Development of Sorghum and Millet Production Systems in Mali and Burkina Faso
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Development of Sorghum and Millet Production Systems in Mali and Burkina Faso Supported by The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Photo on front cover: Farmer and AMEDD NGO Agent with Grinkan, Summer 2008 Development of Sorghum & Millet Production Systems in Mali and Burkina Faso John H. Sanders, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN [email protected] Botorou Ouendeba, 3N Program, Government of Niger, Niamey, Niger [email protected] Ababacar Ndoye, retired, Formerly Director of ITA, Dakar, Senegal [email protected] Soungalo Traore, retired. Formerly Head of Research, National Extension Service, Mopti region, Mali [email protected] Niaba Teme, Crop Breeder, Senior Scientist, IER-Institute of the Rural Economy, National Agricultural Research Institution, Bamako, Mali [email protected] This report was financed by the Gates Foundation with earlier work upon which it is based, financed by INTSORMIL, USAID, and the McKnight Foundation We especially appreciate the support of IER, INERA and the regional office of the national extension service for the Mopti region. Content pages: Recommendations for Moving from the Experiment 1 to 9 Station to the Farm with New Technology and Marketing Strategies I. New Technology-Marketing Systems, Pages 11- 90 Introduction of a New Sorghum Technology into Mali 12 to 33 Sorghum Production Systems in Burkina Faso 34 to 46 Introducing New Millet Production Systems in Mali 47 to 76 The Mopti Field Program, 2015-2016 Crop Year 77 to 90 II. Secondary Markets, Pages 91 - 138 Demand for Processed Millet Products in Mali & Burkina Faso 92 to 112 Feed Grains as a Secondary Market for Sorghum in Mali &Burkina Faso 113 to 138 Acknowledgements: We are grateful to the many scientists who made available their personnel and oriented us and to the specialists who identified and interviewed farmers, chicken producers, vets, and millet food processors for us. Farmers and the entrepreneurs were also especially gracious and patient with us and our detailed questions. Clearly without them it would have been impossible to accomplish this work. Below we specifically identify those most involved but we are also grateful to the many people interviewed and those who participated in the four workshops. Dr. Boureima DEMBELE, Directeur General de l’IER - Mali; Dr. Ibrahima NDIAYE, Directeur Scientifique de l’IER - Mali ; Mr. Oumar MAIGA, Directeur Regional, DRA-Mopti, Mali. Dr. Abou BERTHE , Directeur, Sasakawa 2000, Mali. Mr. Oumar SANDINAN, du Sasakawa 2000, Mali Dr. Mamourou DIOURTE, Chef du Programme Sorgho de l’IER - Mali ; Mr. Mamadou SOUFOUNTERA du Laboratoire de Technologie Alimentaire de l’IER – Mali ; Ms. Salimata COULIBALY du Laboratoire de Technologie Alimentaire de l’IER – Mali ; Mr. Soungalo TRAORE, Direction Regionale de Mopti Mr. Ibrahima KONATE, Gérant AIID-Conseil - Coordinateur programme de développement des chaines de valeur mil et sorgho – Koutiala - Mali ; Mr. Gaoussou DIAWARA, Coordinateur de l'ONG Centre d'Appui à l'Autopromotion pour le Développement (ONG-CAAD/KOUTIALA-MALI) Mr. Mamadou KEBE, Chef secteur Agriculture de Koro Mr. Issa DAOU, Chef sous secteur Agriculture Bankass. Dr. Hamidou TRAORE, Directeur General de l’INERA – Burkina Faso ; Dr. Bréhima DIAWARA, Directeur du Département de Technologie Alimentaire (DTA/INERA)- Burkina Faso ; Dr. Laurencia OUATTARA/SONGRE du Département de Technologie Alimentaire (DTA/INERA)- Burkina Faso ; Mr. Michel COMBARI du Département de Technologie Alimentaire (DTA/INERA)- Burkina Faso ; Dr. Fabrice BATIONO du Département de Technologie Alimentaire (DTA/INERA)- Burkina Faso ; Mr. Pierre Paul SANON Ingénieur d’élevage Burkina Faso ; Ms. Gisele Kazoni, ONG Afrque Verte, Burkina Faso. Dr. Donald LARSON, retired Professor, Ohio State All the members of the farmers’ organizations and entepreneurs and other scientists that we interviewed. Recommendations for Moving from the Experiment Station to the Farm with New Technology and Marketing Strategies John H. Sanders, Botorou Ouendeba, and Ababacar Ndoye Introduction From 2004-2013 we implemented a pilot program of new technology and marketing strategy introduction in up to four Sahelian counties. We also coordinated with a USAID supported project to scale up our production-marketing system in Mali from 2010 to 2013.This project (IICEM) incorporated the banking sector for fertilizer loans for the farmers’ associations and facilitated contracts between the farmers’ associations and wholesalers to buy the sorghum and millet. From September 2014 to March 1, 2016 the Gates Foundation sponsored us in reviewing the progress and performance of these programs and requested us to evaluate the potential of the secondary markets for millet and sorghum to develop and thereby reduce a price decline from successful technology introduction or favorable weather conditions. Here we consider our five recommendations from this work, three for new technology- marketing system introduction and two for accelerating the growth of the secondary markets: A. Introducing New Sorghum and Millet Technologies and Marketing Strategies 1. Identify and Support Research-Extension on Second Generation Problems; 2. Insure Access to Higher Analysis Inorganic Fertilizer and Regularly Renew the Seed; 3. Strengthen Farmers’ Associations for Sorghum and Millet as Marketing Cooperatives. B. Accelerate the Growth of the Secondary, Domestic Markets for Sorghum and Millet 4. Reduce Costs in Millet Processing to Expand Sales to Middle and Lower Income Consumers; 5. Substitute Sorghum for Maize in the Feed with Increasing Sorghum Yields. Second Generation Problems Many developing countries1 have succeeded in training agricultural scientists and in implementing good agricultural research in national experiment stations. The primary question here is why there have not been more successes with the two basic food crops in these Sahelian countries, sorghum and millet. We propose another explanation besides the traditional ones. Our 1 We have worked in the Sahelian countries of Mali and Burkina Faso for this contract and previously in Niger and Senegal. So the discussion here draws principally upon our recent work in the first two but also includes some consideration of the second two. 1 explanation is the difficulty (lack of available funds) of either national research or extension agencies to respond to second generation problems. There is a litany of reasons given to explain why farmers and donors are not interested in sorghum and millet: these crops do not respond to fertilizer; fertilizer use is not profitable for them; farmers are too risk averse to spend money on these inputs; increasing productivity would lead to price collapses due to lack of secondary markets. To summarize. New sorghum and millet cultivars respond to fertilizer and are profitable when implemented along with improved marketing (Coulibaly et. al., 2015, pp. 55, 57; Sanders, J.H., B. Ouendeba, A. Ndoye, S. Traore, N. Teme [This bulletin], 2016, references, pp. 27, 28). Farmers are willing to take risks and the increased incentive for more effective fertilizer use is the availability and promotion of higher analysis fertilizers. Besides the higher analysis fertilizer recommendation seed renewal with certified seed was given little attention in the scaling up process. So these two production factors are important but the basic problem is an institutional factor involved in the financing of research and extension. The narrow definition of Second Generation Problems is the response of the biological system to the changes incurred with the introduction of new technologies. When the new shorter season dwarf rice was introduced by IRRI (International Rice Research Institute) in the sixties, there was an increase in the number of rice crops per year thereby substantially increasing insect problems. So research on insect resistance and chemical control was undertaken by this international center. Agriculture is a continually changing biological system so new problems are going to arise over time. If the technology is then rejected when these problems occur, the discovery and extension systems have to start over. Moreover, a broader definition of Second Generation problems would include the elements that the breeder (or other technology developer) did not realize were important. For example, with Grinkan, a high yielding sorghum with several other desirable properties, the softness of the variety meant that following traditional processing methods gave a “to”, the basic food commodity in rural areas, that people did not like. In food science terms this is the consistency problem. As a result women refused to buy Grinkan in the village markets. This information was communicated up to regional and national markets. So the markets collapsed for a cultivar offering 50 to 100% yield increases with moderate fertilization over local cultivars (This bulletin, 2016, PP. 19-22, 36-38). Breeders or other technology developers cannot be expected to anticipate all potential problems. So responding to problems identified over time especially with an initially successful technology needs to be an important activity for the research and extension services. So why does not this processing problem become a research and/or extension issue? The main problem with national research and extension agencies is that most of their funding is needed for personnel making them dependent upon outside sources for the operating budget. So developing country management, individual scientist, and