CGIAR Research Initiative on Livestock and Climate
Farmer-to-farmer field days for 
adaptation to climate change in 
l ivestock management  
 
Lessons learned and a guideline for implementation
Birgit Habermann, Todd A. Crane, Roland Mugumya, Tigist Worku, Leah Gichuki, Geoffrey Tugume, Shenkute 
Goshme, Nathan Maiyo and Emmaculate Kiptoo
International Livestock Research Institute
December 2022
1
©2022
This publication is copyrighted by the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI). It is licensed 
for use under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence. To view this licence, 
visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0. Unless otherwise noted, you are free to share (copy and 
redistribute the material in any medium or format), adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the material) for any 
purpose, even commercially, under the following condition:
ATTRIBUTION. The work must be attributed, but not in any way that suggests endorsement by ILRI or the 
author(s).
NOTICE:
For any reuse or distribution, the licence terms of this work must be made clear to others.
Any of the above conditions can be waived if permission is obtained from the copyright holder. Nothing in this 
licence impairs or restricts the author’s moral rights.
Fair dealing and other rights are in no way affected by the above.
The parts used must not misrepresent the meaning of the publication.
ILRI would appreciate being sent a copy of any materials in which text, photos etc. have been used.
Editing, design and layout—ILRI Editorial and Publishing Services, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Cover photo: Field day on the farm of Tomas Yebei, Kenya (credit: Birgit Habermann/ILRI).
Citation: Habermann, B., Crane, T.A., Mugumya, R., Worku, T., Gichuki, L., Tugume, G., Goshme, S., Maiyo, 
N. and Kiptoo, E. 2022. Farmer-to-farmer field days for adaptation to climate change in livestock management: 
Lessons learned and a guideline for implementation. Nairobi, Kenya: ILRI.
2
Contents
Acknowledgements          iv
1. Introduction          1
2. Conceptual framework         4
3. Methods          5
 3.1 How to organize the field days       5
 3.2 Preparation         5
 3.3 Program and documentation        6
  3.3.1 Field day 1        6
 3.4 Documentation and evaluation        6
  3.4.1 Field day 2        7
4. Reports on field days in Ethiopia, Kenya and Uganda     9
 4.1 Ethiopia         9
 4.2 Kenya          11
 4.3 Uganda         13
5. Reflections and lessons learned        15
 5.1 Representativeness of participation      15
 5.2 Change in self-perception       16
 5.3 Managing expectations       16
 5.4 Methodological guidance       17
6. Summary          18
7. References          19
Appendices           22
 Appendix I: Contact summary form field days      22
 Appendix II: Guidelines for group discussions      24
 Appendix III: Guidelines for host interview      25
 Appendix IV: Guidelines for follow-up interview with field day participants  26
 Appendix V: Informed consent        27
iii
Acknowledgements
This work was conducted as part of the CGIAR Initiative Livestock and Climate and is 
supported by contributors to the CGIAR Trust Fund. CGIAR is a global research partnership 
for a food-secure future dedicated to transforming food, land, and water systems in a climate 
crisis. 
This work has been partly financed by the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale 
Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) commissioned by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany 
(grant number: 2017.0119.2).
iv
1. Introduction
The concept of farmer-to-farmer field days (F2F-FD) builds on the understanding that socially 
diverse farmers’ epistemologies are varied yet similar among people who define themselves 
as ‘farmers’, but they are rather different from the epistemological understanding of people 
who define themselves as ‘scientists’: social worlds influence the ways of knowing of different 
actors, and farmers have a range of ways of knowing what they value, that is rarely equally 
valued by scientists (Habermann, 2014). For example, farmers rely on more varied ways of 
knowing than scientists, who rely mostly on reason and authority, whilst farmers trust in senses 
and language, but also in emotional and intuitive aspects such as spirituality and memories 
(Habermann, 2014). 
Both scientific outreach and extension approaches have attempted to involve farmers in 
technology transfer activities in ways that were understood to be more apt to farmers’ 
needs than conventional technology demonstrations on research farms: examples are 
farmer field schools (Duveskog, Friis-Hansen, & Taylor, 2011; FAO, 2018; Mfitumukiza et 
al., 2014; Siregar & Crane, 2011), farmer research groups (Mekonnen et al., 2006), farmer 
research networks (Nelson, Coe, & Haussmann, 2016; Richardson et al., 2022), farmer-
to-farmer extension (F2FE) and the idea of farmers teaching farmers (Franzel, Kiptot, & 
Degrande, 2019; Khaila, Tchuwa, Franzel, & Simpson, 2015; Kiptot & Franzel, 2013) 
and many others. These approaches respond to the increasing need for information and 
support demands by farmers at a time of extension systems with reduced capacity (Franzel 
et al., 2019; Kiptot & Franzel, 2013). Moreover, the F2FE approach builds on the fact that 
most farmers tend to ‘rely on other farmers as their primary source of information about 
new technologies. The F2FE approach therefore can be viewed as an extension of farmers’ 
existing practices.’ (Franzel et al., 2019, p. 277). The terminology may vary, as sometimes 
the farmers are called lead farmers, in other cases farmer-trainers or contact farmers, 
community facilitators (Franzel et al., 2019, p. 279), or with a similar idea but differently 
implemented they are called model farmers or lead farmers (Taylor & Bhasme, 2018). What 
makes these approaches successful is that ‘farmers preferred to learn novel practices from 
their colleagues rather than from extension staff.’ (Franzel et al., 2019, p. 280). Thus, there is 
an indication that this also has to do with language and communication (Habermann, Felt, 
Vogl, Bekele, & Mekonnen, 2012; Habermann, Vogl, Mekonnen, Bekele, & Felt, 2021) as 
well as trust – and expectations: 
Organizations reported three main problems in implementing F2FE […] First, 
as reported by over 40% of organizations in Cameroon and over 20% in 
Kenya and Malawi, farmers sometimes had unreasonably high expectations in 
terms of financial and non-financial benefits, despite organizations’ attempts 
to reduce such expectations. Unmet expectations could be a cause of high 
dropout rates, which were also reported as a problem. Limited budgets for 
supporting farmer-trainers also created challenges. (Franzel et al., 2019, pp. 
280–281)
1
However, the effectiveness of working with farmer trainers in F2FE tends to be positive: 
farmer trainers manage to reach a relatively reasonable number of farmers per month (Kiptot 
& Franzel, 2013), and the cost is lower than in conventional approaches (Franzel et al., 2019). 
It is also an opportunity for female farmers to get recognition for their knowledge, and the 
proportion of female farmer trainers in Kenya was in fact higher than the proportion of female 
extension staff (Franzel et al., 2019). But it is not a substitute for the agricultural extension 
system as such, it is merely complementary (Franzel et al., 2019). 
It is noteworthy that beyond the financial incentive, the societal aspect of being recognized 
as a knowledgeable farmer is quite an important incentive. Yet, F2FE is not suitable for all 
kinds of innovations, and supervision by extension staff has been recommended (Degrande 
& Benoudji, 2017). A combination of different approaches may be most effective in reaching 
larger numbers of farmers (Franzel et al., 2019). 
These learning grounds have informed the development of the farmer-to-farmer field days 
(F2F-FD). The F2F-FD were developed while implementing an approach to support positive 
deviant farmers in explaining to their fellow farmers how they manage to adapt better to the 
impact of climate change in their livestock production. The positive deviant approach is based 
on the idea that some people act differently from the mainstream, but in an effective way – 
they achieve certain things better than the majority (Herington & van de Fliert, 2018; Spreitzer 
& Sonenshein, 2016). This approach has been tested for adaptation to climate change in 
livestock production in East Africa (Habermann, Crane, Worku, Gichuki, & Mugumya, 2021; 
Habermann, Crane, Worku, Mugumya, & Gichuki, 2021; Habermann, Crane, Gichuki, 
& Worku, 2022; B. Habermann, Todd A. Crane, et al., 2021). Through the process of 
implementing this approach, the concept of the F2F-FD emerged and became an essential 
part of the process: the positive deviant farmers, called ‘adaptation pioneers’ were farmers 
who were doings things differently from other, and were successful in increasing productivity 
and sustainable livelihoods for their families in doing so, better than mainstream farmers 
in their vicinity, and they were willing to show other farmers how to follow their path while 
learning from each other at the same time (B. Habermann, T.  Crane, T. Worku, L. Gichuki, et 
al., 2021; Habermann et al., 2022). 
The research process studying positive deviance in adaptation to climate change by livestock 
keepers involved regular interviews and biophysical measurements of the adaptation practices 
applied by local livestock keepers. This helped these adaptation pioneers in livestock 
management to better understand their own practices – and it was the outcome of this learning 
process, that they then demonstrated to others at the F2F-FD. (Habermann, Crane, Worku, 
Gichuki et al. 2021; Habermann et al. 2022)
While many such projects document outcomes, little research is done on social processes and 
group dynamics taking place in these projects (Akpo, Crane, Vissoh, & Tossou, 2014). While 
studying what makes adaptation pioneers successful, we need to understand how others 
can implement their adaptation practices and become equally successful. To further develop 
the adaptation practices into technologies suitable to a wider community of local livestock 
2
keepers it is important to offer learning events where others can participate and then adapt 
the technologies to their own circumstances. In facilitating such learning events we hope to 
enable local livestock keepers to both share and evaluate their experiences and knowledge 
with others (Akpo et al., 2014).
Technology uptake by end-users would get easier if the process is more 
transparent and collaborative from the start to the end, wherein consumers of 
technologies are also explicit co-producers of it. Social spaces are useful to share 
knowledge and experiences. Learning takes place each time people exchange 
and reflect on a common problem that requires a timely and appropriate solution. 
The way the process is designed and conducted has a great effect on the 
ownership by the participants. (Akpo et al., 2014, p. 17)
Together with adaptation pioneer farmers, we therefore developed an approach for 
collaborative learning that is driven by pioneer farmers involving peer farmers, that they 
wanted to be involved in, at the place and date that they had chosen themselves. The 
objective of developing the F2F-FD was to facilitate learning among livestock keepers 
on adaptation to climate change to upscale expertise of pioneers of adaptation and to 
understand social processes enabling livestock keepers to benefit from each other’s 
knowledge and experiences in adaptation to climate change. To do so we applied a social 
practice approach on learning and transdisciplinary co-production explained in the following 
section (Slater & Robinson, 2020). 
3
2. Conceptual framework
In transdisciplinary co-production, research activities take place among people to enable 
researchers and other actors to work together on knowledge production. This process starts 
from understanding of the problems, development of research objectives as well as the 
implementation and ownership of the actual research process (Habermann, 2013; Slater & 
Robinson, 2020).
To understand the nature of transdisciplinary co-production during the field days, we focused 
on observing social learning processes: social learning emerges through dialogue and joint 
problem-solving, hoping to understand how through sharing, new knowledge emerges and 
helps to address complex problems, helps to build trust, empowerment, social networks and 
even producing new identities and capacities (Slater & Robinson, 2020). 
Table 1: Conceptual framework for documenting the F2F-FDs.
 
1.Social learning processes 2.Emergent properties 3.Social learning 4.Network effects 
outcomes
Reflexivity: what was it like Materials New knowledge
for the participants (trust, 
emotions, respect…)?
Dialogue: who spoke with Competences New actions 5.Sustainability 
whom, what prevented, impacts
supported dialogue?
Experimentation/innovation: Meanings New relations
new things observed, new 
thinking inspired?
METHODS APPLIED
Participant observation at the field day (FD) Follow up interview with Follow up interview 
Contact forms participants of FDs after with participants of 
FGD at the end of FD a few months FDs
[Consent forms, contact numbers] Follow up interview 
Follow up interview with host in the month following with host of FD
the FD
Adapted from Slater and Robinson (2020, p. 3).
4
Commitment/trust/reframing
3. Methods
3.1 How to organize the field days
As part of the twelve month long participatory adaptation analysis (B. Habermann, T.  Crane, 
T. Worku, L. Gichuki, et al., 2021), adaptation pioneers were organizing ‘field days’. The 
purpose of the field day was to offer an opportunity for the adaptation pioneers to explain to 
others 1) how they were implementing their livestock management adaptation practices; 2) 
what they had learned from the implementation while collecting data on the practice; 3) what 
they believed they were doing differently from others. 
Beyond that, the field days are also an opportunity for the adaptation pioneers to get 
feedback and learn from others. It is important to explain to the farmers that this is a learning 
event, not just a regular field day where the government or researchers demonstrate 
technologies. The focus is on the adaptation pioneers, and the knowledge exchange among 
livestock keepers. The external visitors are merely observers and only the researchers should 
be documenting the field day, or experts brought in to cover a specific demand expressed by 
the farmers. 
The program for the field days is developed by the adaptation pioneers in direct 
communication with the researchers. The preparation starts about 3 to 4 months ahead of 
the event. Adaptation pioneers can hold field days together or organize them individually. 
However, either way the number of participants should be limited to 15 people. The 
adaptation pioneers decide whom to invite. 
 
3.2 Preparation
Step 1: Clarify with adaptation pioneers what the field days are, ensure expectations are clear 
on all sides. Explain to them that the program depends on them, as well as the selection of 
participants. 
Step 2: Adaptation pioneers explain what they want to demonstrate at the field visit and 
suggest a date for the field day. 
Step 3: List of participants – the people attending the field day should fulfill these criteria:
1. Invited local livestock keepers should have good relations with the adaptation pioneers, 
but they should not be relatives or direct neighbours.
2. Invited local livestock keepers should be eager learners during discussions at the field day, 
and they should be able to implement in their own farm what they see.
3. Invited local livestock keepers should ideally be able to learn something new and 
different, as well as contribute their own knowledge to the group. 
4. Invited local livestock keepers should be interested in being farmer-to-farmer trainers as 
well, so they should be interested in passing on what they learn to others. 
5
3.3 Program and documentation 
3.3.1 Field day 1
The attendants of the field days are locally determined, but the focus should be on livestock 
keepers inviting other livestock keepers, possibly avoiding political representatives. The 
program is determined by the adaptation pioneer who invites the group to visit their farm/
herd. Thus, it could follow the following sequence:
1. Introduction: Registration, informed and photo consent and filling of attendance sheets 
with full names and contact details to be able to follow up with the participants later. 
Welcome speeches should be done by the inviting adaptation pioneer representing the 
household, ideally more than one person per household (e.g., husband and wife), and 
a few words by the researcher explaining the background of the project. The researcher 
should explain at this point that at the end of the pioneer’s program there will be a group 
discussion, and a few months later, a brief follow-up interview to understand how the 
attendants have used what they learned on the day in their own practices, and a second 
field day later on. 
2. Demonstration by host (example from a site in Ethiopia): 
• Showing the barn and the compound where they are keeping sheep.
• Explaining where they got them from, which breed, which requirements, benefits, 
and disadvantages.
• Demonstrating home-made feed supplements.
• Demonstrating feed storage/preservation.
• Demonstrating market-based feed.
• Showing feed and forage on field/ field boundaries.
If possible, the adaptation pioneer will support the explanations with findings from data 
collected on the practice in the survey. This may be difficult at the first field day after 4 to 6 
months, but it will be part of the second field day after 10 to 12 months.
3. Question and answer session 
4. Feedback session 
3.4 Documentation and evaluation 
Contact form: There is a contact form (see Appendix I) that helps the researchers to document 
their observations during the field days. This should capture the discussion, points of 
agreement, points of divergence, the reaction of participants, reflections on how the host 
presents, and what kind of questions follow, what kind of feedback was given to the host and 
explanations about what can be seen, what is demonstrated (and what is not).
6
Group discussion: Group discussions (groups of 5) should be held at the end of the farmer’s 
program. These help participants reflect on the field day experience, what they learned, 
what challenges and opportunities they see, and if they wanted to attend another field day 
(guidelines in Appendix II). These discussions should be recorded. 
Follow up interview with host: This recorded interview serves to understand what the host 
learns on this day, about the practice but also about the experience of presenting to other 
people on their own, on their farm, and if they are willing to do this again (guidelines in 
Appendix III).  
Follow up interviews with participants: At a later stage the participants will be contacted 
again via phone and asked about the impact of this event (guidelines in Appendix IV).
Team reflection: After each series of field days, the research team will hold a reflection 
meeting where they report on observations and lessons learned.
3.4.1 Field day 2
The second field day builds on the results of the documentation and evaluation of field 
day 1. The researchers discuss with the adaptation pioneers what they want to show at this 
field day. New experiences may have emerged, seasons may have changed, and the data 
collection may have led to new insights. The follow-up interviews inform which additional 
expertise may be required and which topics should be revisited or addressed. Additional 
experts can be brought in on demand, ideally local extension agents, veterinary officers 
etc. 
Again, the adaptation pioneer household decides when to hold the field day, and what the 
program should be like. Participants should ideally be the same people as last time. For new 
participants, the same criteria as above apply.
The program follows a similar sequence, but brings in additional expertise in the second part:
1. Introduction 
2. Demonstration by host 
3. Question and answer session with additional expert(s)
4. Feedback session 
The event will be documented by the researcher with the contact forms (see Appendix I). 
Further evaluation, as in field day 1, will only be done if another field day is planned as a 
follow-up. For example, it is possible that adaptation pioneers and field day participants will 
already have started forming a group to continue this knowledge exchange. In this case it 
might be helpful to organize a follow-up field day that also addresses group management, 
by-laws etc.
7
Figure 1 :Adaptation pioneer Tomas Yebei talking to his field day visitors, Kenya. 
Photo: Birgit Habermann/ILRI.
8
4. Reports on field days in Ethiopia, Kenya and Uganda
4.1 Ethiopia
The F2F-FDs took place in North Shewa Zone (Amhara Region). This is a mountainous area 
with elevation between 2,800 and 37,00 metres, extreme temperature and rainfall ranges 
(Abebaw & Mesele, 2022; Shefine, 2018). The impact of climate change is noticeable in 
increased occurrence of frost and hale, as well as a shift in seasonal patterns and the extent 
and timing of rainfall in the two rainy seasons. The shorter rainy season is on the verge of 
disappearing entirely.
Figure 2: Adaptation pioneers Kidane and Weleta in Ethiopia, demonstrating tree lucerne as a 
viable feed for sheep fattening. 
Photo: Apollo Habtamu/ILRI.
Two rounds of field days were carried out. The first round of field days was hosted by four 
adaptation pioneer farmers in their respective compounds in April 2021 together with their 
families. After each of these field days, a group discussion was done with the participants split 
into two groups. The hosts were interviewed separately. Six months after the first field day, a 
phone interview was conducted as a follow up to understand how useful this day was for the 
participants, and how much they could implement from what they learned. The second field 
day took place much later, in April 2022, when the second round of field days was organized. 
Unfortunately, one of the four pioneer farmers was ill and could not host a second field day. 
Among the other three, two neighbouring pioneers decided to hold the field day together 
at one of their compounds. The fourth pioneer, together with his wife, invited farmers to his 
compound, like the first time. 
9
The research team was initially worried if farmers would engage in open and free discussion, but the set-up of the 
F2F-FDs was very well received. The adaptation pioneers were initially hesitant, but then proud to present their 
experiences to the others. The positive feedback that they received inspired them and gave them confidence. 
Participants expressed their appreciation for the hands-on learning opportunity. Some participants and 
one adaptation pioneer indicated that they had never participated in such an event before 
and that it was an excellent opportunity to share knowledge. A participant said, ‘We all have 
[sheep] fattening experiences, but we never exchanged our experiences. We may visit each other 
and appreciate or comment on the practice, but we haven’t had such a group discussion and 
experience-sharing session.’
On the second field day, the representatives of the district (woreda) and village (kebele) 
agriculture and livestock offices attended the field days. Participants got the opportunity to get 
answers to some of their questions from the agriculture officers regarding access to livestock 
feed, improving breeding, livestock diseases, medication, market access and linkage. They 
were given suggestions for addressing some challenges regarding livestock production 
in general and sheep fattening in particular, including organizing themselves in a group to 
access improved livestock breeds, feeds from the suppliers, and creating market linkages. 
Participants appreciated the free exchange of opinions and insights during the discussion. 
The environment which was created by the field day was valued by all participants, and they 
requested the continuity of such a platform.
Figure 3: Group discussion at the end of the field day at the farm of adaptation pioneer  
Ms Tenagne, Ethiopia. 
Photo: Apollo Habtamu/ILRI.
10
4.2 Kenya
Nandi and Bomet are two counties in the western highlands of Kenya. The distance from 
Nairobi to Bomet town is 220 km and 308 km to Kapsabet town, the capital of Nandi County. 
The altitude in both counties averages 2,000 m, but it can vary, similar to the agro-ecological 
zones in the two counties. Livestock production focuses primarily on semi-intensive dairy 
with crossbred dairy cows. In terms of the impact of climate change, the most severe impact 
comes from the extended dry season. In line with the change in livestock management, 
the demand for feed has increased, and farmers face challenges managing the lack of feed 
sufficient in quantity and quality for the new breeds in the dry seasons. 
In the feedback group discussions, farmers appreciated the field day hosts, but they also had 
suggestions on how they can even further improve their practices. This shows how important 
this kind of interaction is, a practical learning ground for people who can talk to each other at 
the same level and understand each other because they have a similar epistemology. Like one 
adaptation pioneer said, ‘There are things I didn’t also know, so the other pioneers helped in 
that. Through questions raised, I learned many things because some things I didn’t know came 
up’. A participant explained in the group discussion that ‘This mode of doing field day is good 
because you let the farmer train other farmers. Most of the other ones come and train you and 
they use theory. They force people to do like a certain farmer, while farms are different. When 
you let a farmer do it, he explains to others out of experience. And by looking at things on your 
own, we have gone to the farm, and we have seen. It is not just saying you do like this and like 
this.’ Many participants appreciated this different type of field day.
Figure 4: Demonstration of silage making on the farm of adaptation pioneer Edwin M., Kenya.
Photo: Birgit Habermann/ILRI.
11
Furthermore, the participants mentioned several times in the group discussions that they were 
surprised to learn so many new things from their neighbour. They pass each other’s places, and 
talk, but not on this level. As one participant explained, ‘We have learned a lot by the way. We 
used to think that we know but we don’t know.’
Another interesting aspect was also the interaction with female participants. Some of the 
pioneers did not that many women played such an important role in livestock management, it 
was a new experience for the pioneers. Women on the other hand perceived this as a unique 
opportunity for them: one participant remarked that she usually hears information in the radio, 
but at the field day, she could see it with her own eyes. It is the women who are mostly at home 
with the cattle. One of the women also remarked, ‘The ones who are here today, we should 
try to visit each other and encourage one another so that by the time you are coming we have 
encouraged each other. Maybe when they come to my place, they will tell me that I am weak 
here and I should do this and this…. They should come we see what my weakness is and maybe 
they will get to my place and see something that they don’t have. Because we have come to our 
host’s home, and he has Napier [grass], but he doesn’t have Boma Rhodes.’
Some farmers also collected Desmodium and other plants that can easily be propagated 
vegetatively. And they also requested to obtain seeds and samples at the second field day to 
take something practical home with them. The second field day was also appreciated because 
of the seasonal changes: for example, participants were interested to see how the pioneer 
grows sorghum from the start, so returning at another time of year was important for them. 
Appreciation was given by a participant for the fact that the field day was in their own language, 
as some of them struggle with English and Swahili. Using local languages in such events not only 
appreciates linguistic diversity, but also enables more equitable access to information. 
Figure 5: Adaptation pioneer Felix S. showing fodder trees as an option for substituting cattle 
feed, Kenya.
Photo: David Ngome/ILRI.
12
4.3 Uganda
Sanga sub-county is in southwestern Uganda, in Kiruhura District and along Uganda’s cattle 
corridor. The area experiences a bimodal rainfall pattern with two long dry seasons. The effect 
of climate change in Sanga and surrounding areas is mainly noticeable in prolonged droughts 
for livestock keepers. 
Livestock production in Sanga is mainly carried out for milk and meat. The greater part of Kiruhura 
District consists of large grazing areas that are commonly fenced with either barbed wire or natural 
shrubs or a combination of both (Wurzinger, Okeyo, Semambo, & Soelkner, 2009).
Discussions and exchange of information and ideas in the first field day went on smoothly 
among participants and the inviting adaptation pioneer. The views of participants were 
respected, and contributions were made without interruptions. Contentious and divergent 
issues were solved through consensus. For example, the issue of why acaricides seemed 
ineffective was intensely discussed, as it is a great concern to all livestock keepers in the 
area. To answer this question, participants had to agree: Are the acaricides indeed fake 
or adulterated? Are livestock keepers unaware of how to spray? Are livestock keepers not 
mixing the acaricide in right proportions? 
Figure 6: Mixing acaricides in preparation for spraying on the farm of adaptation pioneer, 
George K., Uganda.
Photo: Pamela Wairagala/ILRI.
Generally, the field day was the first of its kind in the area in many years. In fact, Sanga has not 
had such events in the past at all. Their experience was that livestock keepers were taken to 
farms of big livestock keepers to obtain information from them, without involving exchange 
of ideas with the host. The F2F-FD provided an avenue for learning and exchange of ideas on 
livestock production and on how livestock keepers were addressing various climate change 
related challenges. 
13
The field days generally provided an avenue for learning and exchange of ideas from the 
host and the participants. A male participant from Sanga who attended a field day stated that 
‘Learning is a continuous process, which has to be carried out regularly’. The local researcher 
working with the adaptation pioneers reaffirmed this by stating that ‘any learning opportunity 
comes with new ideas that are supposed to transform the activities that are carried out for the 
benefits of households or communities’. 
Participants who attended the field days were able to learn and acquire new knowledge 
related to water management, disease control, pasture improvement and feeding. Under 
water management, participants saw for themselves that one can have several water 
harvesting technologies on their farm rather than relying on one water harvesting technology. 
An elderly male livestock keeper from Nyakiganda village stated that ‘I saw a water pond 
located up the hill at the adaptation pioneer’s farm. The ponds normally have water available 
throughout the year, implying that his cattle do not have to look for water elsewhere or move 
long distances in search for water’.
Figure 7: A recently constructed dam for collecting rainwater in Sanga, Uganda.
Photo: Birgit Habermann/ILRI.
14
5. Reflections and lessons learned
The research team was enthusiastic about the success of the field days, and the feedback from 
the participants and the organizers, the adaptation pioneers, was overwhelmingly positive. 
Adaptation pioneers and the field day participants started forming learning groups by 
themselves, and the whole experience reportedly gave them confidence to become farmer-
to-farmer trainers, and to engage with extension agents on an equal footing. However, there 
were also lessons learned in this first round of field days that will be important for future F2F-
FDs to consider. In the sections below, we report on the reflections shared by the adaptation 
pioneers and field day participants, and the research team consisting of nine researchers in 
three countries.
5.1 Representativeness of participation
An issue addressed by the adaptation pioneers and the other farmers was the relatively 
small number of pioneers selected. This was due to the qualitative research method and the 
piloting character of the first phase of the research. A solution for this is to select pioneers with 
a more quantitative approach using pareto-optimality (Shija, Mwai, Migwi, Komwihangilo, 
& Bebe, 2022; Steinke et al., 2019). If the respondents for the household survey for this 
approach are selected randomly over a wider geographical area, then more farmers can be 
reached overall (Gichuki et al. forthcoming).
In terms of representativeness, it was astonishing how difficult it was to achieve gender 
balance at the field days. The participants were largely male mostly over 40 years of age – a 
more detailed calculation on the numbers for all organized field days will be presented in a 
forthcoming publication. In some places, there were many senior farmers participating, and 
it is challenging for others to manage them if they lead the discussion off-topic because their 
senior positions must be respected.
Participating women were often the wives of participants, or the wives of pioneers, and they 
were hardly involved, and spent more time cooking the meal for lunch than participating. This 
was also true when the adaption pioneer was from a female-headed household. It is therefore 
important to redefine the nature of an adaptation pioneer from a person to a household. In 
that case, the invitation for a field day will come from a household to another household, 
making sure the person participating is the one who has the main responsibility for managing 
the livestock in that household. However, the topic of the field day will always influence who 
is invited and who attends. For example, in East Africa, more men than women are likely to be 
invited to and attend a field day on livestock breeding. 
In some cases, most local livestock keepers were invited from the neighborhood. That has 
the disadvantage that they already know each other too well, and they cannot see what is 
new or innovative, because they often visit each other. It is better to mix people from different 
but comparable locations. Then they will be more attentive and interested in the topics 
presented. 
15
While in some cases it may be important to have government representatives involved, in 
other countries it is important to avoid this so that people can discuss matters freely. Issues of 
power and trust should never be underestimated. Where there is only a minimal level of trust, 
there will be no knowledge exchange and no learning. Beyond trust, people invited should 
have an interest in, or be practising aspects of the technology being pretested. 
For a lively and rich discussion, it can work well to invite other adaptation pioneers to attend 
the field days of others. The linkages between them can become very fruitful and it also helps 
the other participants to better understand the work of the pioneers. 
Apart from making sure to have the right people at the farm, it is equally important to ensure 
that the date is chosen by livestock keepers and not the researcher who is working with them. 
For example, at the peak season for ploughing and harvesting, it is not a good idea to try 
and organize a field day. The season must be right both for demonstration purpose and for 
livestock keepers’ availability. This applies both to time and place, even if the farm is difficult to 
access it is not advisable to try and relocate the field day somewhere else, that would defeat 
the purpose of the entire process.
5.2 Change in self-perception
Regarding the self-perception of the adaptation pioneers, we found that many were not 
confident about their own practice in the beginning of the research process. It was only 
through the field days that they realized that they were doing something different from others. 
However, most local livestock keepers participating in the field days brought in their own 
experiences, and the learning and exchange was in multiple directions, between the farmers, 
but also between farmers and extension agents who in many cases were not aware of the 
adaptation pioneers’ innovations.
5.3 Managing expectations
Many farmers and extension agents have a preconceived idea of what a ‘field day’ means, 
which may be different from F2F-FDs. The conventional field day comes with certain 
connotations, and it needs to be clarified which ones apply to the F2F-FDs and which ones do 
not. 
An important clarification are incentives for participation, as there are already well-established 
expectations in many countries regarding travel refunds and other payments for attending 
events like field days. The other important clarification is that the nature of research being 
tested and shared in F2F-FDs, is different from that in development projects, and so the benefit 
of this activity is non-physical/non-monetary: it is focused on learning and experience sharing. 
For this purpose, it is important to explain well in the introduction to participants who you 
are, explain the project, organization, people involved, how the pioneers and this farm were 
selected, and what happens with the information collected (see also enclosed informed 
consent form in Appendix V). 
16
5.4 Methodological guidance
Based on the experiences in the field days, we believe it is important to meet each adaptation 
pioneer household briefly before the event to discuss all open questions, and to help the 
pioneers in choosing topics for the field day if they ask for help. If other pioneers are invited 
to the field day, clearly specify their roles to avoid having many facilitators or exceeding the 
required number of people for group meetings.
Furthermore, it is important to check the lists of participants invited for the field day and 
discuss the rationale of the selection. Preferably, invited participants should be those that will 
benefit from the field day, regardless of whether they are neighbours or friends. 
Inevitably, many questions and issues related to livestock management will come up that 
were not the focus of the field day. In this regard, it is crucial to avoid the temptation to make 
promises which cannot be fulfilled while trying to respond to such questions or issues. 
Time planning can be a challenge. There are always participants coming early, others late. If 
the field day starts much later than planned, some participants will get tired before the end of 
the event. If delays occur, then the research team should call the missing participants, as too 
much familiarity with the organizer (the pioneer) may prevent them from feeling any urgency 
to come on time. 
In the second round of field days, experts can be invited if necessary. Invitation of the experts 
should depend on the results of the first field days. However, the role of the experts must 
be clearly defined. Experts are expected to be humble and ready to answer open-ended 
question and or technical questions that cannot be answered by pioneers or farmers. The 
questions could include among others, those related to animal health, breeding and feed 
analysis.
For political reasons and where applicable, local leaders or local administrators can be 
informed about the proposed field day. It is the pioneer’s responsibility to choose whether to 
involve local leaders – researchers should only interfere if they are aware of any problematic 
connotations of doing so and not doing so.
17
6. Summary
F2F-FDs build on existing approaches that acknowledge the fact that in many 
cases farmers’ epistemologies are complex, diverse, and different from scientists’ 
epistemologies. They adjust methods of knowledge generation to co-production and 
work with participatory methods. F2F-FDs are an approach that recognizes co-production 
as important, as well as building on existing success stories of adaptation pioneers in 
livestock management in adaptation to climate change. 
Farmers appreciate the novelty of the approach, and that it respects the fact that farmers 
like to learn about innovations in practical and visual ways, ideally from other farmers. 
Inherent in the approach is the option to reach more people through group formation and 
working with a snowball effect. Another added benefit is that learning in the F2F-FDs is 
mutual; both the adaptation pioneers, the people invited and visiting external experts all 
learn from each other. 
The F2F-FDs can also be beneficial to women if they can practically see information 
they usually only hear about. It is also an opportunity for them to form networks with 
other female farmers engaged in livestock keeping. However, the role of women in the 
field days needs attention, as there is a risk that they are sidelined and too engaged in 
domestic activities to actively participate and benefit. 
Adaptation pioneers emerged highly motivated from the field days: not only did the 
events increase their self-respect as their perception of their own expertise changed, 
but it helped them to create more linkages to other farmers, and to extension agents, 
to create a knowledge network and groups to continue learning in mutual and practical 
ways. 
18
7. References
Abebaw, H. F., & Mesele, B. Z. (2022). Determinants of Rural Household Food Security 
Status in North Shewa Zone, Amhara Region, Ethiopia. The Scientific World Journal, 
2022. 
Akpo, E., Crane, T. A., Vissoh, P. V., & Tossou, R. C. (2014). Co-production of Knowledge in 
Multi-stakeholder Processes: Analyzing Joint Experimentation as Social Learning. The 
Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 21(4), 369-388. doi:10.1080/138922
4x.2014.939201
Degrande, A., & Benoudji, C. (2017). L’Agriculture de conservation repensée: contextualiser 
l’innovation pour la résilience au Tchad et au Soudan. BRACED Innovation for resilience 
case studies. 
Duveskog, D., Friis-Hansen, E., & Taylor, E. W. (2011). Farmer Field Schools in Rural Kenya: 
A Transformative Learning Experience. Journal of Development Studies, 47(10), 1529-
1544. doi:10.1080/00220388.2011.561328
FAO. (2018). Farmer field schools for small-scale livestock producers – A guide for decision 
makers on improving livelihoods. Retrieved from Rome: 
Franzel, S., Kiptot, E., & Degrande, A. (2019). Farmer-To-Farmer Extension: A Low-Cost 
Approach for Promoting Climate-Smart Agriculture. In T. S. Rosenstock, A. Nowak, 
& E. Girvetz (Eds.), The Climate-Smart Agriculture Papers: Investigating the Business 
of a Productive, Resilient and Low Emission Future (pp. 277–288). Cham: Springer 
International Publishing.
Habermann, B. (2014). Ways of Knowing of Farmers and Scientists. Tree and Soil Management 
in the Ethiopian Highlands. (DPhil Development Studies). University of Sussex, Sussex. 
Habermann, B. (Ed.) (2013). Inter- and Transdisciplinary Research Methods in Rural 
Transformation. Case studies in Northern Ethiopia. Bahir Dar/Vienna: Centre for 
Development Research.
Habermann, B., Crane, T., Worku, T., Gichuki, L., & Mugumya, R. (2021). Research protocol: 
Adaptation practices in livestock systems - Participatory adaptation analysis. Retrieved 
from Nairobi, Kenya: 
Habermann, B., Crane, T., Worku, T., Mugumya, R., & Gichuki, L. (2021). Research Protocol: 
Adaptation Practices in Livestock Systems. Scoping Study. Retrieved from Nairobi, 
Kenya: 
Habermann, B., Crane, T. A., Gichuki, L., & Worku, T. (2022). Producer-led Scaling from the 
Farm with Adaptation Pioneers. Retrieved from Nairobi, Kenya: 
Habermann, B., Crane, T. A., Gichuki, L., Worku, T., Mugumya, R., Maiyo, N., . . . Siamito, 
R. (2021). The art of letting go: transforming participatory research on adaptation 
practices among local livestock-keepers in East Africa in times of Covid-19. Frontiers 
in Sustainable Food Systems (Participatory Action Research in a Time of COVID and 
Beyond). 
Habermann, B., Felt, U., Vogl, C. R., Bekele, K., & Mekonnen, K. (2012). Encounters and 
places: project negotiations in Galessa, Ethiopia. Multicultural Education & Technology 
Journal, 6(4), 218–234. doi:10.1108/17504971211279491
19
Habermann, B., Vogl, C. R., Mekonnen, K., Bekele, K., & Felt, U. (2021). Farmers and scientists 
in AR4D: looking at a watershed management project through an STS lens. NJAS: 
Impact in Agricultural and Life Sciences, 93(1), 126–151. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/2
7685241.2021.1993095
Herington, M. J., & van de Fliert, E. (2018). Positive Deviance in Theory and Practice: A 
Conceptual Review. Deviant Behavior, 39(5), 664-678. doi:10.1080/01639625.2017.1
286194
Khaila, S., Tchuwa, F., Franzel, S., & Simpson, S. (2015). The Farmer-to-Farmer Extension 
Approach in Malawi: A Survey of Lead Farmers. Retrieved from Nairobi: 
Kiptot, E., & Franzel, S. (2013). Farmers Teaching Farmers: What Motivates Volunteer Farm 
Trainers? Paper presented at the XXII International Grassland Congress (Revitalising 
Grasslands to Sustain Our Communities) Sydney, Australia. 
Mekonnen, K., Kidane, B., Admassu, Z., Bekele, B., Lakew, B., & Mehari, A. (2006). Processes 
and Lessons from FRGs in Galessa, Central Ethiopian Highlands. In T. Amede, 
L. German, S. Rao, C. Opondo, & A. Stroud (Eds.), Integrated Natural Resource 
Management in Practice: Enabling Communities to Improve Mountain Livelihoods and 
Landscapes: African Highlands Initiative Conference (pp. 199–204). Nairobi, Kenya.
Mfitumukiza, D., Barasa, B., Carter, L., Nankya, A. M., Nansamba, G., Okiror, J. F., . . . 
Ssekaayi Mbogga, M. (2014). The Contribution of Farmer Field Schools in Facilitating 
Smallholder Farmer’s Adaptation to Drought in Kiboga District, Uganda. International 
Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 7(3), 67–75. doi:10.5923/j.ijaf.20170703.02
Nelson, R., Coe, R., & Haussmann, B. I. G. (2016). Farmer Research Networks as a Strategy 
for Matching Diverse Options and Contexts in Smallholder Agriculture. Experimental 
Agriculture, 1-20. doi:10.1017/s0014479716000454
Richardson, M., Coe, R., Descheemaeker, K., Haussmann, B., Wellard, K., Moore, M., . . . 
Nelson, R. (2022). Farmer research networks in principle and practice. International 
Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 20(3), 247-264. doi:10.1080/14735903.2021.193
0954
Shefine, B. (2018). Analysis of Meteorological Drought Using SPI and Large-Scale Climate 
Variability (ENSO)-A Case Study in North Shewa Zone, Amhara Regional State, 
Ethiopia. Hydrol Current Res, 9(307). doi:10.4172/2157-7587.1000307
Shija, D. S., Mwai, O. A., Migwi, P. K., Komwihangilo, D. M., & Bebe, B. O. (2022). 
Identifying Positive Deviant Farms Using Pareto-Optimality Ranking Technique to 
Assess Productivity and Livelihood Benefits in Smallholder Dairy Farming under 
Contrasting Stressful Environments in Tanzania. World, 3(3), 639-656. doi:10.3390/
world3030035
Siregar, P. R., & Crane, T. A. (2011). Climate Information and Agricultural Practice in Adaptation 
to Climate Variability: The Case of Climate Field Schools in Indramayu, Indonesia. 
Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment, 33(2), 55-69. doi:10.1111/j.2153-
9561.2011.01050.x
Slater, K., & Robinson, J. (2020). Social Learning and Transdisciplinary Co-Production: A Social 
Practice Approach. Sustainability, 12(18), 7511. doi:10.3390/su12187511
Spreitzer, G. M., & Sonenshein, S. (2016). Toward the Construct Definition 
of Positive Deviance. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(6), 828–847. 
doi:10.1177/0002764203260212
20
Steinke, J., Mgimiloko, M. G., Graef, F., Hammond, J., van Wijk, M. T., & van Etten, J. (2019). 
Prioritizing options for multi-objective agricultural development through the Positive 
Deviance approach. PLoS One, 14(2), e0212926. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0212926
Taylor, M., & Bhasme, S. (2018). Model farmers, extension networks and the politics of 
agricultural knowledge transfer. Journal of Rural Studies, 64, 1-10. doi:10.1016/j.
jrurstud.2018.09.015
Wurzinger, M., Okeyo, A. M., Semambo, D., & Soelkner, J. (2009). The sedentarisation 
process of the Bahima in Uganda: an emic view. African Journal of Agricultural 
Research, 4(10), 1154-1158. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10568/1551
21
Appendices
Appendix I: Contact summary form field days
Contact type: 
Field day 1 Site: _______________________
Field day 2 
Date:______________________
Code of farm: Phone:
1. WHAT WERE THE MAIN ISSUES OR THEMES THAT STRUCK ME DURING THE DAY? (personal 
perceptions of observed dialogues, remarks and emphasis on certain issues during the encounter,…)
2. WHAT DID YOU OBSERVE REGARDING THE FARMER/PASTORALIST AND HIS INTERACTION WITH 
OTHERS?
3. WHAT DO YOU THINK HE/SHE DID NOT SHOW AND WHY? 
4. WHICH TOPICS DID YOU FEEL HE/SHE WAS VERY / LESS COMFORTABLE WITH?
5. TAKE NOTES ON INNOVATIVE PRACTICES AND ADAPTATION PRACTICES LINKED TO CLIMATE 
CHANGE: 
• observe how local land users are implementing these practices, 
• who is involved, 
• which resources required,
• are there other local land users doing the same,
• do they learn from each other,
• is it successful, what are the outcomes?
• which challenges do you notice that were not mentioned?
6. WHAT WERE THE MAIN OBSERVATIONS, COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS BY THE VISITING FARMERS/
PASTORALISTS? 
7. HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THE GENERAL MOOD AMONG THE VISITING FARMERS/
PASTORALISTS?
22
8. WHAT FOLLOW-UP AGREEMENTS WERE MADE BETWEEN THE FARMERS/PASTORALISTS?
9. WHICH ACTION/ WHAT SUPPORT WILL BE NECESSARY TO ENABLE THIS FOLLOW-UP?
10. ANY OTHER OBSERVATIONS
23
Appendix II: Guidelines for group discussions
At the end of field day, brief focus group discussions with participants (groups of 5). 
Introduction: Thank you for participating in today’s learning event. This was the first time 
we met in this group, but we hope to be able to stay in touch with you for the next 8 months. 
We also hope that we can have a second meeting like today. Now I want to ask you a few 
questions in this group about how you experienced this day and what you are taking home 
from here. 
1. How did you experience this day? What feedback would you like to give back to your 
host?
2. Whom did you communicate with most on this day? What prevented/supported 
dialogue?
3. What are the main things you learned today? How useful are they for you? What was new?
4. If you say this is useful and interesting, if you were to do it, what would you have to do? 
How  would you adapt it, which challenges, which opportunities do you see for yourself?
5. What other comments do you have? What do you want us to do for the second learning 
event? 
Wrap up: Thank you for your feedback, this helps us a lot. Let me please remind you, that we 
would like to stay in touch with you and contact you for a short follow-up interview to see how 
useful this field day was for you, and to understand what we can do differently next time. We 
hope to see you again at the second field day in about 8 months’ time. 
24
Appendix III: Guidelines for host interview
1. What do you take away from the learning event (field day)?  
2. What have you learned by presenting this to other people? How do you think the 
participants experienced this day? 
3. Who were the people who asked most of the questions, and who interacted most with 
you on this? Why them? 
4. What prevented dialogue/what could have supported dialogue more? 
5. Do you feel you are an authority on a topic in your community? What would that be? 
6. How transformative/impactful was this for you in terms of your active sharing with other 
people? 
7. What do you think the participants got out of it? What feedback did you get? What new 
things did you learn in talking to the others? 
8. How has the learning event (field day) changed your perception of yourself / the 
perception of others about you?
25
Appendix IV: Guidelines for follow-up interview with field day  
participants
…. months ago, you participated at a field day held on the farm of……. At that time we told 
you that we might contact you again with some follow-up questions.
If you have time now, please let me ask you the following:  
1. The field day was planned as a learning event, with focus on knowledge exchange among 
livestock keepers. In hindsight, what do you remember most about the field day?
2. We asked you this on the same day, but now a few months later, 
• what did you learn from the workshop?
• what would you say was new and/or different about what you learned there?
• If given another learning opportunity, what would you want to learn regarding the 
adaptation practice? 
3. What have you implemented from what you learned at the field day?
• What is your experience so far with implementing what you have learned? Any 
challenges? 
• What support from the field day host/ other field day participants/neighbours/ 
extension officers could you get?
• What kind of improvement did you incorporate in your adaptation practice after the 
field day, and how would you describe its importance to your practice? 
4. We were hoping to encourage you to share your own knowledge and possible new things 
you have learned on the day with other livestock keepers. 
• How many other livestock keepers approximately would you say you have been 
sharing your knowledge with since the field day?
• What opportunities did you have to train others since, if any? 
• What response did you get from others? 
5. What ideas and suggestions do you have to make such learning opportunities more 
impactful? 
6. Any further comments, questions?
26
Appendix V: Informed consent
Research topic: ________________________________________________
I am _______________________________ from the ___________________ 
The program/project is funded by _________________________________
Purpose of the study: ____________________________________________ 
Benefits to the respondent/discussant
Research findings will be shared with farmers through farmer trainings, farmers meetings 
or workshops. Field days will be carried out to highlight among others, farmers’ positive 
contribution to mitigating the effects of climate change and successful adaptation.
Please note that this is a research project without any development or intervention 
component. We cannot offer you any long-term benefits based on today’s discussion. 
However, we will share our findings on this research with you. Research findings will also 
be used to lobby for more focus on adaptation in livestock farming for better interventions 
to support local land users in their efforts to adapt to climate change. Please note that this 
project has a …… years’ time duration, so do not expect immediate results.
About the interview/group discussion
• You have been selected for this interview/group discussion based on criteria decided at 
the beginning of the study. Due to time constraints, we cannot talk to everyone, but we 
have to agree on a selected sample.
• This discussion should take approximately 1 hour. Your name will not be used in any 
reporting and the information, if used, will be kept anonymous. 
• You are free to decide if you do not want to participate at any time. If you agree to 
participate, please tell us when a question is unclear to you. 
• We would like to record this conversation so that we can ensure that we capture all the 
details, some may be lost during the notetaking.
• We will be asking you questions about your agricultural practices and the field day you 
have just participated in. Should you feel that any of the knowledge shared with us 
requires legal protection in terms of intellectual property rights, please do inform us so 
that we avoid processing this information in any public documents. [needs appropriate 
explanation for relevant aspects for each community!]
Privacy and confidentiality
The audio files, videos and notes will be considered confidential, and no one except the 
research team will have access to them. Once we have completed analyses of these materials, 
we will discard them through means that guarantee confidentiality. The reports generated from 
these data will also uphold discussants’ confidentiality. The findings of this study will be shared 
appropriately through feedback sessions. Films, photographs, audio recordings or images of me 
(discussant/respondent) may be published on the organization’s and on partner websites and 
remain there for an indefinite number of years.
27
Voluntary participation
Participating in survey is voluntary and choosing to withdraw will not affect you or your 
relationship with ILRI now and in the future. ILRI will not tell anyone about your objection 
to participate. You are free also not to answer any question that makes you uncomfortable. 
Giving my consent (discussant/ respondent)  to the publication of these materials (Films, 
photographs, audio recordings or images of me) will not lead to me receiving any monies or 
gifts now or in the future unless specified by ILRI.
Approval of the research 
____________________________________________________
Provision of a witness 
For participants that are either illiterate or mentally incapacitated or physically handicapped, a 
witness may be provided. 
Please indicate the type of informed consent
 Photograph         Videotape            Audiotape  
               
   Data collected and entered on tablets/sheets
Contact details
For questions regarding this study, please contact any of the following
_____________________________________
For questions regarding participation rights and welfare, please contact 
_____________________________________
Discussant’s declaration: ‘I have read the foregoing information, or it has been read to 
me.  I have had the opportunity to ask questions about it and any questions I had have been 
answered to my satisfaction.  I consent voluntarily to participate in this study and understand 
that I have the right to withdraw from the discussion at any time with no consequences.’
Researcher’s name___________________ Signature_________________  Date ___________
Discussant/Respondent’s name _____________________ Signature/thumbprint__________     
Date___________
Witness’ name________________________Signature/thumbprint________________ 
Date___________________________
28