Steve Franzel, World Agroforestry Centre

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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