! evaluative! abilities! in! terms! of! assessing! potential! benefits! of! existing! agroecological! practices.! This! study! aimed! to! enhance! our! understanding! of! farmer! perceptions! of! CA! in! the! Lake! Alaotra! region!in!Madagascar!through!close!monitoring!of!ten!onAfarm!field!demonstrationAexperiments!which!were! initiated! by! the! ABACO! project.! The! experiments! were! based! on! CA! principles,! and! were! coAdesigned! by! farmers!and!technicians!and!managed!by!farmers.!Each!design!was!unique!and!without!repetitions.!Results!and! insights!from!biophysical!measurements,!openAended!and!inAdepth!interviews!with!participating!farmers,!and! participant! observation! were! triangulated! to! assess! how! farmers’! interpretations! of! the! field! experiments! might!affect!future!testing!and!onAfarm!decision!making.!Analysis!also!touched!upon!the!interaction!between! CA!and!the!social!factors!of!knowledge!sharing!and!gender.!

Based! on! field! observations,! as! well! as! other! studies! in! the! same! region,! it! is! evident! that! smallholders! are! aware!of!climate!and!demographic!pressures,!and!have!an!apparent!interest!in!innovative!cropping!systems! based! on! CA! practices.! Comparisons! between! farmer! expectations! of! experiment! outcomes! and! biophysical! measurements! revealed! some! insights! regarding! farmer! perception! of! CA! practices! ! (e.g.! cover! crop! preferences).! This! seems! to! result! from! a! combination! of:! 1)! their! awareness! of! local! challenges! (e.g.! more! erratic!rainfall!patterns,!reduced!land!availability,!need!to!improve!inherent!soil!fertility);!2)!their!interest!to! improve!their!livelihoods;!3)!the!presence!of!CAApromoting!development!projects!in!the!region!for!more!than! ten!years;!and!4)!farmers’!receptiveness!to!externally!introduced!knowledge!that!they!evaluate!according!to! their!own!perceptions!of!constraints!and!advantages.!From!an!optimistic!perspective,!this!context!seems!to! offer! strong! potential! to! produce! applicable! learning! outcomes! through! coAinnovation! development! of! CA! between!farmers!and!technicians.!However,!this!potential!!is!limited!by!the!complex!notion!of!participation,! which!is!the!very!concept!that!facilitates!coAinnovation.!More!attention!to!different!cultural!interpretations!of! participation!amongst!stakeholders!could!improve!the!overall!efficiency!of!work!processes!and!the!evaluation! of! their! outcomes.! It! may! yet! be! too! early! to! assess! the! impact! of! innovative! cropping! systems,! but! future! assessments!will!surely!respond!to!this!optimistic!perception!of!their!potential.!

Based!on!personal!observations!and!farmer!interpretations!of!CA!practices!during!this!study,!recommendations! are!proposed!in!two!categories.!

Related'to'the'second'year'of'ABACO'field'experiments.!At!the!field!level,!these!include:!1)!more!shortAterm! impactful!examples!that!valorize!crops!farmers!typically!use!in!combination!with!land!often!thought!to!be!less! fertile!(e.g.!steep!tanety!or!sandy!baiboho);!2)!test!management!methods!discussed!during!the!first!year!(e.g.! cutting! or! trampling!dolichos!and!mucuna!to!control!vertical!climbing!on!maize);!3)!address!what!adequate! amounts! of! mulch! to! prevent! erosion! or! weeds! look! like.! At! the! level! of! overall! project! operation:! 1)! keep! groups!open!to!newcomers!but!ask!farmers!to!propose!and!conduct!a!formal!induction!system;!2)!Find!a!way!to! value! “private”! tests! that! farmers! make,! perhaps! by! providing! moments! to! share! observations! with! others! during!meetings!or!perhaps!even!in!the!field.!

Related' to' agricultural' innovation' in' the' Lake' Alaotra' region.' 1)! Concerted! attempts! to! enhance! our! understanding!of!the!socioAcultural!context!in!the!region,!with!special!attention!to!social!networks,!information! 1!

! sharing,! and! power! dynamics! amongst! farmers! (e.g.! ethnography)! are! needed.! 2)! Methodologies! that! encourage! exploring! nonAverbal! information! related! to! innovation! choices! (e.g.! technography)! appear! to! be! suitable!to!monitor!innovation!development!pathways!and!processes.!3)!It!is!preferable!to!capitalize!on!local! concepts! of! participation! and! see! how! they! may! be! complimented! by! participation! concepts! from! external! origins.! Methodology! that! strives! to! understand! socioAcultural! complexities,! such! as! ethnography! and! technography,!could!provide!important!insights.!

Résumé!Exécutif! L’Agriculture!de!Conservation!(AC)!(ou,!le!semis!direct!sur!couverture!végétale,!SCV)!inclut!trois!composants! (dérangement!des!sols!minimum,!couverture!des!sols!permanente,!et!rotation!des!cultures).!Elle!a!été! vastement!promulguée!aux!petits!agriculteurs!dans!toute!l’Afrique!subsaharienne,!ainsi!qu’à!Madagascar,! depuis!plus!de!dix!ans,!comme!stratégie!pour!renforcer!la!productivité!des!récoltes!and!restaurer!la!fertilité!des! sols.!Cependant,!le!taux!d’adoption!ayant!été!bas,!un!nouvel!intérêt!a!été!réveillé!pour!mieux!comprendre!les! défis!et!les!contraintes!auxquels!les!agriculteurs!font!face!quand!ils!cherchent!à!implanter!cette!technologie,! compte!tenu!des!facteurs!régionaux!et!spécifiques!au!terrain!même.!En!parallèle,!certaines!observations! d’adaptation!partielle!du!package!AC,!soit!le!système!de!culture!innovatrice,!ont!été!faites.!Ce!processus!a!eu! pour!conséquence!un!intérêt!intensifié!pour!la!recherche!participative,!ayant!pour!but!de!valoriser!la! connaissance!actuelle!des!agriculteurs!et!d’évaluer!les!capacités!existantes,!pour!rendre!compte!des!bénéfices! potentiels!des!pratiques!agroécologiques!existantes.!!

Cette!étude!a!pour!but!d’approfondir!notre!compréhension!de!la!perception!des!agriculteurs!AC!dans!la!région! du!lac!Alaotra!à!Madagascar,!à!travers!d’une!étude!précise!de!dix!expériences!de!démonstrations!sur!des! cultures!spécifiques,!initiées!par!le!projet!ABACO.!Ces!expériences!ont!été!fondées!sur!les!principes!AC!;!elles! ont!été!coApensées!par!les!agriculteurs!et!des!techniciens,!et!elles!ont!été!conduites!par!les!agriculteurs.! Chaque!misAenAœuvre!fut!unique!and!n’a!pas!été!répété.!Les!résultats!et!les!données!issus!d’un!triangle!de! recherche!constitué!de!mesures!biophysiques,!d’entrevues!nonAguidées!et!approfondies!avec!les!agriculteurs! participants,!ainsi!que!d’observation!participative,!rendent!compte!des!effets!que!l’interprétation!des! agriculteurs!de!ces!expériences!pourrait!avoir!sur!des!contrôles!futurs,!ainsi!que!sur!la!prise!de!décision!sur! place.!L’analyse!a!également!inclus!un!regard!sur!l’interaction!entre!AC!et!les!facteurs!sociaux!du!partage!des! connaissances!et!le!rôle!des!sexes.!!

À!partir!d’observations!faites!sur!place,!ainsi!que!basé!sur!d’autres!études!faites!dans!la!même!région,!il! devient!évident!que!les!petits!agriculteurs!sont!sensibles!aux!effets!des!changements!climatique!et! demographique,!et!ont!un!intérêt!apparent!pour!les!systèmes!de!cultures!innovatrices!basés!sur!les!pratiques! AC.!En!comparant!les!expectations!des!agriculteurs!visAàAvis!des!résultats!de!ces!expériences!avec!les!mesures! biophysiques,!quelques!données!concernant!la!perception!des!agriculteurs!des!pratiques!AC!(ex.!préférences! de!couverture!de!culture)!ont!été!révélées.!Elles!semblent!venir!de:!1)!leur!conscience!des!défis!locaux!(ex.! fréquence!de!pluies!plus!rares,!disponibilité!réduite!de!terrains,!besoin!d’améliorer!la!fertilité!des!sols!en!soi);! 2)!leur!intérêt!pour!l’amélioration!de!leur!niveau!de!vie;!3)!la!présence!de!projets!de!développement! promouvant!AC!depuis!plus!de!dix!ans;!et!4)!la!réceptivité!des!agriculteurs!quant!à!une!connaissance!externe! qu’ils!évaluent!par!rapport!à!leurs!propres!perceptions!des!contraintes!et!des!avantages.!!

D’une!perspective!optimiste,!ce!contexte!semble!offrir!un!potentiel!important!qui!permettrait!de!produire!des! fins!d’apprentissages!applicables!à!travers!d’un!développement!coAinnovateur!de!AC!entre!agriculteurs!et! techniciens.!Cependant,!ce!potentiel!est!limité!par!la!notion!complexe!de!participation,!qui!est!en!soi!le! concept!qui!facilite!la!coAinnovation.!Plus!d’attention!portée!aux!différentes!interprétations!culturelles!des! participants!pourrait!améliorer!l’efficacité!générale!des!processus!de!travail,!ainsi!que!l’évaluation!de!leurs!fins.! Il!est!peutAêtre!trop!tôt!pour!rendre!compte!de!l’impacte!des!systèmes!de!cultures!innovatrices,!mais!des!

! études!futures!vont!sûrement!pouvoir!répondre!à!la!perception!optimiste!de!leur!potentiel.!!

!À!partir!des!observations!personnelles!et!de!l’interprétation!des!agriculteurs!des!pratiques!AC!inclues!dans! cette!étude,!des!recommandations!sont!proposées!en!deux!catégories.!

Au'sujet'de'la'deuxième'année'des'expériences'ABACO'sur'place.!Au!niveau!des!cultures,!ces!recommandations! inclues!:!!1)plus!d’exemples!avec!un!impacte!à!court!terme!qui!valorisent!les!cultures!que!les!agriculteurs! typiquement!utilisent!en!combinaison!avec!des!terrains!qui!sont!considérés!moins!fertiles!(ex.!tanety!en!pente! raide!ou!baiboho!ensablé)!;!2)!méthodes!de!direction!de!contrôle!discutées!pendant!la!première!année!(ex.! couper!or!piétiner!les!dolichos!et!mucuna!pour!contrôler!la!croissance!verticale!du!maïs)!;!3)!adresser!la! quantité!de!paillis!qui!serait!adéquate!pour!prévenir!l’érosion!ou!les!mauvaises!herbes.!Au!niveau!opérationnel! du!projet!en!général!:!1)!garder!les!groupes!ouverts!aux!nouveaux!venus,!mais!demander!aux!agriculteurs!de! proposer!et!de!maintenir!un!système!d’introduction!formel!;!2)!trouver!une!manière!de!valoriser!les!contrôles! ‘privés’!que!font!les!agriculteurs,!peutAêtre!en!organisant!des!moments!d’échanges!d’observations!avec!autrui! lors!de!réunions!ou!peutAêtre!même!sur!place!sur!les!terrains.!!

Au'sujet'de'l’agriculture'innovatrice'de'la'région'du'lac'Alaotra':!1)!Des!essais!concertés!pour!améliorer!notre! compréhension!du!contexte!socioAculturel!de!la!région,!avec!une!attention!spécifique!portée!aux!réseaux! sociaux,!le!partage!d’information,!et!les!dynamiques!du!pouvoir!(ex.!ethnographie)!sont!désirés.!2)!Des! méthodologies!qui!encouragent!l’exploration!nonAverbale!d’information!au!sujet!des!choix!innovateurs!(ex.! technographie)!semblent!être!convenable!pour!rendre!compte!du!développement!des!voies!et!du!processus! innovateurs.!3)!Il!est!préférable!de!capitaliser!sur!des!concepts!locaux!de!participation!et!de!voir!comment! ceuxAci!peuvent!être!complétés!par!des!concepts!de!participation!d’origine!externe.!Une!méthodologie!qui!a! pour!but!de!comprendre!les!complexités!socioAculturelles,!tel!l’ethnographie!et!la!technographie,!pourrait! apporter!des!données!importantes.!!!

! 1.!Introduction! !

Meeting! the! nutritional! needs! of! an! increasing! world! population! while! simultaneously! addressing! related! social! and! environmental! issues! poses! major! challenges.! This! has! resulted! in! a! push! to! incorporate!agroecological!principles!into!production!agriculture!worldwide.!Parts!of!South!Asia!and! Africa!feature!regions!that!have!both!the!highest!population!growth!and!high!concentration!of!foodA insecure!people.!Moreover,!most!of!the!staple!foods!–!grains,!roots!and!tubers!A!are!produced!on! degraded!soils,!with!little!to!no!use!of!organic!amendments!or!fertilizers!(Lal,!2007).!Poor!local!and! national!infrastructures!and!limited!household!resources!add!to!the!challenge.!It!is!into!this!context! that! conservation! agriculture,! amongst! other! soil! and! water! conservation! technologies,! was! introduced.!!

1.1.!Conservation!agriculture!(CA):!definition!and!claims! !

Conservation!agriculture!(CA)!has!been!promoted!throughout!the!world!as!a!management!package! to!improve!effective!use!of!soil,!water!and!biological!resources.!Defined!by!the!Food!and!Agriculture! Organization!(FAO)!as!three!inseparable!principles,!it!requires!minimal!soil!disturbance,!permanent! soil!cover!(>30%!soil!cover),!and!sound!crop!rotations!(FAO,!2008).!!An!outline!of!benefits!associated! with!CA!is!provided!in!Table!1.!!!

Globally,!CA!is!most!notably!used!in!Canada,!the!USA,!Argentina,!Brazil!and!Australia,!with!increasing! presence!in!Europe!and!Asia,!while!it!relatively!little!used!in!Africa.!Derpsch!(2010)!estimated!the! area!under!CA!management!to!be!more!than!100!million!ha!worldwide.!This!figure,!however,!may!be! overly!optimistic.!Much!of!the!estimated!land!is!actually!under!partial!CA!practices,!and!also!includes! short!term!use!of!the!technology!(e.g.!soAcalled!opportunistic!adoptants!who!may!use!the!technology! while! participating! in! a! development! project,! but! discontinue! shortly! thereafter! (Penot! et' al.,! 2011a)).!!

Although!there!are!likely!biophysical!and!environmental!benefits!(Table!1),!some!areas!still!require! more! research,! especially! in! the! tropics! where! there! is! less! quantitative! data! available! (e.g.! C! sequestration!see!Govaerts!et'al.,!2009).!CA’s!advantages!are!more!often!contested,!though,!with! issues! arising! from! socioAeconomic!realities!(Giller!et'al.,! 2009).! For! example,! access! to! machinery! and!agrochemical!inputs!in!the!USA,!Canada,!Brazil,!Argentina!and!Brazil!allow!for!widespread!use!of! fertilizers!to!counteract!shortAterm!immobilization!caused!by!mulch,!and!herbicides!to!reduce!weed! pressure! that! results! from! zero! tillage.! These! resources! are! not! as! readily! available! in! developing! countries.!It!is!therefore!crucial!to!consider!factors!that!may!not!be!obvious!at!the!plot!or!field!scale,! that! rather! must! take! into! account! complex! interactions! and! resource! flows! from! the! farm! to! regional!level.!!

Stepping! back! further,! putting! aside! questions! about! empirical! evidence! of! benefits! and! logistical! challenges! of! implementation,! perhaps! one! of! the! principal! challenges! to! diffusion! of! CA! is! its! proposal! of! land! husbandry! practices! that! are! radically! different! than! current! conventional!

! management! (Gowing! and! Palmer,! 2008).! This! soAcalled! paradigm! shift! requires! perception! of! ecological!systems!at!the!field!or!farm!level,!and!most!notably,!biological!tillage!principles.!!!

Table$1.$Potential$benefits$attributed$to$conservation$agriculture$(CA).$$

Category! Potential!benefits!!

Soil!quality!! Increased!water!infiltration!and!soil!water!conservation!(Landers,!2007)!

Increased!aggregate!stability!and!soil!porosity!(Derpsch!et'al.,!2010)!

Increased!soil!fertility!(Gowing!et'al.,!2008)!!

Reduced!maximum!temperatures!in!soil!surface!layers!(Erenstein,!2002)!

Crop! development! Increased!or!more!stable!yields!(Pretty!et'al.,!2006;!Kassam!et'al.,!2009)! and!performance! Early! start! leads! to! a! longer! growing! season! (no! need! to! plough,! direct! seeding)!(general!Hobbes!et'al.,!2008;!Gowing!et'al.,!2008).!!!

Environmental! Reduced!wind!and!water!erosion!(Lal!et'al.,!1990;!Schuller!et'al.,!2007)!!

Provisioning,! regulating! and! supporting! ! interrelated! ecosystem! services! (Kassam!et'al.,!2009)!

Increase!in!biodiversity!(Kassam!et'al.,!2009;!Derpsch!et'al.,!2010)!

Likely!contribution!to!soil!C!sequestration!(Govaerts!et'al.,!2009)!

Economic! Reduction!in!labour!time!and!costs!(due!to!zeroAtillage!age)!(Hobbes!et'al.,! 2008;!Gowing!et'al.,!2008)!

Reduction!in!overall!costs!(lower!net!inputs!of!fertilizer!and!fuel)!(Hobbes!et' al.,!2008;!Gowing!et'al.,!2008)!

Potential!benefits!are!attributed!to!certain!or!all!CA!practices!(minimal!soil!disturbance,!permanent! soil!cover,!crop!rotations).!See!Hobbes!et'al.,!2008,!Gowing!et'al.,!2008,!Kassam!et'al.,!2009,!and! Derpsch!et'al.,!2010!for!reviews!and!more!general!discussion!about!potential!benefits!of!CA.!

! 1.2.!CA!and!sub6Saharan!Africa! ! Smallholder!adoption!of!CA!in!sub5Saharan!Africa! Farming!in!subASaharan!Africa!(SSA)!is!predominantly!performed!by!smallholders.!Belief!in!!potential! benefits!of!CA!have!led!the!FAO!and!other!institutions!to!actively!promote!it!in!the!effort!to!improve! smallholder! agricultural! production1.! However,! in! recent! years! promoting! CA! for! SSA! has! been! criticized! as! a! false! panacea,! (e.g.! Giller! et' al.,! 2009;! Gowing! et' al.,! 2008).! This! criticism! is! partly! substantiated!by!the!very!low!rates!of!adoption!in!SSA!(approximately!1%)!compared!to!other!parts! of!the!world!(47%!South!America,!39%!North!America,!9%!Australia,!and!the!remaining!4%!in!Europe! and!Asia)!(Corbeels!et'al.,!2011).!!

Despite!potential!benefits,!why!then!are!adoption!rates!so!low!in!SSA?!Studies!during!the!last!eight! or! so! years! point! to! particularities! of! the! farming! context! in! SSA! that! pose! challenges! to! full! and! widespread! adoption! (see! Machado! et' al.,! 2001;! Gowing! et' al.,! 2008;! Giller! et' al.,! 2009).! Overall,! experimental! plots! and! fields! under! researchers’! control! seldom! account! for! complex! farmA! or! regionalAscale! factors! that! affect! real! farming! systems.! More! recently,! recognizing! this! limitation,!! there! has! been! increased! focus! on! tradeAoffs! and! constraints! related! to! CA! practices.! Table! 2! describes!both!key!constraints!and!research!focus!areas!relevant!to!CA!adoption!in!SSA.!Although! Southeast!Asia!shares!some!similar!challenges!to!widespread!use!of!CA!(see!Affholder!et'al.,!2010),! the!scope!of!this!study!exclusively!focuses!on!subASaharan!Africa.!

Table$2.$Constraints$and$research$focus$areas$relevant$to$conservation$agriculture$(CA)$adoption$in$subNSaharan$Africa$ (SSA).$$

Scale! or! sphere! Constraints!and!research!focus!areas! of!influence!! Field! While!eliminating!ploughing!may!enable!an!earlier!sowing!date!and!reduce!labour! Farm! requirements,!it!has!been!observed!to!increase!the!presence!of!weeds!and!increase! Economic! labour!requirements!associated!with!weed!control!(Giller!et'al.,!2009).!

Gender! In! certain! contexts,! the! elimination! of! ploughing! might! reduce! men’s! labour! while! increasing!women’s!weeding!responsibilities!(Giller!et'al.,!2009).!In!a!case!study!of! conservation! agriculture! in! southern! Zambia,! it! was! noticed! ! that! adequate! crop! rotations!were!challenged!by!cultural!norms!of!separating!responsibility!for!crops!by! gender;! men! typically! raised! cash! crops! of! maize! and! cotton! on! larger! areas! than! women,! who! produced! minor! crops! such! as! groundnuts! cowpea! (Baudron! et' al.! 2007).!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1!For!example:!donors!such!as!Agence!Française!de!Développement!(AFD),!US!Agency!for!International! Development!(USAID),!UK!Department!for!International!Development!(DFID);!NGOs!such!as!CARE!International,! Worldvision;!research!institutions!such!as!Centre!de!coopération!internationale!en!recherche!agronomique! pour!le!développement!(CIRAD),!International!Center!for!Agricultural!Research!in!the!Dry!Areas!(ICARDA),! International!Crops!Research!Institute!for!the!SemiAArid!Tropics!(ICRISAT);!and!national!governments.!!!

! Market! The! costs! and! often! limited! availability! of! external! inputs! (herbicides,! fertilizers,! Economic! cover! crop! seeds)! and! limited! product! outlets! or! infrastructure! to! connect! to! markets!(Machado!et'al.,!2001).!

Field! Adequate!knowledge!and!technical!mastery!(e.g.!adequate!soil!cover,!counteracting! immobilizing!effects!of!mulch,!appropriate!leguminous!intercrops)!(Machado!et'al.,! 2001),!and!the!resulting,!challenging!paradigm!shift!(Gowing!and!Palmer,!2008)!

Farm! Crop!rotation!recommendations!for!SSA!stress!inclusion!of!legumes!for!their!ability! Market! to!biologically!fix!nitrogen!and!enhance!soil!fertility!(Giller!et'al.,!1995).!Researchers! have!pointed!out!that!despite!their!use!as!household!food!source!and!livestock!feed,! production! tends! to! be! restricted! to! small! areas! of! the! farm! (thereby! restricting! potential!soil!improvement!in!those!areas!lacking!legumes)!unless!there!is!a!market! to!sell!what!the!household!does!not!consume!(Giller!et'al.,!2009).!!

Field! Regarding!biophysical!claims,!it!is!important!to!note!that!the!potential!benefits!of!CA! will!vary!depending!on!the!existing!soil!conditions;!severely!degraded!soils!may!need! rehabilitation!before!CA!may!be!implemented.!Poor!soils,!for!example,!may!not!be! able!to!produce!enough!biomass,!or!may!be!too!deficient!in!P!to!support!leguminous! cover!crops.!(Giller!et'al.,!2009)!

Field! Soil! cover! by! dead! mulch! necessitates! adequate! biomass! production,! which! is! a! Farm! constraint! in! relatively! poor! soil! conditions! (Erenstein,! 2002;! Giller! et' al.,! 2009;! Naudin!et'al.,!2011).!The!biomass!produced!is!also!likely!to!be!in!competition!with! other! uses! such! as! livestock! fodder! (Mazvimavi! et' al.,! 2010;! Giller! et' al.,! 2011;! Naudin!et'al.,!2011),!and!may!even!pose!threat!as!a!habitat!for!pests!(Vanlauwe!et' al.,!2006;!Brévault!et'al.,!2008;!Rabary!et'al.,!2011).!!!

Field! Biomass!is!a!special!subject!that!deserves!significant!attention!as!it!is!a!pivotal!aspect! Farm! of!CA!in!(sub)tropical!countries.!Research!has!focused!on!the!quantity!and!quality!of! the!biomass!being!produced,!how!much!biomass!can!be!removed!(e.g.!for!fodder,!to! be! sold)! before! there! is! detriment! to! soil! cover! functions! (erosion! and! weed! prevention)!(Naudin!et'al.,!2011;!Naudin!et'al.,!forthcoming).!!

Farm! RiskAanalysis!of!a!management!style!whose!results!are!most!perceivable!in!the!long! term,!while!requiring!increased!investment!of!precious!resources!in!the!short!term,! may! deem! it! unworthy! of! sustained! interest.! As! many! smallholders! do! not! have! “test”!areas!on!their!farm,!they!try!by!doing!(Misiko!et'al.,!2011),!requiring!enough! confidence!in!the!technologyAinAquestion!to!deem!worth!taking!the!risk.!

Each! constraint! or! research! focus! area! is! referenced! to! the! field! or! farm! scale,! or! other! spheres! of! influence!(socioAeconomic,!market).!! ! Need!for!improved!understanding!of!farmer!perceptions!of!CA! Despite! many! studies! that! seek! to! explain! or! predict! CA! adoption! by! smallholders,! no! universal! variables!have!yet!been!identified,!in!SSA!or!worldwide!(Knowler! et' al.,! 2007).! ! However,! though! adoption!rates!of!CA!sensuCstricto!are!limited,!some!studies!have!found!evidence!of!partial!adoption! and!spontaneous!diffusion,!albeit!within!restricted!contexts!(Ekboir!et'al.,!2002;!Baudron!et'al.,!2007;! Lal!et'al.,!2007;!Penot!et'al.,!2011a).!Though!a!host!of!constraints!are!recognized!(Table!2),!reasons! for!farmer!selection!and!use!of!certain!practices!also!remains!unclear.!!! 7!

! Acknowledging!the!apparent!complexities!of!CA!adoption!in!SSA,!many!have!argued!that!CA!should! be!viewed!as!one!of!several!technical!options!(Giller!et'al.,!2011;!Baudron!et'al.,!2012;!Tittonell!et'al.,! 2012),! and! more! broadly,! that! agroAecological! measures! should! be! adapted! to! local! situations! (Knowler!et'al.,!2007;!Tittonell!et'al.,!2012)!rather!than!proposed!as!a!general!prescription.!

Although!research!has!incorporated!tradeoffs!from!farmers’!perspectives!and!analyzed!systems!at! different!scales,!they!most!often!prioritize!economic!and!agronomic!factors.!Even!when!underlying! social!factors!are!part!of!an!analysis,!there!has!been!little!exploration!of!their!consecutive!influences! on! CA! technology! use! and! adoption.! These! include! individualA! and! groupA! lived! tensions! between! tradition,!modernity,!culture!and!community!(Bolliger!et'al.,!2008).!There!is!also!a!need!to!pay!special! attention! to! gender! roles! (Tittonell! et' al.,! 2012)! A!!both! as! they! exist! before! the! introduction! of! innovations!and!during!the!time!that!follows!–!this!in!order!to!design!and!disseminate!appropriate! technologies! (Table 2).! All! of! these! factors! may! be! highly! contextAspecific,! implying! the! need! for! localised!research!that!includes!both!biophysical!and!socioAeconomic!perspectives.! !

1.3.!Madagascar!and!the!Lake!Alaotra!region! !

Madagascar,!the!fifth!largest!island!in!the!world,!is!situated!in!the!Indian!Ocean,!separated!from!the! African!continent!by!the!Mozambique!Channel.!Spanning!1,580!km!north!to!south,!and!580!km!east! to!west!is!located!in!an!intertropical!zone,!and!has!a!variety!of!landscapes!and!climates.!

The! country! gained! independence! from! France! in! 1960,! and! beginning! in! 1975! under! Didier! Ratsiraka,!pursued!socialist!governance.!There!was!a!steady!economic!decline!until!the!early!1980s,! when! the! country! underwent! structural! adjustment.! The! 1990s! saw! increasing! privatization! and! liberal!reforms!in!compliance!with!World!Bank!criteria.!Since!the!early!2000s,!political!instability!has! negatively! affected! Madagascar's! social! and! economic! conditions.! First! elected! in! 2002! amidst! contested!elections,!Marc!Ravalomanana!was!reelected!in!2006!despite!a!drop!in!popularity,!then! ousted!in!the!2009!coup!and!replaced!by!Andry!Rajoelina.!Political!tensions!continue,!perpetuating! conditions!of!poor!infrastructure,!!instability,!rising!commodity!prices,!sanctions!and!aid!restrictions.! High!food!prices!also!contribute!to!the!dynamics!of!the!current!political!climate.!

The!Lake!Alaotra!region! Lake!Alaotra,!230!km!north!of!the!capital!Antananarivo,!lies!in!the!central!highlands!that!run!through! the!centre!of!the!country!(Figure!1)!and!is!the!primary!rice!production!area!in!Madacascar.!Colonized! by! the! Sihanaka! ethnic! group! in! the! fifteenth! century,! then! a! smaller! wave! of! Imerina! in! the! nineteenth!century,!and!receiving!attention!from!colonial!government!in!the!early!1900s,!the!region! continues! to! attract! people! thanks! to! its! relatively! rich! natural! resource! base.! The! population! has! been!doubling!every!18!years!since!the!1960s.!!It!is!predominantly!farmed!by!smallholders,!whose! main!crop!is!rice!(for!both!subsistence!and!cash),!while!other!main!crops!include!maize,!cassava,!and! legumes! (groundnuts,! rice! bean).! Most! households! are! not! rice! selfAsufficient,! meaning! they! experience!a!hunger!gap!that!can!vary!from!one!to!several!months!each!year!(Ducrot,!1996).!! !

! !

Figure$1.$Map$of$Madagcascar$and$the$Lake$Alaotra$region.$Left,$the$east$coast$of$Africa,$Madagascar$island,$and$the$ capital$Antananarivo.$Right,$closer$view$of$Lake$Alaotra$and$surroundings.$Source:$Google$Earth$4$October,$2013.$

350 30 P (mm) T (°C) 300 25 250 20 200 15 (°C) T 150 10 100 Monthly rainfall (mm) Monthly rainfall 50 5 0 0

Figure$ 2.$ Average$ precipitation$ and$ temperature$ in$ the$ Lake$ Alaotra$ region$ (2002N2012).$ Source:$ FOFIFA,$ Ambohitsilaozana$station.$

Average!annual!rainfall!amounts!to!1200!mm,!with!a!range!of!800A2000mm!(Figure!2).!The!tropical! upland!climatic!region!has!two!distinct!seasons:!a!rainy!season!from!November!to!March,!delivering! on!average!1000A1200!mm!of!rain;!and!a!cool!dry!season!running!from!April!to!October.!Irregular! rainfall!(especially!at!the!start!of!the!rainy!season)!is!related!to!storm!patterns!on!the!east!coast.!For! 1!in!3!years,!annual!rainfall!is!more!than!10%!below!average,!and!of!1!in!4!it!is!above!average!(Ducrot! and!Capillon,!2004).!Average!annual!temperatures!are!around!20°C,!with!an!average!low!of!14°C.!

The!lake!as!an!area!of!about!900m2!with!a!maximum!depth!of!2.5m!(Ferry!et'al,!2009).!It!is!situated!in! a!relatively!fertile!plain!at!about!800!meters!above!sea!level.!The!ferralitic!hills!surrounding!the!lake! rise!to!about!1500!m!in!the!west,!and!to!about!1000!m!in!the!east.!The!region!is!characterized!by! several!toposequences!(Figure!3).!Immediately!surrounding!the!lake!are!marshes!and!rice!fields!with! varying!degrees!of!water!control.!With!more!than!100,000!ha!under!rice!fields,!the!region!is!known! as!"the!rice!basin"!of!Madagascar.!Moving!further!away!from!the!lake!to!slightly!higher!land!are!the! baiboho,!fields!which!do!not!have!standing!water!but!may!continue!to!produce!vegetables!during!the! dry!season!through!capillary!rise.!Continuing!out!and!upwards,!the!terraced!fields!at!lower!elevations! are!gradually!replaced!by!rainfed!plots!of!upland!rice,!maize,!cassava,!green!beans!and!groundnuts.! 9!

! The! hillsides! (tanety)! also! provide! grazing! land! for! zebu.! Tanety! generally! demonstrate! lower! inherent! soil! fertility! than! the! lower! lands,! but! this! varies! around! the! lake.! The! richer! soils! of! the! eastern!hills,!for!example,!may!be!compared!to!the!relatively!low!organic!matter!content,!leached,! ferrallitic! soils! in! the! west.! The! colluvial! deposition! of! silt! and! clay! in! the! baiboho! and! lower! elevations!has!historically!contributed!to!their!reputation!as!relative!fertile!soils.!However,!this!may! not! always! actually! be! true! due! to! continual! cropping! and! mining! of! inherent! soil! fertility.! Nevertheless,! the! fragile! soils! of! the! slopes! are! more! prone! to! erosion! and! soil! degradation.! The! gaping!red!gullies!throughout!the!hills,!known!as!lavaka,'are!visible!reminders.!

Tanety'(hills)

SompiranCtany

! VodinCtany'(lower!slope) SaroCdrano' (rice!fields,! Baiboho poor!water! Tanimbary!(rice! control!) fields,!good! water!control)

Figure$3.$General$representation$of$toposequences$in$the$Lake$Alaotra$region.$Names$in$Malagasy$and$English$when$ known.$

CA!in!the!Lake!Alaotra!region!! The! area! has! received! attention! by! various! development! projects! that! have! usually! focused! on! intensifying! rice! production! in! the! lowlands.! During! the! the! 1960s! and! 70s,! for! instance,! rice! production! was! intensified! under! hydroAagricultural! schemes! managed! by! Société! Malgache! d'Aménagement!du!Lac!Alaotra!(SOMALAC).!! ! However,! due! to! a! high! population! growth! rate,! and! the! preferred! lower! lands! already! claimed,! current! land! use! expansion! mainly! occurs! on! the! hillsides! (tanety).! Hillside! cultivation! alongside! deforestation!has!already!led!to!silting!up!of!the!waterways!and!the!lake,!and!there!is!concern!about! sustainable! use! of! natural! resources! on! the! fragile! tanety! soils! and! future! consequences! for! the! waterways!below.!It!was!in!this!context!of!a!rapidly!expanding!population!and!land!degradation,!as! well! as! the! need! to! increase! smallholder! food! production! and! farmAhousehold! resources,! that! conservation!agriculture!was!introduced!to!the!Lake!Alaotra!region!in!the!late!1990s.!!

The!promotion!and!research!of!CA!in!the!area!has!involved!several!organisations!and!institutions.!The! NGO!TAFA!(“terre!et!developpement”)!conducted!the!first!CA!experiments!in!the!Alaotra!region!in! 1998.! In! 2003,! project! Mise! en! valeur! et! protection! des! Bassins! Versants! du! Lac! Alaotra! (BVLac)! began.!BVLac!was!conducted!in!two!phases.!The!first!one!used!a!technicalAbased!"topAdown"!field! and!plot!focused!approach!(2003A2008).!During!the!second!phase,!the!focus!shifted!and!evolved!into! a! more! holistic,! systemsAbased! approach! (2008A! May! 2013).! The! objectives! were! to! sustain! and!!

10!

! increase!farm!income!by!increasing!productivity!while!protecting!natural!resources!with!a!focus!on! the!watershed.!It!was!assisted!by!the!local!operators!TAFA,!Bas!Rhône!Languedoc!(BRL)!and!Bureau! d’Expertise!Sociale!et!de!diffusion!technique!(BEST).!Also!involved!were!staff!from!Groupement!SemiA Direct!de!Magadascar!(GSDM),!an!umbrella!organization!that!unites!different!organizations!working! to!promote!CA!practices.!The!Centre!Régional!de!Recherche!Moyen!Est!(CALA),!run!by!the!national! body!for!applied!rural!development!research!(FOFIFA)!and!the!Centre!de!coopération!internationale! en!recherche!agronomique!pour!le!développement!(CIRAD)!also!continue!to!play!a!role!in!the!region.!

These!entities!have!generated!a!body!of!knowledge!in!the!area!that!continues!to!grow.!This!includes! farm! typologies! (Durand! et' al.,! 2008),! biophysical! impacts!and!benefits!such!as!biomass!tradeoffs! (Naudin! et' al.,! 2011;! Naudin! et' al.,! forthcoming),! along! with! both! shortA! to! longAterm! economic! effects! (Mac! Dowall,! 2011),! and! reasons! behind! (non/partial)! adoption! and! spontaneous! diffusion! (Chabierski!et'al.,!2008;!Penot!et'al.,!2011a,!Ranaivoson,!2012)).!A!detailed!technical!manual!jointly! produced!by!local!actors!also!aims!towards!technicians,!researchers!and!farmers!(Husson,!2013).!It!is! also!clear!that!farmers!have!also!generated!their!own!body!of!knowledge.!!

Discussion! of! constraints! is! limited! in! this! study! as! most! farmers! have! yet! to! test! CA! techniques! themselves.! For! studies! on! CA! and! constraints! in! the! Lake! Alaotra! region! see:! Penot! and! Andriatsitohaina,!(2011b)!for!constraints!and!opportunities;!Penot!et'al.,!(2013a)!for!economic!and! political! constraints;! Penot! et' al.,! (2013b)! for! technical! constraints;! and! Chabierski! et' al.,! (2009),! Durand!et'al.,!(2012),!Fabre!(2011)!Penot!et'al.,!(2012b)!for!general!discussion.!!!

Though! it! remains! to! be! substantiated! with! additional! research! studies,! CA! management! in! the! region!has!been!observed!to!increase!yields!slightly,!and!inferred!from!the!increased!yield!stability,!to! offer! a! buffer! against! climatic! hazards! (Mac! Dowall,! 2011).! Research! focusing! on! carbon! sequestration,!pest,!weed!and!disease!control,!runoff!and!erosion!are!ongoing.!Questions!pertaining! to!tradeoffs!in!terms!of!biomass!use!were!investigated!by!Naudin!et'al.,!(2011;!forthcoming).!Based! on! results! it! appears! ! that! some! farming! systems! may! produce! enough! biomass! for! soil! cover! required!by!CA,!although!they!may!not!be!able!to!produce!enough!to!satisfy!high!demand!situations! (such!as!95%!soil!cover!for!weed!control!and!simultaneous!forage!functions).!The!same!research!also! showed!that!CA!systems!on!the!hillsides!and!lower!lands!may!be!synergistic!with!livestock!and/or! dairy!production.!

A! study! on! the! economic! impact! of! CA! systems! on! modeled! farm! holdings,! using! counterfactual! analysis!(exCpost!on!the!results!of!the!5!previous!years!and!prospective!next!5!years)!(Mac!Dowell,! 2011)!showed!that!the!effect!of!CA!is!nuanced!in!the!medium!term!while!the!shortAterm!impact!is! not! significant! for! farms! that! are! currently! economically! viable! (usually! those! with! irrigated! rice! paddies).!Although!there!may!be!shortAterm!positive!results!at!the!plotAlevel,!it!may!take!up!to!ten! years!before!cumulative!effects!may!be!detectable!at!the!farm!level.!Moreover;! the! impact! of!CA! increases!as!the!area!of!irrigated!rice!fields!per!farm!decreases.!!!!!

Some!studies!reported!increasing!use!of!CA!amongst!farmers!during!the!BVLac!project!(Chabierski!et' al.,!2008).!The!number!of!participating!farmers!was!just!under!600!in!2004,!and!grew!to!about!1200! in!2007!while!the!area!under!CA!also!increased.!In!the!highlands!it!was!51!ha!in!2003!and!increased! to!365!ha!in!2007!while!the!corresponding!values!for!the!plains!were!24!and!243!ha,!respectively.! Penot!et'al.!(2011a)!estimated!the!real!area!under!CA!to!be!approximately!419!ha!in!2010,!and!the! 11!

! number!of!adopting!farmers!being!between!600A1000.!The!same!study!reported!that!most!farmers! (40A60! %)! abandoned! the! use! of! CA! during! the! first! three! years! (year! 0,! 1,! 2)2! (Figure! 4),! with! an! overall!decrease!of!abandonment!over!time.!Most!farmers!abandon!during!the!first!year,!and!from!a! negative!perspective!may!be!considered!to!be!opportunistic!adoptees!who!just!wanted!to!benefit! from! advantages! of! participating! in! a! development! project! (Penot! et' al,! 2011a).! Reasons! for! abandonment! during! subsequent! years! were! attributed! to! lack! of! land! tenure,! difficulties! in! mastering! the! complex! CA! package! of! practices,! and! lack! of! financial! resources! to! invest! in! initial! costs!(Penot!et'al.,!2011a).!!!!

agriculture!management!per!fields

Rate!of!abandonment!of!conservation! Year! Year! Year! Year! Year! Year! Year! Year! 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Age!of!field!under!conservation!agriculture!management !

Figure$4.$Rate$of$abandonment$of$conservation$agriculture$management$per$fields,$according$to$age$under$conservation$ agriculture.$Adapted$from$Fabre,$2011.$

Though! there! are! doubts! about! farmers’! ability! or! receptiveness! to! implementing! the! complete! package!of!CA!practices,!based!on!observations!of!practices!in!farmer!fields!it!appears!that!there!is! strong!spontaneous!diffusion!of!select!parts!of!the!CA!technical!package!(Mac!Dowall,!2011;!!Penot! et' al.,! 2011a).! Farmers! have! been! shown! to! modify! the! CA! system! to! suit! their! specific! needs,! creating!soAcalled!innovative!cropping!systems!(ICS),!prioritizing!family!needs!according!to!local!and! household! constraints! rather! than! aiming! for! maximum! productivity! (Fabre,! 2011;! Penot! 2012a).! Crop!rotation!seems!to!be!the!practice!most!readily!adopted!by!farmers!(Mac!Dowall,!2011)!with!the! most! common! crop! rotation! patterns! being! maize! associated! with! a! legume! (e.g.! Dolichos' lablab,! Vigna' umbellata,! Vigna' unguiculata,! Stylosanthes' guianensis),! followed! by! upland! rice! associated! with!Cajanus'cajan!and/or!Crotalaria'sp.)!(Chabierski!et'al.,!2008).!Despite!these!findings,!why!and! how!farmers!select!certain!systems!still!requires!additional!!research.!If!development!support!were! to!focus!on!encouraging!farmers!to!experiment!and!adapt!the!CA!system!as!they!find!appropriate,! what! would! the! systems! look! like?! The! next! section! addresses! methodology! that! responds! to! the! question.!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 2!Conservation!agriculture!management!requires!initial!tillage!and!use!of!a!cover!crop!in!year!0,!followed!by! zeroAtillage!!or!minimal!soil!disturbance!in!the!years!that!follow.!Years!under!CA!management!are!denoted!n!+! 1,!n!being!year!).!!

12!

! 1.4.!Action,!participatory,!innovation!research!and!the!ABACO!pilot!project!

Attempts!to!understand!adaptation!and!adoption!of!conservation!agriculture!have!produced!studies! and! metaAreviews! on! determinants! and! predictability! of! CA! adoption! (e.g.! Baudron! et' al.,! 2007;! Bolliger!et'al.,!2008;!Mazvimavi!et'al.,!2010;!Knowler!et'al.,!2007;!Derpsch!et'al.,!2010;!Dubreil!2011).! Finding!no!universal!factors!that!can!predict!adoption,!much!of!this!research!recommends!action!and! participatoryAbased!research!approaches!to!better!comprehend!and!develop!solutions!for!localized! contexts.!

Action! research! broadly! involves! implementing! change! through! a! research! process,! grounded! in! reflexivity!and!the!recognition!that!knowledge!is!socially!constructed!(see!Lewin,!1946!and!BrydonA Miller! et' al.,! 2003! for! more! on! action! research).! Participatory! action! research! (PAR)! is! based! on! similar!principles,!but!emphasizes!that!stakeholders!need!to!be!actively!involved!during!the!research! process!as!coAresearchers.!There!is!an!expansive!body!of!literature!about!PAR!(Freire,!1970;!Maguire,! 1987;! Whyte! 1991;! McIntyre,! 2008)! ! documenting! ! its! evolution! and! lists! both! strengths! and! weaknesses.!The!invaluable!strength!of!the!methodology!is!the!potential!to!test!and!apply!research! findings! in! a! “realAworld”! setting,! while! more! directly! responding! to! the! specific! needs! of! participating! stakeholders.! However,! as! to! be! expected,! challenges! may! abound.! From! a! technical! perspective,! these! may! include! continuity! problems,! participatory! missAouts,! and! different! approaches!to!observation!(Misiko!et'al.,!2008).!In!terms!of!other!perspectives,!logistical!constraints! (Michener,!1998)!and!social!forces!shaping!the!initiation,!design!of!experiments,!as!well!as!who!leads! and!facilitates!should!be!carefully!observed!(Defoer,!2002).!From!a!wider!perspective,!politics!and! power!are!also!likely!to!influence!unstated!objectives!and!constraints.!Michener!(1998),!for!instance,! observed!that!NGOs!endeavoring!to!selfAempower!a!population!may!undermine!their!reason!to!exist,! while!members!of!the!local!population!may!participate!in!order!to!selectively!extract!resources!from! offering! organizations.! Furthermore,! different! culturallyAinformed! concepts! of! participation,! itself,! may!be!challenging!when!different!actors!try!to!collaborate!(BlancAPamard!and!Fauroux,!2004).!The! point! is! that! subtle! and! perhaps! purposefully! veiled! social! factors! play! a! role! in! the! participatory! process,! and! recognizing! them! can! only! help! inform! and! improve! the! participatory! method! and! outcomes.! !

PAR’s! reflexivity! and! (often)! iterative! creation! and! testing! of! research! findings! infer! an! innovation! process.!Most!recently,!discourse!around!innovation!regards!the!process!as!one!of!knowledge!coA creation! between! academic! and! nonAacademic! actors! (Schneider! et' al.,! 2012)3.! This! is! in! sharp! contrast! to! previous! linear! conceptions! of! innovation! (basic! research,! applied! research! and! development,!production!and!diffusion)!(see!Godin,!2006),!and!departs!from!the!innovationAdiffusion! model! proposed! by! Rogers! (1993)4.! Essentially,! both! imply! a! structured! process! where! different! actors! have! their! own! separate! roles! in! the! creation! and! diffusion! of! innovation! (e.g.! knowledge! creators,!transferors,!and!adopters).!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 3!See!Luks!and!Siebenhuner!(2007)!for!an!overview!of!the!prominent!concepts!in!the!current!discourse.!

4!The!theory!explains!innovation!diffusion!as!a!logistic!function!(S!curve),!involving!categories!of! innovators,!early!adopters,!early!majority,!late!majority,!and!laggards!(Rogers,!1993).! 13!

! The! innovation! process! grounded! in! participatory! action! research! and! knowledge! coAcreation! has! already!been!applied!to!agricultural!development!with!smallholders!(see,!for!example,!Ceccarelli!and! Grando,!2006,!who!promote!participatory!plant!breeding).!It!seems!a!promising!approach!to!apply!to! soil!and!water!conservation!technologies!in!subASaharan!Africa!(Ramisch!et'al.,!2006;!Misiko!et'al.,! 2010;!Mapfumo!et'al.,!2012;!Tittonell!et'al.,!2012).!!

CA2Africa!and!ABACO! The!multiApartner!research!project!Conservation!Agriculture!in!AFRICA:!Analysing!and!FoRseeing!its! Impacts! –! Comprehending! its! Adoption! (CA2AFRICA)! aims! to! respond! to! the! knowledge! gap! concerning!low!rates!of!smallholder!adoption!of!CA!in!subASaharan!Africa.!The!threeAyear!project,! launched!in!2009,!aims!to!assess!and!learn!from!research!about!CA!in!SSA.!In!turn,!the!AgroecologyA Based! aggradationACOnservation! agriculture! project! was! created! (ABACO)! in! reponse! to! an! emphasised!need!for!action!during!the!implementation!of!CA2AFRICA!(Tittonell!et'al.,!2012).!!

Implemented! from! 2011! to! 2014! in! seven! subASaharan! African! countries,! the! initiative! is! a! collaboration!between!institutes,!organizations!and!governments!from!the!global!north!and!south5.! Recognizing!the!need!to!better!understand!farmer!perspectives!on!agroAecocological!intensification! technologies,! the! project! aims! to! establish! “siteAspecific! coAinnovation! platforms! that! rely! on! agroecology!principles!and!aggradative6!measures!to!restore!soil!productivity!in!semiAarid!regions”! (Tittonell!et'al.,!2012,!p!2).!ABACO!is!a!pilot!research!project,!rather!than!a!development!outreach! initiative,! that! focuses! on! involving! multiple! stakeholders! (farmers,! researchers,! extension! agents,! NGOs)!to!understand!which!principles!of!CA!contribute!to!food!production!and!land!rehabilitation! goals!in!the!context!of!climate!variability,!as!well!as!developing!and!promoting!local!adaptation!of!CA! practices!(Tittonell!et'al.,!2012)7.!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 5!Wageningen!University!(WUR),!Centre!de!Coopération!Internationale!en!Recherche!Agronomique!pour!le! Développement!(CIRAD),!African!Conservation!Tillage!(ACT),!Soil!Fertility!Consortium!for!Southern!Africa! (SOFECSA),!National!Centre!of!Research!Applied!to!Rural!Development!(FOFIFA,!Madagascar),!Natural! Resources!Institute!of!University!of!Greenwich,!Centre!International!de!Recherche!sur!l’Elevage!en!zone! Subhumide!(CIRDES,!Burkina!Faso),!Empresa!Brasileira!de!Pesquisa!Agropecuária!(EMBRAPA),!and!Yellow! Window!

6!Use!of!the!term!“aggradative”!draws!from!physical!geography,!soil!physical!chemistry,!and!forest!ecology!to! describe!the!gradual!rehabilitation!of!degraded!soils!(Tittonell!et'al.,!2012).!

7!The!four!specific!objectives!(Tittonell!et'al.,!2012)!are!:!1)!to!target!CA!to!smallholder!farmers!by!studying! which!principles!of!CA,!and!under!which!conditions,!contribute!to!the!effects!sought!in!terms!of!food! production!and!land!rehabilitation!in!the!face!of!climatic!variability;!(2)!to!involve!farmers,!researchers,! extension!agents!and!NGOs!in!coAinnovation!platforms!to!promote!the!adaptation/appropriation!of! technologies!by!local!communities;!(3)!to!assess!the!social!and!economic!viability!and!tradeoffs!of! implementing!CA!at!farm!and!village!scales,!and!across!scenarios,!to!inform!policies;!(4)!to!promote! dissemination!of!targeted!CA!alternatives!and!approaches!through!divulgation,!training!and!capacity! development!

14!

! 1.5.!Research!aim!and!questions,!hypotheses!

The!purpose!of!this!study!is!to!1)!develop!a!better!understanding!of!farmer!perceptions!of!CA!and!2)! provide!recommendations!for!future!coAinnovation!endeavors!in!the!Lake!Alaotra!region.!!

Research$questions$ Hypothesis$

1)! What! are! the! biophysical! results! and! Results! are! expected! to! vary! per! interpretations!of!the!field!experiments?! experiment,!with!potential!differences! ! in! interpretation! between! different! 1a)! How! are! the! field! experiments! and! results! stakeholders.!!! perceived! by! farmers,! technicians,! and! researchers?!! ! 1b)! How! might! they! impact! future! experiments! and!onAfarm!decisions?!! ! 2)! How! do! farmer! perceptions! of! CA! compare! Perceptions! are! expected! to! vary! between!ABACO!group!participants?! depending! on! experiences! with! CA.! ResourceAlevels,! personal! character! ! and! experience,! information! 2a)!What!are!the!key!factors!and!processes!that! networks,! social! cohesion,! motivation! influence!farmer!participation!(or!not)!in!the!coA to! gain! knowledge! and! other! innovation!platforms?!! expectations! of! the! project! may! influence! participation! in! ABACO,! as! ! well!as!how!knowledge!is!shared.!!

2b)! How! is! knowledge! of! CA! shared! amongst! ! farmers?!!

3)! How! does! gender! interact! with! questions! 1! Interaction!of!gender!with!questions!1! and!2?! and!2!is!likely!to!be!relatively!subtle!

! !

15!

! 2.!Methods!and!Materials!

2.1.!Overview!

This! section! presents! the! study! sites,! the! ABACO! project! background,! and! the! socioAtechnical! methodology.! The! workflow! is! presented! in! the! figure! below! (Figure! 5)! and! elaborated! in! the! methodology!explanation.!!

This!research!was!conducted!during!a!sixAmonth!internship!with!the!pilot!project!ABACO,!formalized! through! a! contract! with! FOFIFA.! The! four! months! of! fieldwork! was! conducted! around! ten! field! experiments!initiated!by!ABACO.!The!experiments!were!based!on!CA!systems,!and!!were!coAdesigned! by! farmers! and! technicians,! and! managed! by! farmers.! Results! and! insights! from! biophysical! measurements,! interviews! and! participant! observation! were! triangulated! to! respond! to! research! questions,! which! addressed! farmer! interpretations! of! the! field! experiments,! how! the! experiments! might!future!testing!and!onAfarm!decisions,!and!touched!upon!the!interaction!between!CA!and!the! social!factors!of!knowledge!sharing!and!gender.!

Figure$5.$Research$workflow.$The$top$level$(red)$shows$research$stages$and$corresponding$components$below$(blue).$ 2.2.!Study!sites"! Fieldwork! was! conducted! from! the! end! of! February! to! the! beginning! of! June,! 2013! in! the! Lake! Alaotra!region!of!Madagascar!with!farmers!and!field!experiments!associated!with!the!ABACO!project.! Research! took! place! in! two! locations:! the! three! fokontany! of! Amparihitsokatra,! Madiorano,! and! Morarano!(in!this!report!collectively!referred!to!as!north)!and!the!fokontany!of!Mahatsara!(south).! The! town! of! Ambatrondrazaka,! which! has! about! 70,000! inhabitants,! provided! a! base! located! between! the! two! research! sites.! It! is! connected! to! the! villages! by! the! main! highway! 44,! approximately!45!km!(75!minutes!drive!in!4x4! vehicle)!to!the!northern!site,!and!about!10!km!(15! minutes!drive!on!a!paved!road)!to!the!southern!site.!See!Figure!6!for!a!map!and!photos!of!the!two! sites.!

16!

! $ the$southern$site:$ $ m$the$northern$site$(A),$which$ .$Photos$on$the$left$show$two$landscapes$ 45$km$fro fokontany ,$and$the$southern$site$more$rice$fields,$many$of$which$were$fed$by$a$dam. tanety on$ km$from$the$southern$site$(C)$of$Mahatsara$ $ e$to$the$lake$(Madiorano);$bottom,$hilly$landscape$further$inland$(Betsianjava).$Photos$on$the$right$show$two$landscapes$from Map$and$photos$of$the$study$sites.$The$town$of$Ambatondrazaka$(B)$was$provided$a$base$between$the$two$research$sites:$$about$ .$ 6

!! Figure$ encompassed$parts$of$Amparihitsokatra,$Madiorano,$and$Morarano$fokontany;$and$about$10 from$the$northern$site:$top,$rice$fields$clos top,$rice$fields$(Mahatsara);$bottom,$hills$with$rice$fields$in$the$valleys.$The$northern$site$had$more$fields$ 17!

! Higher!elevation'tanety'(hills),!lavaka'(red!eroded!gullies),! zebu!pasture!!

Lower!elevation!tanety,!rainfed!crops.!'

Baiboho,'rice!paddies!with!poor!water!control,!vegetables''

Irrigated!rice!paddies,!mixed!good!and!poor!water!control!

Tanety'(hills),!gentle!slopes,!rainfed!crops,!zebu!pasture!

Tanety'(hills),!steep!slope,!rainfed!crops!

Rice!fields!in!valleys,!poor!water!control!

Lower!slope,!rainfed!crops!(maize,!rice,!vegetables)!! !

Figure$7.$Typical$toposequences$and$landscape$use$for$the$northern$and$southern$study$sites.$Southern$site$(top)$and$ northern$site$(bottom).$Adapted$from$Fabre,$2011.$

! Mahatsara!(south)! Mahatsara,! south! of! the! lake,! has! relatively! good! access! to! markets! due! to! road! conditions! and! proximity!to!the!town!of!Ambatrondrazaka,!which!also!offers!opportunities!for!offAfarm!work.!The! area! also! receives! grain! buyers! from! Tamatave! (city! on! east! coast)! and! Antananarivo.! In! terms! of! landscape!topographic!components!(for!terminology!see! Figure! 7)! Mahatsara! has! few! tanety,! but! plenty!of!baiboho!for!rice!during!the!rainy!season!and!vegetables!during!the!dry!season.!There!are! also!many!irrigated!rice!paddies!(of!differing!levels!of!water!control),!fed!by!a!reservoir!at!Bevava.!CA! was!introduced!to!the!area!in!2000,!and!different!CA!practices!can!be!observed!today.!!

About!35!farmers!from!Mahatsara!participated!to!varying!degrees!in!the!project,!coming!from!the! villages!of!Ambohimbary,!Ambomanjaka,!Antenereina,!Ambatomainty,!Ambongabe,!and!Mahatsara.! ! Amparihitsokatra,!Madiorano,!Morarano!(north)! Amparihitsokatra! to! the! east! of! the! lake! is! more! isolated,! the! closest! large! town! being! Imerimandroso,! which! is! about! 7! km! north! with! a! population! of! approximately! 11,000.! Poor! road! conditions!(especially!during!the!rainy!season)!and!communications!limit!access!to!markets,!both!to! sell!produce!and!to!buy!inputs.!Production!occurs!primarily!on!the!relatively!fertile!tanety,!some!also! on!the!lower!slopes!but!few!baiboho'and!no!irrigation!is!being!used.!Production!focuses!mainly!on! rainAfed!crops!and!animals!(e.g.!fowl,!pigs,!zebu).!Given!the!lack!of!rice!paddies!(and!therefore!straw),! there!is!pressure!on!forage!resources!during!the!dry!season.!The!ability!to!grow!rainAfed!rice!in!the! tanety! was! an! important! innovation! in! the! area,! and! CA! practices! are! apparently! well! distributed! throughout! the! area! after! their! initial! introduction! in! 2003.! The! two! fokontany! of! Madiorano! and!

18!

! Morarano!border!the!lake.!They!share!similarities!with!Amparihitsokatra,!but!also!include!rice!fields! fed!by!the!lake!(with!varying!degrees!of!water!control),!as!well!as!fishing!as!an!important!offAfarm! activity!during!the!dry!season.!

About! 25! farmers! from! the! north! participated! to! varying! degrees! in! the! research! project.! In! Amparihitsokatra,!they!came!from!villages!of!Ambavahadiromba!and!Mahatsinjorano.!In!Madiorano,! group! members! were! from! Ambohimangabe,! Ampananganana,! and! Madiorano! villages.! Members! also! came! from! other! neighbouring! villages! such! as! Morarano! (in! Morarano! fokontany)! and! Betsianjava!(in!Betsianjava!fokontany).!

2.3.! Project! background:! forming! two! farmer! groups! and! designing! field! experiments! ! Forming!the!groups! !

! Figure$8.$Maps$depicting$locations$in$the$Lake$Alaotra$region$of$the$ten$experimental$sites$of$the$ABACO$project$2012N13$ and$principal$villages$where$participating$farmers$lived.$Top:$northern$study$site.$Bottom:$southern$study$site.$

19!

! ! Before! the! start! of! the! 2012A13! agricultural! year,! a! call! by! the! president! of! each! fokontany! drew! people!to!an!information!session!about!ABACO!and!the!proposed!farmerAmanaged!field!experiments.! It!was!explained!that!the!project!aim!was!to!help!farmers!adapt!CA!to!their!local!constraints!through! coAdesign!of!field!experiments,!and!that!they!would!observe!the!field!development!and!discuss!the! results!together.!That!initial!meeting!was!followed!by!several!more,!including!a!oneAday!presentation! of!CA!techniques!and!design!of!the!ten!field!experiments.!Meetings!were!held!twice,!one!in!each!of! the!two!research!areas!(sometimes!referred!to!in!this!report!as!“northern”!and!“southern”!groups).! Farmers! who! regularly! attended! meetings! and! followed! the! field! experiments! formed! the! core! of! each!group.!See!Figure!8!for!village!locations!and!per!study!area.! ! Brief!background!of!group!members! Both! groups! consisted! of! farmers! described! by! project! staff! as! adoptants,! exAadoptants,! and! nonA adoptants!of!CA.!They!included!men!and!women,!the!former!being!slightly!overArepresented.!Most! farmers!selfAidentified!as!ethnic!Sihanaka,'though!a!few!described!themselves!as!mixtures!between! Sihanaka! and! other! ethnicities,! and! several! in! Ambavahadiromba! village! as! Imerina.! Farmers! had! varied! backgrounds! in! terms! of! farm! activities! (e.g.! zebu,! land! area! and! land! types! farmed)! and! household! dynamics! (literacy! levels,! childrens’! educational! levels,! offAfarm! activities! and! rice! selfA sufficiency).!The!groups!were!formed!based!on!interest!and!active!!participation!in!the!project,!rather! than!being!a!reflection!of!an!existing!and!selfAinitiated!cohesive!farmers!community.!Although!most! members!from!each!region!may!have!been!aware!of!the!other!members,!their!social!networks!may! have!limited!their!interaction!prior!to!the!project.!Both!regions!did!have!somewhat!formal!existing! subAgroups,!created!around!2005!for!jointAcredit!access!facilitated!by!BRL!and!BEST.!Several!of!these! credit! groups! did! not! survive! due! to! tensions! related! to! (non)reimbursement! and! internal! power! struggles,! but! those! that! did! ascribed! the! unity! to! kinship,! friendship,! and! shared! ideas! and! objectives.!! ! Designing!the!field!experiments! Procedures!in!each!research!site!were!generally!conducted!in!the!same!manner.!Farmers,!technicians! (from!BRL),!and!an!agricultural!engineer!(ABACO!staff)!worked!together!to!discuss!what!aspects!of!CA! would!be!interesting!to!test,!and!together!designed!the!experimental!plans.!The!CA!cropping!systems! (Figure!9)! discussed! were! a! two! year! rotation! with! maize! +! leguminous! cover! crop8! in! year! n! and! upland! rice! in! year! n+1;! a! multiAannual! succession! with! a! crop! +! S.' ' guianensis! in! year! n! and! S.' guianensis!alone!in!year!n+1/2/3!to!be!followed!by!rice;!cassava!+!B.'ruziziensis!or!S.'guianensis'in! year!n!and!in!year!n+1/2!to!be!followed!by!rice!(see!Husson,!2013!for!proposed!CA!systems!in!the! Lake!Alaotra!region).!Each!experiment!was!carried!out!on!a!field!that!was!volunteered!and!managed! by!the!owner.!The!experimental!plans!were!decided!in!August!2012.!The!following!descriptions!result! from! an! interview! with! the! responsible! ABACO! staff! member,! as! well! as! her! written! reports! (see! Ranaivoson,!2012).!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8!Leguminous!cover!crops!to!be!associated!with!maize!were!Dolichos'lablab,!Mucuna'pruriens,!Vigna'umbellata!

20!

! Oct. April Oct. April Oct. A.

Maize!+!S.'guianensis S.'guianensis Rice

Oct. April Oct. April Oct. B.

Maize!+!D.'lablab'(or!M.' Rice pruriens,!V.'unguiculata)! !

Figure$ 9.$ Examples$ of$ crop$ rotations$ discussed$ during$ the$ coNdesign$ of$ field$ experiments$ between$ farmers$ and$ technicians.$A)$$a$multiNannual$succession$with$maize$+$Stylosanthes!!guianensis$in$year$n$and$S.!guianensis$alone$in$year$ n+1/2/3,$followed$by$rice.$B)$a$two$year$rotation$with$maize$+$leguminous$cover$crop$(Dolichos!lablab,!Mucuna!pruriens,! Vigna!umbellata)$in$year$n$and$upland$rice$in$year$n+1.$$Adapted$from$Husson,$2013.$

During!the!meeting!to!design!the!field!experiments,!ABACO!staff!explained!principles!of!conducting!a! field! test! (e.g.! sampleAsized! field,! different! treatments! managed! homogenously! in! order! compare! results).! It! was! repeated! by! the! ABACO! staff! that! BRL! technicians! and! staff! were! present! to! offer! advice!and!opinions,!rather!than!instructions,!as!many!farmers!were!accustomed!to!hearing.!In!other! words,!ideas!from!the!technicians!were!to!be!discussed!and!even!challenged.!In!some!cases,!farmers! did! decide! differently! than! what! the! technicians! proposed! (see! notes! in! individual! experiment! reports! for! details,! Appendices! IAX).! It! is! important! to! emphasize! that! the! farmers! led! decisions! regarding! what! to! test! (e.g.! live! cover! crops! or! dead! mulch,! land! types),! while! technical! staff! proposed!methods!(e.g.!layout).!

ABACO! purchased! and! delivered! inputs! considered! difficult! for! farmers! to! acquire! (due! to! costs,! availability,!and!distance!to!markets)!in!the!interest!of!facilitating!the!field!experiments.!This!included! seeds,!NPK!and!urea,!and!phytosanitary!products.!NPK!and!urea!were!included!because!field!owners! from!Ambavahadiromba!explained!that!they!usually!used!at!least!a!small!quantity.!In!the!interest!of! equality,!the!fertilizers!were!also!made!available!to!all!other!field!owners.!The!fertilizers!were!left!at! a!central!location!(e.g.!with!the!president!of!the!fokontany).!It!was!decided!to!put!signs!in!the!field!in! an!effort!to!discourage!zebu!foraging.!ABACO!staff!proposed!to!limit!subAplot!sizes!to!100m2!in!order!

21!

! to!reduce!potential!problems!from!a!lack!of!labour.!The!field!owners!were!responsible!for!all!other! inputs!and!all!management!decisions!that!were!not!specified!in!the!experimental!plan.!!

The!different!social!contexts!and!CA!experiences!of!each!group!influenced!the!process!of!designing! the!experimental!plans.!Mahatsara!members!generally!had!very!little!experience!with!CA!techniques.! The! group! wanted! to! test! different! cropping! systems! on! different! toposequences.! Initially,! one! woman!was!the!first!and!only!person!to!offer!a!field.!A!male!farmer!well!experienced!with!CA!then! proposed!to!conduct!a!group!tour!of!the!surrounding!land,!which!they!did,!and!people!volunteered! their!fields!during!the!walk!and!proposed!experimental!objectives.!After!the!tour,!there!was!a!CA! training!conducted!by!BRL!staff.!Following!the!training,!other!fields!and!objectives!were!proposed,! and!details!of!experimental!plans!were!modified.!

Members! from! the! northern! fokontany! (villages! of! Amparihitsokatra,! Madiorano,! Morarano,! Betsianjava)! were! generally! more! experienced! with! CA! techniques.! Many! of! them! had! followed! trainings! with! BRL! several! years! ago,! and! had! maintained! regular! contact! with! technicians! while! practicing!CA!techniques.!They!were!therefore!more!familiar!with!local!constraints!to!CA,!and!all!the! experimental! plans! were! decided! prior! to! the! CA! training! with! BRL.! Three! women! from! the! same! village!were!the!first!to!offer!their!land!for!field!tests.!After!some!time!two!men,!each!from!different! villages,!offered!the!use!of!part!of!their!fields.!Despite!their!experience!and!keenness!to!follow!the! field!tests,!others!refrained!from!offering!land!as!they!were!apparently!afraid!to!“compete”!(i.e.!they! were! afraid! their! experiments! would! not! perform! as! well! as! those! more! experienced).! Despite! encouragement!from!ABACO!staff,!and!assurance!that!it!was!not!competitive,!they!remained!firm!in! their!decision!to!observe!the!first!year,!and!perhaps!manage!field!tests!during!the!second!year.!

As! a! result! of! these! processes,! each! experiment! was! unique! in! its! development,! design! and! objectives.!Details!of!each!are!described!in!individual!experiment!reports!(Appendices!IAX).!

Other!meetings!throughout!the!year!!! Several! field! visits! were! conducted! throughout! the! agricultural! year! of! 2012A13.! They! included! farmers! who! were! able! to! participate,! ABACO! staff! (one! was! based! onAsite,! sometimes! joined! by! visiting!researchers),!and!the!occasional!local!BRL!technician.!Two!exchange!visits!were!held!during! April,! 2013.! They! brought! farmers! from! their! respective! locations! to! the! other! field! site,! and! conducted! a! tour! of! the! field! experiments! at! the! CALA! (the! FOFIFAAmanaged!“Centre!Régional!de! Recherche!Moyen!Est”)!research!station.!Two!feedback!meetings!were!held!in!early!June,!one!for! each!group,!to!present!results!of!biophysical!measurements!and!hold!discussion!about!conclusions! and!future!directions!of!next!year’s!field!experiments.!ABACO!staff!led!organization!of!logistics!for!all! meetings,!and!was!responsible!for!costs!of!transportation!or!meals!during!the!exchange!meetings.!! !

2.4.!Socio6technical!methodology!

This! study! combined! qualitative! and! quantitative! methodology! to! respond! to! research! questions.! Combining! a! literature! review,! initial! fieldwork,! and! the! ABACO! project! goals! generated! research! questions.! Fieldwork! included! biophysical! measurements,! interviews,! and! participant! observation! (during!project!meetings!and!extended!village!stays),!and!produced!respective!results.!Analysis!was!

22!

! facilitated! by! triangulating! different! data! types.! See! Figure! 5! for! the! conceptual! framework! used! during!the!implementation!of!the!field!study!and!the!structuring!of!this!thesis.!

Biophysical!measurements! Geographic! coordinates! (GPS)! and! plot! dimensions! were! recorded! for! all! experiments.! Other! measurements! varied! per! test! and! are! described! in! individual! experiment! reports! (see! Result! sections).!They!included!primary!crop!yield!(maize,!upland!rice!varieties,!and!Bambara!groundnuts! i.e.! Vigna' subterranea)! and! cover! crop! biomass! (Stylosanthes' guianensis,! Dolichos' lablab,! Mucuna' pruriens,! Vigna' umbellata).! Measurements! were! performed! onAsite! (in! the! field! or! village)! with! a! hand!held!scale!(max=15!kg,!d=20!g)!or!at!the!CALA!laboratory,!which!was!equipped!with!a!balance! (max=200! g,! d=0.01! g)! and! a! drying! oven! to! determine! dry! matter! content.! Some! tasks,! such! as! separating!and!counting!empty!and!full!rice!spikelets!were!partially!performed!by!a!CALA!technician! or! employee.! Harvest! operations! were! carried! out! together! with! the! participating! field! owners.! Analysis! also! varied! per! experiment! (see! Appendices! I! through! X)).! As! there! were! no! repetitions,! statistical! analysis! was! not! possible,!except!for!one!experiment!(1!north)!where!ANOVA!was!used! (XLSTAT!2013.2.03)!(see!Appendix!I).!

! Social!theory!and!methods! Technography'and'anthropology' No! single! social! theory! or! method! dominated! this! study.! Rather,! aspects! of! technography! and! anthropology!were!selected!to!inform!the!design!and!analysis!of!the!qualitative!research!methods! used.!!

Description' Technography!has!been!described!in!essence!as!the!ethnography!of! technology! in! use! (Glover,! 2011;! Jansen! and! Vellema,! 2011).! The! approach! was! developed! by! the! Technology! and! Agrarian! Development! group! at! Wageningen! University! in! response! to! limitations! of! existing! interdisciplinary! methodology! that! addressed! social! sciences! and! technology! use.! Due! to! its! origins,! it! has! often! been!applied!in!the!agricultural!domain!(e.g.!Almekinders!et'al.,!2011;! Glover,!2011).!!

Rather! than! understanding! technology! as! “inAuse! or! not”,! the! methodology! seeks! to! recognize! the! complex! social! and! technical! processes! and! relationships! in! three! dimensions:! making! or! doing! (focus! on! performance);! cognitive! distribution! (how! is! knowledge! distributed);! and! the! construction! of! rules! (roles! of! institutions)! (Jansen!et'al.,!2011).! $

Significant! importance! is! given! to! performance! (see! Richards! 1989;! Richards,!1993),!situated!and!embodied!knowledge!(Richards,!1989),! which! distinguishes! the! approach! from! its! theoretical! neighbours!

Technography such! as! action! research! and! participatory! approaches! (Jansen! and! 23!

! Vellema,!2011).!

Methods' The! methodological! emphasis! is! on! observation! and! participation,! rather!than!relying!upon!interviews.!!

Application' This!study!applied!aspects!of!technography!to!the!research!approach! in'this'study' and!analysis,!as!well!as!reflections!for!future!research.!!

Description' The!researcher’s!own!background!in!cultural!anthropology!indirectly! contributed! to! the! design! and! practice! of! this! research.! Writing! an! ethnography,! the! classic! text! of! cultural! anthropology,! implies! constructing!an!understanding!of!a!bounded!social!entity!(e.g.!a!social! group,! a! concept)! using! tools! such! as! participatory! observation! and! interviews!(or,!more!often,!discussion),!observation!and!recording!of! relevant! material! and! conceptual! elements! of! the! study! area! (Geertz’s!“thick!description”).!It!emphasizes!recognizing!the!influence! of! perspectives! –! the! researcher’s! own! included! (see! van! Maanen,! 1988!for!a!guide!and!reflection!on!ethnographic!methods).!

Methods' Participant! observation! is! a! key! tool! of! (cultural)! anthropological! fieldwork! and! technography,! but! is! also! widely! employed! in! social! research.! Observing! details! by! participating! in! daily! activities! and! conversation! provides! insights! that! inform! not! just! conclusions,! but! the! process! of! research! itself! (e.g.! designing! surveys! and! inAdepth! interviews)!(see!van!Maanen,!1988).!! ! OpenAended!interviews,!also!not!limited!to!a!particular!social!science!

$ discipline,! attempt! to! guide! discussions,! rather! than! dictate! a! clear! structure! of! questionAresponse,! and! to! encourage! interviewees! to! share!more!lengthy!and!complex!answers!than!the!less!useful!“yes!or! no”.!They!may!be!semiAstructured!or!inAdepth.!!

Application' This! study! applied! aspects! of! cultural! anthropology! to! the! research! in'this'study' approach!and!analysis,!as!well!as!reflections!for!future!research.! Cultural$Anthropology !

Participant'observation' Participant!observation!was!used!throughout!the!research,!including!day!trips!to!the!villages!for!field! visits!or!meetings,!during!interactions!with!project!staff,!and!while!working!in!the!field!experiments.! During!meetings,!observation!focused!on!social!dynamics!and!perceptions!of!the!field!tests.! ! This! technique! was! mostly! used,! though,! while! staying! in! the! villages! with! different! farmers! who! participated!in!the!project.!Approximately!55!days!were!spent!in!the!villages!throughout!February!to! the!beginning!of!June!2013.!Some!were!day!trips,!but!the!vast!majority!spanned!three!to!five!days!at! a!time.!Most!work!in!the!field!experiments!was!conducted!from!March!to!May.!Interviews!were!held! 24!

! from! April! to! the! end! of! May.! Farmers! organized! amongst! themselves! who! would! host,! varying! between! one! to! three! nights! at! a! time.! Observation! and! informal! discussions! about! interview! subjects,! references! to! social! networks,! body! language,! material! surroundings,! daily! rhythms,! consumption!and!communication!patterns!were!possible!during!meals,!daily!activities!(e.g.!collecting! water,!preparing!food),!and!walks!to!and!from!fields.!Although!not!all!details!were!directly!relevant! to! the! objectives! of! this! research,! they! were! useful! nevertheless! to! contextualize! data! and! impressions.! A! translator! present! during! all! visits! to! the! village! and! meetings,! and! her! role! was! consistent! from! the! beginning! of! research! until! the! second! to! last! week.! Her! high! level! of! competence!and!interest!in!the!study!naturally!expanded!her!role!to!include!cultural!interpretation,! which!contributed!invaluable!insight!to!interview!techniques!and!some!conclusions.!! ! Interviews' A!total!of!44!farmers!were!interviewed!(11!women,!33!men),!their!spouses!were!often!present!and! had!different!levels!of!participation!in!the!discussions.!Individuals!were!selected!due!to!attendance!of! the!initial!ABACO!meetings!(and!may!or!may!not!have!continued!to!participate!actively,!depending! on! their! availability! and! interest),! and! because! they! were! available! during! village! visits! in! April! to! May.!The!vast!majority!of!interviews!were!planned!one!week!in!advance!with!clear!meeting!times! and! a! preview! of! subjects! to! be! discussed.! Presenting! written! invitations! to! key! individuals! (e.g.! neighbor,! spouse,! a! dynamic! and! communicative! group! member)! proved! helpful! to! coordinate! logistics.! Although! the! interviews! were! recorded! on! a! dictophone! at! first! (with! consent! of! interviewee),!it!was!decided!to!discontinue!as!there!was!adequate!time!to!take!detailed!notes!during! moments!of!translation,!and!because!farmers!seemed!more!at!ease!without!the!device!present.! There!were!three!types!of!interviews:! • FortyAfour! individual! openAended,! semiAstructured! interviews! were! held! either! in! the! interviewee’s! home,! a! neighbour’s! home,! or! the! administrative! office! of! the! fokontany.! They! lasted!approximately!one!hour.!(see!Appendix!XI!for!individual!interview!guidelines)! • Seven! openAended,! semiA! structured! group! interviews,! organized! per! village,! were! held! after! individuals!had!been!completed!to!discuss!subjects!such!improvements!or!modifications!to!how! the! groups! and! experiments! worked,! future! experimental! objectives,! communication,! and! the! future!of!the!group!(see!Appendix!XII!for!group!interview!guidelines).!! • Approximately!six!inAdepth!interviews!occurred!informally!during!meals!and!meal!preparations,! while!harvesting!crops,!and!during!walks!to!and!fro!fields.!There!were!no!set!guidelines!for!these! interviews.! They! varied! depending! on! the! farmer(s),! but! generally! related! to! research! conclusions,!and!were!held!towards!the!end!of!fieldwork.!!!! ! Individual!and!group!interview!guidelines!were!structured!by!combining!insights!from:!! i)!previous!interviewAguided!research!conducted!in!the!area;!ii)!informal!discussions!with!BVLac,!BRL! and!ABACO!project!staff;!and!iii)!personal!field!observations!in!target!villages!and!surrounding!fields! during!biophysical!measurements.!Some!aspects!and!question!formulations!were!modified!after!preA testing,!and!varied!depending!on!the!farmers!addressed.!However,!in!almost!all!cases,!the!interviews! had!three!sections:!!I)!questions!regarding!the!farm!and!household;!II)!why!interviewed!participants! were!interested!to!engage!in!field!experiments!and!to!illicit!suggestions!for!next!year’s!work;!!and!III)! prevailing!perceptions!related!to!observations!pertaining!to!experiments!and!results.!Sections!I!and! III!provided!two!different!approaches!in!the!effort!to!understand!experiment!interpretations,!which! 25!

! was!helpful!in!the!attempt!to!mitigate!communication!challenges!between!researcher!and!farmers.!!! ! Technography! emphasizes! observation! of! performance! (what! people! do),! and! rarely! relies! on! interview!data!alone.!While!this!study!did!not!aim!to!observe!farmer!use!of!CA!on!their!own!farms! (performance),! it! was! nonetheless! important! to! improve! our! understanding! of! onAfarm! use! of! different! CA! practices.! This! technographyAinspired! approach! served! several! purposes.! First,! it! contributed! answers! to! research! questions:! 1a)! How! were! experiment! and! results! perceived! by! farmers?! 1b)! How! might! this! impact! the! structuring,! design! and! implementation! ! of! future! experiments!and!onAfarm!decisions?!2)!How!do!farmer!perceptions!of!CA!compare!between!ABACO! group! participants?! 2a)! What! are! the! key! factors! and! processes! that! govern! (the! lack! of)! farmer! participation! in! existing! coAinnovation! platforms?! Second,! it! provided! a! partial! inventory! and! characterization! of! the! different! farmers! who! participated! in! the! project.! Third,! it! proved! to! be! a! useful!approach!to!encourage!farmers!to!share!perceptions!or!interpretations!of!field!experiments.!!

Technography!was!particularly!influential!in!the!design!of!part!I!of!the!individual!interviews,!primarily! designed!to!respond!to!research!questions!1b!and!2!(see!above).!The!aim!was!to!recognize!varying! combinations!of!CA!practices!per!field,!rather!than!generalized!per!farmer!or!farm.!To!accomplish! this,! discussion! about! the! farm! addressed! each! field! individually,! attempting! to! ascertain! the! use! zeroAtillage! and! soil! cover! (defined! in! this! study! as! live! cover! crops! or! dead! mulch)! in! the! past,! present!(defined!as!the!agricultural!year!2012A13),!and!anticipated!future.!What!farmers!said!they! would!do!in!the!future!was!interpreted!as!an!expression!of!intent!or!interest.!Rotations!were!not! counted!for!several!reasons.!Firstly,!zeroAtillage!and!soil!cover!were!the!focus!of!most!experiments.! Secondly,! subjects! were! selected! in! interest! of! time.! Thirdly,! though! it! has! been! observed! that! rotations!are!one!of!the!first!of!the!three!CA!techniques!to!be!adopted!during!CA!promotion!(Penot! et' al.,! 2012a),! most! ABACO! members! had! little! experience! with! CA.! Interviews! also! encouraged! farmers!to!describe!per!field!the!land!type,!area,!soil!fertility,!fertilization!practices!and!typical!crops,! again!with!references!to!actual!or!anticipated!changes!over!time.!!

Analysis'of'interview'data' The! interview! data! was! transferred! from! written! notes! into! an! Excel! spreadsheet,! and! coded! by! content.!Analysis!followed!three!general!steps.!First,!general!themes!and!patterns!were!identified.! This!produced!a!typology!of!three!farmer!groups:!A,!farmers!who!had!used!zeroAtillage!or!soil!cover! at!least!once!in!the!past;!B,!farmers!who!used!zeroAtillage!or!soil!cover!for!the!first!time!in!the!2012A 13!agricultural!year;!and!C,!farmers!who!anticipated!using!zeroAtillage!or!soil!cover!in!the!future!for! the!first!time.!Farm!and!household!details!were!examined!separately!per!group!in!order!to!identify! patterns! or! themes,! which! were! described! qualitatively! or! represented! in! percentages! (e.g.! proportion!of!total!farm!land!on!rice!fields!vs.!tanety!and!other!land!types).!!!!!! ! Second,!the!themes!and!patterns!were!compared!to!expectations!and!impressions!that!had!formed! throughout! the! research.! Third,! conclusions! from! the! interview! data! were! triangulated! with! quantitative!data!from!the!field!experiments!(see!next!section).!!!!!!

Bringing!qualitative!and!quantitative!data!together! Triangulation!poses!the!possibility!of!combining!qualitative!and!quantitative!data,!though!it!does!not!

26!

! specifically!address!the!blend!of!social!and!natural!sciences9.!It!broadly!refers!to!the!technique!of! using!different!methods!and!perspectives!to!validate!responses!to!questions,!and!should!additionally! enhance!understanding!of!the!subject!in!the!process.!It!may!be!used!at!different!levels!of!research,! as!it!was!in!this!study.!At!the!most!simple,!it!was!helpful!during!interviews!and!discussion!to!crossA check! responses.! At! the! first! level! of! analysis,! it! was! used! to! draw! conclusions! from! individual! experiments! by! comparing! answers! to! three! main! questions:! How! did! farmers! interpret! the! experiment!results!–!through!their!own!observations!and!biophysical!measurements?!What!were!the! results!of!biophysical!measurements?!and!How!do!the!two!compare?!At!the!second!level!of!analysis,! it!was!used!to!gain!insights!from!a!wider!perspective!(combining!biophysical!and!interview!data,!and! participant! observation).! At! the! third! level,! the! different! complimentary! methodologies! were! triangulated!to!respond!to!research!questions.!!

2.5.!Report!structure!

Each!of!the!ten!field!experiments!is!documented!by!an!individual!description!including!the!following! components:! introduction,! materials! and! methods,! results,! discussion! and! conclusion.! They! are! presented!in!the!appendices!(Appendices!I!through!X).!Results!and!discussion!are!presented!together! in!one!section,!but!consists!of!two!parts.!Part!I!begins!with!an!overview!of!all!objectives!from!the!ten! field! experiments! (farmer! managed! pilot! studies).! This! is! followed! by! a! first! level! of! results! and! analysis:!a!brief!review!of!achievement!of!overall!experimental!objectives!followed!by!!a!summary!of! conclusions!drawn!from!related!objectives!along!with!!farmers’!suggestions!for!future!pilot!studies! next! year,! and! results! from! interview! data! pertaining! to! onAfarm! use! of! CA! practices.! Part! II! triangulates! data! from! a! yet! wider! perspective,! discussing! insights! drawn! across! experiments,! interview! data,! and! participant! observation.! It! also! includes! reflection! on! the! limitations! of! the! current! study.! The! synthesis! section! responds! directly! to! research! questions! and! hypotheses.! The! conclusion!!section!summarizes!main!points!of!the!study!and!offers!recommendations!for!the!future.!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 9 See!Denzin!(1970)!for!a!description!of!four!types!of!triangulation:!of!data,!theory,!investigators,!or! methodology.

27!

! 3.!Results!and!Discussion:!Part!I! This!section!presents!results!and!a!first!level!of!analysis!at!the!field!and!farm!scale.!It!begins!with!an! overview!of!the!experiments!(Table!3),! including! overall! objective! for! the! ten!pilot!studies.! This! is! followed!by!a!summary!of!conclusions!per!objective!(which!integrates!biophysical!results!and!farmer! interpretation!of!experiments),!farmer!suggestions!for!future!field!experiments,!and!a!presentation! of!onAfarm!use!of!0Atill!and!soil!cover!practices.!!

3.1.!Field!experiments:!overview!of!objectives! Table$3.$Key$agronomic$$features$of$the$ten$field$experiments$in$two$study$sites$(north,$south)$conducted$in$2012N13$with$ the$ABACO$project$in$the$Lake$Alaotra$region.$Primary$crops$were$maize$(Zea!mays),$upland$rice$varieties$(CNA$136,$B22,$ 2366,$SEBOTA$406),$cassava$(Manihot!esculenta)$and$bambara$groundnuts$(Vigna!subterranea);$and$cover$crops$were$ Stylosanthes!guianensis,$Dolichos!lablab,$Mucuna!pruriens,$two$crotalaria$varieties$(C.!juncea$and$C.!ochroleuca),$and$rice$ bean$(local$name$tsiasisa)$(Vigna!umbellata).$

Field! experiment! (NORTH)! 1! 2! 3! 4! 5!

rice!field,!poor!water! Toposequence! lower!slope! lower!slope! lower!slope! control! tanety'

Rice!varieties:! •!Maize! •!Rice!varieties! •!Rice!(SEBOTA!406)!! •!Maize! •!2366! •!Dolichos'! CNA!136,!2366! Crops! •!Crotolaria'juncea!! •!Dolichos'! •!SEBOTA!406! •!Rice!bean! •!Mucuna! •!Crotalaria'ochroleuca!! •!Mucuna! •!CNA!4136! (tsiasisa)! •!Dolichos!!

Treatments! and!subAplot! 18!(2!x!12.5!m)! 3!(10!x!10!m)! 4!(10!x!10!m)! 4!(8!x!10!m)! 2!(5!x!10!m)! size! !! ! Field!experiment! 1! 2! 3! 4! 5! (SOUTH)! gently!sloped' Toposequence! sandy!baiboho! tanety' steep!tanety! sandy!lower!slope! tanety' •!Maize! •!Maize!! •!Cassava! •!Rice!(B22)! •!Rice!(B22)! •!Beans!! •!Maize! •!Beans!! •!Rice!bean! •!Dolichos'! •!Stylosanthes! •!Bambara!groundnut!! Crops! •!Dolichos'! •!Mucuna! •!Mucuna!! •!Brachiaria! •!Brachiaria'residues! •!Stylosanthes!! •!Stylosanthes! •!Rice!bean!! •!Mucuna! (residues)! •!Brachiaria! •!Sorgum!! •!Dolichos! 4!(two!10!x!10! Treatments!and! 4!(8!x!10!m)! 5!(7!x!10!m)! 4!(5!x!20!m)! m;!two!12!x!10! 2!(5!x!20!m)! subAplot!size! m)! !

! 28!

! Objectives!categorized!by!similarities!

Although!each!experiment!was!unique!(Table!3),!the!majority!of!objectives!from!the!ten!experiments! may!be!grouped!into!3!categories.!!!

1)!Observe!and!compare!different!cover!crop:!! • development!! • development!with!different!sowing!dates! • ability!to!improve!soil!fertility!! • effects!on!maize!yield!! • effects!on!soil!cover!and!weeds! !

2)!Comparing!crop!performance!with!different!soil!management:!! • between!year!0!and!year!5!under!CA!management!! • between!two!different!fertilization!treatments!! • between!fields!with!and!without!mulched!residues! !

3)!Objectives!concerning!rice!production:! • Compare!effects!on!yield!between!different!upland!rice!varieties!! • Compare!effects!on!soil!cover!and!weeds!between!different!rice!sowing!densities! • Improve!soil!cover!by!relay!sowing!cover!crops!in!rice!! • Observe!upland!rice!on!tanety!

Additional!objectives!included!to!produce!dolichos!seeds!and!to!valorize!use!of!tanety.!

Achievement!of!objectives!

Of! all! the! objectives! across! experiments,! some! were! not! achieved! this! year! (intentionally! or! unintentionally),! some! were! partially! achieved! (intentionally! or! unintentionally),! and! others! were! achieved!(Figure!10).!!!!

29!

! North South 4 (poor water 1 (sandy 4 (gently sloped 5 (sandy lower Objective 1 (lower slope) 2 (lower slope) 3 (lower slope) control rice 5 (tanety) 2 (tanety) 3 (steep tanety) baiboho) tanety) slope) field)

Observe and/or compare development of different cover crops

Compare ability of different cover crops to improve soil fertility

Observe and/or compare cover crop development with different sowing dates

Compare maize yield when associated with different cover crops

Compare effect of different cover crops on soil cover and weeds

Observe and compare effects on yield between different upland rice varieties

Compare Bambara Compare effects Observe groundnut on yield and Compare crop development of development weeds between development Observe effects Produce dolichos two varieties of Valorize use of between parcels different planting between year 0 of cover crops on seeds crotalaria in a tanety with and without densities. and year 5 under soil erosion poor water mulched CA management Single occurrance control rice fie.d residues objectives

Compare effect on crop performance Observe upland between different rice on tanety fertilizer treatments

Indicates objectives Legend Indicates partially met objectives due intentionally unmet this forseen or unforseen reasons, may Indicates unmet objectives due to year, to be obtained next be achievable in the future unforseen reasons year !

Figure$ 10.$ Overview$ of$ objectives$ and$ toposequences$ for$ the$ ten$ field$ experiments$ in$two$study$regions$(north$and$ south)$of$the$ABACO$project$2012N13,$Lake$Alaotra.$Marked$boxes$are$indicative$of$objectives$that$were$either$partially$ achieved$or$not$achieved$(see$legend)$during$the$agricultural$year$2012N13.$No$pattern$indicates$that$the$objective$was$ fully$achieved.$

Four! objectives! were! intentionally! not! achieved! this! year! for! certain! experiments,! and! may! be! obtained!next!year:!! • Compare!effects!of!different!cover!crops!on!soil!fertility!(experiments!1!south,!3!south!–!will!also! compare!effects!on!erosion,!and!4!south)!! • Compare!effects!of!different!cover!crops!on!soil!cover!and!weeds!(experiments!2!north,!3!north)! • Produce!dolichos!seeds!(experiment!3!north)!

Due!to!unforeseen!reasons,!the!objectives!were!not!achieved!for!two!experiments.!! • For! 4! north,! a! comparison! of! cover! crop! development! with! different! sowing! dates,! and! observation!of!the!development!of!two!varieties!of!crotalaria!in!a!poor!water!control!rice!field! were!unfulfilled!due!to!heavy!rains!that!washed!away!most!of!the!crotalaria!seeds.!! • For!5!north,!observation!of!cover!crop!development!on!tanety!was!not!met!due!to!management! mistakes!and!lack!of!interest!by!the!owner.!Nevertheless,!5!north!still!afforded!discussions!about! cover!crop!performance!and!zeroAtillage!management.!

Six! objectives! were! partially! achieved! for! certain! experiments! due! to! foreseen! and! unforeseen! reasons!! • Observation! of! different! cover! crop! growth! as! affected! by! different! sowing! dates! in! 3! north! began!before!completion!of!this!research!and!will!be!fulfilled!in!the!future.!!

30!

! • The!objectives!valorize!tanety!and!observe!cover!crop!development!on!tanety'for!experiment!4! south!were!only!partially!fulfilled!due!to!dry!weather!and!a!misidentification!of!cover!crop!seeds.! Observations!may!continue!throughout!the!next!year.!! • Comparison! of! the! effect! of! different! cover! crops! on! soil! cover! in! 2! north! was! partially! met.! Observation!of!the!field!plots!planted!!with!both!dolichos!and!rice!bean!(Vigna'umbellata,!locally! referred!to!as!tsiasisa).! • A! comparison! of! the! rice! yield! between! two! different! fertilization! treatments! in! 1! north! was! partially! achieved! because! the! field! owner! applied! only! one! liquid! compost! application,! compared!to!two!of!NPK!and!urea.!It!was!generally!agreed!that!she!should!have! applied! two! liquid!compost!treatments.!!! • Both!objectives!of!experiment!2!south!A!observation!of!upland!rice!on!tanety!and!comparison!of! crop!performance!between!year!0!and!5!under!CA!management!A!were!partially!achieved!due!to! theft!of!the!rice.!Most!members!did!not!see!the!rice!during!maturation.!However,!those!farmers! who!were!able!to!shared!their!observations,!and!an!estimate!of!the!stolen!rice!yield!was!made! based!on!remaining!panicles!and!data!collected!earlier!in!the!season.!

Seven!objectives!were!achieved!for!certain!experiments:!! • Compare!development!of!different!cover!crops!(1!south,!3!south,!2!north)!! • Compare!maize!yield!when!associated!with!different!cover!crops!(2!north,!1!south,!3!south)! • Compare!effect!of!different!cover!crops!on!soil!cover!and!weeds!(1!south,!3!south)! • Compare!crop!performance!between!year!0!and!year!5!under!CA!management!(2!south)! • Compare!effects!on!yield!between!different!upland!rice!varieties!(1!north,!3!north)! • Compare!effects!on!rice!yield!and!weeds!between!different!sowing!densities!(1!north)! • Compare!crop!performance!between!fields!with!and!without!mulched!residues!(5!south)!

3.2.!Conclusions!from!achieved!and!partially!achieved!objectives!!

This! section! summarizes! conclusions! per! objective! (achieved! or! partially! achieved)! across! experiments.! Where! possible,! each! objective! is! discussed! in! terms! of! farmer! perceptions! and! biophysical! results.! See! experiment! reports! for! individual! experimental! plans,! complete! results,! discussion,!conclusions,!photographs,!and!details!such!as!comments!and!observations!by!the! field! owner!and!other!farmers!(Appendix!X).!

Observing!and!comparing!different!cover!crops!! Farmers!were!able!to!observe!and$compare!cover$crop$development!in!four!of!five!experiments:!2! north! (lower! slope);! 1! south! (sandy! baiboho);! 3! south! (steep! tanety)! and! 4! south! (gently! sloped! tanety).! It! should! also! be! noted! that! farmers! actually! had! the! opportunity! to! view! cover! crops! at! different!stages!of!development!and!conditions!in!nine!of!the!ten!experiments!even!though!it!was! not!the!stated!objective.!!

People!were!generally!pleased!with!cover!crop!development.!They!expressed!surprise!to!see!what! they!described!as!“good!growth”!on!the!sandy!baiboho!and!steep!tanety,!these!being!associated!with! relatively!infertile!soils.!mucuna!and!dolichos!were!generally!perceived!to!have!similar!characteristics!

31!

! due! to! leaf! shape,! similar! vertical! climbing! behavior,! and! continued! production! of! leaves! after! flowering! (see! Results! and! Discussion:! part! II! for! a! more! detailed! discussion! about! perceptions! of! cover!crops).!Farmers!usually!compared!them!against! tsiasisa,!which!did!not!climb!as!high!on!the! maize,!and!died!after!grain!production.!The!tendency!of!mucuna!and!dolichos!to!climb!high!on!the! maize!plants!was!perceived!negatively,!as!farmers!expected!that!it!would!lower!maize!yields.!Tsiasisa! also!climbed!on!maize,!but!remained!relatively!lower.!Their!effect!on!maize!yield!is!discussed!below.! Aside!from!overall!approval!of!their!growth,!there!were!no!general!conclusions!about!stylosanthes!or! brachiaria,!perhaps!due!to!their!early!stages!of!growth.!

Dry!weather!and!insect!damage!caused!farmers!to!express!concern!about!their!ability!to!produce! seeds!for!consumption!from!tsiasisa.!However,!they!positively!evaluated!tisasisa’s!ability!to!produce! biomass!for!potential!improvement!of!soil!fertility.!Indeed,!in!all!three!experiments!tsiasisa!produced! either! the! highest! or! second! highest! amount! of! biomass! out! of! three! cover! crops! (Figure! 11).! All! biomass!samples!were!harvested!during!flowering,!between!6!to!17!May10.!However,!the!plant!that! produced!the!highest!biomass!at!flowering!was!not!farmers’!preferred!cover!crop,!as!they!considered! other!factors!such!as!biomass!produced!over!time,!as!well!(discussed!further!below).!!!!!!

5.92! 6.00! 5.42! 4.98! 5.00!

4.00! 3.74! 3.41! 3.20! tsiasisa! 2.94! 3.00! 2.62! dolichos!+! tsiasisa! 2.00! dolichos! Biomass$(t/ha)$

1.00! mucuna!

0.00! 2!north! 1!south! 3!south! Experiment$ Figure$11.$Biomass$(t/ha)$of$cover$crops$associated$with$maize$in$three$different$field$experiments$(2$north,$ 1$south,$3$south)$of$the$ABACO$project$2012N13,$Lake$Alaotra.$Data$labels$are$cover$crop$biomass$values.$

Farmers!were!able!to!compare$the!maize$yield!when$associated$with$different$cover$crops!in!three! out!of!three!experiments:!2!north!(lower!slope),!1!south!(sandy!baiboho),!and!3!south!(steep!tanety).!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 10!Dates!when!biomass!samples!were!cut,!per!experiment:!1!south!–!stylosanthes,!mucuna!and!tsiasisa!were! cut!10!May;!3!south!A!tsiasisa'was!cut!on!10!May,!towards!the!end!of!florescence,!dolichos!and!mucuna!were! cut!17!May;!2!north!–!dolichos,!tsiasisa,!and!dolichos!+!tsiasisa!were!all!sampled!on!6!May.!Cover!crops!were! flowering!when!sampled,!although!mucuna!had!already!started!to!develop!seeds.!!

32!

! Farmers! were! generally! pleased! with! the! maize! development,! and! again! especially! on! the! sandy! baiboho!and!steep!tanety'fields.!Yield!results!were!actually!the!lowest!overall!for!these!two!of!the! three!experiments!(Figure!12).!It!seems!that!farmers!compared!their!visual!observations!with!what! they!expected!from!general!experience!with!these!land!types,!rather!than!with!a!certain!yield!goal!in! mind.!They!also!emphasized!that!the!priority!in!year!0!was!not!to!obtain!a!good!maize!yield,!but!to! fertilize! the! soil,! this! suggesting! that! they! would! not! express! concern! even! if! maize! yields! were! relatively!low.!

As! mentioned! above,! many! people! expressed! concern! about! mucuna! and! dolichos! causing! lower! maize! yields! by! climbing! too! high! and! too! thickly.! In! all! three! experiments,! maize! associated! with! dolichos,! mucuna,! or! dolichos! +! tsiasisa! did! produce! less! yield! than! with! tsiasisa' (Figure! 12).! In! 2! north!and!3!south!maize!yield!when!grown!with!tsiasisa!was!approximately!double!the!others,!but!in! 1!south!the!yield!of!maize!grown!with!tsiasisa!was!only!slightly!more!than!with!mucuna.!Although! other!factors!may!have!influenced!the!yields,!the!results!lend!support!to!farmer!concerns!about!the! yield! reducing! effect! of! mucuna! and! dolichos’s! climbing! behavior,! while! also! suggesting! that! the! effect!can!vary.!The!cover!crops!were!not!deterred!or!controlled!in!any!way!during!the!experiments.! Farmers!discussed!several!different!techniques!they!intend!to!test!in!future!experiments!and!on!their! farms!(discussed!in!more!detail!later!on).!It!seems!that!exploring!these!techniques!gave!confidence! to!the!farmers!in!their!ability!to!manage!the!crops,!as!they!expressed!strong!interest!in!growing!the! both!in!the!future!despite!yield!results.!!

There!did!not!seem!to!be!strong!competition!for!resources!between!maize!and!cover!crops.!As!both! were!growing!in!the!same!field!at!the!same!time,!competetion!would!have!implied!that!enhanced! growth!of!the!cover!crop!would!have!reduced!maize!growth!(e.g.!an!inverse!relation).!However,!in! general,!it!appeared!that!both!seem!to!be!indicators!of! overall!crop!productivity,! with!both!crops! performing!better!in!more!condusive!production!environments!!(Figure!13)!(e.g.!lower!slope!field!of! 2! north,!which!produced!the!highest!maize!yields!and!cover!crop!biomass,!is!considered!to!have! better!inhererent!soil!fertility!than!the!sandy!baiboho!of!1!south!and!the!steep!tanety!of!3!south).!!

3000! 2664! 2500!

2000! 1790! dolichos!+! 1500! 1258! tsiasisa!

Yield$(t/ha)$ 946! dolichos! 1000! 767!780! mucuna! 500! 291!324! tsiasisa! 0! 2!north! 1!south! 3!south! Experiment$

Figure$12.$Maize$yield$(t/ha)$associated$with$different$cover$crops$in$three$experiments$(2$north,$1$south,$3$ south)$of$the$ABACO$project$2012N13,$Lake$Alaotra.$Data$labels$are$maize$yield$values.$ 33!

! !

3000!

2500!

2000! maize!! 1500! Poly.!(maize!)!

1000! 2

Maize$yield$(kg/ha)$ y!=!0.0002x !A!1.0167x!+!2164.3! 500! R²!=!0.47667!

0! 0! 1000! 2000! 3000! 4000! 5000! 6000! 7000! Cover$crop$biomass$(kg/ha)$ !

Figure$13.$Relationship$between$cover$crop$biomass$and$maize$yield$in$three$experiments$(2$north,$1$south,$3$south)$of$ the$ABACO$project$2012N13,$Lake$Alaotra.$Both$are$indicators$of$crop$productivity,$performing$according$to$production$ environments.$$$

In!the!same!three!experiments,!farmers!had!the!opportunity!to! compare$ the$ effects$ of$ different$ cover$ crops$ on$ weeds.! According! to! all! three! field! owners,! the! weed! populations! were! similar! between! all! treatments,! and! had! less! than! typical! crop! associations! (such! as! maize! and! beans).! Assessment!of!weed!populations!was!performed!by!the!field!owner!and!recounted!verbally!during! conversations.!No!measurements!were!taken.!

Comparing!crop!performance!with!different!soil!management!! Farmers!were!able!to!compare$the$performance$of$two$different$crops!in$year$0$and$year$5$of$CA$ management! in!one!experiment:!2!south!(tanety).!It! was!the!only!experiment!with!this!objective.! Under!CA!management,!year!0!indicates!that!the!field!is!tilled!and!crops!are!planted,!and!that!tillage! is! discontinued! from! year! 1! onwards.! Perceptions! were! expressed! primarily! by! the! field! owner! as! many!farmers!were!not!able!to!observe!the!rice!in!maturity!before!it!was!stolen.!

Farmers! generally! expressed! that! the! dry! weather! reduced! the! bean! yields! across! fields,! and! that! comparing! production! between! fields! was! not! worthwhile! considering! effects! of! dry! weather! and! insects.!Indeed,!bean!yields!did!not!correspond!directly!with!soil!management!choices:!yields!were! similar!between!year!5!and!year!0!with!stylosanthes,!and!slightly!higher!with!year!0!with!dolichos! (Table!4).!!

Farmers!observed!that!in!the!year!5!field,!rice!grains!were!“more!robust”!and!“fuller”,!and!rice!tillers! were!greener,!indicating!more!soil!moisture.!They!predicted!it!would!better!survive!dry!conditions! than! the! adjacent! field! of! rice! in! year! 0.! The! observation! of! “fuller”! grains! did! not! correspond! to! results!(Table!5),!which!showed!that!!the!thousand!kernel!weight!was!higher!for!year!0!(33.85!g)!than! for!year!5!(26.05!g).!The!difference!in!grain!weight!may!be!due!to!slower!development!in!the!year!5! field!combined!with!the!early!harvest!before!grains!were!filled.!!!

34!

! They!also!anticipated!that!the!yield!would!be!lower!from!year!5!than!in!year!0,!but!pointed!out!the! expected!future!advantages!such!as!better!resistance!in!dry!weather!and!better!longAterm!soil!health! are!equally!important!factors!to!consider,!if!not!more!so.!The!rice!yield!was!indeed!lower!for!the!year! 5! field! with! 2070! kg/ha! compared! to! 3495! kg/ha! for! the! year! 0! field,! corroborating! farmer! projections.!

Although! the! yield! was! considered! important! in! the! comparison! between! years! 0! and! 5,! farmer! attention!to!additional!factors!indicate!their!concern!for!crop!resistance!during!unpredictable!climate! and!stable!yields!over!long!term.!It!is!important!to!note!that!the!dominant!opinions!were!those!of!an! experienced!CA!enthusiast.!!!

Table$ 4.$ Actual$ bean$ yield$ (weighed$ in$ pods)$ per$ subNplot$ (experiment$ 2$ south$ of$ the$ ABACO$ project$ 2012N13,$ Lake$ Alaotra).$$Each$subplot$was$70m2.$

Crop! Actual!yield!(kg/subAplot)!(weighed!in!pods)!

Beans!+!dolichos,!year!0! 6.46!

Beans!+!stylosanthes,!year!0! 6.10!

Beans!+!stylosanthes!mulch,!year!5! 6.12!

Table$5.$Selected$rice$yield$components$per$treatment$(experiment$2$south$of$the$ABACO$project$2012N13,$Lake$Alaotra).$$ Each$subplot$was$70m2.$

N˚! N˚! %! full! Weight! N˚! seed! panicles/seed! spikelets/ spikel 1000! Yield! Yield! Treatment! holes/m2! hole! panicle! ets! grains!(g)! (kg/m2)! (kg/ha)!

Rice,!year!5!! 12.20! 10.33! 95.50! 66! 26.05! 0.21! 2070! ! Rice,!year!0!! 12.60! 12.80! 108.50! 59! 33.85! 0.35! 3495! !

Farmers! had! the! opportunity! to! compare$ yield$ between$ two$ different$ fertilization$ treatments$ in! one! experiment:! 1! north! (lower! slope).! It! was! the! only! experiment! with! this! objective.! This! experiment!compared!yields!between!three!rice!varieties!with!three!different!sowing!densities!and! two!fertilization!treaments!(NPK!+!urea,!liquid!compost).!

Perceptions!were!few!and!there!were! no!general!consensus!on!field!observations! A! some!farmers! thought!the!field!with!NPK!and!urea!would!give!a!higher!yield,!whereas!others!said!there!were!more! empty! spikelets! and! shorter! panicles! in! the! same! field.! The! field! owner! said! she! had! not! applied! enough!liquid!compost!(once,!compared!to!two!treatments!of!NPK!and!urea),!but!if!she!had,!then!the! yields! would! be! similar! between! treatments.! Yields! from! fields! treated! with! liquid! compost! were! lower!for!all!varieties!(Figure!14),!with!differences!of!12!to!41!%!but!no!significant!differences!(see! ANOVA! in! Appendix! I).! The! comments! suggesting! higher! yields! with! liquid! compost! treatment,! despite!the!results!that!show!otherwise,!may!reflect!the!negative!opinions!that!some!farmers!hold! 35!

! for!long!term!effects!of!NPK!and!urea.!!!!!

4.00"

3.50" 3.26" 2.96" 3.00" 3.00" 2.63" 2.56" 2.50" 2.16"

! 2.00" liquid"compost"

Yield!(t/ha)! 1.50" NPK"+"urea" 1.00"

0.50"

0.00" 2366" CNA"4136" SEBOTA"406" Rice!variety!

Figure$14.$Rice$yield$(t/ha)$per$fertilization$treatment$and$variety$in$experiment$1$north$of$the$ABACO$project$2012N13,$ Lake$Alaotra.$Data$labels$are$rice$yield$values.$Vertical$bars$denote$standard$error.$

Farmers! had! the! chance! to! compare$development$and$yield$of$a$crop$grown$on$ fields$ with$ and$ without$mulched$residues!in!one!experiment:!5!south!(sandy!lower!slope).!

Greener!leaves!and!moister!soil!were!observed!in!the!field!with!mulch,!leading!farmers!to!anticipate! better! yields! from! the! field.! Bambara! groundnut! yield! from! the! mulched! field! was! approximately! double! that! of! the! field! without! mulch! (Table! 6).! In! the! mulched! field,!the!average!seed!size!was! larger!and!seeds!were!located!closer!to!the!soil!surface.!Although!farmers!were!impressed!before! and!after!learning!the!yield!results,!it!was!not!one!of!the!fields!they!volunteered!to!discuss!during! individual! or! small! group! conversations! about! the! experiments.! It! seems! that! few! farmers! in! the! groups!grow!Bambara!groundnuts!regularly,!and!were!therefore!less!interested!in!the!experiment! because!it!lacked!applicability!to!their!own!farming!practices.!!

Table$6.$Bambara$groundnut$yield$($t/ha)$(experiment$5$south$of$the$ABACO$project$2012N13,$Lake$Alaotra).$$

Treatment!! Yield!(t/ha)!

Mulch! 4.24! No!mulch! 1.90! $

Objectives!concerning!rice!production!

Farmers!were!able!to!compare$yields$between$different$upland$rice$varieties!on!CA!managed!plots! in!two!of!two!experiments:!1!north!and!3!north!(both!on!lower!slopes).!!

36!

! Beyond! general! comments! that! the! rice! grew! well! in! both! experiments,! there! was! no! general! consensus! on! yield! expectations! per! variety.! In! 1! north,! yields! were! similar! with! no! significant! difference.!In!3!north,!CNA!4136!produced!more!rice!than!2366,!although!the!2366!yield!was!affected! by! low! production! of! one! subAplot! for! unknown! reasons! (see! Figure! 15)! for! results! of! both! experiments).!The!diversity!of!farmer!opinions!about!yields!in!1!north!seem!to!have!been!supported! by!the!lack!of!significant!difference!between!variety!yields.!Several!farmers,!including!field!owners,! expressed!interest!in!growing!CNA!4136!as!it!was!a!new!variety!that!produced!approximately!equal! or!higher!yields.!!!!

3.50" 8.00! 7.20! 2.71" 2.79" 2.78" 3.00" 2.50" 6.00! 4.96! 2.00" 4.00! 1.50" Yield$(t/ha)$ Yield!(t/ha)! 1.00" 2.00! 0.50" 0.00" 0.00! 2366" CNA"4136" SEBOTA"406" 2366! CNA!!4136! Rice!variety! Rice$variety$

Figure$15.$Rice$yield$(t/ha)$per$variety$for$two$experiments$(left:$1$north;$right:$3$north)$of$the$ABACO$project$2012N13,$ Lake$Alaotra.$Data$labels$are$rice$yield$values.$Vertical$bars$denote$standard$error,$available$only$for$experiment$1$north.$

Farmers!had!the!opportunity!to!compare$the$effects$of$different$rice$sowing$densities$on$yield$and$ weeds$in!one!experiment:!1!north!(lower!slope).!Sowing!densities!were!20!x!25,!20!x!30,!20!x!40.!

This!research! plot! and! particular! objective! generated!many!responses!during!interviews.!Although! the!perceptions!were!diverse,!many!people,!including!the!field!owner,!anticipated!that!20!x!25!cm! would! result! in! the! highest! yield! due! to! a! higher! number! of! pockets.! Yields! for! 20! x! 25! subAplots! across!rice!varieties!were!generally!lower,!and!there!were!no!significant!differences!between!the! three!sowing!densities!(Figure!16).!Farmers’!anticipation!that!20!x!25!sowing!density!would!produce! the! highest! results! was! not! verified! by! the! results.! They! had! assumed! that! the! grain! production! would!be!the!same!per!seed!hole!between!different!planting!densities.!They!concluded!that!the!yield! difference!did!not!justify!the!increased!quantity!of!seed!necessary!to!sow!20!x!25!cm,!and!therefore! 20!x!40!cm!may!be!best!on!fields!located!on!lower!slopes.!!

Weed!populations!were!approximately!equal!between!plots!sown!with!20!x!25!cm!and!20!x!30!cm,! and!the!20!x!40!cm!plots!had!slightly!more.!Assessment!of!weed!populations!was!performed!by!the! field!owner!and!recounted!verbally!during!conversations.!No!quantitative!measurements!were!taken.!

37!

! 4.00" 3.17" 3.08" 3.06" 2.94" 3.50" 2.79" 2.78" 2.48" 3.00" 2.42" 2.10" 2.50"

2.00" 2366"

Yield!(t/ha)! CNA"4136"" 1.50" SEBOTA"406" 1.00"

0.50"

0.00" 20*25" 20*30" 20*40" Sowing!density! !

Figure$16.$Rice$yield$(t/ha)$per$variety$and$sowing$density$for$experiment$1$north,$of$the$ABACO$project$2012N13,$Lake$ Alaotra.$Data$labels$are$rice$yield$values.$Vertical$bars$denote$standard$error.$

Farmers! were! able! to! partially! observe$ effects$ of$ relay$ sowing$ cover$ crops$ into$ rice$ in$ order$ to$ improve$ soil$ cover! before! the! end! of! this! research.! Although! it! will! be! observed! in! the! future,! comments!up!to!early!June!concluded!that!the!dry!weather!was!principally!responsible!for!the!slow! growth! of! both! cover! crop! varieties,! and! that! perhaps! earlier! sowing! dates! would! have! improved! their!development.!!!!

Some! farmers! had! the! opportunity! to! observe$ upland$ rice$ on$ tanety! before! it! was! stolen.! An! exchange!visit!after!the!harvest!also!offered!the!chance!for!people!to!make!what!observations!they! could.! Farmers! from! Mahatsara! expressed! general! satisfaction! or! even! pleasure,! it! being! the! first! time!they!had!purposefully!observed!rice!on!tanety'(rice!in!Mahatsara!is!usually!produced!on!rice! fields!with!varying!degrees!of!water!control,!or!on!baiboho'during!the!rainy!season).'Farmers!from! the!northern!fokontany!were!not!particularly!interested!as!they!are!accustomed!to!growing!rice!on! tanety.!!

Other!objectives! Farmers!had!the!chance!to!valorize$use$of$tanety!in!one!experiment:!4!south!(gently!sloping!tanety).! Development! of! some! cover! crops! was! considered! poor,! blamed! on! dry! weather! conditions.! Observations! will! continue! throughout! the! next! year,! providing! an! opportunity! to! discuss! use! of! cover!and!primary!crops!on!this!type!of!tanety.!! !

3.3.!Farmer!suggestions!for!next!year’s!field!experiments!

Farmers! proposed! the! following! ideas! for! next! year’s! round! of! field! experiments.! They! were!

38!

! discussed!during!individual!and!group!interviews,!and!during!meetings.!

Strategic!use!of!the!ABACO!project!! • There! should! be! more! experiments,! but! on! larger! (full)! field! plots.! In! other! words,! all! the! interested!ABACO!members!should!now!try!to!implement!a!cropping!system!that!interests!them! on!an!entire!field!plot,!and!then!share!the!results!with!others!afterwards.!It!is!the!next!step!in!the! innovation!process!because!people!need!to!"do"!in!order!to!learn.!The!risk!of!being!discouraged! by!poor!cropping!system!performance!(due!to!lack!of!knowledge!or!good!management)!should! be!tempered!by!the!fact!that!people!have!already!seen!encouraging!and!positive!results!during! the!field!experiments.!Many!people!would!like!ABACO!to!be!an!intermediary!seed!supplier!to! support!this!next!step,!seeing!as!it!can!be!difficult!to!source!cover!crop!seeds.!! • The!best!time!to!discuss!experiments!and!other!ideas!with!farmers!is!just!before!the!beginning!of! the!agricultural!season.! • There!was!not!enough!discussion!and!exchange!between!farmers,!especially!between!those!from! the!two!different!regions.!The!aims!of!the!exchange!visits!were!to!observe!experiments,!rather! than!to!create!time!for!farmers!to!discuss!amongst!themselves.!There!should!be!more!people! present!at!the!meetings!before!and!after!the!experiments!in!order!to!facilitate!more!discussion.!! • Future!experiments!should!implement!ideas!discussed!for!how!to!control!cover!crop!growth!on! maize.! • Experiments! should! be! repeated! on! different! land! types,! and! in! different! villages.! This! would! reduce!the!need!for!people!to!travel!to!see!fields,!test!the!innovations!on!a!wider!variety!of!soil! and!land!types,!encourage!local!interest!for!people!who!are!interested!in!CA!practices!but!not! ABACO!participants,!increase!the!number!of!people!practicing! the! techniques! rather! than! just! observing.!! • There!should!be!some!kind!of!rule!put!in!place!to!discourage!tondraCboly!(a!cultural!practice!that! grants!common!grazing!rights!in!fields!after!harvests)!! • More!assistance!from!technicians!would!be!appreciated.!They!could!monitor!crop!growth!in!field! plots!and!make!sure!farmers!use!sound!agronomic!practices!in! the!field!studies,! although! the! technicians!do!not!need!to!give!strict!instruction!to!farmers.!! !

These!suggestions!and!recommendations!imply!that!farmers!would!like!to!make!use!of!the!material! and!other!support!offered!by!ABACO!while!it!exists,!even!if!they!were!also!contributing!constructive! criticism!about!how!the!participative!research!project!functions.!The!opportunity!to!discuss!between! farmers!from!different!fokontany,!for!example,!was!made!possible!because!the!project!organizes!and! bears! costs! for! transportation! and! a! meal,! as! well! as! being! the! catalyst! for! people! from! different! social! networks! to! come! together.! Similarly,! interest! in! expanding! the! number! and! location! of! experiments! (as! well! as! the! informal,! larger! “real! field”! experiments),! which! all! occur! on! farmerA owned! and! managed! fields,! may! also! have! been! encouraged! by! the! expectation! of! input! support! (ABACO!provides!seeds,!some!fertilizers,!and!insecticides!for!the!field!experiments).!Assistance!from! technicians! (technicians! being! any! outsider! with! agronomic! knowledge)! and! foreigners! (such! as! researchers)! may! also! contribute! to! this! interest.! Almost! every! farmer! discussed! the! need! to! be! “made!aware”,!“encouraged”,!or!“led”!towards!“improvement”!–!not!only,!but!often,!by!outsiders! with! different! technical! knowledge.! Association! with! outsiders! also! brings! advantages! related! to! authority,!such!as!the!weight!of!their!presence!through!a!painted!sign!post!banning!tondraCboly.!!! 39!

! The! region! has! a! long! history! of! development! projects.! The! most! recent! situated! technicians! in! different!villages!to!promote!CA!ended!during!the!first!year!of!the!field!experiments!(in!May!2013).! This!reality,!in!addition!to!the!constant!reminders!during!meetings!and!interviews!that!support!from! ABACO!would!terminate!in!the!near!future,!may!have!further!encouraged!farmers!to!take!advantage! of!the!timeAlimited!resources.!Strategic!consumption!of!development!projects!has!been!discussed!as! a!smallholder!strategy!(Michener,!1998),!and!seems!to!have!played!a!role!in!this!case.!Nonetheless,! the! proposals! above! may! simultaneously! be! interpreted! as! genuine! interest! in! innovation! development,!with!the!support!of!a!project!entity.!!!!

Continuation!of!exchange!in!the!future! • The!two!ABACO!groups!should!create!a!type!of!headquarters,!with!representatives!from!each! region.!They!could!facilitate!communication!between!the!communities!(e.g.!to!take!orders!for! vetch! seeds,! organize! meetings)! and! perhaps! coordinate! visits! to! share! knowledge! and! innovations.! Farmers! were! aware! that! this! organization! would! require! selfAgenerated! funding.! Members! from! Mahatsara! proposed! the! idea,! but! initial! interest! spread! and! each! group! has! already!chosen!four!representatives.! • Farmers!from!Mahatsara!proposed!that!their!group!should!have!one!common!field,!donated!by! somebody,!worked!by!everybody!interested,!close!to!the!village.!It!would!serve!several!purposes:! (1)!demonstration!field!(2)!production!of!seeds!that!could!be!sold!to!finance!the!bureau!(3)!a! central!place!to!gather!that!would!offer!the!opportunity!for!people!to!exchange!information.! • In! the! future! even! after! ABACO! project! terminates,! some! farmers! from! Mahatsara! hope! the! group!will!continue!to!exchange!knowledge!amongst!members.!They!proposed!that!it!should!be! open! to! everybody! to! join,! though! there! should! be! some! kind! of! informal! training! by! existing! members!first!in!order!to!encourage!group!cohesiveness!by!establishing!common!objectives.!!

These!proposals!give!the!impression!that!some!farmers!would!like!to!continue!information!exchange,! within!and!between!groups.!It!is!possible!that!the!Mahatsara!group!seemed!most!interested!as!they! were!least!experienced!with!CA!techniques,!implying!that!they!would!most!benefit!from!information! exchange,! as! well! as! other! potential! advantage! of! being! in! contact! with! the! northern! group.! For! instance,!this!year!some!farmers!in!the!north!had!an!excess!of!vetch!seeds!that!they!were!willing!to! sell!to!farmers!from!the!southern!group.!Whether!the!groups!continue!to!exist,!and!whether!they!see! mutual!benefits!from!an!exchange!remains!to!be!seen.!

3.4.!On6farm!use!of!zero6tillage!!and!soil!cover!techniques!over!time!

This! section! presents! farmers’! use! of! zero! tillage! and! soil! cover! across! time.! Soil! cover! refers! to! purposeful! use! of! mulched! residues! –! exCsitu! or! inCsitu' residual! mulch! (Erenstein,! 2003)! A! or! live! leguminous!cover!crops.!Observations!included!past!and!current!practises!up!to!the!2012A13!growing! season! and! future! refers! to! planned! activities! starting! from! the! 2013A14! cropping! season.! What! farmers!said!they!will!do!in!the!future!was!interpreted!as!an!expression!of!intent!or!interest.!The!data! comes! from! interviews! with! 44! farmers,! all! participants! to! some! degree! in! the! field! experiments.! Interviews!addressed!characteristics!and!management!decisions!of!each!land!field,!as!well!as!certain! farm! and! household! characteristics.! Therefore,! all! statements! by! farmers! and! trends! presented! in! this!section!refers!only!to!these!44!farmers!and!is!based!on!direct!communication!and!information! collected!during!interviews.!! 40!

! First,!a!brief!list!of!typical!practices!gives!some!background!context!with!which!to!compare!any!use!of! zeroAtillage!!or!use!of!soil!cover.!Second,!the!44!farmers!are!described!in!three!groups!according!to! how!their!use!of!zeroAtillage!and!soil!cover!may!have!evolved!over!time.!Those!in!the!group!A,!have! used!one!or!both!of!the!two!practices!at!least!once!in!the!past.!People!in!group!B!tried!at!least!one!of! the!two!practices!in!the!current!agricultural!year!(2012A13).!Farmers!in!group!C!verbally!expressed! trying!zeroAtillage!!or!soil!cover,!or!both,!for!the!first!time!in!the!near!future.!Third,!other!farm!or! household! characteristics! such! as! interviewee! age,! number! of! zebu,! farm! area! per! toposequence,! and!offAfarm!activities!are!also!presented!per!group!in!Table!7.!Conclusions!drawn!from!these!results! are!discussed!later.!

Typical!practices! Typical! practices! described! by! farmers! during! interviews! and! conversations! include! the! following:! annual!tillage!and!occasional!use!of!a!fallow!year!(there!were!very!few!fields!left!intentionally!fallow,! and!further!questioning!revealed!that!it!was!often!because!the!field!was!too!infertile!or!flooded).!In! terms!of!fertility!management,!zebu!manure!was!commonly!used,!while!there!is!little!to!no!use!of! chemical! inputs! (NPK,! urea,! phytosanitary! products),! and! there! appears! to! be! a! preference! for! organic!fertilizers11.!There!is!no!specific!use!of!cover!crops!or!mulching.!In!terms!of!food!and!cash! crops,!rice!production!is!prioritized!when!possible!for!both!home!consumption!and!cash.!Rotation! practices! were! not! discussed! in! detail! due! to! time! limitations,! but! in! the! majority! of! fields! most! farmers!grew!less!!than!three!crops,!either!in!succession!or!at!the!same!time!in!different!parts!of!the! field.!Few!are!practicing!crop!associations!aside!from!maize!and!beans,!but!this!may!have!been!due! to!the!limited!time!spent!on!the!subject.!! ! Past!history!of!zero5tillage,!soil!cover,!or!both!(Group!A)! 31! farmers! (14! from! the! south! and! 17! from! the! north),! group! A,! have! tried! zeroAtillage! ! or! cover! crop/residues! in! at! least! one! field! prior! to! the! current! agricultural! year! (2012A2013).! Within! this! group,!there!is!an!overall!expression!of!intent!to!increase!incidence!of!practicing!zeroAtillage!!and!soil! cover!techniques.!!

More!people!tested!a!soil!cover!technique!in!the!past!other!than!zero!tillage.!Those!from!Mahatsara! were!more!likely!to!try!either!in!this!agricultural!year!or!the!future!than!their!northern!colleagues.! This!may!be!because!those!in!the!north!have!already!experimented!more!with!CA!techniques.!For! example,!in!Mahatsara,!an!average!of!15%!of!fields!per!farm!used!!zero!tillage,!and!23%!cover!crops! or!residues!at!least!once!in!the!past!while!the!respective!numbers!for!farmers!from!the!north!were! 36!and!52%,!respectively.!!

Once!farmers!started!using!zero!tillage,!they!tended!to!continue!its!use!for!that!specific!field!:!18! farmers!who!started!zeroA!tillage!in!the!past!continued!into!the!current!year,!and!anticipated!to!be! continuing! it! in! the! future! as! well.! Farmers! also! increasingly! used! zero! tillage! in!the!current!year,! either!on!additional!fields!or!on!their!farm!for!the!first!time.!They!expressed!intention!to!continue! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 11!Several!farmers!expressed!a!clear!dislike!for!chemical!fertilizers,!saying!they!“burn”!the!soil,!resulting!in! hardened!and!“dead”!earth.!Unfortunately,!there!was!not!adequate!time!to!discuss!the!subject!further.!See! Vanlauwe!and!Giller!(2006)!who!address!this!soAcalled!myth,!which!they!have!heard!in!both!public!and! academic!domains.!!!

41!

! with!this!practice!in!the!future!(11!anticipate!expanding!their!use!of!zero!tillage!to!more!fields!in!the! future,!and!four!intended!to!use!it!for!the!first!time).!Some!people!did!resume!tillage!on!field!!due!to! cover!crop!failure,!flooding,!or!dry!conditions.!In!the!rare!case!of!zero!tillage!of!more!than!five!years,! the! owners! said! they! had! or! will! practice! opportunistic! tillage! to! reduce! soil! compaction,! weed! pressure,!or!both.!!!

Similarly,! once! farmers! started! with! a! cover! crop! or! residues,! they! tended! continue! in! the! same! fields:!26!who!started!in!the!past!continued!into!the!current!year!and! anticipate! doing! so! in! the! future.!!Farmers!also!increased!use!of!soil!cover!techniques!in!the!current!year,!either!on!additional! fields!or!on!their!farm!for!the!first!time.!They!expressed!intention!to!continue!with!this!practice!in! the!future!(11!farmers!anticipate!adding!soil!cover!to!fields!next!year).!Almost!half!of!the!group!also! added,!or!anticipate!adding,!a!cover!crop!variety!that!they!have!not!yet!tried!before.!If!expressions!of! intent!are!realised,!then!all!members!will!be!using!either!cover!crops!or!residues!on!at!least!one!of! their!fields!next!year.!

First!time!use!of!zero5tillage!,!soil!cover,!or!both!in!the!current!agricultural!year!(Group!B)! Five!farmers!(four!from!the!south,!and!1!from!the!north)!used!cover!crops!for!the!first!time!in!the! current! agricultural! year! (2012A13).! All! plan! to! continue! with! cover! crops! in! the! future,! as! well! as! diversifying!the!species!of!cover!crops!used.!None!tested!zeroAtillage!!in!the!past!or!this!year,!but!all! five!express!intent!to!begin!in!the!near!future.!!

First!time!use!of!zero5tillage!,!soil!cover,!or!both,!in!the!future!(Group!C)!

Five!farmers,!all!from!the!Mahatsara!fokontany,!anticipate!trying!zeroAtillage!,!cover!crops,!or!both! for!the!first!time!next!year!(2013A14),!or!if!not!possible,!in!the!near!future.!!!

Three!farmers,!all!from!the!Mahatsara!fokontany,'expressed!no!intention!to!try!zeroAtillage!!or!soil! cover!practices!in!the!near!future.!

Other!farm!and!household!characteristics! Results! from! farm! and! household! characteristics! are! presented! in! a! table! format! (Table! 7)! and! discussed!later!on!in!the!report.! !

42!

! Table$ 7.$ Farm$ and$ household$ characteristics$ of$ interviewed$ farmers$ who$ participated$ in$ the$ 2012N13$ ABACO$ field$ experiments$in$the$Lake$Alaotra$region.$Data$is$from$interviews$with$41$farmers$about$first$use$of$zeroNtillage$$or$soil$ cover$practices$in$the$past$(group$A),$current$year$2012N13$(group$B,),$or$future$(group$C).$Headings$“North”$and$“South”$ under$Group$A$refer$to$farmer$groups$from$the$two$study$sites.$Group$B$included$four$farmers$from$the$south,$and$one$ from$the$north.$Group$C$consisted$of$farmers$from$the$south,$only.$OffNfarm$activities$included$market$intermediaries,$ small$shop,$weaving,$fishing,$labour$on$other$farms,$masonry,$and$animal$husbandry.$

$$ Group$A$$ Group$B$ Group$C$ North' South'

!N˚!farmers! 14! 17! !5! !5!

Land!area!(ha)! !! !! !! !! Total!used! 3.60! 3.50! 2.20! 3.84!

Rice!fields! 2.27! 0.79! 0.44! 2.40!

Baiboho' 0.54! 0.46! 0.36! 1.29!

Lower!slope! 0.03! 0.13! 0.02! 0.00!

Tanety' 1.92! 0.61! 0.56! 0.14!

Let! 0.12! 0.56! 0.00! 0.80!

Rented! 0.25! 0.62! 0.00! 0.35!

Other!characteristics! !! !! !! !!

Evenly! distributed! Evenly! distributed! across! All! in! 30s! except! one! in! Interviewee!age! across!40s,!50s!and! 30s,!40s,!50s,!and!60s! 60s! 60s!

Relatively! evenly! N˚!zebu! distributed! between! 0A15,! 0A20!! 0A16! one!person!had!20!

N˚!of!housenolds! 15! reported! no,! 9! yes,! 3! 4! no,! 1! said! that!are/not!rice! 4!no,!1!yes! sometimes.! sometimes! selfAsufficient!

N˚!who!participated! 5! 0! 2! in!former!trainings!

N˚!households!that! conduct!offAfarm! 20! 4! 2! activities! N˚!households! paying!for!a!child!in! 14! 1! 1! high!school,!past/! present!

43!

! 4.!Results!and!Discussion:!Part!II! !

This!section!triangulates!data!from!field!experiments,!interviews,!and!personal!observations!during! project!meetings!and!village!visits.!The!purpose!is!to!broaden!the!perspective!of!previous!analysis!by! building! upon! subjects! in! the! previous! section! while! adding! other! insights,! some! of! which! are! contextualized!with!other!related!studies.!Although!domains!do!overlap,!it!may!be!helpful!to!see!the! following!subAsections!as!related!more!closely!to!either!technical!or!social!components.!Technical:! perceptions!of!cover!crops,!perceptions!of!constraints!and!advantages!of!CA!techniques,!highAimpact! experiments,! onAfarm! use! of! zeroAtillage! and! soil! cover! techniques! over! time,! and! land! use! A! preferences!for!CA!practices.!Social:!land!use!–!tenure,!motivation!to!participate!in!field!tests,!social! networks! and! sharing! knowledge! amongst! farmers,! gender! and! CA,! and! comprehension! of! experimental!procedures.!Limitations!of!this!study!are!also!discussed!at!the!end!of!this!section.!!

4.1.!Perceptions!of!cover!crops!!

Mucuna,!dolichos!and!vetch!were!the!cover!crops!most!cited!to!be! planted! in!the!future,!despite! challenges! such! as! inputs! required! to! produce! seeds! and! climbing! behavior.! Of! 44! people,! 24! indicated!wanting!to!try!vetch!on!baiboho!and!rice!fields,!21!anticipated!growing!dolichos!or!mucuna,! 16! planned! to! grow! stylosanthes,! 11! wanted! to! grow! brachiaria,! and! just! 9! planned! for! tsiasisa.! Farmers! planned! to! plant! dolichos,! mucuna,! sylosanthes,! brachiaria! and! tsiasisa! on! baiboho! and! tanety.!

Although!vigorous!cover!crop!growth!was!positively!perceived!in!terms!of!its!ability!to!control!weeds! and! contribute! to! soil! fertility,! the! species! that! produced! the! most! biomass! (measured! during! flowering)!was!not!necessarily!farmers’!preferred!choice.!Biomass!produced!over!time!and!physical! qualities!seemed!to!be!considered!more!important.!In!two!of!the!three!experiments!where!cover! crop! biomass! was! measured,! tsiasisa! produced! the! most! biomass! compared! to! two! other! cover! crops.!In!the!third!experiment,!tsiasisa!produced!the!second!highest!biomass!compared!to!the!other! two! treatments.! Nevertheless,! most! discussions! revealed! that! farmers! preferred! mucuna! and! dolichos!for!cover!crops!if!the!goal!was!to!fertilize!the!soil,!because!they!continued!to!produce!leaves! after!grain!harvest!(unlike!tsiasisa).!If!it!were!a!priority!to!consume!the!seeds!as!well,!they!said,!then! tsiasisa! was! the! logical! choice.! One! farmer,! who! tried! growing! mucuna! once! in! the! past! but! otherwise! observed! the! leguminous! crops! in! other! people’s! fields,! described! dolichos! leaves! as! slightly! oily,! and! therefore! better! at! retaining! soil! humidity! when! they! layer! on! the! soil.! Several! farmers! described! tsiasisa! leaves! and! stems! as! “softer”! than! those! of! mucuna! or! dolichos,! and! therefore! decompose! faster! and! provide! less! soil! cover.! Fieldwork! ended! just! after! the! flowering! period!of!most!cover!crops,!but!discussions! about! soil! cover! seed! production! can! be! held! later! in! 2013A14.!!

Mucuna! and! dolichos! were! perceived! by! most! farmers! to! be! functionally! interchangeable! due! to! their!similar!characteristics!(e.g.!climbing!behavior,!similar!leaves,!seeds!are!not!considered!edible)! that!distinguished!them!from!the!most!similar!cover!crop!tsiasisa!(climbs!to!a!lesser!extent,!seeds!are! valued! as! food).! This! results! from! their! observations! in! the! field! experiments! and! in! fields! of! 44!

! neighbouring!farmers,!as!well!as!their!personal,!but!limited,!experience!with!the!crops.!Even!some! who!have!grown!one!or!both!of!the!crops,!such!as!field!owners!of!field!experiments,!admitted!having! trouble!to!distinguish!the!two.!!

Vetch!was!not!part!of!the!experiments,!but!after!both!groups!had!a!tour!of!a!rice!field!grown!with! vetch,! farmers! showed! great! interest! (see! “high! impact! experiments”! for! more! discussion! of! reactions!to!the!vetchArice!system).!A!total!of!24!farmers!anticipate!growing!vetch!next!year,!ten!for! the! first! time.! Several! of! these! farmers! were! from! Mahatsara,! and! bought! vetch! seeds! from! their! northern! colleagues.! Their! positive! impressions! of! the! field! grown! with! vetch! seem! to! have! influenced!their!intentions!to!plant!vetch!in!their!own!rice!fields!next!year.!!

Few! farmers! aside! from! the! field! owners! volunteered! opinions! about! stylosanthes! in! the! experiments,!so!it!was!unexpected!when!many!more!expressed!interest!to!grow!it!in!the!future.!They! were! generally! vague! about! why,! the! overall! comment! being! that! it! seems! to! grow! well! in! the! experiments!and!so!they!were!curious!to!try.!It!may!also!be!that!that!they!had!observed!it!growing! well!in!neighbouring!fields,!seeing!as!a!couple!of!people!referred!to!such!plots!as!potential!sources!of! seedlings.!

Brachiaria! may!be!used!as!fodder,!and! seemed! most!interesting!for!farmers!with!zebu.! Of!the!44! farmers!interviewed,!25!reported!owning!zebu.!Although!fifteen!zebu!owners!had!never!and!do!not! intend! to! grow! brachiaria,! ten! zebu! owners! said! they! had! tried! or! will! try! in! the! future.! Only! one! farmer!who!owned!no!zebu!grew!brachiaria.!!

The!relatively!low!interest!in!tsiasisa! appeared!to!be!due!to!its!earlier!termination!following!seed! production! (therefore! less! organic! matter! contributed! to! the! soil),! as! well! as! the! difficulties! in! producing!enough!seeds!for!consumption!(due!to!dry!weather!and!insect!damage).!

Farmers!described!the!required!insecticide!treatments!to!produce!cover!crop!seeds!(for!consumption! or!for!seed!production)!as!a!constraint,!but!many!still!expressed!intention!to!grow!them!in!the!future.! Depending!on!the!farmer,!perhaps!this!implies!their!relative!confidence!in!being!able!to!acquire!and! apply!pesticides!effectively,!possibly!expecting!or!hoping!that!the!project!would!assist.!They!said!the! likelihood!of!sourcing!adequate!agrochemicals!increased!if!they!started!with!relatively!small!fields!or! sections!of!fields!(e.g.!0.01!A!0.02!ha).!It!may!also!imply!that!the!perceived!potential!benefits!of!the! cover!crops!are!more!important!than!being!able!to!harvest!seeds!despite!the!cost!of!acquiring!them! again.!At!the!end!of!the!experiments,!tsiasisa!was!described!as!requiring!spraying!in!order!to!produce! seeds.!While!farmers!described!tsiasisa’s!softer!leaves!(than!dolichos!or!mucuna),!as!well!as!its!thick! growth!observed!in!some!fields!(attractive!to!host!insects)!as!possible!reasons.!!

Concerns!about!the!vertical!climbing!behavior!of!mucuna!and!dolichos!reducing!maize!yields!were! generally! supported! by! biophysical! results,! which! showed! overall! slightly! lower! maize! yields! with! mucuna!and!dolichos!intercrops!compared!to!tsiasisa!and!first!year!stylosanthes.!This!led!to!several! practical!discussions!about!how!to!control!the!cover!crop!growth!in!the!future.!Methods!discussed! included!sowing!the!cover!crops!after!the!maize,!lightly!trampling!or!cutting!cover!crop!stems!as!they! start!to!grow!too!high,!or!choosing!appropriate!land!types.!!(e.g.!less!aggressive!growth!on!tanety! than! baiboho! due! to! differences! in! soil! fertility).! Farmers! seemed! confident! in! these! techniques,! saying! that! the! experiments! were! just! the! first! year! and! that! results! will! improve! as! they! gain!

45!

! experience.! In! future! field! experiments,! it! would! be! useful! to! demonstrate! and! test! the! different! methods! discussed! above.! Asked! how! the! climbing! behavior! and! thick! growth! might! affect! the! (increased)! presence! of! rats,! the! general! opinion! seemed! that! they! were! present! with! or! without! cover!crops.!!

Farmers! generally! did! not! attribute! value! to! additional! uses! of! mucuna! and! dolichos! beyond! soil! fertility.!Calls!for!attention!to!multiple!uses!of!cover!crops!beyond!soil!fertility!are!aimed!to!improve! their!attractiveness!by!increasing!their!usability!in!other!dimensions!of!the!farming!system!(e.g.!cash,! fodder,! home! consumption)! (Mureithi! et' al.,! 2003;! Schulz! et' al.,! 2003).! However,! farmers! interviewed! seemed! to! be! satisfied! with! mucuna! and! dolichos! as! green! manure! alone,! and! the! potential! use! of! the! edible!seeds!for!consumption!did!not!seem!to!be!of!interest.!The!beans!are! consumed!in!certain!regions!of!Madagascar!but!are!not!part!of!the!cultural!diet!in!the!Alaotra!region.! Only!one!person!reported!having!tried!dolichos!seeds,!reporting!them!to!be!very!“fatty”12.!It!raises! the!question,!would!be!advantageous!to!promote!the!edibility!of!these!cover!crops!as!an!additional! use?!However,!this!seems!unlikely!considering!that!insecticide!treatments!required!to!produce!grains! of!tsiasisa! and!mucuna!were!already!cited!as!a!constraint.!In!addition,!proposing!changes!to!such! deeply!embedded!cultural!norms!such!as!diet!may!be!extremely!challenging.!!

4.2.!Perception!of!constraints!and!advantages!of!CA!techniques!

Farmers!of!different!experience!levels!were!generally!optimistic!about!the!potential!benefits!of!CA! techniques,!despite!their!awareness!of!constraints!(see!Ranaivoson,!2012!for!constraints!described! by! farmers! in! the! two! research! sites,! many! who! later! participated! in! the! field! experiments).! This! could! be! due! to! several! reasons,! depending! on! the! farmer,! including:! initial! confidence! in! the! techniques!based!on!observations!of!personal!experience,!field!experiments,!neighbouring!fields,!or! all;! initial! confidence! in! the! techniques! introduced! by! outsiders! (perceived! to! bring! new! ideas,! knowledge);! few! personal! opportunities! to! grapple! with! potential!constraints! that! may! have! been! discouraging;! and! hopefulness! and! willingness! to! find! solutions! to! their! real! and! immediate! agricultural! challenges.! Farmers! cited! advantages! such! as! reduced! costs! due! to! zeroAtillage! ! (paid! labour,!zebu!and!plough!rental),!increased!soil!moisture,!increased!yield,!and!generally!improved!soil! conditions.! When! farmers! were! asked! what! might! stop! them! carrying! out! the! techniques! they! described!trying!next!year,!they!mentioned!constraints!such!as!lack!of!access!to!seeds,!cost!of!buying! seeds,!and!costs!for!treatments!for!cover!crops.!!

Only!those!who!had!practiced!CA!for!several!years!mentioned!the!potential!constraint!of!increases!in! weed! populations.! Those! experienced! farmers! still! practiced! CA! techniques,! but! recommended! opportunistic! tilling! every! five! years! or! so! to! reduce! the! slowly! increasing! weed! populations! and! compaction.!When!asked!what!caused!the!increase!in!weed!populations,!they!described!inadequate! soil! cover,! whether! by! live! cover! crops! or! straw! residues.! Even! those! who! used! rice! straw! mulch! under!the!guidance!of!BRL!reported!that!adequate!quantities!of!straw!were!usually!unavailable,!even! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 12!This!farmer!also!happens!to!have!been!one!of!the!poorest!overall,!according!to!discussions!about!her!land! holdings,!offAfarm!activities!and!overall!quality!of!life.!She!explained!that!her!situation!pushed!her!to!be! creative!and!try!new!ideas!to!gain!cash!or!food.!It!raises!the!question!whether!this!played!a!role!in!her!curiosity! to!try!the!beans.!

46!

! if!one!was!willing!to!invest!the!time!and!costs!(labour,!use!of!zebu!and!wagon)!of!transporting!straw! between!fields.!For!these!reasons,!several!people!who!had!used!residues!at!some!point!in!the!past! later!discontinued.!This!was!despite!their!observations!of!small!weed!populations!and!higher!yields.! Only!one!person!clearly!stated!that!he!preferred!dead!mulch!to!live!plants!because!he!is!concerned! about!competition!with!cover!crops.!!

4.3.!High!impact!experiments!

The!most!influential!experiments!showed!dramatic!performance!of!crops!and!land!types!that!farmers! wished!to!valorize!on!their!own!farms.!Impressive!differences!in!primary!crop!yields!alone!were!not! enough!to!convince!farmers!to!anticipate!using!the!cropping!systems!in!the!future.!Four!examples! are!useful!to!illustrate!this!point.!

Farmers!were!most!impressed!with!experiments!1!(sandy!baiboho)!and!3!(tanety!with!a!steep!slope)! in!the!southern!region,!where!they!observed!good!plant!development!on!what!they!usually!consider! relatively!infertile!soils.!Referring!to!the!steeply!sloped!field,!one!farmer!from!Amparihitsokatra!said! the!good!cover!crop!and!maize!growth!pleased!him!because!he!had!(unused)!land!like!that,!and!after! the! experiment! he! saw! that! it! had! potential! to! be! productive.! The! second! example! comes! from! experiment!2!in!the!same!region.!Upon!observing!the!field!and!yield!results,!people!from!Mahatsara! (and!one!from!Madiorano)!also!expressed!pleasure!and!some!surprise!at!seeing!rice!grow!on!tanety,! as!it!is!usually!only!grown!on!rice!fields!in!the!region.!A!third!example!comes!not!from!an!experiment,! but!a!field!with!a!riceAvetch!rotation!managed!by!a!participating!farmer!from!Ambalakondro!village.! Both!northern!and!southern!groups!had!the!opportunity!to!view!the!field!during!an!exchange!visit,! and!their!observations!of!the!rice!during!maturation,!which!they!perceived!to!grow!better!than!in! some!of!surrounding!fields,!inspired!a!number!of!people!from!Mahatsara!to!buy!vetch!seeds!to!sow! in!their!rice!fields!next!year.!!!!

The!previous!three!examples!are!interesting!to!compare!with!that!of!!bambara!groundnuts!grown!on! mulched!and!nonAmulched!fields! (5! south).! The! field! was!also!on! a! sandy! soil! with!low! yields.! He! ascribed!the!poor!fertility!to!soil!excavation!some!years!ago!for!construction!of!the!nearby!dam.!In! the!experiment,!the!yield!difference!was!dramatic,!the!mulched!field!producing!twice!as!much,!and! people!noted!the!differences!in!the!appearance!of!above!ground!biomass!(colour,!dryness).!Farmers! who! usually! covered! the! plants! with! soil! to! encourage! seed! production! saw! that! mulching! could! replace! that! time! consuming! practice! (although! acquiring! and! applying! mulch! also!takes! time! and! may!imply!other!costs).!Nevertheless,!people!spoke!about!this!field!only!when!directly!asked,!unlike! the! previous! examples.! Further! questions! revealed! that! only! a! few! of! the! farmers! interviewed! regularly! grow! bambara! groundnuts! (or! anticipated! growing! them! in! the! future! after! seeing! the! benefits!of!the!mulch),!suggesting!that!their!interest!was!diminished!by!the!lack!of!applicability!of! this!system!to!their!own!farms.!As!mentioned!above!in!the!brief!discussion!about!constraints,!mulch!

47!

! was! generally! an! unpopular! choice! of! soil! cover! due! to! time! and! labour! costs,! which! may! have! contributed!to!the!low!interest!in!applying!practices!from!this!experiment!on!farms.!!

These!four!examples!suggest!that!even!if!CA!practices!produce!dramatic!yields,!this!alone!is!unlikely! to!change!primary!crop!preferences.!Use!of!CA!techniques!applied!to!crops!and!land!types!that!were! applicable!to!other!farmers’!situations!(e.g.!vetch!and!rice),!and!valorised!land!usually!considered!less! fertile!(e.g.!maize!on!sandy!baiboho!and!steep!tanety),!however,!may!be!well!appreciated!by!farmers.! Kessler!(2006)!working!with!soil!and!water!conservation!practices!in!Bolivia!concluded!that!focusing! on!shortAterm!impact!and!success!was!necessary!to!inspire!farmers!to!experiment.!Although!the!geoA cultural!setting!differs,!this!may!be!a!lesson!applicable!to!the!Lake!Alaotra!region.!!

4.4.!Use!of!zero6tillage!!and!soil!cover!over!time!

This!section!refers!to!the!three!groups!identified!according!to!their!first!use!of!zeroAtillage!!and!soil! cover!techniques.!Group!A!describes!farmers!who!used!either!one!or!both!of!the!practices!in!the!past! for!the!first!time,!group!B!are!farmers!who!started!in!the!current!year,!and!group!C!are!those!who! anticipate!trying!them!in!the!future.!!!

There!were!no!identifiable!patterns!between!groups!A,!B!and!C!regarding!other!farm!and!household! characteristics!discussed!during!interviews:!zebu!ownership,!age,!rice!selfAsufficiency,!participation!in! previous!trainings,!offAfarm!activities,!and!children!in!high!school.!Although!the!sample!size!was!small! and!the!research!was!not!designed!to!predict!potential!adoption,!this!seems!to!agree!with!the!widely! acknowledged!observation!that!technology!adoption!by!small!holders!is!difficult!to!predict!(Knowler! and!Bradshaw,!2007).!

Farmers’!selective!use!of!CA!techniques!corresponds!to!other!studies!that!document!similar!behavior! (see! Penot! et' al.,! 2012a! for! mention! of! innovative! cropping! systems! in! the! Lake! Alaotra! region).! Although!the!vast!majority!of!farmers!said!they!need!to!be!“made!aware”,!led,!and!encouraged!by! outsiders13,!many!clearly!stated!that!they!don’t!always!listen!to!technicians.!This!was!also!evident! during! the! development! of! experimental! plans! where! farmers! sometimes! decided! against! technicians’! advice.! As! one! farmers! explained,! he! likes! to! listen! to! the! ideas! and! then! decide! for! himself!which!aspects!to!implement.!In!general,!farmers!tried!0–till,!live!cover!crops,!or!residues!as! individual!or!paired!techniques.!They!were!more!likely!to!start!use!of!cover!crops!with!tillage,!and! then! stop! ploughing! when! the! cover! crops! had! performed! well! for! about! three! years.! They! were! more!likely!to!try!or!consistently!use!live!cover!crops!than!residues.!This!was! usually!because!the! quantity!of!residues!(inCsitu!and!exCsitu)!were!inadequate,!and!transporting!exCsitu!residues!required! too! much! work,! even! if! farmers! did! notice! positive! results! (low! weed! population,! improved! soil! conditions).!

There! seemed! to! be! a! general! confidence! in! the! use! of! zeroAtillage! ! and! soil! cover! techniques,! evidenced! by! the! actual! or! intention! of! increased! use,! which! may! be! the! beginning! of! a! common! trend! already! observed! with! CA! in! the! region:! initial! implementation! followed! by! a! sharp! drop! in!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 13!Outsiders!refer!to!people!who!are!not!part!of!their!village!communities.!This!includes!not!only!foreign! researchers,!but!Malagasy!project!staff!(technicians,!translators)!as!well.!

48!

! subsequent!use!(Penot!et'al.,!2011a).!Farmers!most!likely!to!begin!using!zeroAtillage!!or!soil!cover! techniques!in!the!current!year!or!in!the!future!tended!to!be!from!the!Mahatsara!group,!which!had! the!least!CA!experience!overall.!They!expressed!having!done!so!(or!intending!to)!as!a!direct!result!of! being!involved!in!the!field!experiments.!Of!the!44!farmers!interviewed,!they!tended!to!continue,!and! even!increase,!use!of!zeroAtillage!!and!soil!cover!practices.!Increasing!numbers!of!people!tried!this! year! for! the! first! time,! and! more! anticipate! trying! for! the! first! time! in! the! future.! Use! of! CA! techniques!usually!continued!in!the!fields!where!it!began.!Most!farmers!did,!or!showed!intention!to,! apply!similar!management!to!additional!fields!and!try!different!cover!crop!species!(all!of!which!were! used!or!discussed!during!the!field!tests).!It!should!also!be!added!here!that!some!farmers!conducted! their! own! unpublicized! tests! of! cover! crops! during! the! 2012A13! year.! These! consisted! of! inCsitu! residue! mulch! or! live! cover! crops! on! small! fields,! usually! very! close! to! the! village.! They! were! not! presented!to!the!ABACO!groups,!and!were!discovered!during!interviews,!informal!conversations,!or! walks!with!the!field!owners.!The!farmers!preferred!to!wait!to!observe!their!tests!throughout!the!year! before!evaluating!their!results,!and!certainly!before!sharing!their!efforts!with!other!farmers!in!the! wider!groups.!!

It! may! also! be! possible! that! farmers! expressed! interest! during! interviews! in! an! effort! to!be!polite! (culturally!very!important)!or!supportive!of!a!project!that!might!result!in!tangible!benefits.!To!reduce! this! pressure,! every! interview! was! prefaced! with! an! introduction! (a! culturally! expected! and! appropriate!way!to!begin!a!meeting)!that!stressed!the!importance!of!hearing!their!opinions!about! how! to! adapt! CA! techniques,! and! what! could! be! done! differently! in! the! next! year! of! the! project.! Consultation!with!the!translator!and!variation!in!responses!gave!confidence!that!this!step!had!some! impact,!even!if!it!was!difficult!to!measure.!

4.5.!Land!use!6!preferences!for!CA!practices!

Asked! what! type! of! land! they! saw! most! fit! for! (adapted)! CA! practices,! farmers! almost! invariably! proposed! baiboho! and! tanety.! Interestingly,! none! mentioned! rice! fields! (of! any! degree! of! water! control),!though!they!were!obviously!interested!in!using!the!vetchArice!system.!This!omission!may! have!been!due!to!the!context!of!the!question!(speaking!about!the!experiments,!of!which!the!vetch! field!was!not!a!part)!or!perhaps!the!wording!of!the!question!itself.!!

Asked!to!explain!the!motivation!to!try!zeroAtillage!!or!soil!cover!in!their!chosen!fields,!farmers!often! indicated!that!the!fields!were!“used”!and!that!the!soils!were!not!very!fertile.!This!explanation!was! echoed! by! the! ABACO! project! staff,! who! added! that! farmers! tended! to! prioritize! land! that! was! underperforming! when! using! CA! practices,! rather! than! maintaining! fertility! in! fields! that! already! performed!adequately.!However,!this!was!not!always!the!case.!For!instance,!several!farmers!were! explicit! about! their! interest! in! maintaining! or! even! improving! performance! of! fields! that! were! considered!to!have!decent!or!good!fertility.!Also,!several!fields!seem!to!have!been!selected!for!cover! crop!“tests”!because!they!were!close!to!the!village.!Farmers!said!that!it!gave!them!the!chance!to! observe!the!cover!crop!development,!while!proximity!to!frequently!travelled!paths!reduced!chances! of!tondraCboly.!!

4.6.!Land!use!6!tenure!!

Insecure! land! tenure! is! one! of! the! constraints! identified! to! CA! adoption! in! Madagascar! 49!

! (Rakotondramanana!et'al.,!2010),!including!the!lake!Alaotra!region!(Penot!et'al,!2012a).!This!was!not! a!focus!of!interviews,!but!farmers!were!asked!about!it!when!they!were!observed!to!have!used!(or! intend! to! use)! zeroAtillage! ! or! soil! cover! techniques! on! rented! land.! A! few! said! they! did! not! care! whether!the!land!was!rented!or!not!–!if!it!brought!benefits!to!them!in!the!short!term!they!didn’t! mind! the! investment! (some! farmers! attributed! good! cover! crop! and! maize! growth! in! some! experiments!to!the!cover!crops).!Some!others!said!they!knew!the!landAowner,!and!either!they!had! already!asked!and!were!granted!permission,!or!were!planning!to.!In!some!cases,!the!land!owners! were!soAcalled!CA!practitioners,!making!it!acceptable!for!the!renters!to!follow!similar!choices.!As!this! study!came!across!these!accounts!as!side!details,!little!more!can!be!concluded!beyond!recognition!of! their!divergence!from!the!apparent!norm.!

4.7.!Motivation!for!participation!in!field!experiments!

Farmers! indicated! that! they! participated! in! the! field! experiments! for! a! variety! of! reasons:! 1)! To! improve!upon!what!they!already!know;!to!learn!something!new!in!a!proactive!attempt!to!“develop”;! 2)! They! were! previously! interested! in! the! technique! but! need! “awareness! training”,! therefore! ABACO’s! approach! of! sending! people! to! interview! them! and! follow! the! field! experiments! was! appealing;!!3)!They!did!not!have!much!land!and!want!to!increase!yield!on!what!they!have;!4)!Climatic! risk! (unpredictable! and! inadequate! rain)! force! them! to! improve! their! agricultural! techniques;! 5)! Being!part!of!a!social!network!or!formal!group!(e.g.!groups!formed!several!years!ago!to!access!credit)! and! just! followed! their! colleagues! even! without! knowing! much! about! the! project;! 6)! To! them! CA! techniques! seem! attractive! because! they! can! reduce! inputs;! 7)! The! project! provided! seeds! and! technical! advice;! 8)! Working! with! vahaza' (foreigners)! and! outsiders! has! various,! if! undefined,! advantages! (e.g.! signs! in! fields! to! discourage! tondraCboly! may! carry! more! weight! as! they! suggest! involvement!with!projects,!implying!institutional!power!and!the!increased!capability!to!implement! punishment).!!

Perhaps!in!the!beginning!people!were!attracted!to!the!project!in!hopes!of!gaining!access!to!free!or! subsidized!inputs,!but!it!generally!did!not!seem!to!be!the!case!with!interviewees.!There!was!just!one! farmer!who!categorically!stated!that!he!joined!in!hopes!of!receiving!cover!crop!seeds!to!improve!soil! on!several!infertile!fields.!!!!!

4.8.!Social!networks!and!sharing!knowledge!amongst!farmers!

Social!networks! This!study!found!evidence!to!suggest!that!bounded!social!networks!play!a!role!in!sharing!knowledge! and!thereby!potentially!encouraging!agricultural!innovation.!This!is!stated!cautiously.!Firstly,!because! it!was!far!beyond!the!scope!of!this!research!to!conduct!an!anthropological!study!into!the!possibilities! and!implications!of!such!social!structures.!Secondly,!because!the!observations!seem!contrary!to!what! is!understood!by!researchers!who!are!familiar!with!agricultural!innovations!in!the!region!(personal! communications).!In!addition,!Fauroux!and!BlancAPamard!(2004),!writing!about!Madagascar!A!but!not! necessarily!the!Lake!Alaotra!region!A!also!warn!severely!against!misinterpretations!of!farmer!group! dynamics! in! their! discussion! of! “l’illusion' participative”! (the! participative! illusion).! Nonetheless,! it! seems!worthwhile!to!look!into!this!tentative!observation!for!several!reasons.!First,!there!has!been! very!little!attention!to!socioAcultural!aspects!of!agricultural!innovation!in!the!region.!There!have!been!

50!

! few,! if! any,! extended! stays! in! villages! by! people! likely! to! document! their! experiences! and! observations.! Lastly,! informal! conversations! about! farmer! social! networks! pointed! to! differing! perceptions! amongst! researchers! and! various! personnel! who! worked! with! local! projects14.! Unfortunately,! timing! did! not! permit! additional! discussions! with! key! project! staff! who! could! have! helped!develop!this!point!further.!!

The! aim! here! is! not! to! argue! a! case! for! the! existence! of! bounded! social! networks! and! their! prominence! in! diffusing! knowledge! and! agricultural! innovation.! It! is! rather! to! describe! what! was! observed! during! fieldwork,! in! case! it! may! contribute! to! what! currently! seems! a! relatively! anemic! discourse!about!the!socioAcultural!context!of!agricultural!innovation!in!the!Lake!Alaotra!region.!!!

Farmers!who!were!more!dynamic!and!progressive15!tended!to!be!part!of!social!networks!that!shared! information! and! experiences! related! to! improving! agricultural! practices.! These! soAcalled! networks! included!a!core!of!approximately!five!people,!all!women,!from!Ambavahadiromba!village!(northern! region);!a!core!of!six!people,!all!men,!from!Ambalakondro!village!(northern!region);!and!a!core!of! people! (number! unknown,! but! believed! to! be! around! ten)! that! included! two! interviewed! farmers! from! Ambohimanjaka! village! (southern! region).! Each! had! its! own! history! and! socioApolitical! dynamics.!!

However,!it!is!important,!to!note!that!all!of!these!networks!were!formalized!in!some!way!due!to!the! formation!of!groups!for!access!to!financial!credit.!This!was!organized!through!BRL!several!years!ago! (around! 2005,! but! the! start! year! varied! for! different! groups).! Many! of! the! credit! groups! were! dysfunctional! or! dissolved! due! to! various! internal! tensions,! mainly! related! to! reimbursement! problems.!Other!creditAaccess!groups!continued!working!together!on!agricultural!interests!(no!longer! only!related!to!credit!access),!associated!with!BRL!technicians.!In!an!attempt!to!better!understand! within!the!limited!time!available,!farmers!from!each!group!were!asked!what!originally!created!the! group,!and!what!maintained!it.!They!responded!that!they!were!based!on!a!combination!of!kinship,! friendship,! and! similar! work! objectives,! varying! per! network.! The! group! with! farmers! from! Ambohimanjaka!seemed!to!be!united!more!by!similar!work!objectives!than!kinship,!for!example.!As! one!farmer!said,!they!try!to!ensure!that!those!who!enter!have!the!same!ideas,!objectives,!and!ways! of!working.!Although!it!was!beyond!the!scope!of!this!research!to!investigate!these!social!networks! further,!it!seems!that!they!were!likely!to!have!had!some!form!of!existence!prior!to!formation!of!the! credit!groups.!!

Identification!of!these!social!networks!came!about!during!interviews,!where!their!presence!at!first! seemed! evident.! First,! people! were! specifically! asked! from! where! they! gained! certain! knowledge! (e.g.!if!somebody!said!they!tried!mucuna!for!the!first!time!last!year,!they!were!asked!from!where!the! idea!emerged,!who!they!asked,!where!they!obtained!the!seeds,!etc.).!Certain!farmers!consistently! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 14!Conversations!about!the!subject!were!brief,!and!not!wanting!to!misinterpret!or!misrepresent!people’s!ideas! details!don’t!seem!worth!describing.!!

15!“Dynamic!and!progressive”!refers!to!farmers!who!had!a!high!level!of!participation!during!interviews! (individual!or!group),!or!who!indicated!that!they!try!new!agricultural!practices!(including!but!not!only!zeroA tillage!!or!soil!cover!techniques)!and!other!farm!or!household!activities,!or!a!combination!of!both.!

51!

! referred!to!each!other,!whereas!other!were!vague!or!did!not!refer!to!an!identifiable!social!network.! Second,!group!interviews!were!organized!per!village!in!an!attempt!to!make!it!easier!for!people!to! participate!(e.g.!distance,!familiarity!with!each!other).!It!was!obvious!that!some!people!within!the! groups! were! more! comfortable! with! each! other! (relaxed! body! language,! joking! around,! less! formality,!comfortable!expressing!contradicting!opinions),!and!when!asked!about!this!dynamic!they! explained! that! they! were! used! to! each! other! and! often! work! together.! Follow! up! conversations! revealed! that! they! often! shared! information! pertaining! to! agricultural! innovations! and! jointly! reviewed! their! performance! on! their! respective! fields.! For! example,! a! group! of! farmers! from! Ambalakondro!all!started!experimenting!with!vetch!and!rice!rotations!around!the!same!time.!Certain! members!had!received!training!in!the!technique!through!BRL,!and!shared!what!they!learned!with! others.!!

Other,!less!formal!networks!were!also!influential.!These!were!also!recognized!during!interviews!as! well! as! informal! interactions! during! village! stays.! In! one! experiment! that! included! mucuna! and! dolichos,!for!instance,!people!close!to!the!field!owner!mentioned!their!intention!to!source!cover!crop! seeds! from! her.! For! another! example,! when! asked! how! they! might! find! more! information! about! about! CA! techniques! in! the! absence! of! technicians,! individuals! in! Mahatsara! referred! to! M.! Réné! Gilbert,!considered!the!most!experienced!CA!practitioner!in!the!southern!group.!Those!with!closer! connections!to!him!(but!not!part!of!one!of!the!more!formal!social!networks)!also!indicated!they!felt! comfortable!asking!him!for!brachiaria!or!stylosanthes!seedlings!to!transplant!in!their!own!fields.!

It!is!expected!that!social!networks!of!some!sort!exist!amongst!Malagasy!farmers!(Fauroux!and!BlancA Pamard,!2004),!but!the!question!is!from!what!origins,!in!what!form,!and!for!what!purpose.!A!better! understanding!of!how!farmers!are!socially!connected,!and!how!they!share!information,!seems!crucial! to!the!effort!of!encouraging!dissemination!of!agricultural!technologies.!This!since!it!may!speed!up!the! diffusion!and!enhance!the!transfer!efficiency.!! An!ethnographic!study!aiming!to!understand!social! networks!and!knowledge!transfer!would!have!been!of!use!to!previous!work!attempting!to!diffuse!CA! practices! in! the! region,! and! is! recommended! to! compliment! future! projects.! Working! with! the! sixteen! or! so! groups! that! have! already! been! created! (originally! for! creditAaccess,! e.g.! VONONA,! VATSISOA),!a!better!understanding!of!their!structure!and!internal!relationships,!and!why!some!seem! to!be!more!unified!and!active!than!others!may!reveal!insights!that!could!be!applied!to!future!efforts! to!support!farmer!innovation.! ! Sharing!knowledge!between!farmers! There!was!an!interesting!ongoing!discussion!throughout!interviews!about!whether!people,!who!are! not!necessarily!connected!by!a!particular!social!network,!ask!each!other!directly!for!advice!regarding! agricultural!innovations!(e.g.!in!this!case,!use!of!cover!crops).!This!question!deserves!more!attention,! but!an!initial!conclusion!is!that!the!varied!answers!reflected!a!range!of!personalities.!Some!said!“no”! because:!1)!people!are!too!shy;!2)!people!are!afraid!that!the!field!owner!will!be!too!selfish!to!share! their!knowledge!(and!the!person!seeking!advice!would!then!feel!embarrassed!by!a!lack!of!response);! 3)!those!in!need!of!advice!were!the!same!people!who!initially!laughed!at!the!innovation,!and!only! later! were! curious! after! observing! the! results.! Others! said! “yes”! because! of! course! people! are! curious,! not! shy,! and! want! to! learn.! One! respected! practitioner! replied! that! people! do! ask! him! questions!and!he!is!pleased!to!reply.!Other!times,!he!believes!people!are!too!shy!to!ask,!but!they!

52!

! observe!his!fields!and!try!to!implement!the!same!technology!on!theirs.!He!noted!that!sometimes! they!fail!due!to!lack!of!technical!mastery,!and!are!disappointed.!

Opportunities! for! farmers! from! different! regions! to! meet! and! exchange! knowledge! were! highly! valued,! partly! because! they! presented! a! setting! were! asking! questions! was! formally! encouraged.! Many!farmers!described!them!as!one!of!the!highlights!of!participating!in!the!field!experiments.!The! example! of! vetch! viewed! in! Madiorano,! for! instance,! was! quite! striking.! Following! the! field! visit! during!which!Mahatsara!members!showed!visible!interest,!ABACO!staff!coordinated!the!transport!of! vetch!seeds!to!fill!orders!by!group!members!in!Mahatsara.!Vetch!and!rice!rotations!are!also!practiced! in!Mahatsara,!and!members!are!surely!acquainted!with!those!farmers!in!one!way!or!another.!That! people!showed!such!immediate!action!following!the!field!visit!suggests!that!the!opportunity!to!have! direct!social!connections!result!in!more!tangible!exchanges.!!

Regarding! participation! in! the! two! ABACO! groups,! the! social! dynamics! tended! towards! group! inclusiveness.!Discussions!with!the!group!from!Mahatsara,!for!example,!revealed!that!they!were!in! favour!of!keeping!the!group!open!for!other!farmers!to!join.!This!would!be!on!the!condition!that!the! newcomers! were! given! a! training! (by! existing! members)! on! the! activities! and! expectations! of! the! group,!in!order!to!encourage!group!solidarity.!NonAparticipation!by!behavior!interpreted!as!laziness! or!lack!of!interest!was!perceived!negatively.!This!is!in!contrast!to!respectful!acceptance!of!absence! from!meetings!due!to!work!responsibilities.!

4.9.!Gender!and!CA!!

Gender!did!not!seem!to!influence!interpretations!of!experiments!or!perceptions!of!CA.!This!may!be! because!agricultural!work!is!not!as!strictly!separated!by!gender!as!it!may!be!in!other!contexts.!For! example,!the!often!cited!story!of!decreased!labour!for!men!without!use!of!the!plough,!and!!increased! labour!for!women!to!manage!the!higher!weed!populations!(Giller,!2009)!did!not!seem!to!have!any! parallels!amongst!the!farmers!studied.!Although!men!and!women!do!hold!responsibility!for!different! tasks,! there! was! also! evidence! of! flexibility.! For! instance,! men! typically! operate! the! plough! and! transport!heavy!loads!from!the!fields!while!women!generally!transplant!and!thresh!rice.!However,! men! were! also! observed! to! transplant! rice,! and! women! held! typically! male! jobs! such! as! security! guard.!Weeding!was!performed!by!both!men!and!women.!During!meetings,!women!seemed!as!free! to! speak! as! men,! and! in! one! village! it! was! clear! that! the! women! were! the! leaders! of! agricultural! decisionAmaking.!

4.10.!Comprehension!of!experimental!procedures!

Some!aspects!of!the!experimental!procedures!may!have!been!too!unfamiliar!for!many!farmers!to! follow,!whereas!others!were!easily!understood.!The!experiments!were!still!valuable!as!platforms!to! simultaneously! test! and! demonstrate! CA! techniques,! providing! an! opportunity! to! build! upon! observations!with!discussion!and!exchange!between!farmers,!technical!staff!and!researchers.!!!

Synthesizing!observations!across!repetitions!(1!north)!and!interpreting!results!presented!in!numbers! (except!for!yields)!were!among!the!most!challenging!aspects!for!farmers!to!follow.!This!is!based!on! observations!during!interviews.!For!instance,!experiment!1!north!with!replicated!field!plots!in!a!single! field!was!clearly!difficult!for!most!people!to!follow,!judging!by!their!apparent!difficulty!in!generalizing! 53!

! across!treatments.!Some!people!also!said!that!they!were!not!able!to!observe!all!of!the!subAplots,!so!it! was! difficult! to! generalize.! Other! impressions! were! made! during! biophysical! measurements.! For! example,!field!owners!showed!varying!levels!of!comprehension!of!why!yields!from!separate!fields! should!be!kept!separate!before!being!weighed.!!

Visual!observations!in!the!field!were!easier!to!interpret!and!clearly!carried!great!weight,!although! most! farmers! were! very! interested! to! know! yield! results.! The! lack! of! repetitions! (except! for! experiment!1!north)!kept!the!experiments!simple!(and!manageable!for!available!ABACO!staff),!but! required!care!in!what!conclusions!could!be!drawn!from!a!single!test.!Most!farmers,!though,!were! aware! that! one! experiment! served! as! just! one! example! that! could! have! different! outcomes! depending!on!management!decisions!as!well!as!starting!conditions.!For!instance,!if!they!commented! that!mucuna!grew!too!thickly!on!the!maize!in!one!experiment,!they!usually!followed!up!by!saying! that!it!was!just!one!test!and!that!it!might!not!happen!each!time,!especially!if!techniques!to!control! the!cover!crop!were!to!be!applied.!Discussion!of!different!soil!conditions!to!explain!yield!differences! within!one!field!also!highlighted!knowledge!of!contextual!details.!!

The!contrast!between!perceptions!and!yield!results!in!experiments!1!north!and!2!south!demonstrate! the!value!of!complimentary!methods!of!observation.!In!1!north,!many!farmers!anticipated!the!yield! of!20!x!25!rice!sowing!density!to!be!higher!compared!to!20!x!30!and!20!x!40!sowing!densities,!but! yield!measurements!showed!otherwise.!In!2!south,!farmers!expected!rice!grains!from!the!year!5!field! to!be!fuller!(and!perhaps!more!per!panicle)!than!the!adjacent!year!0!field,!but!results!showed!the! contrary.!Precise!yield!and!yield!component!measurements!are!usually!impossible!for!the!farmers!to! carry! out.! As! in! these! cases,! coAobservation! of! experiments! with! outsiders! who! have! access! to! different!types!of!measurement!and!analysis!can!be!complimentary.!!!!!!

Overall,! it! may! not! be! important! that! the! majority! of! participants! followed! the! details! of! the! experiment,!because!those!more!dynamic!and!innovative!individuals!who!did!follow!tended!to!speak! often,! serving! as! interpreters! for! the! rest.! They! were! the! ones! who! raised! questions,! proposed! answers!and!suggestions!during!meetings,!and!what!they!said!was!often!repeated!during!interviews.!!

4.11.!Limitations!of!this!research!

Biophysical!data! Measurements!of!maize!stover!biomass!were!not!included!in!this!study.!However,!they!would!have! been!useful!to!indicate!the!potential!contribution!of!organic!matter!to!the!soil.!Using!a!harvest!index! of! 0.4! (see! Hay! and! Gilbert,! 2001),! estimates! of! maize! stover! ranged! between! 335! to! 6661! kg/ha! amongst!different!subAplots!of!four!field!experiments!(Figure!17).!!! !

54!

! 7000! 6000! 5000! 4000! 3000! 2000!

Maize$stover$(kg/ha)$ 1000! 0! Rice! Beans! Tsiasisa! Tsiasisa! Tsiasisa! Mucuna! Mucuna! Mucuna! Dolichos! Dolichos! Dolichos! Stylosanthes!! Dolichos/tsiasisa!

1!south! 3!south! 2!north! 5!north! Associated$cover$crop$per$ﬁeld$experiment$ ! Figure$ 17.$ Maize$ stover$ estimates$ (kg/ha)$ in$ experiments$ with$ maize$ associated$ with$ a$ cover$ crop.$ Estimates$ were$ calculated$based$on$a$harvest$index$of$0.4$(see$Hay$and$Gilbert,$2001).$

! Interviews! Most!of!the!qualitative!information!for!this!research!came!from!individual!interviews.!The!technique! was!useful!to!hear!from!different!farmers,!for!the!limited!time!available!for!fieldwork,!and!having! focused!subjects!to!discuss.!However,!differences!in!underlying!culturallyAinformed!logic!and!working! through!translations,!however,!were!amongst!the!key!difficulties!encountered.!!

One!general!problem!with!interviews!is!the!assumption!that!the!interviewee!shares!the!interviewer’s! sense!of!logic,!and!will!communicate!with!similar!ideological!structures.!This!may!be!the!case!even! between! interlocutors! of! the! same! cultural! background,! but! the! challenge! can! be! significant! in! situations! such! as! this! study! where! cultures! and! languages! are! very! different.! Communicating! perceptions! when! translated! through! two! (MalagasyAFrench)! or! three! (MalagasyAFrenchAEnglish)! languages! adds! layers! to! the! interpretation! of! results,! which! already! requires! careful! attention! to! words!chosen.!Despite!the!utmost!confidence!in!a!translator's!abilities,!accurate!interpretation!and! representation!of!farmers'!ideas!may!be!rightfully!questioned.!Future!studies!of!farmer!perceptions! may! do! well! to! apply! linguistic! analysis! to! Malagasy! words! (e.g.! BlancAPamard! and! RakotoA Ramiarantsoa,!2006!for!such!an!example).!

Contrasting!notions!of!participation!! The!increase!in!projects!using!participatory!approaches!in!agricultural!innovation!and!research!are!a! response! to! critiques! of! the! topAdown! style! that! has! prevailed! in! many! projects.! Recognition! of! farmer!agency,!local!knowledge,!strategies,!and!heterogeneity!and!complexity!within!a!population! certainly! is! progress! when! viewed! through! the! lens! of! social! science.! However,! the! assumptions! underlying!the!concept!of!participation!and!use!of!the!term!may!be!!questioned!(Chambers,!1995;! White,! 1996;! BlancAPamard! and! Fauroux,! 2004;).! Fauroux! and! BlancAPamard! (2004)! argue! that!

55!

! western! interpretations! of! participation! may! result! in! seriously! misguided,! if! wellAintentioned,! development!efforts.!They!refer!specifically!to!the!(western)!misconception!that!participation!must! be!democratic,!a!critique!shared!by!several!others!(see!for!example,!Roncoli!et'al.,!2010!for!a!similar! argument!based!on!linguistic!analysis!amongst!Ugandan!smallholders).!Briefly!summarizing!from!this! short!fieldwork!period!and!from!others!with!more!experience:!socioAcultural!norms!in!rural!parts!of! Madagascar’s!highlands!decree!that!those!with!higher!status!(age,!leadership!position,!experience,! wealth)!may!exercise!the!right!to!speak!first,!and!even!if!others!of!lower!status!may!have!different! opinions!they!will!not!voice!them!in!order!to!be!polite!and!respectful;!those!who!have!the!real!say! may!not!be!present!at!soAcalled!participatory!meetings!(BlancAPamard!and!Fauroux,!2004);!and!it!is! difficult! for! outsiders! to! identify! those! who! have! such! authority! because! their! status! may! not! be! evident!(BlancAPamard!and!Fauroux,!2004).!!

It!is!the!first!point!(about!voicing!opinions)!that!most!concerns!the!current!study,!which!was!aware!of! such! dynamics! from! the! beginning,! but! was! susceptible! to! democratic! notions! of! participation,! nonetheless.! For! instance,! one! of! the! principal! goals! of! this! research! was! to! ascertain! farmers’! perceptions!of!the!field!experiments,!including!any!variation!in!opinions.!Mindful!that!it!would!be! difficult!to!measure!individual!perceptions!during!group! discussions! and! group! meetings!aimed!to! collectively! discuss! experiments,! individual! interviews! were! designed! to! address! ! this! as! well! ! as! possible.!The!assumption!was!that!without!the!physical!presence!of!others,!people!may!feel!more! comfortable!to!express!different!opinions,!if!they!existed.!It!is!not!clear!whether!this!assumption!was! correct!or!not,!but!it!may!be!that!using!multiple!styles!of!participation!did!enable!people!to!exercise! both!individual!and!collective!agency!(Roncoli!et'al.,!2010).!

Verbal!expressions!of!field!experiment!perceptions! Discussions!centering!around!!field!experiments!were!frequently!superficial.!Attempts!to!encourage! discussion! were! tempered! by! concerns! of!! the! use! of! leading! questions,! or! influencing! responses.! Upon! reflection! with! the! translator,! whose! cultural! interpretations! were! valued! significantly,! explanations!for!superficial!discussions!may!be:! • It! was! the! first! time! a! farmer! was! required! to! think! about! the! subject! with! the! intention! to! communicate!their!explicitly!idea!to!others.! • The!discussion!was!based!on!a!certain!(scientific)!logic!that!may!not!be!intuitive.!In!other!words,! the! interviewer! was! not! aware! of,! and! did! not! accommodate! to,! their! logic,! and! they! did! not! manage!to!accommodate!to!that!of!the!interviewer.!For!instance,!results!(yields,!biomass)!were! presented!to!people!written!on!paper!and!explained!verbally.!However,!many!people!had!little!to! no!comments!related!to!the!figures!(except!for!yields),!and!only!when!photos!were!added!to!the! presentation!did!the!discussion!develop!further.!! • SelfAconsciousness! and! the! pressure! of! performing! (which! could! initiate! a! lengthy! discourse! about!power!dynamics,!colonialism,!etc.,!and!in!turn!be!related!to!fear!of!expressing!conflicting! opinions!to!the!interlocutor!–!see!discussion!above).!For!example,!people!often!gave!answers!in! the!form!of!a!question,!voicing!concerns!that!they!did!not!know!the!correct!answer,!although!of! course!there!were!no!correct!answers.!Several!times,!people!had!almost!nothing!to!share!about! the! experiments! until! the! interviewers! offered! some! thoughts! for! their! reaction,! which! were! immediately!agreed!with!and!only!occasionally!expanded!upon.!However,!without!implying!that! they! are! unable! to! form! their! own! opinions,! it! seems! unfair! to! expect! that! every! person! had! developed!their!own!perceptions!of!the!experiments.!It!may!be!possible!that!some!were!waiting! for!leaders!to!express!theirs,!in!order!to!follow.!! 56!

! Confidence!in!farmers’!perceptions!! Perceptions!attributed!to!farmers!throughout!this!report!tend!to!be!generalized.!Firstly!because!the! interpretations! may! have! been! quite! similar! between! farmers,! and! secondly,! despite! conscious! attempts!to!make!place!for!potentially!different!opinions,!it!may!be!that!the!socioAcultural!norms! described! channel! opinions! in! the! same! direction.! It! should! be! made! clear,! though,! that! some! farmers!were!very!articulate!in!their!opinions,!even!if!they!differed!from!their!neighbours,!who!were! sometimes!present!during!the!discussion.!This!was!not!limited!to!soAcalled!dynamic!and!progressive! farmers,! suggesting! the! individual! interviews! did! have! some! value! in! the! attempt! to! understand! variations!ad!nuances!in!experiment!or!CA!perceptions,!after!all.!!

Judging! by! anticipated! use! of! zeroAtillage! ! and! soil! cover! techniques! in! the! future,! farmers! were! generally!quite!enthusiastic!to!test!aspects!of!CA.!Only!three!out!of!44!farmers!interviewed!did!not! plan! to! use! either! technique.! Did! farmers! give! positive! responses! thinking! it! would! please! the! interviewers?! Were! they! signs! of! initial! interest! in! an! introduced! technology?! There! is! no! clear! answer! to! these! questions,! though! the! second! hypothesis! seems! most! likely! (see! following! paragraph).!What!farmers!actually!do!may!only!be!observed!in!the!future.!!

Nevertheless,!there!is!still!cause!to!have!reasonable!confidence!in!the!results.!Firstly,!questions!were! repeated!in!different!ways!to!crosscheck!responses,!and!responses!were!collectively!triangulated!and! discussed!again!during!group!interviews!or!inAdepth!discussions.!Secondly,!collaboration!with!a!very! competent!translator!enabled!progressive!modifications!to!the!structure!and!general!performance!of! the!interview.!!

Looking!at!performance! A!longAterm!study!to!follow!these!farmers!and!their!future!practices!might!offer!insight!into!use!of!CA! innovations!in!their!particular!context.!Borrowing!further!from!technography,!it!would!be!interesting! to!explore!notions!of!embodied!knowledge,!situated!action!and!performance!to!better!understand! the! gradual! adaptation! of! CA! to! local! contexts.! Jansen! and! Vellema! (2011)! argue! the! distinction! between! “knowing! that”! and! “knowing! how”.! The! first! is! the! type! of! knowledge! that! can! be! communicated!in!an!interview.!For!example,!what!crops!were!grown!in!a!certain!field!last!year,!and! how!they!were!managed.!The!second!is!intuitive!knowledge,!information!that!is!difficult!to!explain! theoretically,! and! may! be! so! second! nature! that! it! may! not! even! occur! to! the! person! to! verbally! articulate!it.!For!example,!after!the!harvest!of!maize!intercropped!with!mucuna,!an!experienced!CA! farmer!was!observed!to!bend!the!maize!stems!towards!the!ground!after!the!harvest.!After!about! fifteen!minutes!of!discussing!the!logic,!a!clear!reason!hadn’t!yet!emerged.!When!it!was!proposed!that! perhaps! it! increased! the! chances! of! soil! cover! and! therefore! discouraged! weed! growth! (by! cover! crops!growing!a!thicker!horizontal!layer,!rather!than!growing!up!the!stems),!he!agreed!as!if!it!was! what! he! meant! to! communicate.! We! were! then! able! to! continue! a! conversation! about! the! advantages! and! disadvantages! of! leaving! the! maize! stems! upright.! This! specific! example! is! an! attempt! to! illustrate! why! observing! performance! can! be! crucial! to! understanding! innovations! (although! it! may! also! point! out! challenges! with! translation,! individual! personalities! and! reasoning! abilities).!Rather!than!expecting!to!understand!knowledge!through!verbally!recounted!information!in! interviews,! which! rely! on! assumptions! of! shared! logic,! it! seems! valuable! to! spend! cycles! of! time! observing!and!participating!in!the!same!activities!as!those!one!wishes!to!understand.!!!!!!'

57!

! 5.!Synthesis! !

This!section!integrates!results!and!insights!to!respond!to!research!questions!and!initial!hypotheses.!It! then! places! research! findings! within! the! broader! context! of! innovation! development! in! the! Lake! Alaotra!area.!See!Table!8,!at!the!end!of!this!section,!for!an!!overview.!

This!study!contributes!to!a!fourAyear!pilot!project!(ABACO)!that!aims!to!engage!farmers!in!designing! and!implementing!locally!adapted!CA!practices!as!part!of!a!longAterm!soil!rehabilitation!strategy!in! semiAarid!areas.!Based!on!ten!field!experiments!coAdesigned!by!farmers!and!agricultural!technicians! in!the!Lake!Alaotra!region,!this!study!has!two!general!aims:!one,!to!develop!a!better!understanding!of! farmer!perceptions!of!CA;!and!two,!to!suggest!recommendations!for!future!coAinnovation!endeavors.! To! that! end,! three! research! questions! were! developed.! The! first,! directly! related! to! the! field! experiments,!is!concerned!with!their!biophysical!results,!farmers’!interpretations,!and!their!potential! impact! on! future! tests! and! onAfarm! decisions.! The! second! question! asks! how! perceptions! of! CA! compare!amongst!farmers,!how!they!share!knowledge!of!CA,!and!how!those!factors,!amongst!others,! might!influence!farmer!participation!in!the!project.!The!third!broadly!questions!how!gender!might! interact!with!the!first!two!questions.!

It!should!be!made!clear!that!the!soAcalled!field!experiments!were!primarily!designed!by!farmers,!and! therefore! do! not! have! the! usual! features! required! in! experiments! designed! by! scientists! (e.g.! repetitions,!control).!They!were!not!intended!to!produce!agronomic!data!about!CA!practices.!Rather,! they! were! used! as! platforms! for! demonstration! and! potential! coAinnovation! engagement! with! farmers.!This!gave!them!an!opportunity!to!decide!what!aspects!of!CA!they!wanted!to!test,!and!gave! technical! staff! and! researchers! an! opportunity! to! learn! more! about! farmers’! priorities! and! perceptions!of!tradeAoffs!in!terms!of!CA!practices.!

5.1.! Field! experiments:! biophysical! results,! farmers’! interpretations,! and! their! potential! impact! on! future! (ABACO)! experiments! and! on6farm! decisions! !

Biophysical!results!and!corresponding!farmer!expectations!! As!expected,!the!biophysical!results!did!vary!depending!on!the!experiments!and!objectives.!There! were!three!general!categories!of!objectives:!1,!comparing!effects!of!different!cover!crops!and!sowing! dates;! 2,! comparing! crop! performance! with! different! soil! management;! 3,! those! concerning! rice! production.!Additional!objectives!included!production!of!dolichos!seeds,!and!valorize!use!of!tanety! (hillsides).!Some!objectives!were!not!met,!either!intentionally!(results!are!expected!next!year)!or!due! to!unforeseen!reasons!(e.g.!theft!of!rice).!!

The! following! is! a! summary! of! key! results! and! any! corresponding! farmer! perceptions! (if! farmer! opinions!are!not!mentioned!it!was!due!to!few!to!no!responses).!In!three!experiments:!V.'umbellata!

58!

! (tsiasisa,'or!rice!bean)!produced!the!highest!or!second!highest!biomass!compared!to!mucuna!and! dolichos;! maize! yields! within! experiments! tended! to! be! lower! when! associated! with! mucuna! or! dolichos,!which!corresponded!to!farmer!concerns!about!the!cover!crops’!potential!to!reduce!maize! yields!due!to!their!climbing!behaviour;!maize!yields!varied!between!experiments,!the!lowest!being!on! fields!attributed!with!lower!fertility!(sandy!baiboho! and!steep!tanety);!weed!populations!on!fields! grown!with!mucuna,!dolichos,!tsiasisa!and!stylosanthes!were!approximately!equal!according!to!field! owners!(there!were!no!measurements!taken).!!

In!one!experiment!that!compared!crop!performance!between!year!0!and!year!5!management!under! CA:!bean!yields!varied!but!relevance!was!considered!to!be!small!and!there!was!little!discussion!due! to! dry! weather! and! insect! damage;! rice! showed! higher! yield! in! the! year! 0! field,! as! the! farmers! expected.! However,! they! pointed! out! that! the! potential! long! term! soil! health! (associated! with! CA! practices)!was!equally!if!not!more!important!than!yield!alone.!The!grain!weight!was!lower!for!the! wellAestablished! field,! which! was! in! contrast! with! farmer! expectations! that! rice! grains! would! be! "fuller"!in!this!field.!

In!one!experiment,!rice!yields!were!lower!for!fields!treated!with!liquid!compost!compared!to!NPK!+! urea! but! showed! no! significant! differences.! This! was! likely! due! to! inadequate! applications! of! the! liquid!compost!compared!to!the!amount!of!NPK!+!urea!used.!!

In!one!experiment,!bambara!groundnut!yield!in!a!mulched!field!was!approximately!twice!that!of!the! field!without!mulch.!This!corresponded!to!farmers'!expectations!of!better!crop!performance!(though! they! did! not! expect! such! a! dramatic! difference! in! yield),!formed!by!their!observations!of!greener! leaves!and!more!soil!moisture!in!the!mulched!field.!!

Rice! yields! of! different! upland! varieties! were! compared! in! two! experiments:! in! one,! SEBOTA! 401,! CNA! 4136,! and! 2366! had! no! significant! differences! in! yields;!in!the!other,!CNA!4136!produced!a! noticeably! higher! yield! compared! to! 2366,! but! it! may! have! been! due! to! poor! performance! for! unknown!reasons!in!one!part!of!the!2366!field.!!

In! one! experiment,! weed! populations! were! comparable! between! different! sowing! densities.! According!to!the!field!owner!(as!no!measurements!were!taken),!sowing!densities!of!20!x!25!cm!and! 20!x!30!cm!had!similar!weed!populations,!but!slightly!less!weeds!than!sowing!density!20!x!40!cm.!In! the! same! experiment,! yields! between! sowing! densities! showed! no! significant! difference.! Farmers! had!many!different!opinions,!but!most!said!they!expected!the!20!x!25!sowing!density!to!produce!the! highest!yield!due!to!a!higher!number!of!seed!holes.!

Interpretation!of!field!experiments!by!stakeholders! In!an!attempt!to!mitigate!challenges!in!understanding!farmer!interpretations!of!experiments,!they! were!approached!from!two!perspectives.!One!directly!addressed!experiment!results,!using!written! and! orally! presented! figures,! photographs,! and! questions! to! encourage! responses! (part! III! of! individual! interviews,! see! Appendix! XI).! These! interpretations! of! experiments! and! results! were! generally!similar!between!stakeholders!(different!farmers,!technicians,!project!staff,!researchers)!for! most!experiments.!Two!exceptions,!1!north!and!2!south,!involved!different!expectations!regarding! rice! yield! and! yield! components.! The! second! approach! to! understanding! farmer! interpretations! indirectly!addressed!field!experiments!by!asking!farmers!about!their!onAfarm!preferences!regarding!

59!

! crop!and!cover!crop!choices,!live!cover!crops!vs.!residues,!and!use!of!zeroAtillage!!(Part!I!of!individual! interviews).! Responses! did! show! varying! preferences,! but! they! were! generally! similar! amongst! farmers.!These!preferences!were!considered!part!of!field!experiment!interpretations!because!prior! to!the!project,!the!overwhelming!majority!of!farmers!had!very!limited!experience!with!CA,!locally! adapted!or!not.!Many!of!their!opinions!were!therefore!developed!throughout!the!duration!of!the! experiments.! Nevertheless,! other! influences! certainly! played! a! role,! too.! They! were! difficult! to! identify! due! to! the! relatively! shallow! comprehension! of! socioAcultural! dynamics,! but! based! on! conversations!during!interviews!it!appears!that!they!include!individual!personalities,!observations!of! neighbours’!fields!(with!varying!CA!practices!and!levels!of!technical!mastery),!and!dynamics!within! their!local!social!networks!as!well!as!the!ABACO!groups.!

Experiments!with!the!highest!impact!(judged!by!number!and!quality!of!responses!during!interviews)! combined!crops!and!land!types!that!were!applicable!to!other!farmers’!situations!(e.g.!vetch!and!rice),! and!valorised!land!usually!considered!less!fertile!(e.g.!maize!on!sandy!baiboho!and!steep!tanety).!

Impact!of!farmer!interpretation!of!experiments!on!future!field!experiments!and!on5farm!decisions:! Farmers!made!two!types!of!suggestions!for!the!next!year!of!experiments.!One!type!implied!that!they! would! like! to! make! use! of! the! material! and! other! support! offered! by! ABACO! while! it! remains! operative! in! the! region,! regardless! of! their! perception! of! how! the! project! functions.! For! example,! several!people!suggested!that!all!participating!farmers!who!were!able! to! should!experiment!on! a! complete!fields!(rather!than!on!a!small!subsection!of!a!field!as!was!now!used!in!the!field!studies).!On! one!hand,!this!seems!to!show!genuine!interest!in!testing!CA!adaptions!with!increased!autonomy.!On! the! other,! it! may! not! have! been! suggested! if! farmers! did! not! expect! ABACO! to! play! the! role! of! intermediary!(cover!crop)!seed!supplier.!It!is!possible!that!some!people!also!hoped!for!free!seeds! without!voicing!the!wish;!it!was!repeated!many!times!by!project!staff!that!ABACO!is!not!a!project! that! distributes! free! materials.! The! other! type! of! suggestion! for! next! year’s! experiments! gave! the! impression!that!some!farmers!would!like!to!continue!information!exchange!regarding!CA!practices,! within! and! between! the! northern! and! southern! groups.!! ! The!experiments!also!seemed!to!influence!onAfarm!decisions,!according!to!the!actual!and!intention! of! increased! use! of! zero! tillage! and! soil! cover! techniques! in! the! current! and! subsequent! years.! Apparently!there!is!interest,!and!perhaps!even!a!certain!level!of!confidence,!in!the!practices,!judging! from! optimistic! explanations! during! interviews.! This! pattern! was! largely! attributed! to! active! involvement!in!the!field!experiments,!again!due!to!their!provision!of!a!significant!proportion!of!CA! experience! for! most! farmers.! For! instance,! farmers! most! likely! to! use! zero! tillage! or! soil! cover! techniques! now! or! in! the! near! future! for! the! first! time! tended! to! be! from! the! Mahatsara! group.! Overall,!this!group!had!the!least!CA!experience.!They!verbally!expressed!having!done!so!(or!intending! to)! as! a! direct! result! of! having! been! involved! in! the! field! experiments.! Overall,! of! the! 44! farmers! interviewed,! the! majority! tended! to! continue! (or! expressed! intention! to! continue),! and! even! increase,! use! of! zero! tillage! and! soil! cover! practices.! The! majority! of! farmers! (31)! had! tried! a! soil! cover!technique!or!zero!tillage,!or!both!at!least!once!in!the!past.!Many!of!these!farmers!who!had! stopped!using!either!practice!in!the!past!indicated!wanting!to!start!again!in!the!near!future.!They!also! anticipated!adding!different!cover!crop!varieties,!all!of!which!were!used!in!the!field!experiments.!Five! people!tried!cover!crops!(all!of!which!were!used!in!field!experiments)!this!year!for!the!first!time,!and! five!more!anticipate!trying!soil!cover!and!zero!tillage!for!the!first!time!in!the!future.!!! 60!

! !

5.2.!Farmer!perceptions!of!CA,!participation!in!the!project,!and!knowledge! sharing!

Perceptions!of!CA! As! expected,! perceptions! of! CA! did! vary,! according! to! experiment! interpretations! and! onAfarm! decisions.! However,! some! general! preferences! were! relatively! consistent! amongst! farmers! interviewed.! ! Different!perceptions!were!partly!attributed!to!the!amount!of!experience!with!CA.!Most!farmers!(31! of! 44! interviewed)! had! some,! albeit! very! limited,! experience! with! zero! tillage! and! soil! cover! techniques!(cover!crops!or!residues).!The!remainder!reported!that!it!was!the!first!time!they!were! trying!a!cover!crop!this!year,!or!zero!tillage!and!cover!crops!next!year.!Those!with!more!experience! with!CA!articulated!some!constraints!(lack!of!seed!supply,!unreliable!!or!limited!rain,!lack!of!technical! mastery,!poor!soil!cover,!need!for!!occasional!ploughing!if!buildAup!of!weeds!becomes!problematic)! even!while!being!generally!optimistic!about!advantages!(such!as!!enhanced!soil!quality,!!enhanced! water!retention!and!labour!savings!associated!with!land!preparation).!This!is!compared!to!farmers! who!had!little!to!no!experience!(besides!the!field!experiments)!who!generally!recounted!advantages! with!constraints!limited!to!seed!availability!of!cover!crops!!and!unfavourable!rainfall!conditions.!!

Despite! some! variation! amongst! interviewees! regarding! perceptions! of! cover! crop! choices,! use! of! cover!crops!or!residues,!and!zero!tillage,!some!general!preferences!were!clear:!! • Mucuna,!dolichos!and!vetch!were!preferred!cover!crops!due!to!perceived!advantages!of!greater! biomass! production! over! time! (mucuna! and! dolichos),! and! perceived! advantages! regarding! reduced!labour!and!yield!(vetch).!! • Farmers!were!more!likely!to!try!or!use!live!cover!crops!than!exCsitu!residues,!due!to!the!limited! availability!and!work!required!to!transport!exCsitu!residues.! • Farmers!were!more!likely!to!first!introduce!cover!crops!while!continue!to!use!!tillage,!and!then! stop!tilling!when!the!cover!crops!had!performed!well!for!several!consecutive!years.!! • If!farmers!had!begun!use!of!soil!cover!techniques,!zero!tillage,!or!both,!on!certain!fields!in!the! past,!they!tended!to!continue!when!possible!(i.e.!seed!availability,!field!conditions,!absence!of! tondraCboly).!Farmers!generally!expressed!intentions!to!continue,!and!even!increase,!use!of!zero! tillage!and!soil!cover!practices!in!the!future.! !

As!expected,!perceptions!of!CA!also!did!seem!to!be!influenced!by!other!factors!(personal!character! and!experience,!information!networks,!social!cohesion,!and!motivation!to!gain!knowledge),!though! to! what! extent! was! difficult! to! interpret.! Contrary! to! what! was! expected,! resource! levels! did! not! seem!to!necessarily!influence!perceptions!of!CA.!Nor!were!there!any!identifiable!patterns!between! household! and! farm! characteristics! (zebu! ownership,! age,! rice! selfAsufficiency,! participation! in! previous!trainings,!offAfarm!activities,!and!children!in!high!school)!and!groups!of!farmers!who!started! use!of!CA!practices!at!different!times!(past,!current!year!or!future).!!!

! ! ! 61!

! Participation!in!the!project! Reasons! to! participate! in! the! project! did! indeed! vary! among! farmers.! They! included! curiosity,! motivation! to! improve! livelihoods,! potential! tangible! ! advantages,! access! to! new! technical! information,!potential!undefined!advantages!of!working!with!outsiders!and!foreigners,!and!following! others! in! their! social! network.! It! is! likely! that! they! are! influenced! by! both! external! and! internal! drivers! that! may! be! compelling! them! (push! factors)! to! pursue! CA! such! as,! resourceAlimitations! including! land! and! labour,! along! with! personality! traits! and! positive! experience! with! CA.! Alternatively,!farmers!may!be!!enticed!by!!soAcalled!pull!factors!to!engage!in!new!technologies!due!to! their! motivation! to! improve! knowledge,! natural! curiosity,! and! potential! material! and! immaterial! gains.!

Overall,!farmers!seemed!to!have!genuine!interest!in!learning!more!about!the!applicability!of!cover! crops!and!implementation!of!zero!tillage!in!their!own!fields!,!even!if!many!may!also!have!hoped!for! additional!undefined!advantages!from!involvement!in!a!project.!This!general!conclusion!results!from! discussions!with!farmers!during!interviews!(about!experiments,!project!activities,!and!onAfarm!use)! as!well!as!the!small!unpublicized!tests!they!conducted!on!their!own!fields.!!

Knowledge!sharing! How!farmers!share!knowledge!of!CA!techniques!remains!poorly!understood.!It!was!beyond!the!scope! of!this!current!study!to!explore!the!complex!social!relationships!and!power!dynamics!that!influence! knowledge! sharing! in! rural! Malagasy! highland! culture.! However,! it! appears! that:! dynamic! and! progressive!farmers!were!most!vocal,!and!seemed!more!prone!to!test!innovations;!and!there!seemed! to!be!bounded!social!networks!based!on!combinations!of!kinship,!friendship,!similar!work!objectives,! and!formalized!by!processes!with!external!actors!that!communicated!about!agricultural!innovations.! Further!research!into!the!socioAcultural!context!of!farmers!in!lake!region!seems!necessary!to!gain! insight!on!how!knowledge!is!shared!amongst!farmers.!

5.3.!Gender!

Based!on!interviews!and!personal!observation,!gender!did!not!seem!have!a!pronounced!influence!on! experiment! interpretations! or! perceptions! of! CA.! Gender! roles! in! agriculture! appear! to! be! less! segregated!and!more!flexible!than!in!certain!other!subASaharan!African!regions!where!CA!has!been! promoted.!!

5.4.!Year!two!of!ABACO!experiments:!reflections!and!suggestions! !

The!ABACO!field!experiments!with!farmers!run!for!two!years,!leaving!one!more!round!for!2013A14.! The! following! are! some! thoughts! and! suggestions! based! on! farmer! feedback! and! personal! observations.!! ! Agronomic'aspects'of'experiments'next'year' Experiments!during!the!second!year!will!continue!in!the!same!fields.!According!to!the!recommended! rotation!system!implied!by!CA,!rice!should!be!the!next!crop!for!many!fields.!It!seemed,!however,!that! some!farmers!may!have!wanted!to!grow!cover!crops!(perhaps!with!maize)!again.!The!field!owner!of! experiment!3!south!on!a!steep!slope,!for!example,!wanted!to!repeat!maize!associated!with!either! 62!

! mucuna!or!dolichos!to!further!contribute!to!the!soil!fertility,!before!growing!rice.!Apparently,!if!she! were!to!do!so!next!year,!it!would!no!longer!be!followed!as!one!of!the!formal!experiments!(according! to!ABACO!staff).!If!the!experiments!are!truly!aimed!at!assisting!farmers!test!ideas!they!are!interested! in,!then!it!seems!valid!to!permit!the!field!owners!to!do!so.!! !!! If! the! number! of! experiments! is! increased,! therefore! introducing! new! fields! that! would! not! be! expected!to!start!with!rice,!it!would!be!useful!to!grow!mucuna!and!dolichos!associated!with!maize! again!and!implement!the!techniques!discussed!to!control!the!vertical!climbing!behaviour!of!the!cover! crops!(cutting,!trampling),!which!was!a!concern!by!many!farmers.!! ! The! few! ! farmers! who! were! relatively! experienced! with! CA! (more! than! five! years! of! practice)! all! mentioned! having! high! weed! populations! after! several! years,! and! attributed! it! to! inadequate! soil! cover.!!Next!year’s!experiments!could!address!the!amount!of!mulch!necessary!to!discourage!weed! growth!(by!adequate!soil!cover).!This!could!be!done!by!observing!soil!cover!by!live!cover!crops!(as!is! already!being!done),!and!including!the!stage!after!it!has!been!killed!and!during!early!growth!of!the! following! crop.! It! may! be! helpful! to! make! use! of! visual! material! already! created! about! soil! cover! percentage! and! residue! quantity! (Andriamandroso! and! Naudin,! 2009),! and! relate! it! to! the! recommended! percentages! of! soil! cover! for! erosion! and! weed! control! (>30%! and! >90%,! respectively).!!!! ! Following!the!examples!of!experiments!with!highest!impact!(most!reaction!from!farmers),!fields!on! steep!slopes!or!with!soils!considered!relatively!infertile!would!be!good!choices.!This!may!also!be!an! attractive!idea!for!the!field!owners!as!it!could!valorize!land!they!may!not!use.!! ! Farmers!indicated!wanting!to!try!experiments!on!larger!fields!as!the!next!step!in!testing!the!cropping! systems! (see! more! below).! The! average! subAplot! size! of! 100m2! was! proposed! by! staff! to! avoid! potential!management!problems!such!as!high!labour!costs.!If!a!farmer!proposes!a!larger!field!and!is! willing!to!take!responsibility,!it!would!likely!receive!the!interest!of!quite!a!few!farmers.! ! If!subAplots!are!kept!at!a!similar!size!(100m2),!including!a!minimal!number!of!repetitions!could!offer! more! opportunities! for! farmers! to! observe! and! draw! conclusions! from! the! experiments.! It! was! mentioned!several!times!during!interviews!by!a!handful!of!farmers!that!the!fields!were!small,!were! just! one! example,! and! that! results! could! vary! under! different! conditions! (e.g.! different! fields,! different!management,!a!different!year).!However,!based!on!responses!to!experiment!1!north!(54! subAplots!with!three!sowing!densities,!two!fertilization!treatments,!three!rice!varieties),!it!is!not!clear! how!many!people!would!follow!the!concept!of!repetitions.!Perhaps!it!is!enough!that!that!the!farmers! who!do!follow!will!voice!their!opinions!for!others!to!hear,!as!was!done!during!the!first!year.!! ! General'project'operation' It!was!heard!through!project!staff!and!some!farmers,!that!the!more!active!group!members!found!the! unpredictable! participation! or! late! joining! by! some! members! disruptive.! When! this! subject! was! raised! during! individual! and! group! interviews,! however,! farmers! seemed! to! favour! group! inclusiveness.!From!the!southern!group,!there!were!suggestions!to!include!newcomers,!who!would! be!taken!in!after!a!training!on!the!objectives!and!operation!of!the!group.!It!is!unclear!what!farmers! 63!

! prefer,! and! it! may! be! that! the! different! social! dynamics! between! groups! generated! different! opinions.!If!the!idea!is!to!facilitate!farmers!sharing!ideas!and!experiences,!then!it!seems!best!to!keep! the! groups! open.! Perhaps! the! more! active! members! can! propose! an! induction! process! for! newcomers,!which!would!offer!a!formal!channel!of!entry.!!! ! As! recommended! by! farmers,! experiments! should! be! more! spread! out.! It! would! afford! the! opportunity!for!more!people!to!see!the!field!throughout!the!year,!as!it!is!not!just!the!people!who! attend! meetings! who! are! interested! in! the! field! experiments.! In! fact,! in! several! villages! (e.g.! Betsianjava)! there! were! many! people! who! wanted! to! join! the! project,! but! as! they! were! too! numerous!some!acted!as!“representatives”.!Their!precise!role!in!terms!of!how!they!communicated! wasn’t!clear,!but!a!local!field!may!offer!a!discussion!platform.!If!repetitions!on!the!same!field!aren’t! possible! or! desirable! (see! above),! they! could! be! conducted! in! this! manner,! repeating! the! same! treatments!on!different!land!types!throughout!fokontany!with!participating!farmers.!! ! It!was!observed!while!staying!in!the!villages!that!some!farmers!conducted!tests!with!cover!crops,! although!they!didn’t!share!the!development!or!results!with!the!larger!group!(to!my!knowledge).!A! few!farmers!proposed!that!all!ABACO!members!should!perform!tests!on!their!own!fields,!on!fullAsized! fields!if!possible,!as!a!next!step!of!testing!the!innovations.!It!seems!that!this!should!be!appreciated,! but! without! free! material! support! as! it! may! encourage! opportunistic! participants! (if! not! for! this! project,!which!ends!soon,!then!for!those!in!the!future).!For!instance,!staff!could!create!a!way!for! farmers! who! conduct! tests! on! their! own! land! to! share! their! observations! with! the! others! during! meetings!or!perhaps!even!in!the!field.!!!! ! It!was!noticed!during!the!individual!and!group!interviews,!even!if!people!did!understand!the!written! or!orally!presented!results,!it!was!photographs!that!seemed!to!stimulate!more!conversation.!During! result!presentation!meetings,!it!is!therefore!recommended!to!continue!posting!labeled!photographs! where! people! can! gather! to! look! and! discuss! informally,! as! was! done! this! year.! This! should! be! in! addition!to!the!more!formal!oral!presentation!of!results.!These!two!practices!provide!at!least!two! ways! for! farmers! to! interact! with! the! result! presentations,! and! may! give! those! who! don’t! speak! during!the!meetings!the!opportunity!to!do!so!in!smaller!groups.!! ! If!possible,!more!time!should!be!created!for!discussion.!Farmers!recommended!this!for!next!year,! and!the!same!thought!occurred!to!me,!as!well.!There!was!some!time!to!discuss!during!meetings!and! field! visits,! but! most! of! the! time! was! spent! presenting! results! or! explaining! aspects! of! the! experiments.! It! seems! that! the! ! best! moments! to! discuss! were! during! field! visits,! and! especially! during!the!exchange!visits!that!brought!the!two!groups!together.!For!instance,!when!there!was!time,! a! field! owner’s! presentation! evolved! into! questions! back! and! forth! involving! the! whole! group.! Although! creating! more! time! for! discussion! would! be! ideal,! it! could! be! difficult! to! organize! considering!current!staff!resources.!It!would!require!either!more!meetings,!or!extending!the!meeting! time!into!the!whole!day,!which!implies!lunch!provided!by!ABACO.!Not!wanting!to!perpetuate!the! association!of!development!projects!with!free!benefits,!perhaps!the!first!would!be!a!better!option.!! ! Staff!could!play!a!limited!role!to!encourage!of!the!“headquarters”!initiated!by!a!few!farmers.!The!aim! of! the! soAcalled! headquarters! would! be! to! facilitate! communication! (e.g.! share! innovations,! buy! 64!

! cover!crop!seeds)!between!the!northern!and!southern!groups!through!four!elected!representatives,! who!have!already!been!selected.!Being!aware!they!would!need!at!least!minimal!funding,!there!were! proposals! to! maintain! a! field! in! each! of! the! study! sites.! They! were! imagined! as! innovation! demonstrations!and!social!gathering!points!for!discussion,!as!well!as!a!source!of!cash!by!producing! and!selling!cover!crop!seeds.!Whether!farmers!actually!manage!to!create!and!maintain!this!structure! is!up!to!them!and!remains!to!be!seen.!!ABACO!could!encourage!the!idea,!however,!by!creating!time! during!meetings!for!farmers!to!discuss!it!(e.g.!demonstration!plot).!!! ! Several! of! these! last! points! raise! questions! regarding! power! dynamics! in! participatory! research! (which!are!beyond!the!scope!of!this!research!to!address!in!depth).!How!much!of!a!leadership!role!can! or!should!a!development!project!play?!Must!there!always!be!an!external!catalyst!for!people!to!come! together?!! !

5.5.!Research!findings!in!the!context!of!CA!innovation!development!in!the! Lake!Alaotra!region!

CA!was!introduced!to!the!Alaotra!region!to!elevate!poverty!levels,!increase!food!production!to!feed! the!fastAgrowing!population,!and!reduce!landAuse!pressure.!After!more!than!ten!years!of! predominantly!top!down!promotion!of!CA!adoption!of!the!full!technology!package!remains!low! (Penot!et'al.,!2012a).!However,!spontaneous!diffusion!of!some!CA!practices!(soAcalled!innovative! cropping!systems),!has!been!observed!(Penot!et!al.,!2012a).!!

Throughout!the!interviews!and!informal!discussions,!farmers!consistently!referred!to!erratic!rainfall,! which!was!blamed!for!low!yields!and!poor!cover!crop!performance.!Along!with!demographic! pressure,!farmers!identified!it!as!a!factor!that!could!encourage!innovative!agricultural!management! by!means!of!necessity.!These!perceptions!are!consistent!with!research!by!Razakavololona!(2011),!in! his!assessment!of!vulnerability!of!farms!facing!climate!and!demographic!changes!in!the!Lake!Alaotra! region.!He!found!that!the!majority!of!farmers!are!sensitive!to!the!effects!of!climate!and!demographic! changes!on!their!farming!systems,!climate!change!taking!precedence!over!demographic!changes.

The!ABACO!pilot!project!in!the!Lake!Alaotra!region!aims!to!build!upon!farmers’!awareness!of!climatic! and! demographic! changes,! and! their! apparent! interest! in! agricultural! innovation! evidenced! by! observations! of! innovative! cropping! systems,! by! involving! them! to! develop! locally! adapted! CA! practices.!

Findings! from! this! study! show! that! coAexperimentation! with! CA! practices! (between! farmers! of! different!backgrounds,!technicians,!researchers)!was!wellAreceived!by!farmers!and!can!contribute!to! encouraging! smallholder’s! apparent! interest! in! agricultural! innovations.! Overall,! farmers! actively! participated! in! the! project! activities,! and! tested! (or! expressed! intention! to! test)! techniques! from! experiments! on! their! own! farms.! However,! this! optimistic! conclusion! about! the! potential! of! coA experimentation! is! tempered! by! historical! observations! of! high! but! shortAlived! interest,! and! it! is! evident! that! participation! is! a! complex,! culturallyAinfluenced! process.! For! most! of! the! promising! aspects! ,! there! are! counterApoints! that! challenges! use! of! overly! optimistic! and/or! simplistic! perception!and!solutions!of!rather!complex!systems:!!

65!

! • Farmers! did! play! a! significant! role! in! developing! experimental! plans,! even! contradicting! technicians’!advice!at!times.!After!the!first!year!of!experiments,!they!also!offered!constructive! feedback!on!what!to!do!differently!during!the!next!round.!This!constructive!feedback,!however,! also!strongly!suggested!hopeful!interest!in!gaining!material!or!service!benefits!from!the!project.! • Involvement!in!the!field!experiments!was!thought!to!largely!influence!the!actual!and!expected! increase! (diffusion)! of! ! onAfarm! use! of! cover! crops! and! zero! tillage! both! in! space! and! time.! However,! this! apparent! initial! enthusiasm,! may! be! similar! to! what! has! previously! y! been! observed! with! CA! adoption! in! the! Lake! Alaotra! area:! an! initial! active! adoption! and! implementation!followed!by!a!sharp!drop!in!use!within!the!first!two!years.!It!is!also!possible!that! farmers!participate!in!the!project!in!order!to!obtain!access!to!tangible!and!nonAtangible,!benefits! along! with! expectations,! some! of! which! are! explicit! while! others! may! be! not! be! readily! transparent.!!!! • Dramatic!performances!of!crops!and!land!types!that!farmers!wish!to!valorize!on!their!own!farms! seemed!to!have!had!the!highest!and!most!direct!(immediate)!impact.!These!included!!rice!fields! and!vetch,!and!maize!with!cover!crops!on!land!typically!considered!to!have!poor!fertility.!Based! on! this! it! is! evident! that! there! is! potential! to! valorize! smallholder! use! of! land! types! that! are! generally! considered! less! productive! and! therefore! a! lower! priority! (e.g.! steep! tanety,' sandy' baiboho),!while!maintaining!or!improving!those!that!are!already!a!priority!(e.g.!rice!fields).!These! soAcalled! high! impact! field! experiments! provide! evidence! that! the! potential! exchange! of! ideas! during! coAexperimentation! process! with! different! stakeholders! may! indeed! encourage! local! innovations.! Whether! farmers! try! to! repeat! the! experiments! that! apparently! interested! them! remains!to!be!seen.!!! ! Studies! in! the! Alaotra! region! that! observed! high! levels! of! initial! interest! in! CA! only! to! be! shortly! followed!by!a!sharp!drop,!looked!at!adoption!of!all!three!practices!of!the!CA!package!(minimal!soil! disturbance,! permanent! soil! cover,! and! crop! rotations).! The! technology! promoted! by! the! ABACO! project!actually!differs!in!its!aim!to!encourage!farmers!to!modify!these!practices,!in!order!to!find!an! operative!balance!between!constraints!and!contextAspecific!needs!(innovative!cropping!systems).!It!is! possible!that!future!studies!may!find!these!soAcalled!innovative!cropping!systems!being!more!valued! due! to! their! flexibility,! and! more! readily! used! by! farmers.! This! may! be! not! only! because! they! encompass! broader! cropping! system! possibilities! (and! therefore! include! more! farmers! who! use! them),!but!also!because!farmers!are!likely!to!find!them!more!appropriate!and!possible!to!implement! in!their!farms!than!CA!sensuCstricto.!

CoAinnovation!amongst!different!stakeholders!clearly!implies!a!participatory!approach,!although!this! concept! is! fraught! with! different! interpretations! and! (mis)appropriations.! The! result! is! a! wellA intentioned!approach!that!is!at!once!extremely!challenging!and!promising.!A!better!understanding!of! local! cultures! and! their! power! dynamics! seems! crucial! to! appreciate! how! decisions! are! made! and! how! knowledge! is! shared! amongst! smallholder! farmers.! Furthermore,! recognition! of! different! stakeholders’! concepts! of! participation! –! including! reflexive! inquiries! by! project! implementers! –! could! result! in! complementary! styles! that! further! progress! towards! the! ultimate! goal! of! helping! smallholder!farmers!develop!appropriate!agricultural!innovations.!!!!

66!

! $

Table$8.$Overview$of$hypothesis$components$and$results.$

Hypothesis$components$ Results$

Hypothesis'1.'Biophysical'results'of'field'experiments'are'expected'to'vary'per'experiment,' with'potential'differences'in'interpretation'between'different'stakeholders.''

Biophysical!results:! As!expected,!the!biophysical!results!did!vary!depending!on! the!experiments!and!objectives.!!!

Interpretation!of!field! Farmer! interpretations! of! field! experiments! were! experiments!between! approached! from! two! perspectives.! Both! showed! similar! stakeholders:! interpretations!between!farmers,!except!for!experiment!1! north! (effect! of! different! sowing! densities! on! rice! yield).! Interpretations! between! different! stakeholders! (different! farmers,! technicians,! project! staff,! researchers)! were! also! similar!for!most!experiments,!with!the!exceptions!being!1! north!and!2!south!(both!with!rice).!

Impact!of!farmer! Farmers!made!two!types!of!suggestions!for!the!next!year!of! interpretation!(of! experiments.! One! type! implied! that! they! would! like! to! experiments)!on!future!field! make! use! of! the! material! and! other! support! offered! by! experiments!and!onAfarm! ABACO! while! the! project! continues,! even! if! their! decisions:! suggestions! also! contributed! constructive! criticism! about! how! the! research! project! functioned! (e.g.! larger! experiment!field!size).!The!other!gave!the!impression!that! some!farmers!would!like!to!continue!information!exchange! related!to! CA!practices,!within!and!between!the!northern! and! southern! groups.! ! The!experiments!did!seem!to!influence!onAfarm!decisions!in! the! current! year! as! well! as! the! future.! The! general! tendencies,! largely! attributed! to! involvement! in! the! field! experiments,! were! to! continue,! increase,! or! start! use! of! zeroAtillage!!and!soil!cover!techniques.!!

Hypothesis'2.'Farmer'perceptions'of'CA'are'expected'to'vary'depending'on'experience'with' CA.'ResourceClevels,'personal'character,'information'networks,'social'cohesion,'motivation' to'gain'knowledge'and'other'expectations'of'the'project'may'influence'participation'in' ABACO,'as'well'as'how'knowledge'is'shared.''

67!

! Perceptions!of!CA:! Perceptions! of! CA! did! vary,! according! to! experiment! interpretations!and!onAfarm!decisions,!and!did!seem!to!be! influenced! by! personal! experience! and! other! factors.! To! what! degree! other! factors! such! as! personal! character,! information! networks,! social! cohesion,! motivation! to! gain! knowledge! influenced! perceptions! of! CA! was! difficult! to! interpret,! though! it! seems! that! they! did! play! a! role.! Contrary! to! what! was! expected,! resource! levels! did! not! seem!to!necessarily!influence!perceptions!of!CA.!!!

Participation!in!ABACO! Reasons!to!participate!in!the!project!did!indeed!vary!among! project:! farmers.! They! included! curiosity,! motivation! to! improve! livelihoods,! potential! material! advantages,! access! to! new! technical! information,! potential! undefined! advantages! of! working! with! outsiders! and! foreigners,! and! following! members!within!their!social!network.!

Knowledge!sharing!amongst! How! farmers! share! knowledge! of! CA! techniques! remains! farmers:! poorly! understood.! It! was! beyond! the! scope! of! this! research! to! explore! the! complex! social! relationships! and! power!dynamics!that!influence!knowledge!sharing!in!rural! Malagasy! highland! culture.! However,! some! insights! regarding!the!role!of!more!vocal!farmers,!social!networks,! and!inclusion!are!cautiously!attempted.!!!!!!!!!

Hypothesis'3.'Interaction'of' Gender! did! not! seem! to! have! a! pronounced! influence! on! gender'with'questions'1'and' the!interpretations!of!experiments!or!perceptions!of!CA.!! 2'is'likely'to'be'relatively' subtle'

68!

! 6.!Conclusions! !

This!study!aimed!to!develop!a!better!understanding!of!farmer!perceptions!of!CA!in!the!Lake!Alaotra! region!through!a!fourAmonth!engagement!with!ten!field!experiments!initiated!by!the!ABACO!pilot! project.! The! experiments! were! based! on! CA! systems,! and! ! were! coAdesigned! by! farmers! and! technicians! and! managed! by! farmers.! Results! and! insights! from! biophysical! measurements,! interviews! and! participant! observation! were! triangulated! to! respond! to! research! questions,! which! addressed!farmer!interpretations!of!the!field!experiments,!how!the!experiments!might!impact!future! testing! and! onAfarm! decisions,! and! touched! upon! the! interaction! between! CA! and! the! underlying! social!factors!of!knowledge!sharing!and!gender!issues.!

According!to!observations!made!during!this!study,!as!well!as!others!in!the!same!region,!smallholders! have!an!apparent!interest!in!innovative!cropping!systems!based!on!CA!practices.!This!seems!to!result! from! a! combination! of:! their! awareness! of! local! challenges! (e.g.! erratic! rainfall,! demographic! pressure,!limited!land!availability,!and!need!to!improve!inherent!soil!fertility!and!crop!productivity);! their!interest!to!improve!their!livelihoods;!the!presence!of!CA!promotion!in!the!region!for!more!than! ten!years;!and!a!receptiveness!to!externally!introduced!knowledge!that!they!evaluate!according!to! their!own!perceptions!of!constraints!and!advantages.!From!an!optimistic!perspective,!this!context! seems!to!offer!excellent!potential!to!generate!applicable!learning!outcomes!through!coAinnovation! development! of! CA! between! farmers! and! technicians.! However,! this! potential! is! ! confined! by! the! complex! notion! of! participation,! which! is! the! very! concept! that! facilitates! coAinnovation.! More! attention!to!different!cultural!interpretations!of!participation!amongst!stakeholders!could!improve! the!overall!efficiency!of!work!processes!and!the!evaluation!of!their!outcomes.!!

It!may!yet!be!too!early!to!assess!the!impact!of!innovative!cropping!systems,!but!future!assessments! will!surely!respond!to!this!optimistic!perception!of!their!potential.!!

6.1.!Future!recommendations!

Related!to!the!second!year!of!ABACO!field!experiments:!

1)!FieldAlevel!! • Include! more! shortAterm! impactful! examples! that! valorize! crops! farmers! typically! use! in! combination!with!land!often!thought!to!be!less!fertile!(e.g.!steep!tanety!or!sandy!baiboho).! • Test!management!methods!discussed!during!the!first!year!(e.g.!cutting!or!trampling!dolichos!and! mucuna!to!control!vertical!climbing!on!maize).!! • Address! new! aspects,!such!as!what!adequate!amounts!of!mulch!to!prevent!erosion!or!weeds! look!like.!! • Increase!the!sizes!of!field!experiments,!if!possible,!and!spread!experiments!throughout!villages! with!participating!farmers.!

69!

! 2)!Social!aspects!and!project!operation! • Keep!groups!open!to!newcomers!but!ask!farmers!to!propose!and!conduct!a!formal!induction! system.! • Find! a! way! to! value! “private”! tests! that! farmers! make,! perhaps! by! providing! moments! to! share!observations!with!others!during!meetings!or!perhaps!even!in!the!field.!! • Continue! using! photographs! and! moments! for! informal! discussion,! in! addition! to! orally! presented!results.! • More!time!for!discussion!amongst!farmers,!especially!during!exchange!visits!which!bring!the! two!groups!together.!!!

General!ideas!for!future!agricultural!innovation!in!the!Lake!Alaotra!region!

1)! Concerted! attempts! to! understand! more! about! the! socioAcultural! context! in! the! region,! with! special!attention!to!social!networks,!information!sharing,!and!power!dynamics!amongst!farmers.!An! ethnographic!study,!for!example,!could!contribute!to!this!area!of!research!and!compliment!future! projects!in!the!region.!

2)! Employ! methodologies! that! encourage! exploring! nonAverbal! information! related! to! innovation! choices.!This!could!include,!for!example,!a!technographic!framework!that!emphasizes!attention!to! performance!and!embodied!knowledge,!complimented!by!an!anthropological!approach!of!longAterm! participant!observation.!This!could!contribute!not!only!to!a!significantly!improved!understanding!of! dynamics!between!stakeholders,!but!also!their!interaction!with!other!nonAhuman!elements!such!as! the!landscape,!different!market!spheres,!and!(relatively)!recently!introduced!plants.!!

3)! Engage! with! critiques! of! participatory! approaches,! with! specific! attention! to! local! concepts! of! participation!and!how!they!may!be!complimented!by!participation!concepts!with!external!origins.! Lessons! and! information! learned! from! point! 1! and! 2! above! could! be! applied! to! develop! improvements!on!participatory!approaches.!

! ! ! ! !

70!

! Acknowledgements!

My sincere thanks goes to my team of supervisors for their guidance thoughout this project: Drs. Krishna Naudin, Johannes Scholberg, Eric Penot and Hélène Brives. I would also like to extend my thanks to Dr. Pablo Tittonell for introducing the thesis topic.

I am grateful to FOFIFA and the Rhones-Alpes region for financial support that made this thesis possible.

I would also like to express my gratitude to all the farmers who shared their time, thoughts and homes with us.

To Cinderella, my translator and dear friend, you deserve special mention. It is largely thanks to your talents, work ethic , and kindness that we were able to carry out the fieldwork for this study. Misaotra betsaka for braving the caterpillars and millipedes, far too many twelve-hour work days, skipped meals, and for all the good company and laughs from the beginning to the end...until next time!

Many thanks to my colleagues and friends in Madagascar – Guillaume, Jess, Joachin, Lalaina, Monique, Rivo and Thomas, and in Wageningen and afar – Andriana, Elin, Eva, Ioanna, and Yiannis for your support and company! And to my parents and Vincenzo, thank you, as always for such consistent love and patience.

71!

! References!! !

Affholder!F.,!Jourdain!D.,!Quang!D.!D.,!Tuong!T.!P.,!Morize!M.,!and!Ricome!A.,!2010.!Constraints!to!farmers’! adoption!of!directAseeding!mulchAbased!cropping!systems:!A!farm!scale!modeling!approach!applied!to!the! mountainous!slopes!of!Vietnam.!Agricultural'Systems,!103(1),!51–62.!! ! Andriamandroso!H.,!and!Krishna!N.,!2009.!Evaluation!visuelle!du!taux!couverture!du!sol!et!de!la!quantité!du! résidus.!CIRAD,!BVLac.! ! Baudron!F.,!Mwanza!H.!M.,!Triomphe!B.,!and!Bwalya!M.,!2007.!Conservation!agriculture!in!Zambia:!a!case!study! of!Southern!Province.!Nairobi.!African!Conservation!Tillage!Network,!Centre!de!Coopération!Internationale!de! Recherche!Agronomique!pour!le!Développement,!Food!and!Agriculture!Organization!of!the!United!Nations.! ! Baudron!F.,!Tittonell!P.,!Corbeels!M.,!Letourmy!P.,!and!Giller!K.!E.,!2012.!Comparative!performance!of! conservation!agriculture!and!current!smallholder!farming!practices!in!semiAarid!Zimbabwe.!Field'Crops' Research,!132,!117–128.!! ! BlancAPamard.,!RakotoARamiarantsoa!H.,!2006.!Les!pratiques!paysannes!de!gestion!de!l’érosion!sur!les!Hautes! Terres!Centrales.!In:!Actes!des!journées!scientifiques!regionals!du!réseau!Erosion!et!GCES,!Antananarivo,!AUF:! 168A178.! ! Bolliger!A.,!Magid!J.,!and!De!Neergaard!A.,!2008.!Why!South!African!smallholders!are!not!embracing!zeroAtill:! exogenous!and!endogenous!constraints!to!smallholder!zeroAtill!adoption!in!KwaZuluANatal.!Unpublished!study.! ! Brévault!T.,!Guibert!H.,!and!Naudin!K.!2008.!Preliminary!Studies!of!Pest!Constraints!To!Cotton!Seedlings!in!a! Direct!Seeding!MulchABased!System!in!Cameroon.!Experimental!Agriculture,!45(01),!25.! ! Denzin,!N.,!1970.!SOCIOLOGICAL!METHODS:!A!SOURCEBOOK.!(Ed)!Norman!K.!Denzin.!Aldine!Transaction,! Chicago.! ! BlancApamard,!C.,!and!Fauroux,!E.,!2004.!L’illusion!participative :!exemples!ouestAmalgaches.!In:!Autrepart.! Presses!de!Sciences!Po.! ! Ceccarelli!S.,!and!Grando!S.,!2006.!DecentralizedAparticipatory!plant!breeding:!an!example!of!demand!driven! research.!Euphytica,!155(3),!349–360.!! ! Chabierski!S.,!Penot!E.,!Husson!O.,!Dabat!M.,!Andriamala!H.,!and!Domas!R.,!2009.!Document!de!travail!BV!lac!n! °!45!Determinants!of!DMC!technologies!adoption!among!smallholders!in!the!Lake!Alaotra!area,!Madagascar,!1– 18.! ! Chambers!R.,!1995.!Paradigm!shifts!and!the!practice!of!participatory!research!and!development.!In'Power'and' Participatory'Development:'Theory'and'Practice,!ed.!N.!Nelson!and!S.!Wright,!Intermediate!Technology! Publications!London,!p.!30A42.! ! Corbeels!M.,!2011.!Impact!and!adoption!of!conservation!agriculture!in!Africa:!a!multiAscale!and!multiA stakeholder!analysis.!In:!World!Congress!on!Conservation!Agriculture,!Brisbane,!Australia.! ! BrydonAMiller!M.,!Greenwood!D.,!Maguire!P.,!2003.!Why!action!research?!Volume!1(1)!9A28,!Sage!publications,! London.! ! Derpsch!R.,!Friedrich!T.,!Kassam!A.,!&!Hongwen!L.,!2010.!Current!status!of!adoption!of!noAtill!farming!in!the! world!and!some!of!its!main!benefits,!3(1).!! !

72!

! Dubreil!N.,!2011.!Targeting!Conservation!Agriculture!(!CA!)!innovations!to!combat!soil!degradation!and!food! insecurity!in!semiAarid!Africa!–!a!literature!review.!Msc!thesis,!Wageningen!University.!! ! Ducrot!R.,!1996.!Régulation!d’une!production!en!situation!d’incertituds!et!de!fortes!contraintes:!Exemple!des! systèmes!rizicoles!du!lac!Alaotra!(Madagascar).!Thèse!doctorat,!INA!PG,!Paris,!France.! ! Ducrot!R.,!and!Capillon!A.,!2004.!A!Practice!Analysis!to!Account!for!Adoption!of!Innovations!in!Irrigated!Rice! Cropping!Systems!in!Lake!Alaotra!(Madagascar).!Journal!of!Sustainable!Agriculture,!Vol.!24!(3)!37–41.! ! Durand!C.,!Nave!S.,!Penot!E.,!2012.!Les!paysans!de!l'Alaotra,!entre!rizières!et!tanety.!Étude!des!dynamiques! agraires!et!des!stratégies!paysannes!dans!un!contexte!de!pression!foncière!Lac!Alaotra,!Madagascar!et!mise!en! place!d’un!réseau!de!fermes!de!references.!In!Exploitations!agricoles,!stratégies!paysannes!et!politiques! publiques.!Les!apports!du!modèle!Olympe!sous!la!direction!de!Éric!Penot.!Editions!Quae,!Versailles.!Collection! Update!Sciences!&!Technology.!Janvier,!2012,!350!p..! ! Dusserre,!Julie.!Personal!communication!14!June!2013.! ! Ekboir!J.,!Boa!K.,!and!Dankyi!A.A.,!2002.!Impacts!of!NoATill!Technologies!in!Ghana.!Mexico!D.F.:!CIMMYT.! ! Erenstein!O.,!2002.!Crop!residue!mulching!in!tropical!and!semiAtropical!countries :!An!evaluation!of!residue! availability!and!other!technological!implications.!Soil!and!Tillage!Research,!67(2),!115–133.! ! Erenstein!O.,!2003.!Smallholder!conservation!farming!in!the!tropics!and!subAtropics:!a!guide!to!the! development!and!dissemination!of!mulching!with!crop!residues!and!cover!crops.!Agriculture,!Ecosystems!&! Environment,!100(1),!17–37.!! ! Fabre!J.,!2011.!Evaluation!technicoAeconomique!des!effets!des!systemes!de!culture!sous!couverture!vegetale! dans!les!exploitations!agricoles!du!lac!Alaotra,!Madagascar.!MSc!thesis,!L’institut!des!regions!rhaudes!de! Montpellier!SupAgro.!! ! FAO,!2008.!Investing!in!Sustainable!Agricultural!Intensification!The!Role!of!Conservation!Agriculture!A! Framework!for!Action.!Workshop:!Investing!in!Sustainable!Crop!Intensification:!The!Case!for!Improving!Soil! Health,!July,!Rome.! ! Ferry!L.,!Mietton!M.,!France!L.,!Robison!L.,!and!Erismann!J.,!2009.!Alaotra!Lake!(Madagascar)!–!Past,!Present! and!Future.!Zeitschrift!für!Geomorphologie!53(3),!299–318.! ! Freire!P.,!1970.!Pedagogy!of!the!Oppressed.!Herder!&!Herder,!New!York.! ! Giller!K.!E.,!Witter!E.,!Corbeels!M.,!and!Tittonell!P.,!2009.!Conservation!agriculture!and!smallholder!farming!in! Africa:!The!heretics’!view.!Field!Crops!Research,!114(1),!23–34.!! ! Giller!K.!E.,!Corbeels!M.,!Nyamangara!J.,!Triomphe!B.,!Affholder!F.,!Scopel!E.,!and!Tittonell!P.,!2011.!A!research! agenda!to!explore!the!role!of!conservation!agriculture!in!African!smallholder!farming!systems.!Field!Crops! Research,!124(3),!468–472.! ! Godin!B.,!2006.!The!linear!model!of!innovation:!The!historical!construction!of!an!analytical!framework.!Science,! Technology!&!Human!Values!31:!639–667.! ! Govaerts!B.,!Verhulst!N.,!CastellanosANavarrete!A.,!Sayre!K.!D.,!Dixon!J.,!and!Dendooven!L.,!2009.!Conservation! Agriculture!and!Soil!Carbon!Sequestration:!Between!Myth!and!Farmer!Reality.!Critical!Reviews!in!Plant! Sciences,!28(3),!97–122.!! ! Gowing!J.!W.,!and!Palmer!M.,!2008.!Sustainable!agricultural!development!in!subASaharan!Africa:!the!case!for!a! paradigm!shift!in!land!husbandry.!Soil!Use!and!Management,!24(1),!92–99.!! ! 73!

! Hay!RK,!and!Gilbert!RA.,!2001.!Variation!in!the!harvest!index!of!tropical!maize:!evaluation!of!recent!evidence! from!Mexico!and!Malawi.!Annals!of!Applied!Biology.!138:103A109! " Husson!O.,!Séguy!L.,!Charpentier!H.,!Rakotondramanana,!Michellon!R.,!Raharison!T!et'al.,!2013.!Manuel! pratique!du!semis!direct!sur!couverture!végétale!permanente!(SCV).!Application!à!Madagascar.!GSDM/CIRAD.! Antananarivo.! ! Jansen!K.,!and!Vellema!S.,!2011.!What!is!technography?!NJAS!A!Wageningen!Journal!of!Life!Sciences,!57(3A4),! 169–177.!! ! Kassam!A.,!Friedrich!T.,!Shaxson!F.,!and!Pretty!J.,!2009.!The!spread!of!Conservation!Agriculture:!justification,! sustainability!and!uptake.!International!Journal!of!Agricultural!Sustainability,!7(4),!292–320.!! ! Kessler!C.!A.,!2006.!Decisive!keyAfactors!influencing!farm!households!’!soil!and!water!conservation!investments,! Applied!Geography!26!(2006)!40–60.! ! Knowler!D.,!and!Bradshaw!B.,!2007.!Farmers’!adoption!of!conservation!agriculture:!A!review!and!synthesis!of! recent!research.!Food!Policy,!32(1),!25–48.!! ! Lal!R.,!Eckert!D.J.,!Fausey!N.R.,!Edwards!W.M.,!1990.!Conservation!tillage!in!sustainable!agriculture.!In:! Edwards,!C.A.,!Lal,!R.,!Madden,!P.,!Miller,!R.H.,!House,!G.!(Eds.),!Sustainable!Agricultural!Systems.!Soil!and! Water!Conservation!Society,!Iowa,!pp.!203–225.! ! Lal!R.,!2007.!Anthropogenic!influences!on!world!soils!and!implications!to!global!food!security.!Advances!in! agronomy,!93(3).!! ! Landers!J.,!2007.!Tropical!CropALivestock!Systems!in!Conservation!Agriculture:!The!Brazilian!Experience.! Integrated!Crop!Management,!Vol.!5.!Rome:!FAO.!! ! Lewin!K.,!1946.!Action!Research!and!Minority!Problems.!Journal!of!Social!Issues,!2:!34–46.!! ! Luks!F,!Siebenhuner!B.,!2007.!Transdisciplinarity!for!social!learning?!The!contribution!of!the!German!socioA ecological!research!initiative!to!sustainability!governance.!Ecological!Economics!63:!418–426.! ! Machado,!P.!L.!O.!A.,!and!Silva!C.!A.,!2001.!Soil!management!under!noAtillage!systems!in!the!tropics!with!special! reference!to!Brazil.!Nutrient!Cycling!in!Agroecosystems!61:!119–130.! ! Mackenzie!J.,!Tan!P.AL.,!Hoverman!S.,!and!Baldwin!C.,!2012.!Article!2:!The!Value!and!Limitations!of!Participatory! Action!Research!Methodology.!Journal!of!Hydrology,!474,!11–21.!! ! Maguire!P.,!1987.!Doing!Participatory!Research:!Feminist!Approach.!University!of!Massachusetts,!Amherst.! ! Mazvimavi!K.,!Patrick!V.,!and!Isaac!J.,!2010.!Conservation!Agriculture!Practices!and!Adoption!by!Smallholder! Farmers!in!Zimbabwe.!Poster!presented!at!the!Joint!3rd!African!Association!of!Agricultural!Economists!(AAAE)! and!48th!Agricultural!Economists!Association!of!South!Africa!(AEASA)!Conference,!Cape!Town,!South!Africa,! September!19A23.! ! McIntyre!A.,!2008.!Participatory!Action!Research.!Sage,!CA.! ! Michener!V.!J.,!1998.!The!Participatory!Approach :!Contradiction!and!CoAoption!in!Burkina!Faso.!26(12),!2105– 2118.! ! Misiko!M.,!and!Tittonell!P.,!2011.!Counting!Eggs?!Smallholder!Experiments!and!Tryouts!as!Success!indicators!of! Adoption!of!Soil!Fertility!Technologies.!In!A.!Bationo,!B.!Waswa,!J.!M.!Okeyo,!F.!Maina,!&!J.!M.!Kihara!(Eds.),! Innovations!as!Key!to!the!Green!Revolution!in!Africa.!Dordrecht:!Springer!Science!and!Business!Media.! ! 74!

! Mureithi!J.G.,!Gachene!C.K.K.,!Ojiem!J.,!2003.!The!role!of!green!manure!legumes!in!smallholder!farming! systems!in!Kenya:!the!legume!research!network!project.!Tropical!and!Subtropical!Agroecosystems.!2003;1:57– 70.! ! Naudin!K.,!Scopel!E.,!Andriamandroso!L.!H.,!Rakotosolofo!M.,!Andriamarosoa!Ratsimbazafy!N.!R.!S.,! Rakotozandriny!J.!N.,!Salgado!P.,!et!al.,!2011.!TradeAOffs!Between!Biomass!Use!and!Soil!Cover.!the!Case!of!RiceA Based!Cropping!Systems!in!the!Lake!Alaotra!Region!of!Madagascar.!Experimental!Agriculture,!48(02),!194–209.! ! Naudin!K.,!Bruelle,!G.,!Salgado!P.,!Penot!E.,!Scopel!E.,!Lubbers!M.,!de!Riddern!N,!Giller!K.E.!TradeA!offs!around! use!of!biomass!for!livestock!feed!and!soil!cover!at!farm!level!in!the!Alaotra!lake!region!of!Madagascar! (forthcoming)! ! Penot!E.,!Fabre!J.,!and!Domas!R.,!2011a.!The!real!adoption!of!Conservation!Agriculture!(!CA!)!in!the!Lake!Alaotra! area!after!10!years!of!diffusion.!In:!World!Congress!on!Conservation!Agriculture,!26A29!September.! ! Penot!E.!and!Andriatsitohaina!R.,!2011b.!!Savoirs,!pratiques,!innovations!et!changement!de!paradigme!de! l'agriculture!dans!la!région!du!lac!Alaotra!!(Madagascar),!Geoconfluences,!23!juin!2011,!Afrique!subsaharienne,! territoires!et!conflits.!! ! Penot!E.,!Macdowall!C.,!Domas!R.,!2012a.!Modeling!impact!of!Conservation!Agriculture!adoption!on!farming! systems!agricultural!incomes.!The!case!of!lake!Alaotra!Region,!Madagascar.!RIMEAPAMPA/CA2AFRICA! project.!!IFSA!Denmark!July!2012.! ! Penot!E.,!Domas!R.,!Rakotoarimanana,!Scopel!E.!2012b.!Conservation!agriculture!adoption!in!Lake!Alaotra,! Madagascar.!In!:!Hauswirth!Damien!(ed.),!Pham!Thi!Sen!(ed.),!Nicetic!Oleg!(ed.),!Tivet!Florent!(ed.),!Doanh!Le! Quoc!(ed.),!Van!de!Fliert!Elske!(ed.),!Kirchhof!Gunnar!(ed.),!Boulakia!Stéphane!(ed.),!Chabierski!Stéphane!(ed.),! Husson!Olivier!(ed.),!Chabanne!André!(ed.),!Boy.!Conservation!agriculture!and!sustainable!upland!livelihoods! innovations!for,!with!and!by!farmers!to!adapt!to!local!and!global!changes!:!Proceedings!the!3rd!International! Conference!on!Conservation!Agriculture!in!Southeast!Asia,!held!in!Hanoi,!Vietnam,!10t.!Montpellier!:!CIRAD,!p.! 292A294.!International!Conference!on!Conservation!Agriculture!in!Southeast!Asia.!3,!2012A12A10/2012A12A15,! Hanoi,!Vietnam.! ! Penot!E.,!Dabat!M.H.,!Andriatsitohaina!T.,!Grandjean!P.,!2013a.!Les!méandres!du!développement!agricole!au! Lac!Alaotra,!Madagascar.!Entre!inconstance!politique!et!innovation!technique.!Cahiers!de!l’Agriculture,!numéro! spécial!sur!agriculture!de!conservation.! ! Penot!E.,!Domas!R.,!Raharisoa!B.,!Rakotondravelo!J.C.,!Andriamalala!H.,!2013b.!Évolution!des!itinéraires! techniques!à!base!de!riz!pluvial!et!adoption!paysanne!des!techniques!de!l'agriculture!de!conservation!depuis! 2003!au!lac!Alaotra!(Madagascar).!Soumis!aux!Cahiers!de!l’Agriculture.!Numéro!spécial!sur!le!riz.! ! Pretty!J.,!Noble!A.D.,!Bossio!D.,!Dixon!J.,!Hine!R.E.,!Penning!de!Vries!F.W.T.!and!Morison!J.I.L.,!2006.!ResourceA conserving!agriculture!increases!yields!in!developing!countries.!Environmental!Science!&!Technology!3!(1),!24– 43.! ! Rabary!B.,!Naudin!K.,!Letourmy!P.,!I,!M.!H.,!Randriamanantsoa!R.,!Michellon!R.,!Rafarasoa!L,!Ratnadass,!A.,! 2011.!White!grubs!,!Scarabaeidae!larvae!(!Insecta,!Coleoptera!)!control!by!plants!in!Conservation!Agriculture :! effects!on!macrofauna!diversity.!World!Congress!of!Conservation!Agriculture!incorporating!3rd!Farming! Systems!Design!Conference.!September,!Brisbane,!Australia,!pp.!149–150.! ! Rakotondramanana,!Husson!O.,!and!Enjalric,!F.,!2010.!Documentation!et!synthèse!de!l’agriculture!de! conservation!à!Madagascar.!FAO.!Antananarivo,!Madagascar:!GSDM,!96!pp.! ! Ranaivoson,!L.!2012.!Document!de!travail!n˚!90:!Les!plateformes!d'innovation:!discussion!avec!les!membres!des! communautés!participatives!(dispositif!ABACO!dans!la!région!du!Lac!Alaotra,!Madagascar).! !

75!

! Razakavololona!A..!2011.!Indicateurs!de!vulnérabilité!des!exploitations!agricoles!face! aux!variabilités!climatique!et!démographique!:!applications!à!la!riziculture!dans!la!région!du! lac!Alaotra(MADAGASCAR).!Antananarivo!:!ESSA,!XVIIIA222!p..!Thèse!de!doctorat!:!Sciences!agronomiques.!

Richards!P.,!1989.!Agriculture!as!a!performance.!In!R.!Chambers,!A.!Pacey!and!L.!Thrupp!(Eds.),!Farmer!First:! Farmer!Innovation!and!Agricultural!Research.!London:!Intermediate!Technology,!pp.!39A42.! ! Richards!P.,!1993.!Cultivation!Knowledge!or!performance.!In!An!anthropological!critique!of!development:!The! growth!of!ignorance!(pp.!61–78).! ! Rogers!E.M.,!1993.!Diffusion!of!Innovations.!Free!Press:!New!York,!NY! ! Roncoli!C.,!Orlove!B.,!Kabugo!M.,!and!Waiswa!M.,!2010.!Cultural!styles!of!participation!in!farmers’!discussions! of!seasonal!climate!forecasts!in!Uganda.!Journal!of!the!Agriculture,!Food!and!Human!Values,!28:!123A138.! ! Schneider!F.,!Steiger!D.,!Ledermann!T.,!Fry!P.,!and!Rist!S.,!2012.!NoAtillage!farming:!coAcreation!of!innovation! through!network!building.!Land!Degrad.!Development!23,!242–255.! ! Schulz!S.,!Honlonkou!a.!N.,!Carsky!R.!J.,!Manyong!V.!M.,!and!Oyewole!B.!D.,!2003.!Alternatives!To!Mucuna!for! Soil!Fertility!Management!in!Southern!Bnin:!Farmer!Perception!and!Use!of!Traditional!and!Exotic!Grain! Legumes.!Experimental!Agriculture,!39(3),!267–278.!! ! Schuller!P.,!Walling!D.!E.,!Sepúlveda!A.,!Castillo!A.,!and!Pino!I.,!2007.!Changes!in!soil!erosion!associated!with!the! shift!from!conventional!tillage!to!a!noAtillage!system,!documented!using!137Cs!measurements.!Soil!and!Tillage! Research,!94(1),!183–192.!! ! Tittonell!P.,!Scopel!E.,!Andrieu!N.,!Posthumus!H.,!Mapfumo!P.,!Corbeels!m.,!Mkomwa!S.,!2012.!Agroecology! based!aggradation!conservation!agriculture!(ABACO):!Targeting!innovations!!to!combat!soil!degradation!and! food!insecurity!in!semiAarid!Africa.!Field!Crops!Research,!132,!168A174.! ! Van!Maanen!.J,!2011.!Tales!from!the!Field:!on!writing!ethnography.!University!of!Chicago!Press,!Chicago.! ! Vanlauwe!B.,!and!Giller!K.,!2006.!Popular!myths!around!soil!fertility!management!in!subASaharan!Africa.! Agriculture,!Ecosystems!&!Environment,!116(1A2),!34–46.!! ! White!S.C.,!1996.!Depoliticising!development:!The!uses!and!abuses!of!participation.!Development!in!Practice! 6(l),!6A15.! ! Whyte,!W.F.!(ed.),!1991.!Participatory!Action!Research.!Sage,!CA.! !

76!

! Appendices to Smallholder perceptions of conservation agriculture based on ten co-designed field experiments in the Lake Alaotra region, Madagascar

Jennifer Kendzior Thesis report in fulfillment of the double degree MSc Agroecology (WUR and ISARA-Lyon) Under the major responsibility of Wageningen University (Farming Systems Ecology Chair Group) September 2013

Appendices: table of Contents

Appendix I: Individual report, Experiment 1 north ...... 1 Appendix I (for individual report, experiment 1 north): ANOVA ...... 10 Appendix II: Individual report, Experiment 2 north ...... 12 Appendix III: Individual report, Experiment 3 north ...... 20 Appendix IV: Individual report, Experiment 4 north ...... 28 Appendix V: Individual report, Experiment 5 north ...... 31 Appendix VI: Individual report, Experiment 1 south ...... 37 Appendix VII: Individual report, Experiment 2 south ...... 44 Appendix VIII: Individual report, Experiment 3 south ...... 51 Appendix VIIII: Individual report, Experiment 4 south ...... 59 Appendix X: Individual report, Experiment 5 south ...... 64 Appendix XI: Individual interview guidelines ...... 69 Appendix XII: Group interview guidelines ...... 70

Appendix I: Individual report, Experiment 1 north

Figure 1. Arial view of experiment 1 north. On lower slope at Ambavahadiromba, next to the main path that connects the village and the main road. Source : Google Earth October 30, 2010.

Plot owner and location Objectives

 Mme Robine  Observe and compare the yield of different  Lower slope, Ambavahadiromba upland rice varieties  17°30'51.27"S, 48°33'20.81"E  Compare effect on crop performance between two different fertilization treatments  Observe effect of planting density on grain yield  Observe effects of planting density on weeds

Crops Planting densities

Three rice varieties:  20cm * 40cm (A)  2366 (1)  20cm * 30cm (B)  SEBOTA 406 (2)  20cm * 25cm (C)  CNA 4136 (3) Fertilizer  1 block NPK and urea  1 block liquid compost (zebu manure)

Treatments and repetitions 18 treatments, 3 repetitions

Development of experimental plan

It was decided by the group to test three local rice varieties which have been used for a long time in the region : 2368 (1), SEBOTA 406 (2) which has started to be used by farmers in the area, and (3) NCA4136. Farmers proposed that the third variety should be one that they 1

haven’t yet tried, i.e. that the project suggests a third variety new to them. Together, the size of each sub-plot was defined. Robine explained to others the necessity of repetition: as some measure of security in case a sub-plot is destroyed during the test. She proposed the plot size as that attained with TAFA test, but couldn’t remember the exact size of the plot. She remembers just that 1 kg of rice was needed per plot. After calculating the size necessary per plot, they decided to make three repetitions. The 20 * 40cm (A) was recommended by the technicians.

Regarding use of fertilizers, Cyril proposed to make compost rather than using NPK and urea. After further disucssion, it was decided to fix a date when Cyril could share his compost recipe and deliver some for the tests. Julienne proposed to compare the effects of NPK and urea, which the women of Ambavahadiromba usually use, with those of liquid manure.

Materials and methods

Layout The parcel was located next to the main road connected to the village. Each sub-plot was approximately 2.5 by 2.0 m, separated by 0.5 m strips. Fertilizer treatments were grouped in two blocks, and each sub-plot was labelled with a number (1 to 54). Sub- plots planted with 20cm * 40cm (A) had six lines, 20cm * 30cm (B) had seven lines, and 20cm * 25cm (C) had eight lines. The number of seed holes per line varied between 9 and 13. (Figure 2)

Figure 2. Experiment 1 north layout. Each sub-plot was approximately 2.5 by 2.0 m, separated by 0.5 m strips. Fertilizer treatments were grouped in two blocks. 1 to 54 are sub-plot numbers. 1 to 3 are rice varieties (1=2366, 2=SEBOTA 406, 2 3=CNA 4136). A to C are planting densities (A=20cm * 40cm, B=20cm * 30cm, C=20cm * 25cm).

Parcel management by Robine  Previous crop maize and cowpeas, last time ploughed was 2005  11 December: sowed rice, 1 kg per variety  3 January: weeding  Some seedlings were transplanted to fill in gaps where the plants had died. They were transplanted between the same treatments.  10 February: weeding  15 May: weeding (“mother grass”, only)  Fertilizer treatments (no dates): 1 sachet of gaucho per variety, NPK applied twice (3 kg and 2 kg), urea applied twice (3 kg and 2 kg), liquid compost applied once (15 L).  7 April : harvested rice  Next crop groundnuts

Rice yield and yield components

Tillers were counted on 5 and 6 March by selecting three seed holes (one in every three) in two lines. The selection of seed holes and lines did not include those on the borders. Panicles were not counted as some had not yet emerged, but it was deemed worthwhile to count tillers, at least, in case something happened to the parcel before the harvest (e.g. zebu grazing).

The rice was, in fact, harvested earlier than anticipated, so it was not possible to count panicles per seed hole. The rice was cut and left to dry separately on each sub-plot, so instead, 30 tillers were randomly selected from each sub-plot, and panicles were counted. From the 30 tillers, ten panicles were randomly selected, dried at 68˚C for 48 hours, degrained, and separated into empty and full spikelets. The weight of empty and full spikelets, and 200 empty and 200 full spikelets was then measured.

The distance between the first and last line, and the first and last seed hole were measured in order to calculate actual dimensions of each sub-plot and, in turn, the yield per sub-plot and per hectare.

The remaining rice (after selection of 30 panicles) was dried, threshed carefully on a tarpaulin to reduce the number of lost grains, dried, cleaned, and weighed on-site with a hand-held scale.

Soil cover To document and offer material support to discuss soil cover, a photo was taken of each sub-plot on 6 March. They were intended to be compared with photos taken from the same position just before the harvest. As the harvest occurred earlier than anticipated, the second set of photos were not taken and soil cover was discussed without visual support.

Results

Yield per rice variety was 2.71 t/ha for 2366, 2.79 t/ha for CNA 4136, and 2.78 t/ha for SEBOTA 406 (see Figure 3).

The yield of 2366 was 2.16 t/ha with liquid compost and 3.26 t/ha with NPK and urea; CNA 4136 2.63 t/ha with liquid compost and 2.96 t/ha with NPK and urea; and SEBOTA 406 2.56 t/ha with liquid compost and 3.00 t/ha with NPK and urea (see Figure 4).

Yield per sowing density 20*25 cm was 2.10 t/ha (2366), 2.42 t/ha (CNA 4136), and 2.79 t/ha (SEBOTA 406). Yield per sowing density 20*30cm was 3.08 t/ha (2366), 2.78 t/ha (CNA 4136), and 3.06 t/ha (SEBOTA 046). The yield of sowing density 20*40 was 2.94 t/ha (2366), 3.17 t/ha (CNA 4136), and 2.48 t/ha (SEBOTA 406). (See Figure 5).

ANOVA showed no significant difference (P<0.05) between treatments, and no interactions for the yield. There are no significant differences between yield components (see Appendix I).

See Figure 6 for photographs.

3.50 2.79 3.00 2.71 2.78

2.50

2.00

1.50 Yield Yield (t/ha) 1.00

0.50

0.00 2366 CNA 4136 SEBOTA 406 Rice variety

Figure 3. Experiment 1 north rice yield (t/ha) per three rice varieties. Data labels are rice yield values. Vertical bars denote standard error.

4.00 3.50 3.26 2.96 3.00 3.00 2.63 2.56

2.50 2.16

2.00 liquid compost 1.50 Yield Yield (t/ha) NPK + urea 1.00 0.50 0.00 2366 CNA 4136 SEBOTA 406 Rice variety

Figure 4. Experiment 1 north rice yield (t/ha) per two fertilization treatments and three rice varieties. Data labels are rice yield values. Vertical bars denote standard error.

4.00 3.17 3.50 3.08 3.06 2.94 2.79 2.78 2.48 3.00 2.42

2.10 2.50

2.00 2366

Yield Yield (t/ha) CNA 4136 1.50 SEBOTA 406 1.00

0.50

0.00 20*25 20*30 20*40 Sowing density

Figure 5. Experiment 1 north rice yield (t/ha) per three sowing densities and three rice varieties. Data labels are rice yield values. Vertical bars denote standard error.

Observations by Robine

CNA would be interesting to grow again as she observed that it gave the highest yield. It was more difficult to thresh (it took more effort to remove grains), however, any disadvantage that may have was outweighed by the pleasing yield.

NPK and urea resulted in better plant production, but if she had applied more treatments of liquid compost the production of both treatments would have been equal. 5

Many people thought 20 x 40 cm would produce longer panicles, but the panicle length between treatments actually varied equally. 20 x 25 cm on tanety is best of the three planting densities because it gives the highest yield. This is due to the higher number of seed holes, rather than a difference in number of tillers, panicle length, or grain size (this and the previous observations were stated before results were available). If the yields are the same between different planting densities, she prefers 20 x 40 cm as it requires less seed. She emphasized that she wanted to know the measured yields before broadcasting opinions about the results. After learning the results, she concluded that she prefers 20 x 40 cm because the yield difference was not enough to justify the increase in seed needed for the higher planting densities.

Weed populations and densities were similar in all sub-plots, with a few more in parcels planted with 20 x 40 cm.

Comments/observations by others

 54 parcels is too much work for one person (Célestin, BRL technician)  Dry weather delayed the rice harvest

Between fertilizer treatments  more empty spikelets in the parcels with NPK (chemical fertilisers tend to burn the soil, especially with dry weather)  parcel with NPK and urea has higher yield  liquid compost parcel had longer panicles and more full grains  parcels with compost were slightly elevated, perhaps this will have an effect on the yield (but no hypothesis offered)

Between sowing densities  20 x 25 appear to have the shortest panicles, but perhaps the yield will be the same as other parcels. Had more total tillers than other parcels.  20 x 25 will give best yield because there are more total panicles  20 x 25 have the longest panicles  20 x 25 is the best of the three sowing densities regarding balance between soil cover and yield  20 x 25 and 20 x 30 had similar panicle counts  20 x 30 will offer highest yield (this based on parcel observation and personal experience)  20 x 30 has more tillers than 20 x 40  panicles are similar between all parcels  20 x 25, 20 x 30 are most interesting as they offer better soil cover  20 x 40 too large on tanety as it leaves too much bare soil (underutilization of potential surface area)  20 x 40 has more tillers than the others, but less seed holes; 20 x 25 is best because the number of tillers is acceptable (similar to x 30) but has more seed holes therefore offering the highest yield  20 x 40 on baiboho would be good if there is a cover crop between (e.g. stylo), but on tanety without a cover crop there is too much bare soil  20 x 40 has longest panicles 6

 a farmer who usually grows 20 x 25 on tanety finds that the panicles are often a bit too short, after seeing the experiment he rinks to try 20 x 40 on tanety. He also believes that if the soil is fertile, then 20 x 40 will not leave too much bare soil  Did not notice much difference between different planting densities

Between varieties  Yield between varieties will be similar  Yield of SEBOTA 406 will be higher (there were more panicles, and more grains per panicle)  Interested to see that CNA grew as well as other varieties, first time to observe CNA  CNA had more tillers, longer panicles, and fatter grains, therefore it will give the highest yield  One variety grew better (SEBOTA 406) because there were many tillers

Discussion It was the first time for many members to observe CNA 4136. Those who commented upon it gave positive opinions. Robine is interested to grow it again.

Robine applied just one treatment of liquid compost. When other members (including Cyril, who supplied the liquid compost and uses it on his own fields) pointed out that there shoudl have been more treatments, she admitted that she should have done so. It is unclear why she didn’t. Perhaps she forgot (said she needed reminders from ABACO staff), or had trouble sourcing more. Nevertheless, use of liquid compost in the experiment was a catalyst for discussions surrounding how to make it, applications, and outcomes experienced by those who have applied it in the past. Cyril, a vocal member who is enthusiastic about trying new techniques, gave a liquid compost demonstration during a meeting with both groups. He learned how to do so during a training by BRL. He explained that one of the advantages is that the costs are very low, and that if one makes it oneself, the quantities are almost unlimited. One member (Rabevahiny, Madiorano) who likes the fertilizer mentioned the limitation to quantity being the availability of containers (usually 15L jerry cans).

On one hand, the variability and contradictions in perceptions of the experiment may suggest that it was too complicated for most of the members to follow. Except for those who lived nearby, their time to view the parcel was limited to one field visit. The visit was with both groups, and although they observed and discussed different parcels together, they did not have time to walk through the whole parcel to make observations at their own pace. It is possible that people would not have done so had they the chance, but my impression was that people could have benefitted from the opportunity. On the other hand, it may just indicate the variability in perceptions based on different personal experiences, interests, and observations.

In the final meeting to discuss the results, it was generally concluded that the yield difference did not justify the increased quantity of seed necessary to sow 20 x 25 cm, and therefore 20 x 40 cm may be best on parcels located at the bottom of slopes. It could be interesting to follow up on perceptions of planting densities on tanety, as some people focused on the effects of soil cover on slopes, in particular, and speculated upon potentially different results of 20 x 25 cm sowing density on the bottom of a slope and tanety.

Conclusions Objectives Conclusions Observe and compare the yield of different Averaged yields varied between 2.71 to 2.79 t/ha, upland rice varieties with no significant difference. It was an opportunity to for members to observe CNA 4136, it being the first time for many members including the parcel owner. Before the results were presented, opinions were mixed, some expecting yield to be similar between all three varieties, or that CNA 4136 or SEBOTA 406 would yield the most. Several farmers, including the parcel owner, expressed interest to grow CNA 4136 again. Compare two different fertilization The average yields of the plots with liquid compost treatments and NPK + urea were 2.16 t/ha and 3.26 t/ha, respectively. The lower yield with liquid compost may be partially attributed to an inadequate number of treatments. Farmers generally agreed that if more liquid compost treatments had been applied, the yield would have been higher and comparable to NPK + urea. Observe effect of planting density on grain Yields for planting densities (per rice variety) yield ranged from 2.10 to 3.17 t/ha, with no significant difference. Opinions prior to presentation of results were mixed. Many people, including the parcel owner, anticipated that 20 x 25 cm would result in the the highest yield due to a higher number of pockets, and the assumption that there would be the same grain production per seed hole between different planting densities. After seeing the results, the conclusion was that the yield difference did not justify the increased quantity of seed necessary to sow 20 x 25 cm, and therefore 20 x 40 cm may be best on parcels located at the bottom of slopes. Testing different sowing densities on tanety was of interest to some members. Observe effects of planting density on weeds Weed populations were approximately equal between plots sown with 20 x 25 cm and 20 x 30 cm. 20 x 40 cm plots had slightly more weeds.

A B

C D

E F

G H

Figure 6. Experiment 1 north photographs. A = View of parcels from a border. B = Overview of parcel after rice harvest. C = sub-plot 50. D = sub-plot 41. E = sub-plot 32. F = sub-plot 23. E = sub-plot 14. F = sub-plot 5. Sub-plots are located adjacent to each other (see Figure 2 for the layout) and show differences in soil cover. Photos : Jennifer Kendzior 2013.

Appendix I (for individual report, experiment 1 north): ANOVA XLSTAT 2013.2.03 - ANOVA - le 04/06/2013 à 20:21:56 Y / Quantitatives : Classeur = Robine results copy.xlsx / Feuille = all data / Plage = 'all data'!$AG:$AG / 54 lignes et 1 colonne X / Qualitatives : Classeur = Robine results copy.xlsx / Feuille = all data / Plage = 'all data'!$B:$D / 54 lignes et 3 colonnes Contraintes : Somme(ai)=0 Interactions / Niveau : 2 Intervalle de confiance (%) : 95 Tolérance : 0.0001 Utiliser les moyennes estimées : Oui

Statistiques descriptives :

Variable ObservationsObs. avec données manquantesObs. sans données manquantesMinimum Maximum Moyenne Ecart-type yield t/ha 54 0 54 0.291 4.529 2.759 0.890

Variable Modalités Effectifs % variety 2366 18 33.333 CNA 4136 18 33.333 SEBOTA 406 18 33.333 fertilization NPK + urea 27 50.000 liquid compost 27 50.000 sowing density 20*30 18 33.333 20*40 18 33.333 20*25 18 33.333

Analyse de la variance :

Somme Moyenne des Source DDL des carrés carrés F Pr > F

Modèle 13 13.646 1.050 1.482 0.167

Erreur 40 28.324 0.708

Total corrigé 53 41.971

Calculé contre le modèle Y=Moyenne(Y)

Paramètres du modèle :

Borne Borne Pr > inférieure supérieure Source Valeur Ecart-type t |t| (95%) (95%) < Constante 2.759 0.115 24.091 0.0001 2.527 2.990 variety-2366 -0.610 0.397 -1.537 0.132 -1.411 0.192 variety-CNA 4136 0.003 0.280 0.011 0.991 -0.564 0.570 variety-SEBOTA 406 0.606 0.397 1.529 0.134 -0.195 1.408 fertilization-NPK + urea 0.489 0.380 1.288 0.205 -0.278 1.257 fertilization-liquid compost -0.489 0.380 -1.288 0.205 -1.257 0.278 sowing density-20*30 0.504 0.606 0.832 0.410 -0.720 1.729 sowing density-20*40 0.150 0.362 0.415 0.680 -0.581 0.882 sowing density-20*25 -0.655 0.458 -1.429 0.161 -1.580 0.271 variety-2366*fertilization-NPK + urea 0.766 0.561 1.366 0.180 -0.368 1.900 variety-2366*fertilization-liquid compost 0.000 0.000

variety-CNA 4136*fertilization-NPK + urea 0.000 0.000 variety-CNA 4136*fertilization-liquid compost 0.000 0.000 variety-SEBOTA 406*fertilization-NPK + urea -0.331 0.280 -1.179 0.245 -0.898 0.236 variety-SEBOTA 406*fertilization-liquid compost -0.436 0.486 -0.897 0.375 -1.417 0.546 variety-2366*sowing density-20*30 0.525 0.687 0.764 0.449 -0.864 1.914 variety-2366*sowing density-20*40 0.000 0.000 variety-2366*sowing density-20*25 0.000 0.000 variety-CNA 4136*sowing density-20*30 0.000 0.000 variety-CNA 4136*sowing density-20*40 0.000 0.000 variety-CNA 4136*sowing density-20*25 0.089 0.687 0.130 0.897 -1.300 1.478 variety-SEBOTA 406*sowing density-20*30 0.057 0.486 0.117 0.908 -0.925 1.039 variety-SEBOTA 406*sowing density-20*40 -0.912 0.486 -1.878 0.068 -1.894 0.070 variety-SEBOTA 406*sowing density-20*25 0.241 0.486 0.497 0.622 -0.741 1.223 fertilization-NPK + urea*sowing density- 20*30 -0.970 0.972 -0.998 0.324 -2.934 0.994 fertilization-NPK + urea*sowing density- 20*40 0.000 0.000 fertilization-NPK + urea*sowing density- 20*25 0.000 0.000 fertilization-liquid compost*sowing density- 20*30 0.000 0.000 fertilization-liquid compost*sowing density- 20*40 0.524 0.561 0.934 0.356 -0.610 1.658 fertilization-liquid compost*sowing density- 20*25 0.446 0.561 0.795 0.431 -0.688 1.580

Appendix II: Individual report, Experiment 2 north

Figure 1. Arial view of experiment 2 north and surroundings (R). The parcel on the left is experiment 3. 2 north is on a lower slope just next to the path connecting the village (visible at bottom center of the image) to the main road. Source : Google Earth, October 30, 2010.

Plot owner and location Objectives

 Marcelline Ravaoarivelo  Compare effect of three different cover  Lower slope, Ambavahadiromba crop treatments on soil cover and weeds 17°31'1.05"S, 48°33'32.68"E; 801 m.a.s.l.  Compare development of cover crops in three different treatments  Compare maize yield between three different cover crop treatments

Crops Treatments

 Maize (Zea mays)  Maize associated with dolichos  Dolichos (Dolichos lablab)  Maize associated with tsiasisa  Tsiasisa (Vigna umbellata)  Maize associated with dolichos and tsiasisa (to be compared with two above)

Development of experimental plan

Farmers wanted to observe the effects of two cover crops planted together, and compare with plots sown with a single cover crop. They chose dolichos and tsiasisa. Initially, they did not plan to compare the maize yield between treatments, but when the idea was proposed by researchers, Marcelline and other women of the village were interested.

Materials and methods

Layout 10 m Three adjacent 100 m2 parcels planted with single or double maize lines: tsiasisa + dolichos; dolichos; and tsiasisa (see Figure 2). Maize + tsiasisa + 10 m Maize + dolichos Maize + tsiasisa dolichos

Figure 2. Layout experiment 2 north. Three sub-plots of 100 m2: Maize + tsiasisa + dolichos ; maize + dolichos ; maize + tsiasisa.

Parcel management by Marcelline  Previous crops were rice and groundnuts, harvested in May 2012 and residues were left on the field.  Early November 2012: Weeding performed by 2 people during one morning. The technique used throughout for this parcel is to dig up roots, no use of herbicide.  23 November 2012: Maize seeds were pre-treated with gaucho, and sown with manure (measured as two handfuls per seed hole) and NPK (quantity unavailable). Sub-plots with dolichos, only, and tsiasisa were also sown on 23 November 2012.  20 December 2012: Transplanted maize as many young plants died due to dry weather. The transplants came from a neighbouring parcel also on baiboho managed by a BRL technician. They were the same variety but sown slightly later than those of the experimental parcel.  4 January 2013: Weeding performed by two people during one morning. Also transplanted more maize.  27 January 2013: Weeding performed by two people during one morning. Applied approximately 2 kg of urea, given by ABACO, on the total parcel.  8 February: sowed dolichos between tsiasisa rows  22 April 2013: applied approximately 1 L/ha of Cypermethrine (synthetic pyrethroid) on tsiasisa as preventative treatment  29 April: harvested maize  1st week of May 2013: applied approximately 1 L/ha of Cypermethrine again on tsiasisa  Beginning June to mid-July: tsiasisa harvest

Maize yield Maize was harvested on 29 April. Three lines (or pairs of double lines) were selected in each sub-plot (Figure 3). The number of seed holes, stems, and maize ears were recorded separately for each line. The weight of all ears was measured per selected line, and ears of all remaining lines per parcel were weighed together. The ears were dried for several days and weighed again. The parcel owner preferred to keep the maize on the cob, rather than degraining, for better storage. Grain yield was calculated with a dry ear to grain ratio obtained from experiment 1 in Mahatsara.

Cover crop biomass All cover crops were cut on 6 May. Three 4m2 samples of were harvested from each sub-plot (see Figure 3) during florescence. The fresh weight of the entire 4m2 was measured immediately with the hand-held scale. A sample of approximately 300 g (fresh weight) was randomly selected from each 4m2, kept in closed plastic bags, the fresh weight measured again in a lab several hours later, and dried in an oven for 48 hours at 68˚C before obtaining the dry weight.

Weed biomass Weeding was completed before the start of this research (early November and early January), so data regarding weed biomass was not available. Instead, a discussion was held instead.

Figure 3. Experiment 2 north sampling design. Selected maize lines and cover crop biomass areas. Left: maize + tsiasisa, three lines (A, B, C) selected from eleven single lines. Right : plots of maize + tsiasisa + dolichos and maize + dolichos, three pairs of lines (A, B, C) selected from six pairs of double lines. Grey squares (A, B, C) indicate three 4 m2 samples of cover crop above ground biomass.

Results

Maize yield The highest maize yield came from the tsiasisa plot with 26.64 kg (2664 kg/ha), followed by the dolichos + tsiasisa plot with 17.90 kg (1790 kg/ha), and the lowest from the dolichos plot with 12.58 kg (193 kg/ha) (see Table 1).

Cover crop biomass Dolichos produced the most biomass with 5920 kg/ha, followed by tsiasisa with 5419 kg/ha, and dolichos+tsiasisa with 4981 kg/ha (Figure 4).

Table 1. Experiment 2 north maize yield per parcel (kg), per ha (kg), average number of ears per stem, average weight per ear, average number of stems per ha.

Average Yield Average weight of Average Yield (grain) per (grain) N˚ ears one ear N˚ Cover crop parcel (kg) (kg/ha) per stem (kg) stems/ha dolichos 12.58 1258 1.67 0.15 14667 dolichos/tsiasisa 17.90 1790 1.04 0.18 22667 Tsiasisa 26.64 2664 1.27 0.23 17333

6000 5920 5419 4981 5000

4000

Yield Yield (kg/ha) 3000 2664 Maize

2000 1790 Cover crop biomass 1258 1000

0 Dolichos Dolichos/tsiasisa Tsiasisa Associated cover crop

Figure 4. Experiment 2 north maize yield and cover crop biomass (kg/ha).

Observations by Marcelline Weed population and density was approximately the same between the three sub-plots. There were more weeds at the beginning of the cover crop growth than with the previous groundnut crop. She anticipates that the weed population will decrease with rice in the next agricultural year.

All three choices of cover crops grow well (see Figure 5). The dolichos plot had many more green maize ears because the cover crop climbed and covered the maize (too much). That created humid conditions, making it more difficult for the ears to dry, therefore decreasing, or having potential to decrease, the maize yield. It was not clear whether she was referring to potential or actual occurance. It is preferable to plant tsiasisa on baiboho, followed by dolichos or cowpea sown towards the end of February/end of the rainy season. As soil on tanety is usually less fertile than on

baiboho, it is preferable to grow dolichos on the former because it will not climb so severely on the maize. Having grown mucuna before in a tanety parcel not far from the village (but was discouraged by tondra-boly), she finds that it has a similar climbing behaviour to dolichos. She also prefers to grow mucuna on tanety rather than baiboho.

If the climate had not been so dry, the maize yield would have been better overall. Many maize seeds did not germinate. However, she was pleased with the level of soil moisture under the cover crops.

Comments/observations by others

 Advantage of tsiasisa (over dolichos and mucuna) is that it produces edible grains  Advantage of dolichos is that there is higher production of leaves over the plant’s lifetime, and that they decompose faster (than tsiasisa)  dolichos offers better cover (compared to tsiasisa, whose stems decompose faster), but the tradeoff is a potential habitat for rats  dolichos and tsiasisa offer similar soil cover, but the advantage of tsiasisa is that it can produce edible grains  Maize was big, perhaps due to benefits of the associated cover crops but perhaps due to other unknown factors  Maize yield in the tsiasisa parcel will be higher than in the dolichos parcel due to the climbing behaviour of the latter.  The soil must have been fertile already, because the cover crops grow very well  Seeing the cover crop growth, a question is, "how to reduce the climbing behaviour of mucuna and dolichos"?  It will be interesting to learn the biomass results of the tsiasisa + dolichos parcel because dolichos will continue to grow when the tsiasisa dies

Discussion

Maize yield The smallest maize yield of the dolichos parcel may be partially explained by the lower number of stems in the plot (146,667 compared to 453,333 dolichos + tsiasisa and 346,667 tsiasisa). The higher average of ears per stem in the dolichos parcel (1.67 compared to tsiasisa 1.27 and tsiasisa + dolichos 1.04 may be partially due to less competition from other maize plants, seeing as the average number of stems was lowest for dolichos (14667/ha), followed by tsiasisa (17,333/ha), and then tsiasisa + dolichos (22, 667/ha). The average weight per ear was lowest at 0.15 kg with dolichos, 0.18 kg with tsiasisa and dolichos, and 0.23 kg for tsiasisa. This may be due to the strong vertical growth of dolichos that covered the maize plants while the kernels were maturing. Although Marcelline did not comment upon the number of ears per stem, or average size or weight per ear, she did describe the higher incidence and potential for rotten ears in the dolichos parcel (referring to the green cobs unable to dry).

When asked, Marcelline explained that there were less stems in the dolichos parcel because many maize plants died due to dry weather when they were small. It is not known why more may have died in this particular parcel, however. Later during June’s feedback meeting, she explained that 16

some of the seeds were likely eaten by foraging chickens, which only had to roam the few 200 m from the village before coming upon the parcel. It was generally advised that maize should not be grown too close to the village for this reason. Another discussion point related to the same subject was to use NPK just before it rains. This reduces the chances of the fertilizer destroying the grains. It was also suggested that one should wait until the maize germinates and is visible, in order to apply it precisely and use available NPK wisely.

During the feedback meeting it was suggested that differences in cover crop biomass and maize yield between sub-plots may also have been due to soil variation. The discussion remained general, and no soil samples were taken, so the question remains open.

Soil cover and cover crop biomass

According to Marcelline, all three sub-plots showed improved soil cover compared to previous crops. She and other group members also expressed anticipation of improved soil fertility after viewing the biomass production of all three cover crop design. Whether the dolichos + tsiasisa parcel show improved soil cover compared to the other treatment is yet unknown. This research ended just after tsiasisa’s flowering period, and it remains to be seen whether and how the dolichos will continue to grow. When the cover crop biomass samples were cut, only tsiasisa flowers were visible, raising the question whether dolichos was still present and in what condition. Considering the visible absence of dolichos, members wondered if they hadn’t sown dolichos at the right time, and perhaps it should have been sown earlier.

Although the tsiasisa biomass production was slightly higher, the advantage of dolichos is the continued biomass production after seed maturation, whereas tsiasisa will die after the harvest (mid-end July). For this reason as well as the objective of improved soil cover, it would be interesting to observe dolichos growth in the sub-plot later in the season.

Tsiasisa yield

Results of the tsisasisa harvest will be shared with ABACO staff before the next agricultural year. She had not yet completed the harvest when this research ended.

Conclusions

Objective Conclusions Compare effect of three different cover crop Whether the treatment with dolichos + treatments on soil cover and weeds tsiasisa improves soil cover remains to be seen in the future.

The same parcel did not increase or decrease time spent on weeding, as all three parcels had approximately the same weed populations.

Compare development of cover crops in three Dolichos produced the most biomass with 17

different treatments 5920 kg/ha, followed by tsiasisa with 5419 kg/ha, and dolichos+tsiasisa with 4981 kg/ha. It was not clear if dolichos had been outcompeted by tsiasisa in the parcel where they were associated, as no dolichos flowers were observed.

Prior to learning the cover crop biomass and maize yield results, farmers voiced concern about dolichos climbing on maize, resulting in lower yields.

In future field experiments, it would be useful to demonstrate or test different methods to control dolichos (and mucuna) growth on maize as it is an often-voiced concern of farmers.

Compare maize yield between three different Maize associated with tsiasisa produced the cover crop treatments highest yield at 2664 kg, followed by dolichos + tsiasisa at 1790 kg, and dolichos with 1258 kg. Differences in yield were partially attributed to variations in the number of stems per sub- plot.

The lowest average weight per ear in the sub- plot with dolichos may substantiate farmers’ observations that the plant covered the maize more than other treatments, therefore reducing the yield.

A B

C D

E F Figure 5. Experiment 2 north photographs. Left column : arial photos of maize and dolichos + tsiasisa (A), dolichos (C), and tsiasisa (E). B is maize + dolichos in the foreground, with maize + tsiasisa behind (note the difference in maize height and cover crop climbing behaviour between the two). D is maize + dolichos + tsiasisa (note the absence of dolichos flowers). F is an adjacent parcel unrelated to the experiment which had maize and cowpeas, shown for comparison of soil cover. Photos : Jennifer Kendzior 2013.

Appendix III: Individual report, Experiment 3 north

Figure 1. Arial view of experiment 3 north and surroundings. Parcel to the right is experiment 2. 3 north at Ambavahadiromba, visible from the main path that connects the village (visible at the bottom center of the

image) to the main road. Source : Google Earth October 30, 2010.

Plot owner and location Objectives

 Julienne Razafimalala  Observe and compare development of mucuna  Lower slope Ambavahadiromba and dolichos during the dry season when sown 17°31'1.57"S, 48°33'31.43"E; 799 on different dates m.a.s.l.  Produce dolichos seeds  Compare effect of different cover crops and different sowing dates on soil cover by relay sowing with rice  Observe and compare yield of two different upland rice varieties

Crops Treatments

 Rice varieties: CNA 136; 2366 Cover crops sown 11 February 2013  Mucuna pruriens  CNA 136 + mucuna  Dolichos lablab  2366 + dolichos

Cover crops sown on 4 March 2013  CNA 136 + mucuna  2366 + dolichos

Development of experimental plan

Members wanted to test relay sowing cover crops to improve soil cover. This was the first time

any of them had observed such a rotation. Farmers from the village experienced trouble producing dolichos seeds in the past, due to rats or non-use of phytosanitary products during the flowering period. One proposition was to try producing seeds during the winter season – it was thought that if grown during the winter, there would be seed production at the expense of leaves. Growing mucuna was the suggestion of other members, as Julienne was not interested at first. It was added to observe its development during winter, as well.

The original experimental plan discussed with the group was to test the cover crops with one variety of rice. Later, Julienne decided to plant two different rice varieties, being interested to observe CNA 136. Initially, she wanted to use only one sowing date for the cover crops. When a researcher suggested that the end of February could be too late in the dry season, the earlier date was added to the plan.

Materials and methods

Layout Four 100 m2 sub-plots : CNA 136 + mucuna sown on 11 February; CNA 136 + mucuna sown on 4 March ; 2366 + dolichos sown on 11 February ; 2366 + dolichos sown on 4 March (Figure 2).

10 m

10 m CNA 136 + mucuna

2366 + dolichos

Figure 2. 7 Layout field experiment 3 (north). Four treatments: CNA 136 + mucuna sown on 11 February; CNA 136 + mucuna sown on 4 March (dot pattern), 2366 + dolichos sown on 11 February ; 2366 + dolichos sown on 4 March (dot pattern)

Parcel management by Julienne  Previous crop maize and stylo, last time parcel was tilled was six or seven years ago  24 November 2012: Sowed rice (10,000 ariary), NPK application 2 kg (4,800 ariary), two people (4,000 ariary).  28 December: weeding, two people (4,000 ariary)  7 January, 2013: urea application, 1 kg (2,000 ariary)  30 January : weeding, 2 people, (4,000 ariary)  7 February : urea application, 1 kg (2,000 ariary)  11 February : First sowing of mucuna and dolichos. Planting density of 40 cm in each line, every other line. One person (2,000 ariary), 1 kg (600 ariary),  20 February : watched over rice for the birds  4 March : Second sowing of mucuna and dolichos. Planting density of 40 cm in each line, every line. One person (2,000 ariary), 1 kg (600 ariary)  21 March : liquid compost application 10 L (no price)  8 April rice harvested  Next crop : rice

Rice yield The rice was harvested, threshed and dried separately by sub-plot. Rice was weighed on-site with a hand-held scale.

Cover crop density Planting density was measured by a count of emerged plants across the length and width of the parcel. The production of dolichos seeds and biomass of both cover crops will be measured later in the year.

Results

Rice yield Sown on 11 February, the sub-plot of CNA 136 + mucuna produced 15.34 kg (3.07 t/ha), and that of 2366 + dolichos 7.78 kg (1.56 t/ha) (Figure 3). Sown on 4 March, the sub-plot of CNA 136 + mucuna yielded 20.66 kg (4.13 t/ha), and that of 2366 + dolichos 17.02 kg (3.40 t/ha). For both sowing dates, the yield of CNA 136 was higher. The yield of rice relay sown with the second date was higher for both mucuna and dolichos.

Cover crop performance Mucuna showed poor emergence and less growth than dolichos (Figures 4 and 5).

4.13 4.00 3.40 3.07

3.00

2.00 February 1.56 March Rice yield Rice yield (t/ha) 1.00

0.00 CNA + Mucuna 2366 + Dolichos Rice variety and associated cover crop

Figure 3. Experiment 2 north rice yield (t/ha) of two varieties, each relay cropped with mucuna or dolichos on two dates.

Observations by Julienne

Harvesting rice intercropped with mucuna and dolichos was slightly more difficult, but does not deter her from repeating the practice. It requires hiring somebody who is careful and pays attention during the harvesting. The level of harvest difficulty between the two dates was similar (i.e. the first sowing date did not offer much more risk of accidental cutting than the second). She expects that if there had been more rain, the cover crops would have produced more biomass.

Comments/observations by others

 Julienne already grows maize associated with mucuna in consecutive years while obtaining good soil conditions and yield. Therefore it would be interesting to try the same rotation pattern with rice and cover crops. Some people were particularly curious about the results as they know that technicians usually advice to practice more diversified rotations.  For some members, it was the first time some people saw rice on baiboho and found the rice- cover crop-rice rotation to be an interesting opportunity to increase rice production.  Sowing during bolting is advantageous in that it eliminates the need to plough, and lengthens the cover crop growth period.  Prior to the harvest, several members predicted that the second sowing date would be better as those sown first were likely to be partially cut during the harvest.  Perhaps if the cover crops had been sown slightly earlier they would have performed better.  Like Julienne, most people who discussed this parcel agreed that had the weather been less dry, the cover crops would have shown better growth.

Discussion

Reasons for the noticably lower yield of 2366 + dolichos sown on 11 February varied, and remain unknown. During individual discussions with Julienne as well as with the group, it was concluded that : it was not due to the soil as it is observed to be relatively homogenous and fertile ; that part of the parcel was on a slight slope, and perhaps there was less soil moisture ; that the answer is just unknown and not of serious concern. Indeed, Julienne did not express concern, just mild surprise.

Julienne and neighbouring farmers thought the low mucuna performance (when compared to the adjacent dolichos) was due to faulty seeds. Unfortunately, none remained to perform a germination test.

Of the two sowing dates, Julienne prefers the second date mainly because the rice harvest was higher, and also because there is less risk of accidentally cutting the cover crop during the rice harvest. This opinion was confirmed several times because during one interview she clearly expressed the contrary : that she prefers the first sowing date because the cover crop has more time to grow. It is possible that there was a miscommunication between translation, or just a misunderstanding of the question posed or answer received.

This cropping system provoked interest as a possible rotation to increase rice production on baiboho. To continue exploring this practice, it would be useful to repeat it with different sowing dates, some perhaps even earlier than February. Julienne preferred the later sowing date, but her opinion was based primarily on the higher rice yield. Although it wasn’t discussed in detail, the yield may have been due to other factors, as well. One researcher suggested that early March may be too late in the season to sow the cover crops, and several visiting farmers wondered if planting before February would improve their performance.

Conclusions

Objectives Conclusions Observe and compare development of mucuna Mucuna and dolichos both established, although and dolichos during the dry season when sown comments up to early June concluded that the on different dates dry weather was principally responsible for the slow growth of both cover crop varieties, and that perhaps earlier sowing dates would have improved their development. For unknown reasons, fewer mucuna seeds germinated than dolichos. The mucuna plants also developed more slowly than dolichos. Of the two sowing dates (11 February, 4 March), the parcel owner preferred the second primarily due to higher rice yields, but also because it was easier to harvest the rice without damaging the cover crop. Observation will continue throughout the 24

following months. Produce dolichos seeds To be determined in the future. The seeds were not mature when this research concluded. Compare effect of different cover crops and To be observed in the future. different sowing dates on soil cover by relay sowing with rice Observe and compare yields of two different For cover crops sown on 11 February, CNA 136 + upland rice varieties mucuna produced 3068 kg/ha, and 2366 + dolichos 1556 kg/ha. Sown on 4 March, CNA 136 + mucuna yielded 4132 kg/ha, and 2366 + dolichos 3404 kg/ha. Farmers were generally interested to observe CNA 136, but did not offer predictions regarding yields. Reasons for the noticably lower yield of 2366 + dolichos sown on 11 February varied, and remain unknown. Following the presentation of results, farmers expressed interest in growing CNA 136.

A B

C D

E F

Figure 4. Experiment 3 north photographs A. CNA 136 + mucuna. A-D taken 1 May, E and F taken 29 May. Left column (A, C, E) depicts sub-plots sown with mucuna on 11 February, the right column (B, D, F) shows sub- plots sown with mucuna on 4 March. Mucuna development on the parcel border is visible in A. B and D show the heterogeneity of mucuna and weed growth within one sub-plot. Photos : Jennifer Kendzior 2013.

A B

C D

E F Figure 5. Experiment 3 north photographs B. 2366 + dolichos. A-D taken 1 May, E and F taken 29 May. Left column (A, C, E) depicts sub-plots sown with dolichos on 11 February, the right column (B, D, F) shows sub-plots sown with dolichos on 4 March. dolichos development on the parcel border is visible in A. B and D show the heterogeneity of dolichos and weed growth within one sub-plot. Photos : Jennifer Kendzior 2013

Appendix IV: Individual report, Experiment 4 north

Figure 1. Arial view of experiment 4 north and surroundings. Located in a rice paddy with poor water control next to the main road, just south of Madiorano village. Lake Alaotra is about 1 km northwest of the parcel. Source : Google Earth July 16, 2003.

Plot owner and location Objectives

 Cyril Randrianaivo  Observe development of two varieties of  Madiorano, poor water control rice crotalaria in a poor water control rice field paddy  Compare cover crop development with different  17°29'28.17"S, 48°33'11.83"E; 766 sowing dates m.a.s.l.

Crops Treatments

 Rice (SEBOTA 406)  Two sub-plots of rice + C. juncea + C. ochroleuca,  Crotalairia juncea cover crops sown 12 February 2013  Crotalaira ochroleuca  Two sub-plots of rice + C. juncea + C. ochroleuca, cover crops sown 15 March 2013

Development of experimental plan

The plan discussed by the group included sub-plots defined by different sowing dates as well as by crotalaria variety. Cyril later decided to mix the crotalaria varieties. Originally, the plan was to sow the two crotalaria varieties on two dates, within the first ten days in February and then within the third ten days of February. The sowing dates of crotalaria were decided according to predictions of rainfall patterns. The crotalaria sown in early February, and which was growing well according to Cyril, was mostly washed away by heavy rains, especially on one side of the parcel. Cyril decided upon the second sowing date of 15 March with the advice of the local BRL technician, again based on weather predictions.

Materials and methods

Layout 8 m

The parcel had an irregular triangular shape, but the Rice + C. juncea + C. ochroleuca design created four parcels of 10 m 80m2, one for each treatment (see Figure 2). 12-feb-13 15-march-2013 12-feb-13 15-march-2013 Figure 2. Experiment 4 north layout. Four sub-plots of 80m2 with four different sowing dates of mixed crotalaria varieties (C. juncea and C. ochroleuca).

Parcel management by Cyril  20-24 November 2012: sowed rice  End of December 2012: weeding  4 applications of liquid compost: 3 weeks after germination, two weeks later, and two treatments during bolting  12 February 2013: first sowing date of crotalaria  15 March 2013: second sowing date of crotalaria  First week of April: harvested rice

Rice yield Due to the scattered and very early stages of crotalaria development after the heavy rains, only the rice yield was measured. It was measured by weighing one vata (metal cylinder, a local method to measure grain volume) of rice with the hand held scale, and multiplying by the total number of vata in the harvest.

Results

Rice yield Rice yield was approximately 165 kg from the harvested area of 0.05 ha, or approximately 3300 kg/ha. The weight of one vata was approximately 15 kg, and a total of 11 vata were counted in the harvest.

Observations by Cyril He prefers the earlier sowing date of 12 February as it allows a longer growing period. The plants had developed well prior to the heavy rains, and if they had not washed the plants away he is sure they would have offered benefits to the rice and future crops.

Comments/observations by others There were no comments in particular about this field experiment.

Discussion Crotalairia sown on the second date germinated and was able to establish (see Figure 3). Following the cover crop development would be interesting as it is the only field experiment so far to use crotalaria. The rice was weighed to valorise Cyril’s participation in the project, and to to encourage discussion about using liquid compost during group meetings. He is known by the ABACO members as somebody who has experience creating and using liquid compost, having followed a BRL formation and being a vocal advocate. Cyril pointed out one must make several applications, at certain intervals, in order to obtain the benefits. In addition, if one makes the compost oneself, the constraint of adequate quantity and regular supply is reduced.

Conclusions Objectives Conclusions Observe development of two varieties of The objectives were not met due to heavy rains crotalaria in a poor water control rice field that washed away crotalaria seeds. Follow-up of Compare cover crop development with different the cover crop development in the future could sowing dates offer an opportunity to discuss crotalairia as a cover crop, as well as other parcel management decisions by Cyril (e.g. use of liquid compost, decision of sowing dates).

Figure 3. Experiment 4 north photographs. Both photos taken 5 March, between crotalaria sowing dates. (L) Note absence of rice and crotalairia which washed away during heavy rains in February. (R) Some crotalairia that survived the rains managed to survive, but they grew sparsely and developed slower than expected. Photos : Jennifer Kendzior 2013.

Appendix V: Individual report, Experiment 5 north

Figure 1. Arial view of experiment 5 north and surroundings. On tanety at Morarano, next to the main road. Source : Google Earth July 16, 2013.

Plot owner and location Objective

 Randriambola Randriamahatody (Mbola) Observe cover crop development with  Tanety at Morarano maize on tanety  17°31'11.49"S, 48°32'31.53"E; 780 m.a.s.l.

Crops Treatments

 Maize (Zea mays)  Maize + mucuna  Dolichos lablab  Maize + dolichos  Mucuna pruriens

Development of experimental plan

When Mbola offered his parcel he initially wanted to plant rice. Following a (re)explanation of the system where leguminous cover crops precede rice, he agreed to start with maize and cover crops. He intended to sow mucuna and dolichos in equal areas, but did differently as he didn’t have enough mucuna seeds when the time came.

Materials and methods

Layout 10 m 10 m Three sub-plots (Figure 2): one of 100 m2 planted with maize + dolichos; one of 50 2 m with maize + mucuna; 5 m maize + mucuna and one of 50m2 with maize + dolichos. maize + dolichos

5 m maize + dolichos

Figure 2. Experiment 5 north layout. Maize + mucuna , maize + dolichos, maize + dolichos. Maize yield was sampled from two 50 m2 areas of mucuna and dolichos (see grey rectangle).

Parcel management by Mbola  Previous crop: rapanitra (Cynodon dactylon)  30 November: sowed maize, mucuna, dolichos  8 December: weeding (performed once, only)  16 April: harvested maize

Cover crops Cover crop biomass was not sampled as the growth was poor and soil in need of improvement. Instead, photographs were taken throughout the experiment (27 March, 16 April, 11 May), the last being the date of maize harvest.

Maize yield Maize was harvested in two 50m2 areas, each separately associated with dolichos and mucuna (see Figure 2). The number of ears were counted, the ears and grains were each weighed per sample area.

Results Maize The 50 m2 area associated with mucuna produced 54 ears with a grain weight of 1.50 kg (300 kg/ha), and the 50 m2 area associated with dolichos produced 40 ears with a grain weight of 1.06 kg (212 kg/ha) (Figure 3).

Cover crops See photographs for visual documentation of cover crop development (Figure 4). Three sets of photographs were taken: 27 March, 16 April, and 11 May. Note the higher incidence of in insect damage on mucuna in photographs C and D (taken 16 April), which are generally representative of each plot. Also note the relatively high weed populations compared to other field experiments.

300 300

250 212 200

150

100 Grain yield Grain yield (kg/ha)

0 Mucuna Dolichos Cover crop

Figure 3. Experiment 5 north maize grain yield (kg/ha) associated with two different cover crops.

Observations by Mbola According to Mbola, the relatively low maize yield did not concern him, as the primary objective was to cover crops to improve the soil. Additionally, when he observed that the cover crops would produce relatively little biomass, he intentionally let the weeds grow as additional plant material to contribute organic matter to the soil.

Attempts to meet individually (as was done with all other parcel owners) were never successful for one reason or another. Conversations with him during group meetings and field visits tended towards his requests for photographs, access to materials for future development of his parcels, and assistance to access funding for agricultural projects.

Comments/observations by others Few people offered comments upon the parcel during individual discussions, and when prompted the observations were minimal. Some politely referred to his lack of interest in the parcel, the abundance of weeds, and that it was just a test – and in its first year, at that. Several voiced the same opinion regarding no disappointment in the low maize yield as grain production was not an objective. Regarding his approach to weed management, one visiting researcher related to his logic, while the onsite staff member disagreed, her opinion perhaps influenced by his inconsistent involvement. She also cited the different competitive effects of leguminous plants versus weeds when intercropped with maize.

Discussion

Parcel preparation, rapanitra followed by maize During the meeting in June to discuss results there was a more focused discussion related to crop rotations and what could have been done differently to obtain better results. One person suggested that it was a mistake to grow maize after rapanitra (Cynodon dactylon), and they should rather have grown legumes such as common beans or lima beans. ABACO staff pointed out that this point should have been raised during the experiment planning, but at least observations from the experiment confirmed that crops of «long leaves » (Graminae) should not be grown in succession. Another added 33

that the consequences of cutting rapanitra and treating rapanitra with herbicide are not the same. During the training in DMC techniques, the technician instructed treating rapanitra with herbicide, then performing direct seeding. The rapanitra in Mbola’s plot, however, was cut, and therefore distorted the experiment.

Soil fertility and future crops Responding to a question about growing rice on a slope, farmers said that if the soil were more fertile it would be possible to grow rice well enough. Those from the north reminded us that they are used to growing rice on tanety. Until the soil of the parcel in question is more fertile, however, other crops (groundnuts, more cover crops) were deemed more appropriate. One farmer pointed out that if enough manure were to be incorporated, the soil would be fertile (enough for rice) immediately.

Interpretations of the parcel owner’s participation The members, onsite staff member, and local technician generally expressed that Mbola was not very committed to the ABACO experiment, did not apply enough effort in his parcel management, and participated primarily to gain material benefits such as seeds. In fact, he did directly express to me that he joined ABACO primarily to obtain cover crop seeds with which he hopes to improve his parcel on tanety. The parcel has very compact soil and he considers the quality poor (see Figure 5). Gaining material benefits through ABACO is just one of several strategies to increase his access to resources. He also requested that I solicit various offices with some paperwork in order to help him acquire financing for further land development, as he is not familiar with the offices and does not feel comfortable (or able) to approach them personally. Mbola explained readily that he always tries to cultivate relationships with people connected to different projects and offices. ABACO members, technicians and staff do not intend to continue working with him, and will find a culturally appropriate polite way to do so in order to avoid the possibility of him spreading negative gossip about the project.

While the level of commitment to the experiment may have been a disappointment, and the time invested might be considered lost, it is still worthwhile to ask what may be learned from such a case, and whether this dynamic should be - or can be - avoided.

Mbola is certainly not the only ABACO member to seek personal benefits through the project. Seeking access to resources through participation with outsiders is a well-recognized strategy, a type of deliberate consumption (for example see Michener, 1998) which raises questions about the concept of participation. However, Mbola’s lack of reciprocity and participation (attendance at meetings, parcel management, saying to other members that he is not interested in CA techniques) was considered problematic by members, technicians and staff. Avoiding such a case may be possible reputations have been established. Prior to such familiarity, it seems rather difficult to do so, as there are few people who would speak negatively of a member of their community.

The different interpretations of the relatively high weed population is a useful example to highlight two conclusions (or further questions) from this field experiment. First, Mbola’s decision to allow weed growth was viewed as both logical and a sign of indifference, depending on whom was asked. Is it important to know his motivations? Or does it suffice to use the situation as a platform for discussion? Second, although in private conversations some members did not hesitate to criticise Mbola personally for his inconsistent participation, during group meetings the discussion focused on parcel management and what could be learned and improved upon. Keeping criticisms relatively private is culturally predictable, but the point being that despite the gossip surrounding the parcel owner’s behaviour, the field experiment served a heuristic purpose nonetheless.

Conclusions Objective Conclusions Observe cover crop development with maize on Cover crop growth was generally perceived as tanety poor. It was explained by parcel management mistakes and a lack of interest by the parcel owner. The owner’s participation style raises the question whether this dynamic can be, and should be, avoided in future co-experimental projects.

A B

C D

E F

Figure 4. Experiment 5 north photographs A. Cover crop and maize development. A, C, and E are the 35 same plot planted with mucuna. B, D, and F are the same plot planted with dolichos. A and B were taken 27 March, C and D on 16 April, and E and F on 11 May. Photos : Jennifer Kendzior 2013.

Figure 5. Experiment 5 north photographs B. Mbola’s parcel of land on tanety. The experimental parcel is adjacent but just out of sight (L). Close up of same land, note the plough pan (R). Photos : Jennifer Kendzior 2013.

Appendix VI: Individual report, Experiment 1 south

Figure 1. Arial view of experiment 1 south (R). The parcel to the left is experiment 4. 1 south is at Ampasambasimba on sandy baiboho visible from a frequently used path, about 200 m west of the river and close to Mahatsara village (visible at top of image). Source : Google Earth June 16, 2005.

Plot owner and location Objectives

 Rakotoroa  Compare ability of three different cover  Sandy baiboho Ampasambazimba crops to improve soil fertility and yield on  17°55'36.23"S, 48°25'24.80"E; 800 m.a.s.l. sandy baiboho  Compare maize yield when associated with three different cover crops  Compare development of three different cover crops  Compare effects of three different cover crops on weeds

Crops Treatments

 Maize (Zea mays)  Maize + stylosanthes  Rice (B22)  Maize + tsiasisa  Tsiasisa (rice bean) (Vigna umbellata)  Maize + mucuna  Mucuna pruriens  Maize + rice (to be compared against the  Stylosanthes guianensis three above)  Brachiaria ruziziensis  Brachiaria

Development of experimental plan

When suggested by researchers, Rakotoroa indicated interest in comparing competition between maize and different cover crops. This was proposed around 20 February, when mucuna and tsiasisa had already started climbing up the maize, and he was concerned about how much the mucuna growth would cover the maize plants. 37

Materials and methods

Layout

Four adjacent sub-plots. 8 m 9 m 8 m 8 m Each had 8 to 9 lines of maize in an 80 m2 area (except for maize + tsiasisa with 90 m2). A strip of Maize + Maize + Maize + Maize + rice 10 m brachiaria bordered one stylosanthes tsiasisa mucuna side of the parcel. (Figure 2)

Brachiaria

Figure 2. Experiment 1 south layout. Four sub-plots sown with maize + stylosanthes, maize + tsiasisa, maize + mucuna, and maize + rice. Each parcel had 8 to 9 lines of maize in an 80 m2 area (except for maize + tsiasisa with 90 m2). A strip of brachiaria bordered one side of the parcel.

Parcel management by Rakotoroa

 Ploughed field (date unknown)

 Date 7 December 2012 : Sowed maize and cover crops  Applied 2 kg of urea in all four parcels, and one cart of manure (both applied per seed hole)  Two treatments of Cypermethrine on all four parcels  23 March : harvested rice and maize

Rice yield Rice was harvested at once on 23 March, dried for two days, and threshed and weighed on 26 March. It was measured with the intention to compare with future rice yields grown in same plot after soil amelioration practices.

Cover crop aboveground biomass Three cover crop samples of 2m2 (A, B, C) were cut in each sub-plot (Figure 3) on 10 May. Stylosanthes and tsiasisa were cut while they were flowering, and mucuna was cut when grains were starting to develop. Each sample was weighed on-site. A smaller sample of approximately 300 g was selected at random from the 2m2 sample, kept in closed plastic bags, the fresh weight measured again several hours later in a laboratory with a balance, subsequently dried for 48 hours at 68˚C, and measured again to obtain the dry weight. The fresh weight measured in the laboratory was used for biomass calculations.

Maize yield Maize was harvested on 23 March. Three lines were selected in each sub-plot (A, B, C), and for each line the number of seed holes and tillers per seed hole were counted (Figure 3). On the same day, ears from each line were weighed separately, and ears from remaining lines per sub-plot were weighed together. Ears from lines A, B and C were degrained and weighed separately per line. Grains were sun dried for two days, and weighed again on-site on 26 March with a hand-held scale. 38

A B C A B C A B C A B C

C C C C

10 m B B B B gap 70gap cm

A A A A

8 m 9 m 8 m 8 m Maize and Stylosanthes Maize and tsiasisa Maize and mucuna Maize and rice

Figure 3. Experiment 1 south maize and cover crop sampling design. Lettered bold stripes (A, B, C) indicate maize lines where data was collected to calculate biomass. One double line was counted together (see maize and tsiasisa parcel). Grey squares (A, B, C) indicate 2m2 areas where cover crops were cut to calculate above ground biomass.

Results

Rice yield The rice yield from the 80 m2 parcel was 6.38 kg (approximately 788 kg/ha).

Cover crop aboveground biomass Stylosanthes biomass was lowest at 1665 kg/ha, which may be expected as it is in the first year of growth. Tsiasisa produced 3196 kg/ha of biomass, and mucuna the least with 2620 kg/ha (Table 1).

Maize yield Maize associated with stylosanthes produced the highest yield at 8.77 kg (1253 kg/ha), followed by tsiasisa at 7.80 kg (780 kg/ha), and mucuna at 7.67 kg (with an area of 90 m2, rather than 80 m2 like the other sub-plots) (767 kg/ha). See Table 1 and Figure 4.

Table 1. Experiment 1 south maize seed holes and stems per hectare, grain yield per sub-plot (kg), and parcel size.

Average Biomass N˚maize cover seed Average N˚ maize Grain yield crop Parcel size Associated crop hole/ha stems/ha (kg) kg/are m2 Stylosanthes 12667 17667 8.77 16.65 80 Tsiasisa 6833 12500 7.80 31.96 90 Mucuna 11000 14333 7.67 26.20 80 Rice 8667 10333 5.56 n/a 80

3500 3196

3000 2620

2500

2000 1665

maize (kg/ha) 1500 1097 cover crop 958 1000 867 695 500

Maize grain andyield covercropbiomass 0 0 Stylosanthes Tsiasisa Mucuna Rice Cover crop associated with maize

Figure 4. Experiment 1 south maize yield and cover crop biomass (kg/ha).

Observations by Rakotoroa He was concerned that the mucuna would climb and cover the maize too heavily. At the end of February, he observed little to no maize ears in the sub-plot with mucuna, whereas they had already formed in the other three sub-plots. Moreover, starting from the same time period, he also observed that some maize plants were bent over with mucuna. Judging by eye, the maize ears appeared smaller than in the other sub-plots.

There were many weeds in the rice sub-plot, and less in the other three. The weed population growing with the three leguminous cover crops was the same in number and type.

Insect damage occurred in all three parcels, however, it was most severe with tsiasisa. He thought it may be due to stem and leaf qualities – he explained that those of tsiasisa are softer than stylosanthes and mucuna.

The tsiasisa dried up earlier than expected (this during a conversation 11 June), meaning the bean harvest was disappointingly small (perhaps one kapoka). This was attributed to two reasons. First, insect damage, despite insecticide applications. Second, dry weather which caused the leaves to dry and fall early. He was also disappointed that the brachiaria, which was growing well, appeared either dry or dead by that time.

He was surprised and pleased that the leguminous plants grew so well. The maize was doing well until the bolting period. He believed it was due to insect damage and dry weather.

Observations/comments by others  Surprised that the cover crops produced that much biomass on such sandy soil. This alone was a convincing factor to practice CA  Surprised that maize grew as it did on the sandy soil  Expect that the cover crop and maize yield will be even better in the future if the parcel continues to be managed with with leguminous cover crops and zero-tillage. 40

 Although the maize yield not very high, it is just the first year, and expect that it will improve in the future.

Discussion

Maize yield and cover crop biomass The highest maize yield associated with stylosanthes may be explained by two factors. One is the lower competition posed by the cover crop, which produces much less biomass in the first year when compared with mucuna and tsiasisa. Second is the higher number of seed holes (12,667 ha-1 compared to 6,833 ha-1 for tsiasisa, and 11,000 ha-1 for mucuna) and maize stems (17,667 ha-1 compared to 12,500 ha-1 for tsiasisa and 14,333 ha-1 for mucuna). Rakotoroa said that all parcels were sowed with approximately the same seed holes and seeds, but that some of the maize either did not germinate or died during early growth.

During the restitution meeting we discussed possible explanations for the slightly higher biomass of tsiasisa (31.96 kg/are) compared to mucuna, (26.20 kg/are). This point may have been raised because mucuna gave many members the visual impression that it produced more leaves and stems than tsiasisa: in some parts of the mucuna parcel, only, it climbed the entire height of maize plants, sometimes completely hiding them (see Figure 5). Despite the appearance, the tsiasisa parcel actually resulted in the highest biomass and maize harvest of the two, 31.96 kg/are vs. 26.20 kg/are and actual sub-plot yield of 7.8 kg vs 7.67 kg, respectively. One reason may be that tsiasisa was sampled during the flowering period (albeit towards the end, see Figure 5) whereas mucuna was sampled just after flowering when grains had already begun to develop. It may also be that mucuna just gives impression of more biomass with its vertical growth.

Opinions of cover crop performance This was one of the most commented upon parcels amongst those in Mahatsara. People primarily expressed positive surprise at the cover crop development, having expected far less growth in the sandy soil with a history of poor yields. Rakotoroa himself was pleased, and also asked whether there were other cover crops he could test.

The experiment was also one of two where brachiaria initially grew well before farmers observed that it appeared to die off due to dry weather, only to learn later (by observation or assurance from technicians) that it was alive and would regrow later. In the context of unpredictable climate, a cover crop that has been seen to survive a dry period may be attractive to farmers.

Conclusions

Objectives Conclusions Compare ability of three different cover crops to Biomass produced by cover crops was generally improve soil fertility and yield on sandy baiboho perceived to enhance soil fertility, even in their first year. The general perception is that the average yield will increase in the future. Both may be observed further in the following year. Compare maize yield when associated with three Maize associated with stylosanthes produced the different cover crops highest yield with 1253 kg/ha, followed by tsiasisa with 780 kg/ha, and mucuna with 767 kg/ha. The highest yield in the stylosanthes plot may be partially attributed to the higher numbers of seed holes and stems and less competition posed by the cover crop in its first year. Compare development of three different cover Biomass was measured to be lowest at 1665 crops kg/ha for stylosanthes, followed by 2620 kg/ha for mucuna, and the highest at 3196 kg/ha for tsiasisa. All cover crops were perceived to grow better than expected on sandy baiboho, considered to to have relatively poor soil fertility. Farmers were concerned that high mucuna growth would smother the maize plants and reduce the yield. The mucuna sub-plot did yield less maize than tsiasisa (whose climbing behaviour did not cause any concern), but only slightly. There were also concerns about strong effects of dry weather and insect damage on tsiasisa. Compare effects of three different cover crops Compared to the parcel with maize + rice, on weeds parcels with leguminous cover crops had less weeds. The weed populations were similar between the three.

D and= = stylosanthes, E H and E between Figure G D A

5 . Experiment 1 south photographs. A tsiasisa

and = mucuna), C brachiaria(before it appeared to diephotos in Vertical pairs May). of D tsiasisa , FI = and and - C takenD 28 February. C m ucuna. Photosucuna. H E B

- I taken 10 May. A =I taken 10 May.

: Jennifer Kendzior Jennifer : 2013. tsiasisa

and (note maize, behavior B = in maize the difference mucuna and climbing

- I show cover crop cover developmentI show sampling: at the moment of biomass I F C

Appendix VII: Individual report, Experiment 2 south

Figure 2. Arial view of experiment 2 south (R) and surroundings. The parcel on the left is experiment 3 south. 2 south is on tanety at Amparihy. Source : Google Earth, June 16, 2005.

Plot owner and location Objectives

 René Gilbert Rabenandrasana  Observe upland rice on tanety  Tanety Amparihy  Compare crop development between year  17°56'16.85"S, 48°24'30.59"E; 816 m.a.s.l. 0 and year 5 of CA management

Crops Treatments

 Rice (B22)  Beans and dolichos, tilled (year 0)  Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris)  Beans and stylosanthes, tilled (year 0)  Dolichos lablab  Rice and stylosanthes, tilled (year 0)  Stylosanthes guianensis (residues)  Rice on stylosanthes mulch, zero-tillage  Beans on stylosanthes residues, zero- tillage

Development of experimental plan

The sowing dates for sub-plots under CA or conventional management will not be the same given that the CA plot can be sown with the first rains, whereas the conventional plot must wait for the first big rains to be ploughed. Termination of stylosanthes is agreed to be performed two weeks before the sowing in the month of November.

Materials and methods

Layout

Five adjacent sub-plots (Figure 2). Three 70 m2 plots planted with beans : beans + dolichos (tilled, year 0), beans + stylosanthes (tilled, year 0), and beans + stylosanthes mulch (zero-tillage, year 0). Two 77 m2 parcels planted with rice, one with live stylosanthes (tilled) and the other with stylosanthes mulch (zero-tillage).

stylosanthes stylosanthes dolichos stylosanthes stylosanthes

Figure 2. Experiment 2 south layout. Three 70 m2 parcels planted with beans : beans + dolichos, beans + stylosanthes, beans + stylosanthes mulch. Two 77 m2 parcels planted with rice, one with live stylosanthes and one with stylosanthes mulch. The two grey parcels indicate 0-till, the other three parcels were tilled (year 0 of CA).

Parcel management by Gilbert

 0-till parcels are in their 5th year under CA management, previous crop was stylosanthes.  6 December 2012: sowed all crops. Beans with future dolichos sown with manure in each seed hole. Beans with future stylosanthes sown with manure in each seed hole. Rice in tilled parcel sown with Insector, NPK (applied with jab planter) and manure (spread evenly and then ploughed in). Rice with insector and NPK (applied with jab planter). Beans on stylosanthes residues).  5 January: weeding, and sowed cover crops (dolichos, stylosanthes), 3 people (9,000 ariary)  7 January: application 5 kg urea, application Gazidim 5 cc (300 ariary)  February-March : beans harvested over several weeks

Rice yield Five 1m2 were staked in both rice sub-plots. In each 1m2, the number of seed holes were counted, three seed holes were selected per square, and the number of tillers and panicles per seed hole were counted. Unknown person(s) stole the rice around 22 March. A visit to the parcel on 26 March revealed two piles of the harvest left in each sub-plot. 10 panicles were randomly selected, degrained, and dried for 48 hours at 68˚C. The number and weight of empty and full grains was measured per panicle. The weight of 200 empty and full grains was also recorded per panicle.

Bean yield Gilbert and his wife kept the bean harvest separate per treatment. They were dried and weighed as a total per plot. They were not degrained, therefore the weight includes the pod.

Measure biomass of bean plants It could have been interesting to measure the above ground bean biomass to compare between treatments, but this was abandoned as the bean plants under residues were accidentally harvested early.

Results

Rice yield Rice in the year 5 sub-plot produced 2070 kg/ha, and rice from the year 0 plot produced 3495 kg/ha. The year 0 parcel had a slightly higher number of seed holes, panicles per seed hole, and spikelets per panicle than the year 5 parcel. The weight of 1000 grains was 33.85 g for year 0, and 26.05 g for year 5. The ratio of full to empty spikelets was 59 % for the year 0 plot and 66 % for zero-tillage. See Table 1 for yield components.

Bean yield Bean yields per sub-plot were highest at 6.46 kg (923 kg/ha) for beans + dolichos (year 0), followed by 6.12 (874 kg/ha) for beans on stylosanthes mulch (year 5) and 6.10 kg (871 kg/ha) for beans + stylosanthes. (year 0). See Table 2. Beans were weighed in the pod.

Table 1. Experiment 2 south rice yield components for year 5 and year 0.

Yield N˚ per seed N˚ N˚ % full Weight of Weight plot holes/ panicles/see spikelets/ spikel 1 grain 1000 Yield (77 Yield Treatment m2 d hole panicle ets (g) grains (g) (kg/m2) m2) (kg/ha) Rice, year 5 0.0260 12.20 10.33 95.50 66 26.05 0.21 15.94 2070

Rice, year 0 12.60 12.80 108.50 59 0.0338 33.85 0.35 26.91 3495

Table 2. Experiment 2 south bean yield (includes pods) per plot (kg) and per ha.

Treatment Yield per plot (includes pods) (kg) Yield (includes pods) (kg/ha) Beans + dolichos, year 0 6.46 923 Beans + stylosanthes, year 0 6.10 871 Beans on stylosanthes, year 5 6.12 874

Observations by Gilbert Stylosanthes grew well despite the dry weather, and dolichos grew satisfactorily. There was not enough rain, causing the beans, which initially grew well, to dry up and be more susceptible to insect damage (see Figure 3). There was no insect damage observed on rice.

While panicles of the year 0 plot did grow faster, panicles from the year 5 plot were more “robust” and would fare better during dry periods. The next rice crop grown in the year 0 parcel will produce stronger panicles thanks to the benefits of the future stylosanthes residues.

Comments/observations by others Rice  Advantages of practicing CA techniques are less expenses and less work  Even if the yield in the zero-tillage plot is lower, it is better in the long term because the soil quality will be improved (or retained), whereas with tillage the soil quality will eventually decline  Observed during a field visit before the rice was stolen : some tillers in the zero-tillage parcel were still green, while those in the year 0 parcel were already dry. Therefore, there is more soil moisture in the former parcel.  There are more full grains with CA  The ability of stylosanthes to reseed itself is a positive point  For many members from Mahatsara, it was relatively new to purposefully observe rice on tanety, and they were impressed that it grew well enough  Disappointed with the yield from the tilled parcel with stylosanthes, but Gilbert reminded them that the objective of year 0 is to obtain soil cover. Beans  Beans were killed due to dry and hot weather  Different parcels had similar yields due to the dry climate (i.e. comparing results not interesting as dry weather created poor results for all)  Beans had good production despite dry weather  There may have been less weeds with the live cover crops  There was more soil moisture with the residues and cover crops

Discussion

Rice During a field visit, an agronomist observed that the weight of panicles appeared similar between the two plots. Unfortunately, due to the theft of the rice, most members had not seen the panicles and couldn’t offer their opinions. Gilbert, practicing CA techniques since 2005 and who grows rice on just under 3 ha rice fields and baiboho, found the rice production satisfactory. Due to his experience with CA, his opinions and advice are regarded with respect. So although many members did not see the rice before harvest due to the theft, stories shared by Gilbert were valuable testimony for the experiment. Others who had seen the rice panicles before they were cut offered supporting opinions, which was not surprising but still added to the discussion. A field visit with both groups about two weeks after the rice theft provided the opportunity to at least see the tillers and discuss the results.

The parcel owner and several other members who had seen the parcel attributed the higher yield of the year 0 plot to tillage, which corresponds to an analysis of the yield components. The nutrient 47

availability following tillage in the year 0 parcel was mostly likely responsible for creating more favourable growth conditions compared to the year 5 parcel with zero-tillage. This is evidenced by the higher number of seed holes, tillers, panicles and spikelets in the year 0 parcel. After learning of the lower yield results in the year 5 parcel, farmers seemed to follow the owner in his argument that other factors such as resistance to dry weather and long term soil health are just as important, if not more so in the long term.

The parcel owner observed that the grains under year 5 were more “robust”. After he clarified further this was interpreted as “fuller spikelets” and seemed to indicate “slightly more spikelets per panicle”. This point of view was supported by a few other farmers, though it is unknown whether they just echoed his opinion or if they made their own observations and arrived at the same conclusion. In either case, their observations were not supported by biophysical measurements, which actually found the weight of 1000 rice grains to be lower in the year 5 parcel, despite the effect of compensation. Of several possible hypotheses to explain the difference in grain yield, the most likely explanation seems to be slower development of the rice in the year 5 parcel combined with the early harvest, before the grains could fill to maturity. Other possible explanations were high water stress during filling (but this would have affected both parcels as they were rainfed), and disease (but this would have been observed). (Personal communication Julie Desserre)

Beans There were some smaller bean plants, sown at a later date than the others, all of which were destroyed by insects. During some general conversations about CA, Gilbert emphasized the need to use insecticide with live and dead mulch. There were few comments about the bean parcels, perhaps due to the damage by dry weather and pests, which Gilbert emphasised. Nevertheless, one member from the north commented during an individual interview that the beans showed good production despite dry weather. During another individual interview, another person thought that the beans on residues were slightly greener than the other treatments. Gilbert reminded the group that the objective in the first year was to provide soil cover in order to observe better yields and soil fertility in the future.

The yield of beans + dolichos is actually slightly higher, a kapoka of grains having been accidentally consumed before measuring the harvest. Although the weight of 1 kapoka of dry beans was obtained (approximately 270g), the harvest was weighed with the pods.

Conclusions

Objectives Conclusions Observe upland Favourable testimony of the parcel owner and members who were able to rice on tanety observe the rice before it was stolen demonstrated the possibility of producing it on tanety. The parcel owner, a respected CA practitioner, found the rice production satisfactory. For those from Mahatsara, it was one of the first times they purposefully observed rice on tanety.

Compare crop Rice from the year 5 parcel produced 2070 kg/ha, and rice from the year 0 development parcel produced more at 3495 kg/ha. This may be explained by a slightly between year 0 higher number of seed holes, panicles per seed hole, and spikelets per and year 5 under panicle, likely due to more favourable conditions such as nutrient availability CA management caused by tillage. Bean yields were highest at 923 kg/ha with dolichos (tilled, year 0), followed by 874 kg/ha on stylosanthes mulch (zero-tillage, year 5) and 871 kg/ha with stylosanthes (tilled, year 0).

Most farmers blamed dry weather on poor development of the bean plants, but several thought the harvest was fair after the results were presented. In general, though, most suggested that it may not be very useful to compare the bean yields between treatments due to damage caused by dry weather and insects. Indeed, bean yields did not demonstrate clear relationships between soil management and crop performance: yields were similar between year 5 and year 0 with stylosanthes, and slightly higher with year 0 with dolichos.

Those farmers able to observe the rice during maturation noted that tillers were greener and grains were fuller in the year 5 parcel. The latter observation did not correspond to results, which actually found the weight of 1000 grains to be higher for year 0 (33.85 g) than for year 5 (26.05 g). The difference in grain weight may be due to slower development in the year 5 parcel combined with the early harvest before grains were filled.

After learning of the lower yield results in the year 5 parcel, farmers seemed to follow the owner in his argument that other factors such as resistance to dry weather and long term soil health are just as important, if not more so in the long term.

A B

C D

F G

Figure 3. Photographs experiment 2 (south). A = beans with insect damage. B = beans + dolichos, tilled. C = beans + stylosanthes, tilled. D = beans on stylosanthes mulch, tilled. E = rice on stylosanthes mulch, 0-till (left) and rice + stylosanthes, tilled (right). Beans on stylosanthes mulch, 0-till. Photos : Jennifer Kendzior 2013.

Appendix VIII: Individual report, Experiment 3 south

Figure 3. Arial view of field experiment 3 south (left) and surroundings. To the right is experiment 2. 3 south was on a steep slope, a few meters from a frequently travelled path. Source: Google Earth, June 16, 2005.

Plot owner and location Objectives

 Christine Rahantarisoa  Compare ability of three different cover  Tanety at Amparihy crops and a typical association of beans +  17°56'16.95"S, 48°24'27.72"E; 816 m.a.s.l. maize to improve soil fertility and reduce erosion on steep tanety  Compare effect of three different cover crops and a typical association of beans + maize on soil cover and weeds  Compare development of three different cover crops associated with maize  Compare effect of three different cover crops and a typical association of beans + maize on maize yield

Crops Treatments

 Maize (Zea mays)  Maize and tsiasisa  Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris)  Maize and dolichos  Dolichos lablab  Maize and mucuna  Mucuna pruriens  Maize and beans  Rice bean (tsiasisa)(Vigna umbellata)  Sorgum (Sorghum bicolor)

Development of experimental plan To reduce erosion on the steep slope, technicians proposed planting sorghum on contour strips. Family members proposed to help Christine dig the strips as she is aging and may not have had the strength to do so alone. The group first decided to grow two cover crops, mucuna and tsiasisa, and 51

later during the meeting added dolichos. These three were compared against maize and beans, which is the usual association grown each year on the parcel.

Materials and methods 5 m

Layout Maize + Maize + Maize + Maize + The parcel was divided into four 5 x 20 m sub-plots (Figure beans tsiasisa dolichos mucuna 2): maize + beans, maize + tsiasisa, maize + dolichos, maize + mucuna. 0.5 m bands of sorghum were planted every five meters, starting at the borders. The entire parcel is on a slope, beginning at the top and ending just before the 20 m land flattens out. The parcel is along a main path, easily viewable by those who pass by.

Figure 2. Layout of experiment 3. Four 5 x 20 m sub-plots: maize + beans, maize + tsiasisa, maize + dolichos, maize + mucuna. Bold lines are sorhum planted on contour strips of approximately 0.5 m width. Parcel management by Christine

 Previous crop : Maize and beans  19 December : Planted maize seeds (with NPK in each seed hole), tsiasisa, mucuna, and dolichos.  9 Jan. 2012 : Prepared parcel by weeding, no tillage. Weeding performed by hand by Christine, about 15 days during the mornings. The time spend on weeding was longer than usual, as she would normally work on consecutive days therefore reducing the growing period of weeds. She said there were less weeds on the experimental parcel than on the adjacent non-CA parcels.  17 January : insecticide treatment on all four parcels  30 January : planted sorghum  3 February : applied insecticide on all parcels  18 February : Applied insecticide on all parcels  March onwards : Applied insecticide equally between parcels every 2-4 weeks (dates and quantity not available as she did not not record them and couldn’t recall). Will continue applying insecticide until she harvests grains of mucuna, tsiasisa, and dolichos.  2 May : harvested maize and sorghum  Next season : Thinks to grow rice on bottom of slope, and maize and a cover crop again on the slope.

Maize yield Maize and sorghum were harvested on 2 May. The date was determined by sufficient dryness of the maize ears, and before the rats consumed the grains. The sorghum was collected all together and

was not weighed. Maize was collected and weighed per sub-plot, on-site with a hand held scale. The maize was not degrained, rather, the ears were weighed on-site. The grain weight was calculated using a weight ratio (approximately 0.45) of dried ears to grains obtained from another field experiment in the area (experiment 1 south).

Tsiasisa and bean yield Grain yield of beans and tsiasisa were not measured. The beans were already harvested before the fieldwork began. According to Christine, the bean yield was low due to dry weather. Tsiasisa grains were not yet mature when the fieldwork ended.

Cover crop biomass 4m2 samples of above ground biomass were cut during the florescence (or just after). Tsiasisa was cut 10 May towards the end of florescence. Dolichos and mucuna were cut 17 May. The former was flowering, and the latter had begun to produce grains. The fresh weight of the entire 4m2 was measured immediately with the hand-held scale. A sample of approximately 300 g (fresh weight) was randomly selected from each 4m2, kept in closed plastic bags, the fresh weight measured again in a lab several hours later, and dried in an oven for 48 hours at 68˚C before obtaining the dry weight.

Results Maize Maize yield (measured with dry ears) was lowest when associated with mucuna at 3.00 kg, followed by 6.52 kg with dolichos, 11.22 kg with rice bean, and highest with beans at 21.16 kg. The grain yield per 100m2 sub-plot was 1.34 kg (134 kg/ha) with mucuna, 2.91 kg (291 kg/ha) with dolichos, 5.01 kg (501 kg/ha) with tsiasisa, and 9.46 kg (946 kg/ha) with beans. (see Table 1).

Cover crop above ground biomass Bean biomass was not measured as the work for this report began after the grains had been harvested, and the leaves dried. The highest above ground biomass was produced by tsiasisa at 3737 kg/ha, followed by mucuna with 3407 kg/ha, and dolichos at 2940 kh/ha (see Figure 3).

Table 1. Experiment 3 south maize yield per sub-plot, ears(kg) and grains (kg). Maize was weighed per sub-plot and grain yield was calculated by using a weight ratio (0.45).

Crop associated with maize Yield per parcel (ears) Yield per parcel (grains) (kg) (kg) Mucuna 3.00 1.34 Dolichos 6.52 2.91 Tsiasisa 11.22 5.01 Beans 21.16 9.46

4000 3737 3407 3500 2940 3000

2500

2000 Maize yield (kg/ha)

Yield Yield (Kg/ha) 1500 Dry matter (kg/ha) 946 1000 501 500 291 134 0 0 Mucuna Dolichos Tsiasisa Beans Crop associated with maize

Figure 3. Experiment 3 south maize yield and cover crop biomass. Maize was harvested per parcel, and cover crops were sampled in three 4m2 areas per treatment.

Observations by Christine During one interview she said that she herself observed that the canals help protect against erosion by retaining sorghum stems and cover crop leaves which fall on the surface. When the subject arose at a later date, she said that she doesn’t know for sure herself as the technique is new to her, but was just repeating what she was told during the training period. When asked to compare erosion between the beans + maize sub-plot with all others, she very generally said those with cover crops give more plant matter and will therefore better contribute to erosion-prevention.

Next year she plans to grow rice on bottom of slope (not part of the experimental parcel, but planted beans and mucuna), and maize and mucuna/dolichos again on the slope. Christine did not like the association of tsiasisa and maize because there were too many insects. She thought this was because it grew too thickly, therefore creating an attractive habitat for insects. She predicted that tsiasisa grain yield will be very low, although she acknowledged that the objective was to produce soil cover rather than grains for food. She is considering planting beans associated with tsiasisa. There were insects in the dolichos parcel, too, but few enough that she was pleased with the cover crop. Insects in the mucuna parcel disappeared after the insecticide treatments.

The low yield in the mucuna parcel was not due to rats, but rather due to the fact that the cover crop climbed and covered the maize too much. This followed a discussion about the obvious presence of rats in the parcel, evidenced by many maize ears that had been consumed.

There were less weeds in the plots with mucuna, dolichos and tsiasisa than in the plot with beans, and less than in other adjacent plots under conventional management.

Comments/observations by others  Impressed that maize and cover crops grow so well despite the assumed lower fertility associated with steep slopes. Several people attributed fertility to the cover crops (i.e. they give benefits even in year 0). Even if there was no strong opinion regarding cover crop preference, the biomass production was considered impressive. Prior to the harvest, farmers expressed only generally that the maize yield was good across the whole parcel, this being to their surprise considering the steep (and therefore assumed relatively infertile) slope. Following the harvest, comments followed opinions expressed by the parcel owner (see above).  Dolichos growth was best – there was good biomass production without climbing too much on the maize. Others said mucuna was best for soil cover, perhaps because people interpreted the climbing behaviour as high biomass production, and as long as it is kept below a height that disturbs the maize the characteristic is positive.  Mucuna and dolichos are best for less fertile soil (e.g. tanety), and tsiasisa is better for more fertile soil (e.g. baiboho) as it needs more nutrients in order to produce grains to eat.  Regarding erosion, some commented that it is better to grow cover crops than to plough, as the latter will promote erosion. Nobody volunteered thoughts on the sorghum canals during individual or group interviews, except to agree with technicians that it is a good soil erosion prevention strategy.  Perhaps it will be possible to source mucuna and dolichos seeds from Christine to plant during the next agricultural year.  Land on steep slopes is often unused, so this was a good example of what is possible.

Discussion Members mentioned this parcel first and most when asked their general impressions of the experiments in Mahatsara, those from the north being especially impressed. They complimented their colleagues for their bravery for daring to experiment on the steep slope, the challenges being poor fertility and risk of disappointment. People were generally surprised that the crops grew well – the leguminous plants, especially. Several members (from Ambalakondro, a village in the north, who have worked regularly with BRL and have some experience with CA) asked for how long the parcel had been under DMC, assuming that the apparent soil fertility was due to previous management. Upon learning that it was actually the first year, they concluded that even in year 0 the cover crops give advantages such as soil moisture retention and fertility. This was based on their observation of « good » maize development.

At least two members (from Mahatsara) mentioned hoping to source dolichos and mucuna seeds from Christine for the near future. Christine herself anticipated harvesting enough seeds to sow in several parcels. In the interest of introducing cover crop seeds (which are often difficult for farmers to find, let alone the financial costs) to be multiplied and disseminated amongst self-determined social networks, this is an encouraging example.

Christine described this year’s bean harvest as poor due to dry weather. Comparing the soil cover between sub-plots with erosion and weed population reduction objectives in mind, the bare soil of maize + beans could clearly be improved by intercropping any of the three cover crops (see Figure 5).

Maize yield associated with mucuna was the lowest per sub-plot (1.36 kg). Considering the evidence of rat presence throughout the parcel, a researcher wondered whether the sub-plot, located near the border of the parcel, may have attracted more rats therefore accounting for the lower yield. When this theory was proposed to Christine, she acknowledged damage by rats but said it was mainly due to the climbing behaviour of mucuna. However, she is still keen to grow it again next year, perhaps even on the same plot, because she is confident that the climbing behaviour of mucuna can be better managed with experinence. It is possible that more were consumed in the mucuna parcel, but there was no measurement or estimate of the reduction in maize yield due to rats. Maize ears without grains were left in the field.

Of her own intiative, Christine also sowed leguminous plants around the experimental parcel. Down one side of the parcel Christine planted an approximately 2 m strip of zacharia, a locally known plant similar to cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) (see Figure 4 for photo of zacharia and cowpea seeds, and Figure 5, photo A for zacharia plant). At the base of the slope she planted beans and mucuna, and intends to plant rice there next year for the first time.

Conclusions

Objectives Conclusions Compare ability of three different cover crops Changes in soil fertility and potential to reduce and a typical association of beans + maize to erosion will be observed next year. However, cover improve soil fertility and reduce erosion on crop performance was viewed positively, and was steep tanety perceived to have brought soil fertility benefits even during year 0. These favourable interpretations were despite the insect and rat damage, thought to be due to very thick cover crop development. Compare effect of three different cover crops There were less weeds in the plots with mucuna, and a typical association of beans + maize on dolichos and tsiasisa than in the plot with beans, soil cover and weeds and less than in other adjacent plots under conventional management. Compare development of three different Cover crop biomass was measured at 3737 kg/ha cover crops associated with maize for tsiasisa, followed by 3407 kg/ha for mucuna and 2940 kh/ha for dolichos. Mucuna and dolichos were perceived similarly, although mucuna was observed to climb more thickly on maize. Mucuna did produce more biomass than dolichos, supporting farmers’ observations of thicker growth. Tsiasisa growth was perceived positively as a cover crop if the primary objective is to improve soil fertility. As a cover crop to provide consumable grains, however, the thick development was perceived negatively as it attracted and suffered from too much insect damage, producing an unsatisfactory grain yield for consumption. Farmers’ observations that tsiasisa grew thickly was 56

supported by measurements recording tsiasisa biomass quantity as highest of the three. Compare effect of three different cover crops Maize yield associated with mucuna was lowest at and a typical association of beans + maize on 134 kg/ha, followed by dolichos with 291 kg/ha, maize yield tsiasisa with 501 kg/ha, and highest with beans at 946 kg/ha. Prior to the harvest, farmers expressed only generally that the maize yield was good across the whole parcel, this being to their surprise considering the steep (and therefore assumed relatively infertile) slope. After the harvest, the relatively low yield with mucuna was attributed to the cover crop’s climbing behaviour on the maize, or consumption by rats.

Figure 4. Zacharia (L) and cowpea seeds (R). Photo: Jennifer Kendzior.

. tsiasisa G = G = maize and

A B Dolichos. plot, people are standing in in people are plot, standing - sub

tsiasisa F = maize and maize and = F mucuna. . E = maize and . E maize and = planted in a strip down the slope on the side of the parcel (left). the side the parcel theof a strip on Sorghum down in slope planted

C D Zacharia

: Jennifer2013. Kendzior,

E F plots during maize harvest (note growth of cover crops over maize). Photo taken from taken edge over of growth coverPhoto of crops maize). duringplots (note maize harvest

A A . Photos mucuna mucuna photographs. A = Corner view from top of slope (note gradient). gradient). Corner = slope viewof (note A fromphotographs. top and and

Dolichos d behind them behind d is , an , . Experiment 3 south 3 south . Experiment 4 G H

A Figure D May)maize and = (2 beans Sorghumand visible.at harvestChristine) areB = March, C time. also (1 bands overview = H of Dolichos

Appendix VIIII: Individual report, Experiment 4 south

Figure 1. Arial view of experiment 4 south and surroundings. Two parcels owned by M. Dauphin (A) and M. Rabemananjara (B), both on relatively flat tanety. Source : Google Earth, June 16, 2005.

Plot owner and location Objectives

 Mr Rabemananjara and Mr Dauphin.  Valorize use of tanety  Tanety at Antampon’Ambonga  Observe cover crop development on tanety  17°56'4.18"S, 48°24'26.88"E; 822 m.a.s.l.  Compare ability of different cover crops to improve soil fertility

Crops Treatments

 Cassava (Manihot esculenta)  Cassava + stylosanthes  Maize (Zea mays)  Cassava + brachiaria  Stylosanthes guianensis  Maize + dolichos  Brachiaria ruziziensis  Cassava + brachiaria + mucuna  Mucuna pruriens  Dolichos lablab

Notes on development of experimental plan (between farmers and technical staff)

This field experiment was designed after the CA training conducted by BRL. Mr. Rabemananjara was keen to plant cassava after hearing encouraging stories about cover crop associations. The technicians suggested intercropping a mixture of stylosanthes and brachiaria, but farmers preferred to separate them in order to better observe their individual growth and effects.

The original plan for Mr. Dauphin’s parcel was to plant cajanus, but due to an error in misidentified seed, mucuna was planted instead.

Materials and methods

Layout

Four adjacent parcels on tanety (see Figure 2): 100 m2 with cassava + brachiaria + mucuna; 100 m2 with maize + dolichos; 120 m2 with cassava and brachiaria; 125 m2 with cassava and stylosanthes.

No measurements were taken for these field experiments due to poor cover crop growth. Photographs taken on 27 February and 2 May documented development (Figures 3 and 4).

10m Parcel management by Mr. Rabemananjara Cassava + 10m brachiaria +  Previous crop: none, grass grew mucuna sporadically with much bare soil. Last Maize + crop was 10 years ago (groundnuts) 10m dolichos  Beginning December 2012: tilled soil  4 December: planted cassava Cassava + Cassava +  11 December: planted brachiaria and 12m brachiaria stylosanthes stylosanthes seeds, no fertilizer  Mid-January: replanted brachiaria seedlings (as seeds did not germinate) 10m 10.5m  Date unknown : one morning of weeding  Plans to leave cassava for 18 – 24 Figure 2. Experiment 4 south layout. Four adjacent parcels on tanety: 100 m2 with cassava + brachiaria + months, will leave stylo to continue mucuna; 100 m2 with maize + dolichos; 120 m2 with growing, will try to plant brachiaria again cassava and brachiaria; 125 m2 with cassava and stylosanthes. Those in grey owned by during the next rainy season. Rabemananjara, the others by Dauphin.

Results The brachiaria appeared to have died, while the stylosanthes continued to develop. See photographs (Figure 4). Other cover crops developed but with relatively little growth (see Figure 3).

Observations by Mr. Rabemananjara and Mr. Dauphin Mr. Rabemananjara explained that the parcel has a history of poor fertility. For that reason, the last crop, groundnuts, was grown about ten years ago. Since then and until the ABACO field experiment, grass was allowed to grow, although it did so poorly and unevenly. When they tilled the soil in 2012 they were surprised to observe that the soil actually appeared very fertile (based on colour and texture), and they wondered why the grass didn’t grow well. He observed that the cassava grows well, although he attributes that to the recent tillage. Unfortunately, the brachiaria died (or appeared to die) due to dry weather conditions. This led him to think that perhaps it would have been better if he sowed earlier. During one of our last meetings, he expressed intention to plant 60

brachiaria again during the rainy season, encouraged by the sight of new growth by what he thought were dead plants. Rabemananjara was pleased with the growth of stylosanthes. There were few weeds in general, and their numbers were even between the parcels.

Comments/observations by others There was little discussion about these parcels because few people observed them. Field visits did not include these experiments because other parcels were prioritized in the interest of time and value of discussion points. In addition, located on the top of a hill, they are relatively far away from usual paths people may take while going back and forth from their own parcels.

Discussion Failure of a crop on tanety due to dry climate was often mentioned during interviews and discussions. As a common scenario, then, it is encouraging that Rabemananjara will continue with stylosanthes and brachiaria on the same parcel. Observing the parcels throughout the next year while the cover crops continue to grow could offer material to discuss several subjects with members, including growing cover crops on tanety and any changes in soil fertility. There was little to discuss at the end of this research as the cover crop growth was still young or poor due to dry weather.

Dauphin is an English teacher during the week in Ambatondrazaka and was in the village only on the weekends. Unfortunately, we never managed to meet. Conversations with his wife and elder son did not elicit many opinions or information on the field experiment.

Several people from both categories said that although they want to hear advice from technicians, sometimes they consciously decide not to follow it as they have their own reasoning. The farmers’ decision to plant stylosanthes and brachiaria separately, rather than mixed as recommended by technicians, is such an example.

Conclusions Objectives Conclusions Valorize use of Observing the parcels throughout the next year while the cover crops tanety continue to grow could offer material to discuss several subjects with members, including growing cover crops on tanety and any changes in soil fertility. Observe cover crop Brachiaria, stylosanthes, mucuna and dolichos established but produced development on little biomass, either due to early growth (e.g. stylosanthes) or dry tanety weather (e.g. brachiaria). They have been left to continue growing and will be observed throughought the remainder of this year and the next. Compare ability of The parcel should be followed during the next year in order to observe different cover crops and discuss any changes in soil quality. to improve soil fertility

A B

C D

Figure 3. Experiment 4 south photographs, Dauphin’s parcel. Top row is cassava + mucuna + brachiaria. Bottom row is maize and dolichos. Photos in left column taken 27 February, those in the right column were taken 2 May. Photographs : Jennifer Kendzior 2013.

A B

C D

Figure 4. Experiment 4 south photographs, Rabemananjara's parcel with cassava. A and C are arial views of brachiaria growth. B and D are arial views of stylosanthes growth. E is a wide view of the parcel. A and B were taken 27 February; C, D and E on 2 May. Photographs : Jennifer Kendzior 2013.

Appendix X: Individual report, Experiment 5 south

Figure 1. Arial view of field experiment 5 south (L). The parcel to the right is experiment 1. 5 south was on a sandy lower slope, next to a well travelled path. Source : Google Earth, June 16, 2005.

Plot owners and location Objective

Ernest Rabearivony Compare bambara groundnut Lower slopes at Andranomasitany development on parcels with and 17°55'36.38"S, 48°25'18.42"E; 803 m.a.s.l. without mulched residues

Crops Treatments

Bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea) Bambara groundnut on brachiaria Brachiaria ruziziensis residues mulch

Bambara groundnut, no mulch

Development of experimental plan

Ernest had already established a parcel of brachiaria a few years ago. Seeing photographs of good Bambara groundnut development (a crop with which he already has experience) when grown with DMC techniques during the training inspired him to propose the parcel for a field test. The group decided to establish the two plots adjacently to facilitate direct visual comparison.

Materials and methods

Layout Brachiaria mulch (residues from previous crop 2 5 m Two 100 m parcels separated by a 1 m border, one on parcel) with brachiaria mulch and one without (Figure 2). 1 m border

5 m No mulch

20 m

2 Figure 2. Experiment 2 south layout. Two 100 m sub- plots : both with bambara groundnuts, one with brachiaria mulch and one without.

Parcel management by Ernest (and wife Jeannette)  Previous crop : brachiaria  25 November: killed brachiaria with glyphosate  8 December: sowed bambara groundnuts, applied NPK and manure. Manure was spread throughout parcels, and NPK was applied in each seed hole. There were not enough seeds, so he sowed two different varieties : menarangotra (“red stripes”) and fotsy (“white”). According to two farmers, the only difference between the two varieties are their appearance. Fotsy was sown in less than half of the parcel without residues.  15 December: Application insecticide Gazidim 30 cc  28 December: Application of urea (no quantity)  7/8 January: weeding, used a spade for non-residue parcel, hand pulled weeds in residues parcel. Took two days, one to two hours for each parcel  1 February: applied pesticide around the parcel borders to discourage insects from entering  Future crops. CA parcel : rice. He tried growing rice immediately after the soil was excavated for the dam construction, but the yield was so bad he never tried again. He also tried growing bambara nuts and groundnuts but they did not produce satisfactory yields. Until the experiment with brachiaria residues, maize gave the best results. Conventional parcel : has already sowed tsiasisa (rice bean) in beginning April but some have died already due to dry weather. The objective with tsiasisa is just to increase soil fertility.

Bambara groundnut yield Bambara groundnuts were harvested on 24 and 25 April. Photographs were taken of the seed location (i.e. depth in soil or mulch) (see Figure 4). The seeds were sun dried for several days and weighed on-site with a hand held scale on 10 May.

Results The parcel with mulch yielded 4.24 t/ha of bambara groundnuts, and the parcel without mulch produced 1.90 t/ha (Figure 3). Visual evaluation of seed size showed that those grown in the mulch parcel were generally larger, and located closer to the surface of the soil if not in the mulch itself

5.00 4.24 4.00

3.00 1.90 2.00 Yield Yield (t/ha)

1.00

0.00 Mulch No mulch Treatment

Figure 3. Experiment 5 south bambara groundnut yield (t/ha).

(Figure 4)

Observations by Ernest and his wife Jeannette There were some weeds with the previous brachiaria crop, but not very many. In the mulch parcel there were only tall weeds (reniahitra), which grew sporadically. The non-mulch parcel had many more weeds, which also varied in species composition, and which grew all at once. They required use of a small spade to dig them out by the roots.

Early in the season there was a type of “black dust” (small insects) on the tillers of plants in both parcels, but primarily on the parcel without mulch. After treating both parcels with Gazidim they did not observe any further incidence. Ernest noticed more Coleoptera larvae in the parcel without residues. He recognized them as typically associated with bambara groundnuts. He hypothesised that perhaps the warmer soil temperatures without soil cover provided conducive conditions for larval development. Interestingly, Jeannette, who also participated in the harvest, said she thought there may have been more larvae in the parcel with residues. A photograph of a larva was sent to an entomologist specialising in white grub taxonomy, who identified it as part of the family Melolonthidae (root feeders).

They observed that the plants were drier without mulch, and that with mulch the grains were bigger and located shallower in the soil. They did not, as is their usual practice, cover bambara groundnut plants with soil to encourage seed development.

Comments/observations by others

 Those who observed the parcel and/or photographs of the parcel during interviews consistently noted that without mulch the leaves were drier and yellower, that with residues the grains were

located shallower and were bigger. Several farmers who saw the parcels in person suggested that the soil was moister under mulch.  Some farmers don't grow bambara groundnuts because they believe(d) that covering each plant with soil was necessary. After observing the parcel and results, a couple of them expressed interest in trying to grow them with mulch. During interviews about future use of techniques used in experiments, however, nobody indicated growing bambara groundnuts, and few anticipated applying mulch.

Discussion Results of this experiment were among the simplest to interpret. Those who were not interested in growing bambara groundnuts did not indicate any change of mind, although they found the association with mulch encouraging. No other farmers expressed having grown the crop with mulch. The majority believed that covering the plant with soil was absolutely necessary, whereas a few others produced their crop without doing so.

The brachiaria residues produced on the parcel did not provide sufficient soil cover. The amount of mulch added was not measured, but it would be worthwhile to record this data in the future. It would offer material to discuss what can be expected by using different quantities of mulch.

It is of interest to compare the time and cost of covering the plants with soil to the time and costs associated with providing mulch. As mentioned, Ernest does not practice soil covering, but when asked he said it would take between one and two days to cover a 200m2 area (size of the test). Several other members agreed with this estimate. A hired person’s labour for one day costs about 4,000 – 5,000 ariary (approximately 1.50 euros).

On the other hand, mulch can be produced on-site as residues from a previous crop, imported, or a combination of both (such as this experiment). Bambara groundnuts following a several years of brachiaria could therefore be an interesting rotation option. If a farmer grows brachiaria close by, is on good terms with the owner of a neighbouring field, or is willing to spend the time (and money, if not a zebu-owner) to transport the cuttings, then imported mulch may be an attractive option. As always, however, the challenge is sourcing enough soil cover to obtain desirable results.

Conclusions Objectives Conclusions Compare Bambara groundnut yield grown with mulch was 4.24 t/ha. Without mulch the yield bambara was less than half of that at 1.90 t/ha. The grains from the mulched parcel were groundnut generally larger and located closer to the soil surface. development Before the harvest, farmers observed moister soil conditions and favorable between parcels aboveground development (greener, less dry leaves) in the mulched parcel, and with and correspondingly expected a higher yield. Upon learning the results they were without impressed with the yield and size of the grains, but from interview data it seemed mulched that none intend to apply this system to their own fields in the immediate future. residues

t, taken 10 taken t, May.

A B

E are of bambara nuts during harvest, all taken 24 April. C and C and 24 taken harvest, April. all during E are nuts bambara of -

E F

and D = parcel without mulch. G shows seeds from parcel with mulch on the left, and from the parcel without mulch on the righ mulch without from the parcel on and G shows mulch the left, mulch. and =without seeds with D from parcel ; B

. Experiment 5 south photographs. A=Parcel with mulch, B=parcel without mulch, both taken 13 April. B taken mulch, 13 April. both without with mulch, B=parcel A=Parcel photographs. 5 south . Experiment : Jennifer Kendzior 2013. : Jennifer Kendzior 68

G Figure mulch with E parcel = Photos Appendix XI: Individual interview guidelines

Houshold and farm characteristics

 Age range  Ethnicity, regional origins  Description of each parcel owned and rented/sharecropped including:  Size, toposequence, fertility, crops  Use of rotations, tillage, mulch or live cover crops in the past, present, future  Animal husbandry  If the interviewee keeps zebu, have they grown Brachiaria, or are they interested to do so in the future?  What off-farm activities practiced by members of the household, if any  Age of children, education type (a major expense, it indicates the need for financial resources)  Is there a period during the year when the household buys rice (households may vary in their rice-self sufficiency due to different strategies and land resources)

Interpretations of field experiments  Field experiments in Mahatsara (general impressions, discussion per experiment with available results)  Field experiments in Amparihitsokatra (general impressions, discussion per experiment with available results)

Participation in ABACO  Why participate in ABACO? What outcomes are expected from participation?  What can be done differently / improved during ABACO’s work next year (regarding design and management of field tests, meetings, communication)?

Other (time and interviewee interest permitting)  What can encourage strong group formation/bonds (e.g. kinship, common interests)?  How is information shared? (e.g. “Have you asked somebody more experienced than you for advice regarding an agricultural technique?” “Have you been asked by somebody?” When discussing a technique practiced on a parcel, “How did you learn about this technique?”)  If the interviewee has practiced CA techniques for more than one year, discuss soil compaction, weed population, forage, cover crop decisions, use of crop residues.  Fertilizer perceptions and preferences between NPK, urea, liquid compost, compost, zebu manure  Discuss dynamics of awareness-raising and sensitization between farmers and external parties  Tondra-boly (zebu divagation in parcels crop residues) – incidence, prevention

Appendix XII: Group interview guidelines

 What could be done differently during ABACO’s work next year (regarding design and management of field tests, meetings, communication)

 What concrete objectives can we try to achieve during the next year (contextualized by: ABACO will end next year, it is a collaborative effort that encourages participating farmers to propose their own ideas, and it is not a project that distributes materials or services)

 What encourages/discourages communication and cohesiveness within and between groups

 Future of the two ABACO groups after the project ends  Idea of the “bureau” with representatives  Motivation/interest in continuing relationship between the two ABACO groups