Performance of Low External Input Technology in Agricultural Development 65knowledge). LEIT is often characterized as being information- or knowledge
intensive, but this generalization needs to be disaggregated. In a review of low
external input strategies, Lockeretz (1991) points out that we need to know: if
such technologies are information intensive solely to develop or also to adopt; if
the latter, whether the additional information needs to be acquired at only one
time or whether it needs to be continually sought and updated; and whether the
acquisition of the additional information requires only an investment of time or
also implies new skills. It is difficult to argue that LEIT can be distinguished from
conventional technology with respect to information intensity, especially with the
demise of subsidized input packages. Byerlee (1998) believes that farming in indus-
trialized countries and in Green Revolution areas in the South will have to pass
from the stage where knowledge is ‘embedded’ in the inputs provided to farmers
to a stage where information itself becomes a more important element. The provi-
sion of information will have to shift from general area-based recommendations
(e.g. for fertilizer use) towards qualitative season- and site-specific advice, as exem-
plified by the rise of precision farming.
The case study examples of LEIT offer a range of examples of information
requirements. Lowering insecticide use in Sri Lanka is a straightforward action,
but it appears to require a fairly significant investment in learning about pest ecol-
ogy and gaining confidence in the efficacy of natural pest control processes. The
logic and implementation of grass strips in Kenya seems fairly straightforward, and
farmers are able to make adaptations once the strips are established. In-row tillage
in Honduras involves a process of gradual establishment and adaptation over sev-
eral seasons.
Who Utilizes LEIT?
Both the information and labour requirements of alternative technologies must be
considered in light of the incentives for investment. Farmers will make an effort to
acquire new information (or invest in additional labour) when it yields a reasona-
ble return. This helps explain why the general pattern of utilization of LEIT in the
case studies is surprisingly similar to that of conventional technology. LEIT tends
to be taken up by farmers who have greater commercial farming opportunities.
In the Kenyan case, uptake of conservation practices was much greater in the
high potential area, where agriculture made a more important contribution to
livelihoods. Users of the conservation practices have both larger farms and more
cattle, although the relation is not statistically significant. In the higher rainfall
zone in the Kenya study, those who established conservation structures on their
farms earned a higher proportion of their incomes from crop sales. Those Hondu-
ran farmers with greater areas of cash crops and access to irrigation were signifi-
cantly more likely to utilize LEIT, and the majority of instances of in-row tillage
were for vegetables rather than basic grain crops. In Sri Lanka, on the other hand,