 Background information and justification for farmers evaluation of technologies
 Reasons for involving farmers and different stages of farmers evaluation of technologies
 The role of Indigenous Technical Knowledge (ITK) in Participatory Technology
Development and Transfer (PTDT)

Setting up Farmers Assessment Sessions

Skills to conduct Farmer Assessment

Tools to elicit preferences in farmers evaluations

Interpretation and use of farmer evaluation information.

National FSA Training Module 13: Farmer assessments
In the continuum of basic/applied/adaptive research, adaptive research in tropical countries generally appears to have been considered the exclusive domain of research scientists. The active role of farmers in actual developing technologies has been largely underestimated and underutilized. Consequently, past on-farm research which has been conducted with farmers on their farms tended to be in a "contractual" mode (Biggs, 1989), where farmers were told what to do and researchers collected the data. If farmer opinions were collected, it was usually done in a general way and they were not given weight when researchers evaluated the technology.
Emphasis was placed only on statistical evaluation rather than economic considerations or farmers opinions.
With participatory research methods coming to the forefront, farmer assessment is now being used by several of the research teams in many countries including Tanzania to systematically gather farmer opinions in a more detailed manner. There is now greater appreciation of farmers own knowledge or Indigenous Knowledge (IK) and judgement within the content of their own circumstances. Researchers are now more appreciative of the fact that farmers are able to integrate a number of site specific factors which are virtually invisible to researchers. Farmer opinions are therefore being given more weight than before, particularly when new varieties are concerned. Researchers are now moving towards a "consultative "and" collaborative" type of working arrangements with farmers (Stroud, 1996). Since resource - poor farmers technologies are site/location - specific, farmers play a key role in technology development. The experiences with technology development have made clear that new technologies have to be imbedded in the local society, its ecological and physical environment, its cultural experiences and its socio-economic structures.
An important way of involving farmers in Participatory Technology Development (PTD) is to encourage their assessment of the treatments applied in research. Farmers evaluation of technologies should be done at all different stages of technology development from diagnosis, planning and design; experimentation, adaptation and validation and not just at the end of the season. Farmer evaluations of "prototype" technology at an early stage of the screening process can help researchers to sort out the promising and non-promising options from the farmers' point of view. Evaluations should therefore be used to compare alternatives; to validate developed technology and to encourage early development of technology.
Farmer assessment/evaluation of technology is a tool through which farmers express their perception or views on a given set of alternatives, potential technologies which are designed to provide options to solve farmer felt-needs. The main objective of farmer evaluations is to provide feedback to researchers or technology designing process about farmers' criteria for deciding whether and how to use a potential innovation in order to increase the chances of adoption by better addressing user expectations. Therefore the earlier the farmer evaluations are conducted, the more likely it is that farmers' and researchers' ideas about desirable features of a technology will coincide.
The following are some of the reasons farmers should be used to evaluate technologies (Sperling,
1990; Matata et al. 2001):

To identify their criteria and priorities, which may differ from those of researchers

To understand farmers' practical knowledge

To understand farmers' decision - making process

To involve them as "users" in decisions on recommendations – Empowers them

To identify technology that farmers may want to test in future trials, and why

To understand farmers expectations

Sustainability is fostered
2

National FSA Training Module 13: Farmer assessments
 Provides a learning environment for researchers, extensionists, farmers and development agents
When to use farmer evaluations
Farmer participation research is a set of methods designed to give farmers an active role as decision - makers in planning and executing location - specific adaptive research. Farmer evaluations are a sub-set of these participatory methods. Farmer evaluations methods can be applied at different points/stages in the sequence indicated in Table I.
Table 13.1 The use of farmer evaluations at different stages in research
STAGES OF RESEARCH:
DIAGNOSIS:
Identification of objectives, needs and problems
PLANNING AND DESIGN:
Setting priorities among problems; identifying potential solutions; design of "prototype" technologies; and strategy to test these.
EXPERIMENTATION:
Testing and evaluation of prototype technology resulting in developed technology.
ADAPTATION AND VALIDATION:
Developed technology is further tested, resulting in recommendations for use.
FARMER EVALUATIONS:

Identify farmers' criteria for choosing among currently available technologies to understand their decision-making.

Identify farmers' reactions to "prototypes", to obtain criteria for prioritising which prototypes to test.

Identify farmers' criteria for choosing among alternative technologies being tested, to select the most promising ones from the farmers' point of view.

Verify farmers' reactions obtained earlier, by comparing new technology to current practices, to ensure acceptable recommendations.
Farmer evaluations can be applied in the diagnostic stage to help farmers' articulate their criteria for making decisions among alternative technologies currently available to them e.g. choices among crops, among varieties, among tillage practices. In the planning and design stage farmer evaluation methods can be applied to pre-screen suggested treatments or "prototypes" thus enabling farmers and scientists to decide jointly what technology to test. During experimentation stage farmers evaluations enable researchers and farmers to identify criteria for choosing among alternative technologies. In the stage of adaptation and validation farmers evaluations help to verify the opinions and criteria for selection obtained in earlier stages of research. It's also an opportunity to analyze decision making criteria.
Evaluations can be done at different stages/periods during a crop season/calendar like:
Evaluation while the crop is in the field
When researchers are interested in learning about farmers' reactions to features such as plant architecture, vigour, resistance to pests and diseases, relations among associated crops, relative earliness or lateness of plant development and specific management requirements, they can carry out farmer evaluations while a crop is still standing in the field. Evaluations of the standing crop at critical stages in its development are particularly useful in exploratory research when little is known about farmers' criteria.
Evaluation after harvest
Researchers need to consider farmers opinions of features other than yield, such as the commercial and post-harvest processing qualities of the crop. Different people in the farm households or farm community may need to be consulted for evaluation of commercial or postharvest processing characteristics, if responsibility for these activities rests with individuals or groups other than the cultivator who manages the crop. For example, women often have major responsibilities for processing or marketing crops cultivated by men, and should therefore be
3

National FSA Training consulted.
Module 13: Farmer assessments
4

National FSA Training Module 13: Farmer assessments
In the process of technology development, knowledge of the indigenous livelihood system is an indispensable resource which is possessed and can be managed by the local community.
According to Farrington and Martin (1987), Indigenous Knowledge (IK) is not abstract like scientific knowledge, it is concrete and relies strongly on intuition, historical experience and directly perceived evidence. IK reflects the dignity of the local community and puts them on equal footing with the outsiders involved in the process of technology development.
It is however far from uniformly distributed within or across communities. The distribution of IK normally depends on:

The capacity of individuals to manage knowledge

Monopolisation of knowledge by different social and gender groups

Economic stratification, as richer people use and generate other knowledge and use other skills than poorer people.
Farmer experiments
Rhoades and Bebbington (1991) state that farmers, like researchers, are experimenters. They identify three types of farmer's experiments namely curious experiments, problem - solving experiments and adaptation experiments. The experimental methods used by farmers vary widely since they are specific to the local communities and rooted in long history. Their validity may therefore vary and be difficult to assess too. Some strengths of farmers experiments are:
 Subjects chosen are relevant to the farmers
 They start with the farmers' own knowledge and could be directed to improving the use of locally available resources

Their results expand and deepen farmers' knowledge

They use criteria which are directly related to the local values, related to taste and utilisation.
 The observations are made from within, and they take place during actual farm work and are not only based on final outcomes such as yield.
The methodological limits of farmers experiments are:
 The search for improved technologies may be based on limited scientific understanding of the processes involved.

Farmers may have the tendency to use a technology over their whole field, so that comparison can only be made with a crop of a previous year or in a neighbours field.
 Farmers may attribute crop performance to one obvious factor and not see the interrelatedness of factors or the intervening effects of less observable factors.

Errors in experimental design such as replication of trials may lead to unjustified conclusions
 Methods of measuring and weighing may not be adequate
 Communications about the results may be limited to certain geographical areas, gender and/or socio-economic categories.
5

National FSA Training Module 13: Farmer assessments
Information resulting from a farmer assessment session is as good as the session itself. A poorly planned session can only result in poor quality information and there will be limited impact of the farmer's assessment on the "design" process.
Farmer selection
Proper selection of the farmers to participate in the assessment is critical to effective farmer evaluations of trials. Generally, there are several categories to consider e.g. trial participant, their spouses or other household members, neighbours and on lookers, general observers, invitees and traders (potential representatives of far-off consumers). Once the general categories are decided upon, one needs to make decisions about group composition, as a very large group may not be homogeneous.
Experience and common sense has shown that one gets the most accurate assessment from the trial participants and possibly the immediate family as they have had hand-on exposure. The participants can be divided into homegeneous sub-groups such as home consumers Vs commercial growers; intensive Vs extensive systems; intercropped Vs monocropped; women Vs men; old Vs young etc. Logically trader assessment of technologies such as varieties would seem to be useful, although farmers also know what is "marketable". However, sometimes it is the conservation of traders that may prevent a new variety from being accepted because they fear the consumers will not buy it. Other criteria like farmer’s expertise and expertise in experimentation and ability to communicate may also be considered.
Timing of assessments
Farmer assessments can form part of the routine monitoring exercise throughout the season concentrating on questions pertinent to the timing of the visit and stage of the trial. For example, after emergence, plant stands among varieties can be compared or, after weeding, the ease or difficulty of performing different treatments or of removing different types of weeds can be compared; or pest attacks can be discussed. In the past researchers have been making the decision as to what to evaluate at which period during the crops growth cycle. Often post-harvest assessments were not considered. Given the increased participation of farmers, researchers are now aware of the importance of the many preference factors that farmers have. It has also come to pass that it is beneficial to let farmers decide or advise on when to have the assessment sessions and what to assess at each session especially with varieties.
Furthermore, not only should farmer opinion be assessed during the trial but, the researcher should also return the following year to see if the farmer or their neighbours are using the technology.
The percentage of area under the new practice should be determined, together with the percentage of farmers adopting. Any modifications made by farmers to the technology should be examined.
Venue for assessments
The place of the assessment session will depend upon the research stage and the crop/livestock production stage that the assessment is taking place. If at earlier research stages, the session must take place at the research station or testing sites, where the materials are being grown. Generally, when the trial is in the village, the assessment session takes place in the farmer's field where the materials appear to be representative. If the assessment is in post-harvest, a neutral place may be chosen where there are facilities for cooking or processing.
Choice of groups versus individuals
Generally most researchers are using groups, with some using a combination of group discussions and individual interviews using questionnaires or checklists. There are obvious benefits to discussing with both individuals and groups if time allows. Some researchers recommend to
6

National FSA Training Module 13: Farmer assessments interview individuals first so that groups consensus would not influence their opinions. Others recommend that by discussing first in a group, general questions that they need individual opinions on would come forward. It's recommended however that when the trial is still researcher managed and more precise feedback is required to start with individual and then move to groups.
Some of the advantages and disadvantages of groups and individual evaluations are given in
Tables 13.2 and 13.3 respectively.
Table 13.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Group Evaluations
Advantages

Group interaction stimulates discussion of evaluation criteria, especially when there are conflicting opinions.

Group interaction helps to motivate farmers and sustain interest in an evaluation.

Group interaction is especially useful for exploratory work.

Groups can divide up complex or numerous alternatives to be evaluated, and pool opinions.

Groups can provide overview of variable results, and can be valuable for feedback of results to farmers.

Ratio of staff time to farmer contact can be more efficient.

Group evaluations can provide immediate feeback to station-researchers.

Groups can be used to increase evaluations with types of farmers under-represented in on-farm trials.
Disadvantages

Groups can be dominated or inhibited, to produce false consensus and misleading evaluations, because of peer pressure.

Members will often withhold opinions on sensitive subjects unlikely to be discussed openly in a group.

Group activity must be culturally acceptable.

Farmers can get tired of repetitive meetings.

Groups are less reliable for quantifying farmers preferences because group members influence each other.

Identifying or forming groups that represent user populations or fit research purposes may be logistically difficult, or time-consuming when respondents are geographically dispersed.
7

National FSA Training Module 13: Farmer assessments
Table 13.3
Advantages
Advantages and Disadvantages of Individual Evaluations
Quantitative data can be collected
Sensitive issues can be discussed
Discussion in bigger detail is possible
Easier to manage than a discussion in a group
Disadvantages
Requires relatively more resources
Opinions of interviewee cannot be confronted immediately
To get discussion is more difficult
Relation between researchers and interviewee is more personal and direct
Sample size
The sample size has two reference points: One is the number of farmers participating in a given village and the second is the number of farmers in a technology assessment session. In the past the number of participating farmers in a given village were usually too few. The present consensus is that a manageable sized group for an assessment session ranges between 10-20 farmers, although Rugimbana (1995) suggested 4-7 for focussed group discussions. When too many farmers are interested the research team has two options: to make sub groups or to have the farmers choose among themselves who should participate given the limited number of spaces.
Skills to conduct a farmer assessment
When researchers meet with farmers it's always advisable to clarify the expectations of the assessment. Clarification involves both sides (researchers and farmers) explaining what they expect from the other. It's also necessary to involve the extension staff/agent if there is one.
Experience has shown that although researchers feel they have stated their purpose and what is expected from farmers, there are still misunderstandings lingering. It's therefore recommended to repeat this several times. This builds up an understanding and serves to create an easy working atmosphere. Clarifying expectations also can help to avoid unwanted social commitments which can cost time and money to the farmers and researchers. Nevertheless research staff have to be sensitive and compromise to cultural requirements to avoid offending the farmers.
Sequence of activities
Although experiences vary a general consensus suggests the following sequence:

Start with observation and discussions (exploratory, informal assessments).

Develop a checklist of farmer concerns

Collect opinions from trial (direct) participants (as individuals and/or homegeneous groups) using assessment sessions for ranking and scoring

Hold a group plenary to further identify or clarify issues
In either session (plenary or direct participants) it is important to ask some general questions using open-ended questioning (that is letting the farmers construct the answers without any guidance: what is their opinion on the impact on the farming systems, are there any environmental effects, what do they think the overall contribution will be to the beneficiaries and who are the beneficiaries, what changes in management practices are needed to adopt the technology etc .
Communication
We can divide the face to face communication skills useful for farmer evaluations into two types of techniques; those for listening and those for asking questions. How to listen to what the farmer says is as important as what you ask the farmer. The effective communication with farmers requires the researchers to:-

Communicate respect and lively interest in farmers' ideas

Create an opportunity for farmers to express honest opinions

Elicit and understand the reasoning behind these opinions
To ensure that farmers are really encouraged to freely express their likes, doubts and criticisms of new technologies the person conducting a farmer evaluation needs to consciously use the skills for
8

National FSA Training Module 13: Farmer assessments managing communication which are summarised in Table 13.4.
Table 13.4 Communication skills

Listening skill

Body language
To communicate receptivity, respect and an open mind with respect to a farmer's opinions
To communicate respect, trust and a collegial relationship and partnership.
To qualitatively improve communication by redefining physical space dictated by cultural norms when the researcher is a 'social superior' to the

Probing

Open questions

Balanced questions farmer
To combine receptive listening with questions which unobtrusively direct the flow of a farmer's comments
To check understanding of the farmer's point of view and consistency of the farmer's remarks.
To stimulate free expression of the farmer's opinions.
To avoid giving clues about the researcher's own opinions, which may bias the farmer's responses
To establish the researcher's neutrality with respect to 'success' of a technology.
To reassure the farmer that different points of view are sought and that there is no 'correct' answer.
Guidelines for effective technology evaluation with farmers
There are many different ways of carrying out farmer evaluations, and no one approach or method is necessarily the best. But whatever the approach, the following are some of the basic principles or ground rules for carrying out effective evaluations of technology with farmers:
 Remember that the technical evaluation of a proposed innovation is quite different from its evaluation with a farmer.

Researchers need to make sure the obligations of every one involved (researchers, extensionists, farmers) and what they can hope to get out of the evaluations are explicitly stated and understood.

Establish with farmers (not just once, but repeatedly) the research staff neutrality and objectivity with respect to the success of a technology.
 Treat the farmer as an expert
 Ask "For whom is the technology being evaluated?"

Show courtesy and respect to farmers.

Listen to farmers

Make sure farmers' reasons are well - understood in an evaluation

Check and recheck interpretation of farmers' preferences

Ensure that scope exists for farmers to take the initiative in setting up and carrying out evaluations of technology - i.e. don't stifle farmers' initiative and creativity by rigidly controlling what technology to evaluate, or when, where, and how to carry out evaluations.
9

National FSA Training Module 13: Farmer assessments
When identifying farmers' criteria for evaluation purposes it is necessary to distinguish between descriptors and decision - making criteria. Descriptors are phrases such as: this variety is bushy, sprawling, or tall; this fertilizer cakes or is powdery. However, the criteria that are significant for research are those which farmer take into account when forming preferences among treatments in a trial i.e. those criteria which are crucial in deciding whether a given technology will be accepted or rejected. For example, a certain maize variety is tall and so shades the intercrop and is therefore unacceptable. Tallness in this instance is a decision - making criterion. There are a variety of tools that can be used when on-farm and on-station trials are evaluated by farmers. The choice of the tool depends on:
 Objectives of the trial
 Type of trial (RMRI, RMFI, FMFI)
 Data that have been collected
 The nature of the farmers who have to take part in assessing the technologies
Checklists
Checklists are used to guide open-ended interviews. This can be done in groups or with individual farmers. Open - ended interviews are mostly used when not much is known about a situation and thus the researchers need to explore or whether one wants to know about the adaptability of the technology. A checklist allows room for probing and getting spontaneous comments, which can be considered a good indicator of what farmers consider to be the most important features of a specific experimental treatment. Eventually, farmers views can help to reduce and adopt the choice of experimental treatments. Checklists can be used when:
 Evaluation is done in groups
 Using individual interviews but it required an experienced who knows how to probe
 Technology development is in the exploratory phase
The main advantages of checklists are:
 Stimulates discussion
 Farmers can respond freely
Disadvantages of checklists are:

Collection of quantified data is difficult

Requires experienced researcher who knows how to probe

Some information can easily be forgotten

Can be time consuming as it has no limit in probing
An example of a checklist for specific data like on a variety's characteristics is hereby presented
(Franzel, 1990).
Stand, germination and vigour
Ease of weeding
Yields
Ease of threshing
Cooking time
Appearance and size of seed
Handling seed
Residue palatability for animals
Where it grows best
Sensitivity to fertility
Storability, with or without chemicals
Susceptibility to weeds
Tolerance of pests
Shattering
Taste
Ease of preparation
Marketability and profitability
How seed was used
Seed colour
Drought or frost resistance
Maturity length
10

National FSA Training Module 13: Farmer assessments
Questionnaire
A questionnaire is a list of precisely defined questions, which allows no discussion. Its aim is to get the same information from all the interviewees. It's mostly used for individual interviews and less suitable for group evaluation.
Advantages of a questionnaire are:

Same information is obtained from all the farmers interviewed

Allows for statistical analysis

Background information of farmers can be obtained (e.g. age, education, purpose of using a specific technology etceteras).
 Can be done by less experienced interviewers
Disadvantages of a questionnaire are:

It is less suitable for getting opinions of farmers in an associative way

Resource consuming

Less suitable for group evaluation
When to use a questionnaire:

If researchers want to test hypothesis

During a later stage of technology development when evaluation can be narrowed down to some specific issues that are considered important by researchers/farmers
 During individual interviews
Absolute evaluation
Absolute evaluation is a method of evaluating technology with farmers that involves judging each alternative technology independently from any other in a set. Each item or alternative is assessed or judged on its own merits according to some identified criteria. A like/dislike preference or a score is designated to each alternative or treatment. Although absolute evaluation does not involve farmers in comparing items, the judgement it requires often involves implicit comparisons between farmers’ own best technology and those being evaluated. Absolute evaluation is most appropriate for exploratory work when the researcher and the farmer are confronted with a large number of options, some of which must be discarded to simplify the number of treatments to be included in future on-farm trials. It's important to make this objective clear to the farmer, because he/she will likely be hesitant at first about making absolute statements about liking or disliking a particular treatment. Remember that the most insightful information in an absolute evaluation is obtained not from checking off "likes" or "dislikes", but from having the farmer talk through his/her perceptions of the technology and give his/her criteria for acceptability which can then be used to guide further research.
Ranking and scoring
Ranking involves asking the farmers to place various alternatives in order of preference, e.g. first, second, third etc. This technique can be applied to obtain an overall preference ranking, after which the farmer is asked to explain the criteria on which his or her selection is based. Ranking is readily applied only when the number of alternatives the farmer is being asked to put in order is small (e.g. not more than six). Ranking does not necessarily require, however, restriction of the total number of alternatives to be evaluated in a trial. An evaluation of a trial which includes 10 different treatments can begin with an absolute evaluation to sort out a sub group of the 3 or 4 most promising treatments from the farmers' point of view. Then the farmer can rank the 3 or 4 best liked alternatives in order of preference. Similarly, a sub group of the 3 or 4 least - promising treatments can be selected by the farmer, who can then rank them in order from worst upwards.
The remaining middle group of treatments, neither the preferred nor the least liked can also be ranked/discussed. The technique of ranking among alternatives needs to be exercised with caution.
It is only too easy to force the farmer to make a simplistic ordering of treatments which does not
11

National FSA Training Module 13: Farmer assessments reflect his or her complex set of decision - making criteria. Because a farmer is quite likely to be considering several different objectives when evaluating new technology, he or she may select one alternative as preferable for one set of conditions but may perceive a different alternative as equally desirable for a different set of conditions. For this reason, it is extremely important to ask the farmer to explain any given ranking. This is done by combining the use of ranking with open questions such as "Why is this (treatment) "better" than the one you placed next to it in order? and why is it 'worse' than the one ranked higher? Tables 14.5 and 14.6 show different steps for eliciting preference rankings among a few alternatives and numerous alternatives
Table 14.5 Eliciting preference ranking among a few alternatives (up to six)
Interviewer's Guide
1.
Explain objectives to the farmer

Establish your neutrality

Clarify expectations
2. Explain and illustrate the procedure (rules of the game)
3. Name the items to be ranked together with the farmer
4. Ask the farmer to complete the ranking from best to least liked
5. Encourage the farmer to think aloud while ranking
6. Ask the farmer to explain why each item is ranked as it is
7. Summarize and repeat the order and reasons with the farmer to verify your interpretation
Source: Guerrero et al., 1993
12

National FSA Training Module 13: Farmer assessments
Table 14.6 Eliciting preference ranking among numerous alternatives (seven or more)
Interviewer's Guide
1. Explain objectives to the farmer

Establish your neutrality

Clarify expectations
2. Explain and illustrate the procedure (rules of the game)
3. Name the items to be ranked together with the farmer
4. Put the items to be ranked into groups, e.g. "good ones", "reject", "in between"
5. Ask the farmer to complete the ranking from best to least liked within each group
6. Encourage the farmer to think aloud while ranking
7. Ask the farmer to explain why each item is ranked as it is
8. Summarize and repeat the order and reasons with the farmer to verify your
interpretation
Source: Guerrero et al., 1993
Matrix ranking
The researcher can get additional insight into a farmers' criteria by asking him/her to rank several treatments with respect to specific criteria which have been identified previously. It's only useful when farmers criteria are used because those criteria will be the ones used for adopting or rejecting a technology. It's possible however to do matrix ranking with farmers using criteria of importance and interest to researchers. However, it is important to realize that the results of this kind of evaluation may be a picture of what farmers think of technologies in question with respect to somebody else's criteria. The usefulness of matrix ranking depends on the number of items and criteria of interest to the researcher. With a large matrix the procedure becomes tiring and the farmer's answers may become mechanical. Matrix ranking is most appropriate when the researcher wants to obtain precise information about the relationships among several different criteria and wishes to rank only a few alternatives.
A matrix ranking can be illustrated in Table 13.7 where 30 farmers (18 men and 12 females) participated in an evaluation of some SEED-CO maize varieties in 2002 crop season at
Kwasadala area in Hai District, Kilimanjaro Region. Farmers were asked to list down the criteria they use to select/prefer a certain maize variety. Eleven (11) criteria or characteristics were mentioned by the farmers. Then farmers used ranking to decide on the seven most important criteria for selection/preference of the varieties. The varieties were ranked by giving scores of 1 to 5 to the various criteria under each variety. If a variety had very good/excellent characteristics or qualities for a certain criteria a score of 5 was given to it. If a variety under evaluation did not have or possessed very few characteristics/qualities for a criteria a score of I was given to that
13

National FSA Training Module 13: Farmer assessments variety for such a criteria.
A matrix ranking of SC 627, SC 621, SC 513, SC 713, PAN 6549 and SC 407 maize varieties is shown in Table 13.7.
Table 13.7 Matrix ranking of SEED - CO maize varieties in Northern Tanzania in
2002 crop season
Criteria Maize varieties
SC SC SC
627 621 513
SC
713
SC
407
PAN
6549
Total Rank
1. High yield
2. Early maturity
5
3
3. Drought tolerance 4
4. Disease/pest tolerance 4
5. Marketability
6. Poundability
7. Good tip cover
Total
Rank
5
5
3
29
1
4
3
3
26
5
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
23
6
3
4
3
4
5
4
3
28
2
5
2
4
5
3
5
5
28
2
2
5
5
3
5
4
3
27
4
4
3
3
5
25
24
20
23
21
23
25
1
3
7
4
6
4
1
Scores: 1 – Poor; 2 – Satisfactory; 3 – Average; 4 – Good; and 5 – Excellent.
All varieties were scored good to excellent in marketability and tolerance to pests/diseases with the exception of SC 407 which was scored average in both criteria and SC 513 which was also scored average in marketability. Other highly ranked criteria in the varieties were poundability, drought tolerance and yield. All varieties were ranked average in good tip cover with the exception of SC 407 which was ranked excellent. This could probably be due to the big cobs of most varieties tested which left the cob tips not well covered. Based on the criteria assessed SC
627, SC 713 and SC 407 were the most preferred varieties. All the three varieties were scored good to excellent in all criteria with the exception of high yield and early maturity which were scored satisfactory in SC 407 and SC 713 respectively. Variety SC 513 was the least preferred because it scored average in all criteria with the exception of early maturity and tolerance to pests/diseases which scored good.
Pairwise comparison
With pairwise comparison the farmer judges each alternative as better or worse than another, while reasons for the judgement are given. This technique rapidly becomes tedious if more than six (6) items are being compared, so that it is best used once a reduced number of alternatives has been identified. The alternatives may be those identified by the farmer or treatments of particular interest to the research. Complete pairwise comparison can be carried out on three or four treatments. All alternatives are compared with each other - A with B; A with C; A with D; B with
C; B with D; and C with D. The technique requires the items to be compared to be readily differentiated by the farmer. Items or treatments in a trial can be given simple names or symbols can be used to represent each treatment and then shown to the farmer in pairs. The results give a rank ordering of all the alternatives.
A pairwise comparison was made for the varieties as shown in Table 13.8.
14

National FSA Training Module 13: Farmer assessments
Table 13.8 A pair wise ranking of SEED - Co maize varieties in Northern Tanzania in
2002 crop season
SC 627
SC 627 SC 621 SC 513 SC 713 SC 407 PAN 6549 Total xxxxxx SC 627 SC 627 SC 627 SC 627 SC 627 5
Rank
1
SC 621
SC 513
SC 713
SC 407
PAN 6549 xxxxx SC 621 SC 713 SC 621 PAN 6549 2 xxxxx SC 713 SC 513 PAN 6549 1 xxxxx SC 713 xxxxx
PAN 6549
PAN 6549 xxxxxxx
3
0
4
4
5
3
6
2
In pair wise comparison, results were more or less the same as those obtained from the matrix raking where SC 627 and SC 713 were highly preferred by the farmers. SC 407 was the least preferred in the ranking. When farmers were asked the main reasons for ranking the variety the least in the pairwise ranking they said that it was mainly due to its small cobs, which could result into relatively low yields. However during this season the variety was the third high yielding among the six varieties tested. During 2001 this variety ranked third in matrix ranking and yielded 5.5 tones per ha (Lyimo et. al. 2001).
About 75% of the farmers in the northern part of the country are growing maize for sale and hence when you have a high yielding variety that has good market qualities/characteristics it means more income for the household.
Interpretation and use of information
It should be remembered that collection and use of feedback from farmers is the main objective of conducting farmer assessment. It's therefore imperative to give adequate attention not only collecting but ensuring the use of the information collected. The following are various categories/types of users of the information: farmers, extension or other technology transfer agents
(NGO's , projects), the technology testers and the technology designers (researchers) or specifically breeders in the case of new plant or animals materials/germplasm. Recommendations can be made for each category as follows:
Farmers and technology transfer agents:
A debriefing session should be held in the villages to discuss the specific (for the village) and pooled (from their village and others) results.
Extension:
Results can be presented or shared by researchers in the Quarterly/Annual planning meetings as well as in village meetings.
Technology testers:
The feedback should be organized in a write-up and can be shared directly or through the
National Lead Scientists or Zonal Research Coordinators with other zones dealing with the same theme. Information can be shared in regular on-station meetings with other researchers or in the meetings called by the Zonal Research Coordinators to discuss on-farm research issues. Use of existing meetings is recommended.
Technology Designers:
In cases where this group has not been able to be directly involved they should receive the copy of data and a report from the testers. It's recommended that this be sent directly to the persons concerned rather than waiting for it to be incorporated into an annual report which may take some time. Nevertheless, it can appear in annual reports as well as in coordinating committee presentations and this should be considered as a necessary output of the trial.
15

National FSA Training Module 13: Farmer assessments
Ashby, J.A. (1990). Evaluating Technology with Farmers: A Handbook, CIAT, Cali, Colombia.
Haverkort, B, J. van der Kamp and A. Waters - Bayer (1991). Joining Farmers' Experiments.
Experiences in Participatory Technology Development. ILEIA Readings in Sustainable
Agriculture
Helle Munk Ravnburg (1993). Agricultural Research and the Peasants: The Tanzanian
Agricultural Knowledge and Information System.
Guerrero, M. del P., J.A. Ashby and T. Gracia (1993). Farmer evaluations of technology:
Preference ranking. Instructional Unit No. 2. ) IPRA Project. CIAT (Centro Internacional de
Agricultura Tropical), Cali, Colombia. 129 p.
Lyimo, S.D, M.Z. Owenya, P.P. Mushi and P.F. Sulumo (2002). Annual Progress Report for
Farmers Assessment of SEED-CO maize varieties in Northern Tanzania in 2002 crop season.
Matata, J.B, P. Anandajayasekeram, T.N. Kiriro, E.O. Wandera and J. Dixon (2001). Farming
Systems Approach to Technology Development and Transfer: A Source Book.
Rugimbana, C.K. and A.W. Nyanga (1996). Experiences in Farmer Assessment. DRT - Lake
Zone, Ukiriguru ARI, FSR Programme.
Stroud, Ann (1993). Conducting On-Farm Experiments. Cali - Colombia: Centro Internacional de
Agricultura Tropical.
Stroud, Ann (1996). Guidelines for conducting a Farmer Assessment Session for Crop Varieties.
NCU - DRT, DSM.
16