Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Recommendation Domains

293 views

Published on

Steve Franzel, World Agroforestry Centre

Published in: Science
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Recommendation Domains

  1. 1. Recommendation Domains Steve Franzel, World Agroforestry Centre • Problem: • Farmers vary a lot. They have • different circumstances (e.g., rainfall, farm size, etc) • different levels of wealth (which determines how much they can invest) • different needs and preferences Our feed technologies are not suited to all farmers. Some work for some farmers, others work for other farmers. Grouping farmers into fairly similar categories can help us be sure that we target farmers with practices that are suitable for them.
  2. 2. Recommendation domains Steven Franzel World Agroforestry Centre Definition of a recommendation domain (RD): A group of farmers with similar needs and circumstances such that they would adopt a similar set of technologies and recommendations In Uganda, we identified two variables as critical for defining these groups: Whether feeding system is intensive or extensive Level of wealth available for investing in dairy enterprise
  3. 3. Description of 5 RDs in Uganda Name Potential to intensify Farm size Areas Grazing mgt Recom- mendations Extensive-high income High Large (10- 25+ha) SW, Sembabule District, Masaka Free on own, fenced natural pasture Paddocking, herd grouping, pasture impr, ponds Extensive low income Medium Large but often weedy NE (Buyende), SW (Bukanga, Masha), Mukono (Bbaale) Free on own land, some on communal land Weed control, live fencing, standing hay, water tanks Semi-intensive, high-income High 2-4 ha Masaka, Mukono, Jinja Free range, own land Reduce stock rate, fencing, tube silage napier, f. shrubs, conc. Semi-intensive, low income Medium 2-4 ha (NE) Balawori, Luuka Grazed own farm, tethering, collecting from off-farm Pasture impr, tube silage, fencing, Intensive, moderate/high income Med- high 1-2 ha Scattered in all clusters Zero or min. grazing, Comm. conc, water tanks, pit,tube silage
  4. 4. Protein/mineral sources suitable for different RDs RDs Lablab/ Mucuna Fodder shrubs Desm o- dium Feed concen -trate Extensive-high income xx x Extensive low income xx x Semi-intensive, high-income x xx x x Semi-intensive, low income xx x x x Intensive, moderate income xx x x xx Similar tables for energy sources, feed conservation practices, pasture impr and rainwater hvstg
  5. 5. Breakdown of POs by RDsRDs Buyende % farmers in each RD by Pos in Near East Buyende Balawori Namwendwa Kagulu Luuka Nawaikoke Mean % Total no. farmers Extensive-high income 5% 5% 10% 5% 5% 5% 6% 355 Extensive low income 70% 60% 30% 70% 55% 65% 57% 3355 Semi-intensive, high-income 5% 8% 10% 5% 5% 5% 7% 391 Semi-intensive, low income 15% 22% 40% 15% 25% 20% 24% 1394 Intensive, moderate income 5% 5% 10% 5% 10% 5% 6% 405 Total no. farmers 1200 1200 2000 800 1000 500 -- 5900 Lablab and mucuna are suited for the last 3 RDs therefore, for 2190 farmers in Near East
  6. 6. Extensive high- income (66%)* Extensive/ Low-income (12%)* Semi- intensive/ High-income (12%)* Semi- intensive/ low- income (8%)* Intensive (2%)* Grasses Rhodes grass Rhodes grass Rhodes grass Napier Protein sources Fodder shrubs Fodder shrubs Fodder shrubs Lablab/mucun a Lablab/Mucun a Fodder shrubs Feed Conservation Pit/surface silage Pit/surface silage Pit/surface silage Preserving crop residue Hay baling Natural Pasture improvement Weed control Fencing Weed control Fencing Weed control High-priority improved feed practices, Southwest cluster *indicates percentages of Southwest farmers. The three biggest recommendation domains are highlighted
  7. 7. Extensive high-income (6%)* Extensive/ Low- income (57%)* Semi-intensive/ High-income (7%)* Semi-intensive/ low-income (24%)* Intensive (7%)* Grasses -- -- -- -- Napier Protein sources -- Lablab/ Mucuna Fodder shrubs Lablab/Mucuna Fodder shrubs Lablab/ Mucuna Fodder shrubs Lablab/ Mucuna Fodder shrubs Feed Conserva- tion Preserving crop residue Preserving crop residue Preserving crop residue Hay baling Pit/surface silage Preserving crop residue Preserving crop residue Hay baling Natural Pasture improve- ment Weed control Fencing Paddocking Weed control Weed control -- -- *indicates percentages of Near East farmers. The two biggest recommendation domains are highlighted. High-priority, improved feed practices, Near East
  8. 8. Recommendation domains uses • For targeting farmers, to ensure that practices we are promoting are suited to farmers we are targeting • For monitoring and evaluation, so that we can evaluate our adoption results by assessing how many of targeted farmers have taken up practices

×