Legume CHOICE Support Tool testing with actual data: Ethiopia Team

Result of Focus Group Discussion Knowledge of legumes and legume systems: All farmers are aware of the role of legumes in soil fertility improvement and in increasing the productivity of subsequent cereal crops. Also aware of the multipurpose functions of legumes They are not aware of the mechanisms by which legumes can improve soil fertility (N-fixation). Most farmers are not aware of the function of fodder tree legumes rather they use them for other purposes such as for shade and construction

Legume Species Annual grain legumes Perennial grain legumes Tree legumes Annual fodder legumes No. DigaJelduDigaJelduDigaJelduDiga 1Ground nut 2Haricot bean 3Faba bean 4Field pea 5Ann.Climbing bean 6Soy bean 7Lupin 8Cow pea 9Chick pea 10Lentil 11Grass pea 12Fenugric 13Per. Climbing bean 14Sesbania 15Lucinea 16Pigeon pea 17Lab-lab 18Tree Lucern 19Calindra 20Alfalfa 21Different acacia species Legume species and their category grown in both field sites

Major legumes produced in each implementation sites Lalisa Dimtu: Ground nut, bush type haricot bean and perennial climbing bean were received highest frequency. Fromsa: Sesbania, annual climbing bean, faba bean and perennial climbing bean were dominant. Kolu-Galan:- Faba bean, field pea, chick pea, grass pea, tree Lucerne, Accacia Chillanko: Faba bean, field pea, chick pea, grass pea, lentil, accacia and tree Lucerne were frequently grown

Demand for legume functions from participatory matrix ranking

Demand for legume functions from pairwise ranking

Priorities for functions based on gender

Demand for functions based on Resource Endowment

Constraints of Legume production Jeldu field site: Soil fertility decline Lack of improved seeds High fungal disease incidence High input (fertilizer) price Lack of pesticides (fungicide) Change of weather Lack of awareness Low market price of the product Insect pests

Context score for resources constraints

Legume option attributes for legume function

Legume options attributes for legume intervention

Plan for 2015

LocationRationaleConstraintInterventionActivitiesDesignPlot sizeTreatmentTotal # of farmers Lalisa Dimtu Farmers are looking for food and income from haricot bean Lack of improved varieties and knowledge of ways to intercrop reduced legume yield Creating awarness through training and demonstration of intercropping techniques can fill this gap Intercropping of haricot bean:maize:sweat potato RCBD Sole maize, maize+HB, maize+sweat potato, maize+lablab 5 Lalisa Dimtu Farmers are looking for food and income from haricot bean lack of improved seed supply Farmer based cluster seed production Farmer level cluster seed production of improved haricot bean, soya bean and ground nut varieties with cereal rotation Volunteer farmers receive training and support in seed production 0.25 hectares each improved varieties with improved agronomic practices 60 Lalisa Dimtu Farmers are looking for livestock feed, fuel and soil fertility improvement Lack of planting materials Introduction and supply of Pigeon pea and Leucenea seeds and seedlings Introduction and demonstration of leucenea and pigeon pea hedgerow Hedgerow planting + climbing bean leucenea palida, perennial pigeon pea+2 annual climbing bean varieties 150

Chillanko+Kolu- Galan+Fromsa Farmers are looking for food, income and soil fertility improvement Lack of improved seeds, soil fertility degradation and disease infestation Farmer based cluster high yielding, diseas tolerant legume seed production Farmer level cluster seed productrion of improved faba bean and field pea varieties with cereal rotation 0.25 hectares each improved variety+row planting+fertilizer+innoc ulum 20 for Fromsa 100 Chillanko+Kolu- Galan+Fromsa Farmers are looking for livestock feed, fuel and soil fertility improvement Lack of planting materials Introduction and supply of Pigeon pea and Leucenea seeds and seedlings Introduction and demonstration of leucenea palida and sesbania hedgerow Hedgerow planting Fromsa (25 farmers each for sesbania and leucenea), 25 farmers each for leucenea at Kolu and Chillanko 100 Lalisa Dimtu, Fromsa, Kolu- Galan, Chillanko Farmers are looking for knowledge of legume producrion Lack of awareness Awareness creation through training Trainings on improved food and forage legumes management and production system Three times training: Before planting (planting), on field training (weeding, protection management) and at maturity on seed quality and post harvest handiling 400 farmers, 12 DA's, 3 experts, 3 cooperative organizers 418 Lalisa Dimtu, Fromsa, Kolu- Galan, Chillanko Technologies need to be disseminated Field day's and exchange visits 100 farmers at each kebele 400 LocationRationaleConstraintInterventionActivitiesDesignPlot sizeTreatmentTotal # of farmers

Based on the plan, 60 farmers from Lalisa Dimtuattended legume production training 20 farmers from Fromsa Seven Development Agents, supervisors and district experts Farmers were clustered to produce seeds of legumes of their interest LD 30 farmers were provided HB (Nasir) each with 15 kg (0.25ha) and biofertilizer (BNF) 30 farmers were provided SB (Dhidhessa) each 15 kg (0.25ha) and BNF 5 farmers hosted maize legume intercropping experiment (one farmer hosting mother trial and the rest four baby trials)

FROMSA 10 farmers were provided Faba bean (Dosha) each with 40 kg (0.25ha) and biofertilizer (BNF) 10 farmers were provided Field Pea, (Bilallo and Burkitu five farmers each15 kg (0.25ha) and BNF JELDU Legume production training is to be held on June 2015 But for both communities/implementation sites (Chilanko and Kolu-Galan), Additionally, To farmers of both LC implementation sites (Diga and Jeldu) 30 kg of pigeon pea 12 kg of Leucenea

SOME CHALLENGES WITH THE TOOL 1.Context Assessment Methodology (Land) Would have better if question “d” comes first The questions do not emphasize or difficult to explain what proportion of their land farmers use to produce legume (Material input delivery) For the question “How often do you visit the local agro-dealer” most farmers particularly the low income farmers responded once every year to buy fertilizers or seeds. But this response/answer was not included in the choices.

SOME CHALLENGES WITH THE TOOL (Knowledge and Skills) The questions are only focusing to know what proportions of the PRA participants completed either primary or secondary education. But, we faced majority of the participants were illiterate/ never gone to schools No room to accommodate these groups in the proportion study

SOME CHALLENGES WITH THE TOOL 2. Community need assessment (Vision Mapping) As a procedure the questions to map the visions are to be asked by gender With this grouping, all typologies mix Wealth status differs Could not reach on agreement for most questions Therefore the vision mapping questions best fit to ask individual farmers than in PRA group