212
13 A systems research approach to the sustainable intensification of agriculture in Australia’s northern grains regionDaniel Rodriguez
Key points
• TherearesignificantsimilaritiesbetweenthesubtropicalandtropicalagroecologiesofeasternandsouthernAfricaandAustralia.
• EvidencefromSIMLESAfieldtrialsineasternandsouthernAfrica,andassociatedinvestmentsinAustralia,suggestthatconservationagriculture-basedsustainableintensificationinQueensland’ssemi-aridtropicshassignificantpotentialtoreduceyieldgaps,increaseproductionefficienciesandimproveriskmanagement.
• ACIARinvestmentsinAfricaandAustraliahaveproducedsignificantbenefitsforAfricanandAustralianfarmersandcontributedtocapacitybuilding.
213SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 13
Introduction
Agriculturalsystemsinhigh-andlow-incomecountriesareknowntosufferdistinctiveproblems.Inlow-incomecountries,thelimitedavailabilityofresources(e.g.land,finance,labourandinformation)andthelackofaccesstoinputs,productmarkets,servicesandinfrastructureconstraintheopportunitiesandincentivesforsmallholderfarmerstochangeandimprovetheirfarmingsystems.Inhigh-incomecountries,increasesintheyieldoftraditionalcommoditiesareplateauingordecreasing,termsoftradecontinuetodecline,highlevelsoffarmdebtconstraininvestmentinmore-productivetechnologiesandinvestmentsinresearchanddevelopmentcontinuetodwindle.Inthischapter,wediscusstheseissuesinrelationtoAustralia’sagricultureandproposethat:
1. thereissignificantpotentialforconservationagriculture-basedsustainableintensification(CASI)inQueensland’ssemi-aridtropics
2. therearestillopportunitiestobridgeyieldgaps1 andincreaseproductionefficienciesindrylandcropping
3. thereisneedforresearchprogramsthataremoretransformativeandgeneratenewopportunitiestodiversifyfarmingsystemsandsourcesofincomeinachangingclimate.
ThesethreepointsarediscussedintermsofthelessonslearnedfromSIMLESAandassociatedresearchinvestmentsinAustralia.
Acrosstheglobe,mostfoodproductionsystemsface,inonewayoranother,significantcrises.Inhigh-incomecountriessuchasAustralia,thesearecrisesofsustainability,profitabilityandlackofinvestment,whichconstraintheopportunitiesforCASI.
SincetheGreenRevolutioninthe1960s,productivitygainsinagriculturecanbeattributedtoimprovementsinagronomy,breeding,thecroppingsystemandtheirinteractions.Thesignificanceoftheseproductivitygainsisreflectedinthefactthat,overthelast50years,wehavefedanadditional4 billionpeoplewithonlyan11%increaseinlandarea.Wealsoknowthatfutureproductivitygainsarelikelytobedrivenbyfurtherimprovementsacrossthesamedrivers.However,thistaskwillrequiremuchlargereffortstoachievesimilargains,particularlyconsideringthatyieldtrendsovertimeforrice,wheatandmaizeareplateauingordeclining(Grassini,Eskridge&Cassman2018),andthatthenegativeimpactsofclimatechangearebecomingmoreevident(Allenetal.2018).
Itisimportanttoclarifythat,intermsoftotalfactorproductivity,gainscanemergefromcombinationsofincreasesandevenreductionsinfarmoutput.Forexample,inAustraliabetween1977and2015,thetotalfactorproductivityofthebroadacreindustriesgrewbyabout1.1%annually.Thisincreasewasprimarilydrivenbyreductionsininputuse(–1%)ratherthanincreasesinoutputgrowth(+0.1%).Incomparison,intheUS,farm-leveltotalfactorproductivityhasincreasedsincethelate1940s,drivenprimarilybyincreasesintotaloutput(UnitedStatesDepartmentofAgriculture2019).Otherfigures(Sheng,Ball&Nossal2015)showthat,inrecentyears,Australia’stotalfactorproductivitygrowthratehasslowedrelativetothatofCanadaandtheUS.ThepoorerperformanceofAustralia’sagriculturesector,comparedtothatofCanadaandtheUS,hasbeenattributedtolowerlevelsofinvestmentinpublicresearchandinfrastructure(Sheng,Ball&Nossal2015).
1 Yieldgapsaredefinedasthedifferencebetweenfarmers’yieldandachievablerainfedyieldsfromtheapplicationofoptimumcombinationsofgenotypesandmanagementtositeandexpectedseasonalconditions.
SIMLESA214
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Historically,Australia’spublicinvestmentinagricultureresearchanddevelopmentcontributedtoalmosttwo-thirdsoftheaverageproductivitygrowthbetween1952and2007(Zhang,Chen&Sheng2015).Structuralchangesinthesectoralsoallowedmoreefficientfarmerstoincreaseagriculturaltotalfactorproductivity(Shengetal.2016).Bothfactorshavebeenassociatedwithincreasedefficiencyintheuseoflabour,land,capital,inputsandultimately,increasedfarmproductivity.Largerfarmshadgreatercapacitytoinvestin,andwerebettersituatedtobenefitfromemergingproductivity-enhancingtechnologieslikelargemachinery,controltrafficandautomation.
In2017,croppingindustrieswerethelargestcontributors(1.54%)tototalfactorproductivityinAustralia,followedbybeef(1.3%),mixedlivestock–croppingfarms(0.9%)andsheep(0.3%)(ABARE2019).However,totalfactorproductivitygrowthforthecroppingindustrieshasnotbeenhomogeneousacrossthethreeAustraliangrain-croppingregions(western,southernandnorthern).Differencesbetweenregionsarefoundinthegrowthofinputandoutputmarkets.Forexample,thenortherngrainsregionhadthelowestinputsgrowth(0.6%)andaslowoutputgrowth(1.9%),resultinginthelowestnettotalfactorproductivitygrowth(1.3%)ofthethreeregions.Therearemultipledifferencesbetweenregions(e.g.soils,climate,croppingsystem).Forexample,thesouthernandwesternregionshaveMediterraneanclimates,whilethenorthernregionhasmoreevenlydistributedrainfallinitssouthernandcentralregions,andapredominantlysummerrainfallenvironmentinthenorth.Climate,particularlydroughts,canmodifythevaluesoftotalfactorproductivityacrossregions,althoughclimateconditionshavebeenmoresevereinthewesternandsouthernregions(AustralianBureauofAgriculturalandResourceEconomicsandSciences2019).Thepoorperformanceofthenortherngrainsregioncouldbeprimarilyattributedtoitslowinputgrowth,particularlyfertilisers.Growthinthenorthernregionwas1.3%,comparedwith1.9%and1.4%forthesouthernandwesternregionsrespectively(GrainsResearchandDevelopmentCorporation2017).
InthenorthernregionsofAustralia,thegrainsindustryhasbeencharacterisedbysizeableyieldgaps2(Clarkeetal.2019),smallprofitmargins(Roxburgh2017)andlarge-scaleproductionsystemsthatgrowalimitednumberofcommodities.Climatevariability,poortermsoftradefortraditionalcommoditiesandhighlabourcostshavecontributedtothiscondition.Marketfactorshavealsoconstrainedlarge-scalefarmerstoproduceasmallnumberofcommodities.Thestrategyofdiversifyingcroppingsystemswouldrequirebetteraccessandmanagementofadiversityofinputandoutputmarkets,aswellasawiderrangeoftransport,storageandexportoptionsandinfrastructureforsmallervolumesofhigh-valueproduces.Acrossthenortherngrainsregion,thehighhandlingcostofexportingcontainerisedproducehaslimitedfarmers’opportunitiestodiversifycroppingactivitiesandgeneratedlow-cost,large-scale,risk-averserainfedfarmingsystems(Figure13.1).
Next,wewilldiscusstheseissuesinreferencetoAustralianagricultureand proposethat:
1. thereissignificantopportunitytosustainablyintensifyagricultureinAustralia’ssemi-aridtropicsbyreducingyieldgaps andincreasingproductionefficienciesindrylandcropping
2. thereisaneedforresearchprogramsthataremoretransformativeandgeneratenewopportunitiestodiversifyfarmingsystemsandsourcesofincomeina changingclimate.
2 Yieldgapsaredefinedasthedifferencebetweenfarmers’yieldandachievablerainfedyieldsfromtheapplicationofoptimumcombinationsofgenotypesandmanagementtositeandexpectedseasonalconditions.
215SIMLESASIMLESA
Lack of incentives and opportunity to
diversify rainfed cropping systems
Sizable yield gaps in rainfed
systems
Mediumtohighclimatevariability,highvulnerability,highrisk
aversion
Small profit margins and equity levels
Poortermsoftrade andhighcosts
Large-scale cropping of traditional
commodities
Lowpricesfor traditionalcommodities,highinputcosts,high
farmdebtlevels
Figure 13.1 Drivers of and constraints to farmer-led diversification of rainfed cropping systems in Australia’s northern grain region
Optimum crop designs to reduce yield gaps
Inprinciple,cropproductionisafunctionofacrop’sabilitytocaptureresources,chieflyradiationandwater,andtheefficiencyofthecropinconvertingtheseresourcestodrymatterandgrain(Rodriguez&Sadras2007).InAustralia’snortherngrainsregion,bothwateravailabilityandwateruseefficiency,andheatstress,arethemainconstraintstosummercropproduction.Whilewateravailabilityisdeterminedbysoiltype,management,rotationandin-croprainfall,wateruseefficiencyishighlyrelatedtocropnitrogenavailability(Sadras&Rodriguez2010).Numerousinteractionsbetweenwaterandnitrogensupplyarewellcharacterised,particularlyinrainfedsystems.Forexample,inenvironmentswherewaterlimitscropgrowth,areducedbiomassearlyintheseason,drivenbylowerthanoptimumlevelsofnitrogensupply,reducesthelikelihoodofwaterstressduringcriticalperiodsaroundfloweringlaterintheseason.Thishasbeendescribedasthetrade-offbetweenyieldpotentialandlowerbutmorestableyields(Sadras,Roget&Krause2003;Sadrasetal.2016).Heatstressatairtemperaturesabove38 °C,hasalsocausedpollensterilityaroundthecriticalfloweringstageandreducedtheyieldofsummercrops(Singhetal.2015).Managementthatstaggersthefloweringstageofcropdevelopmentandthetimeoftheseasonwithahighlikelihoodofheatstresshasprovidedimportantopportunitiesforfarmerstodrasticallyminimiseyieldreductionsintheregion.
CHAPTER 13
SIMLESA216
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Anopportunitytoreduceyieldgapsandincreaseproductivitycanbefoundfromtheadoptionofcropdesignsthatarebetteradaptedtositeandexpectedseasonalconditions.Cropherereferstocombinationsofgenotypes(G)andagronomicmanagementpractices(M)thatbestsuittheenvironment(siteandseasonalconditions,E) (Hammeretal.2014).Forexample,eventhoughthereareonlysmallvariationsbetweenhybridsintermsoftilleringpotential,maturityandstay-green(Clarkeetal.2019),variouscombinationsofhybridsandmanagementpractices,primarilyplantdensity,resultedin50%and48%yielddifferencesinsorghumandmaize,respectively,acrossenvironments,yieldingonaveragebetween0.5 t/haand11 t/ha,respectively(Figure13.2).Interestingly,theyielddifferencesobservedinFigure13.2aand13.2ctranslatedintosixfoldandfourfoldincreasesinwateruseefficiencyinbothsorghumandmaize,respectively(Figure13.2band13.2d).
Yiel
d (k
g/ha
)
Environment yield (kg/ha)
00
2,000
2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
60%
48%
12 kg/mm/ha
2 kg/mm/ha
16 kg/mm/ha
4 kg/mm/ha
Haildamage
Heat stress
(a)
Yiel
d (k
g/ha
)
Available water (0–1.2 m, mm)
00
2,000
200 400 600 800
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000(b)
(c) (d)
Yiel
d (k
g/ha
)
Environment yield (kg/ha)
00
2,000
4,000 8,000 12,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
Yiel
d (k
g/ha
)
Available water (0–1.2 m, mm)
00
2,000
200 400 600 1,000800
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
Figure 13.2 Yield of sorghum (a and b) and maize (c and d) hybrids across management combinations (i.e. plant densities, row configurations, sowing times) versus the average site yield (a and c) and total available water (b and d) for on-farm trials across the northern grains region of Australia sown during the 2014–16 seasons
217SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 13
Bothsorghumandmaizedatasetswereanalysedinthreestages:
1. exploringcropecophysiologicalrelationshipsbetweenmeasuredvariables
2. usingdata-miningtechniques
3. usinglinearmixedmodelstoidentifylevelsofsignificanceinmultienvironment(genotypeandenvironmentcombinationsandinteractions)trials.
Usingtheresultsfromon-farmtrials,simplerulesofthumbforfarmersweredevelopedusingdata-miningtechniques(Figures13.3and13.4).Forexample,thesorghumdataconsistedof488estimatedtreatmentmeans(i.e.combinationsofhybrids,rowconfigurations,densities,sitesandseasons).Themedianyieldwas5.3 t/ha,withminimumandmaximumtreatmentyieldsof1.7and12.8 t/harespectively(13.5%moisturecontent).Figure13.3ashowsthatintheabove-medianyieldingenvironments(>5.3 t/ha),thehighestyieldswereobtainedusingplantpopulationshigherthan50,000plants/haandhigh-yieldpotentialhybrids.Figure13.3bshowsthatinthebelow-medianyieldingenvironments(<5.3 t/ha),thehighestyieldswereobtainedinsolid1 mrowconfigurationsplantedat50,000–60,000plants/ha.
ThemaizeyielddatasetalsoconsistedofmultienvironmentG×Mtrialssownduringthe2014–15and2015–16seasonsacrosstheLiverpoolPlain,eastandwestofMoree,theDarlingDowns,WesternDownsandcentralQueensland.Treatmentsincludedfivefactors:site,irrigation,rowconfiguration,hybridandplantdensity.
Soilmoistureatsowing(initialsoilwater0–1.2 m, mm)wasthemostimportantvariablefordeterminingmaizeyieldundersuboptimalgrowingconditions(below-median-yieldenvironments)(Figure13.4a).Whentheinitialsoilmoistureatsowingwasmorethan184 mminthe0–1.2 mofsoilprofile,therewasonlya25%distributionofyieldsbelowtheeconomicthreshold,i.e.3.5 t/ha.Withlessthan184 mmstoredinthetop1.2 mofthesoil,thecropwashighlyreliantonin-cropseasonrainfall.Forexample,mostyieldswerebelowtheeconomicthresholdwhensoilmoistureatsowing(initialsoilwater)wasbetween150 mmand184 mm(18sites),but50%oftheyieldswerelowerthan3.5 t/ha wheninitialsoilwaterwasbelow150 mm.Inabove-median-yieldenvironments,cropconfigurationwasthemainvariabledividingthepopulationoftreatmentyields.Super-wideconfigurationhadthelowestyields.Withinthesolidcropconfigurations,thehighestyieldswereobtainedwithhighlyprolifichybrids.Amongthenon-prolifichybrids,thehighestyieldswereobtainedwiththehighestpopulations(i.e.≥4,800 plants/ha).
SIMLESA218
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Figure 13.3 Rules of thumb to identify high-yielding crop designs (genotype and environment combinations) for sorghum production in high- and low-yielding environments
Notes:Genotypeandenvironmentrulesseparatingyieldlevelsforbelow-medianandabove-median (5.3 t/ha)yieldenvironments.Thedashedredlineindicatesthebreak-evenyieldof2.5 t/ha.
(a) Above-median-yield environments (>5.3 kg/ha)
(b) Below-median-yield environments (<5.3 kg/ha)
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
n n n n
Plant density
Plant density
Plant density Plant densityTillering
ISW
Configuration
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
n n n n n n n
219SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 13
(a) Above-median-yield environments
(b) Below-median-yield environments
Configuration
Note: ISW = Initial soil water (mm)
Note: ISW = Initial soil water (mm)
Super wide
Tiller prolificity
Density
Solid
n
n n n
n
,
,,,,,,
,
,,,,,,
,
,,,,,,
,
,,,,,,
n n
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
Figure 13.4 Rules of thumb to identify high-yielding crop designs (genotype and environment combinations) for maize production in high- and low-yielding environments
Notes:Genotypeandenvironmentrulesforbelow-medianandabove-median-yieldenvironmentsthatdiscriminatehigh-andlow-yieldingtreatmentsfromamultienvironmenttrialacrossAustralia’snortherngrainsregion.Thedashedredlineindicatesa break-evenyieldof3.5 t/ha.
SIMLESA220
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Theseresultsshowthatmanagementoptions,includingplantpopulation,rowconfigurationandsowingdate,affectthepatternofwateruseoverthegrowingseasonandthefinalyield.Thefindingsdemonstratethatitispossibletoidentifythecombinationsofhybridandmanagementthatmaximiseyieldsandprofits,orminimiserisks,foragivensowingenvironment.Asshownabove,cropyieldscanbehighlyvariableunderaclimatethatproducescontrastingandchangingsowingenvironments.
ThemainchallengeinidentifyingoptimumG×Mcombinationsispredictingrelevantattributesoftheenvironmentatthetimeofsowing.Inherenttodrylandcroppingisahighlevelofseason-to-seasonandwithin-seasonclimatevariability.Australiahasalongtrackrecordofvaluabledevelopmentsinclimatesciencesandapplications(Hammeretal.2014).Seasonalclimateforecastswerecreatedandusedtoinformlikelyseasonalconditionsandpracticechange(seethefarmerdecision-supporttoolClimateKelpieathttp://www.climatekelpie.com.au).However,adoptionremainslowdueto:
• theperceivedlowvalueoftheexistingskillintheinformationofseasonalclimateforecasts
• thecomplexitiesassociatedwiththemultipleinteractionsbetweenfactorswhenmanagingbiologicalsystems(i.e.climate,soilandcropinteractions)andtheireffect ontheskillandvalueofcropyieldforecasts)
• thechallengeofunderstandingandcommunicatingprobabilisticinformation,especiallybyrisk-aversefarmmanagersandconsultants.
WeassessedourcapacitytoinformcropdesignunderSIMLESAbasedonpredictedsowingenvironments(i.e.theaccuracyofseasonalclimateforecasts).Thiswasachievedbylinkingatestedcropmodel(APSIM)withaskilfulseasonalclimateforecastingsystem.Resultsshowedthattheseasonalclimateforecastwasreliableandskilfuland,whenlinkedwithAPSIM,theanalysiscouldidentifycropdesignsthatincreasedfarmers’profits(Rodriguezetal.2018).
Thevalueinskilldependedonthebaselineusedforthecomparison.Whencurrentfarmers’practicewasusedasthebaseline,linkingAPSIMsorghumandPOAMA-2increasedaverageprofitsbyA$143/haandreducedoreveneliminateddownsiderisk(Table13.1).Whenthebaselineforthecomparisonwasthehighestyielding,statichybrid-by-managementcombination,theactualvalueoftheadditionalclimateinformationwas,onaverage,A$17/ha/year,whichisroughlyequivalenttothebenefitsderivedfromAustralia’ssorghumbreedingoverthelast30years(i.e.2.1%peryear,or44 kg/ha/year).Theseresultsindicatethat,eventhoughthevalueoftheadditionalclimateinformationmightseemsmall(ValueoptSCF),itsmagnitudecompareswellwiththatderivedfrommuchlargerandbetter-fundedbreedingprograms.Muchlargerbenefits(ValueoptS)mightberealisedwhenusingsuchinsightsindiscussionswithfarmersonbenefitsandriskfromincreasinginvestmentsindrylandcroppingtosustainablybridgeproductivityandprofitgaps.
Theseeffortshavemadeitpossibletoinformoptimumcropdesignstoincrease farmers’profitsandreducerisksusingreliableandskilfuldynamicGCMmodels,interfacedwithvalidatedcropsimulationmodels.ThereleaseofAustralianBureauofMeteorology’snewhigherresolutionandmoresophisticatedACCESS-S1seasonalclimateforecastsystemearlyduring2018islikelytofurtherincreasethevalueofclimateinformationwhenlinkedwithcropsimulationmodelslikeAPSIM.However,toachievethosegains,improvementsindownscalingtechniquesandreal-timeaccesstooutputsfromtheBureauofMeteorology’sseasonalclimateforecastswillberequired.Further, thisinformationneedstobetranslatedandmadeavailabletodecision-makersinaformthatisunderstandableandusable.
221SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 13
Table 13.1 Mean profits from farmers’ current practice and crop designs optimised based on simulation using climatology and profit gains from the optimised crop designs
Soil type (PAWC)
Profit (A$/ha)
Farmers’ current practices
Optimised Valueopts ValueoptSCF
Capella high 1,108 1,260 152 3
medium 748 824 77 3
low 544 600 56 4
Dalby high 1,127 1,337 210 13
medium 1,048 1,241 194 17
low 795 913 118 12
Goondiwindi high 866 1,092 226 16
medium 841 1,011 170 63
low 678 793 115 6
Moree high 1,025 1,226 202 23
medium 814 962 148 32
low 373 427 54 19
Notes:PAWC=Plantavailablewatercontent;Valueopts=differenceinprofitbetweensimulationsofcurrentfarmers’ hybrid-by-managementcombinationsandastatus(everyyearthesame)optimisedhybrid-by-managementcombination;ValueoptSCF=differenceinprofitbetweenValueoptsandthedynamicallyoptimisedhybrid-by-managementcombination informedbythePOAMA-2seasonalforecasts.
Increasing efficiencies of external inputs
In2015,AustraliansorghumproductionwasworthA$647 million.Inthesameyear,sorghumbecamethemosteconomicallyimportantcropinQueensland.IntheDarlingDownsregion,sorghumcroppinghasbeenthemainsummercroppingactivity,usingupto37%ofcroppedareaperyear.Understandingwhatmakesasuccessfulsorghumfarmercanhelpinformpracticechange,gapsininformationandinvestmentinresearchanddevelopmentprograms.Withtheobjectiveofimprovingourunderstandingofthedriversforhighsorghumyield,Roxburgh(2017)combinedfarmers’surveydataandcropmodellingapproachestoderiverelationshipsbetweenfarmers’levelofinvestment,farmdebtandproductivity.
ResultsinFigure13.5arefrominterviewswithfarmersreportingon74sorghumfieldssownbetween2010–11and2013–14intheDarlingDowns(Queensland,Australia).Tenfarmsprovidedsufficientdataondebtlevelstobeincludedintheanalysis,withfivefarmersineachdebtgroup.
Thedatasetincludedsurveysfrom13farmsanddatafrom75sorghumfieldsgrownbetween2010and2013acrosstheDarlingDowns.Resultsshowedsubstantialdifferencesinyield(3,882–7,112 kg/ha),wateruseefficiency(8–15 kg/mm/ha);nitrogenuseefficiency(35–78 kg grain/kg N)andgrossmargin(397–930A$/ha)betweenfarmers’fields.Logisticregressionanalysisindicatedthatthebest-performingfieldsweresownbeforeearlyOctoberandhadhigherapplicationratesofnitrogenfertilisers(atleast80 kg N/ha).
SIMLESA222
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
However,farmersappearedlesswillingtoinvestininputs(i.e.nitrogenfertilisers)andhadlowervariablecostswhenthefarmhadhigherlevelsofdebtperunitoffarmarea(Figure13.5).TheinterviewsfoundthatfarmbusinesseswithdebtsofmorethanA$1,831/haachievedlowersorghumyields(leftbranchinFigure13.6a)andhadlowersorghumgrossmargins(leftbranchinFigure13.6b).FromtheresultsshowninFigures13.5and13.6,Roxburgh(2017)concludedthatfarmers’decisionstoinvestincropinputsweredirectlyimpactedbytheirlevelofindebtednessperhectare.Farmdebtreducedtheadoptionofyield-increasingtechnologies.Highlevelsoffarmdebtledtounder-investmentinnitrogenfertilisers,lowergrainyieldsandlowergrossmarginscomparedtofarmswithlessdebt.
Toquantifydownsiderisk(i.e.theproportionofyearsinwhichsorghumyieldswerebelowaminimumprofitableyieldof1.5 t/ha)ofnitrogenfertilisationmanagementdecisions,anAPSIMsimulationandanalysisusinglong-termclimaterecordswasconducted(Figure13.7).Alargediversityinsorghumyield,wateruseefficiencyandnitrogenuseefficiencywasfoundamongsorghumfarmers’fieldsintheDarlingDowns.Thesedifferenceswerelargelyassociatedwithdeficientagronomicmanagementpractices(i.e.sowingdate,soilfertilitydifferencesandlevelsofnitrogenfertilisation).Downsideriskwasunchangedataround20%,withmorethantwofoldincreasesinthelevelofnitrogenfertilisationacrossarangeofsowingtimes,whilethelikelihoodofabove-medianandupper-tercilegrainyieldsincreasedsignificantly.Raisingawarenesssurroundingtheincentivesidentifiedinthisriskassessmentmightchallengefarmers’currentunderstandingofriskexposureandencourageinvestmentinapplyingCASIpracticeinsorghumcropping.Resultsalsoemphasisetheopportunitytoincreasesorghumyieldsandprofits,andclearlyshowtheneedformoreintegrativefarm-levelstudiestoinformtherelationshipbetweenfarmdebtlevelsandoptimumcropmanagement.
Num
ber
of fi
elds
(a)
<80 kgN/ha
80-120 kgN/ha
Nitrogen input applied
>120 kgN/ha
0
10
15
20
5
25
30
35
Low debt/ha High debt/ha All fields
Num
ber
of fi
elds
(b)
<300$/ha
<300-360$/ha
Total variable costs
>360$/ha
0
10
15
5
25
20
30
35
Figure 13.5 (a) Use of nitrogen fertilisers and (b) total variable costs for farms with above- and below-mean debt.
223SIMLESASIMLESA
Debt effect on yield
Debt≥A$1831/ha
Yes No
Low.80 .20
40%
High.29 .71
60%
Debt effect on gross margin
Debt≥A$1831/ha
Yes No
Low.92 .08
38%
High.23 .77
62%
CHAPTER 13
Figure 13.6 Classification tree for the effects of farm debt on (a) sorghum yields and (b) gross margins
Figure 13.7 Likelihood of achieving (a) yields lower than 1.5 t/ha, (b) above-median yields and (c) yields in the upper tercile
Dow
nsid
e ri
sk
(a)
15 Sep 22 Sep 29 Sep 6 Oct 13 Oct 20 Oct0
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.05
60 kg N/ha 100 kg N/ha 140 kg N/ha
0.10
Prob
abili
ty o
f ab
ove–
med
ium
yie
ld
(b)
15 Sep 22 Sep 29 Sep 6 Oct 13 Oct 20 Oct0
0.40
0.60
0.80
0.20
Prob
abili
ty y
ield
in
uppe
r–te
rcile
(c)
15 Sep 22 Sep 29 Sep 6 Oct 13 Oct 20 Oct0
0.40
0.60
0.80
0.20
SIMLESA224
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
New opportunities from a changing climate
InbothAfricaandAustralia,climatechangeisleadingtoshiftsincroppingpatterns.Waterstressandextremeheatduringfloweringtimeshavebeencommonabioticstressesthatlimityieldinsummercroppingacrossthenortherngrainsregion.Avoidingtheoverlapofsensitivecropstagesaroundfloweringwithperiodshavingahighlikelihoodofheatandwaterstresscanhelpfarmersreducelosses.Earlysowingcanalsoincreasethelikelihoodofdoublecroppingawintercropafterashortsummerfallow.Previousresearchidentifiedthatmaizeandsorghumcropsshowsignificantcoldtoleranceandhigh-yieldpotentialwhensowninwinter.Eighteenon-farmandon-stationG×MtrialsweresowninalatitudinaltransectbetweenBreezaintheLiverpoolPlains(NewSouthWales)andEmerald(centralQueensland)todetermineifsowingsummercropsinwinterisafeasiblemeansofadaptingthecroppingsystemtoahotterandmorevariableclimate.
Initialresultsontheemergenceofsorghumplantedatsoiltemperaturesrangingbetween10°Cand27°Catsowingdepthshowedthatcolder(<15 °C)andhottersoils(>22 °C)tendedtoreducecropemergencebetweennil(noreduction)and20%acrossalargerangeofhybrids.Reductionsincropemergencecanbeeasilycompensatedforbyincreasingsowingrates,whilethelargestbenefitsarosewithdoublecroppingahigh-valuewintercrop(e.g.chickpea)thefollowingwinter.Eventhoughtheresultsareencouraging,questionsremainrelatedtothe:
• impactofcoldsoilsoncropemergenceandestablishment
• predictivecapacityofAPSIMtosimulatethepractice
• likelihoodandimpactofearlyfrosts
• effectsonwateruseandwateruseefficiency
• implicationsforoptimalcroppingsystems.
225SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 13
Conclusions
Theresultspresentedhereshowthatthereissignificantvalueinlinkingcropsimulationmodellingandseasonalclimateforecastingtoolstoinformoptimumcropdesigns.However,increasedeffortsshouldbeinvestedinsimplifyingandcommunicatingcomplicatedprobabilisticriskmanagementinformationtomakeiteasierforfarmerstouse.Itcouldalsobeinferredthatproductivityandfarmprofitswouldincreaseiftheinformationincreasedfarmers’confidenceindecisionstoinvestinmore-productivetechnologies(e.g.higherratesofnitrogenfertilisation).Ongoingclimatevariabilityandchangewillincreasinglychallengefarmersandresearchers;however,itisalsobecomingclearthatopportunitiesforsignificantchangesinourcroppingsystemscanbefound.Eventhoughmoreinformationisrequired,sowingsummercropsinwinterappearstobepossibleandprofitable,andbreedingcompanieshaveshowninterestandarestartingtodevelophybridswithenhancedcoldtolerance.
Thecommondenominatorintheworkpresentedinthischapterhasbeentheapplicationofasystemsresearchapproachtoconservationagriculture-basedsustainableintensificationofsorghumcroppingsystemsinAustraliabymultidisciplinaryteamsofagronomists,cropphysiologists,climatologistsandsocioeconomicscientists,inpartnershipwithparticipatingfarmersandagribusinesses.
Itisclearthatfuturegainsintheproductivity,economic,environmental,socialandhumandimensionsoffarmingsystemsinAustraliaandAfricaneedtobepursuedthroughimprovementsinagronomy,breedingandthefarmingsystem,andtheirinteractions.This isonlyfeasiblethroughthedevelopmentofmoretransdisciplinaryresearchprograms.
InthecaseofbothAfricaandAustralia,thiswillrequirethedevelopmentofacoordinatedseriesofresearchactivitiesthataddressthechallengestointensifycrop–livestock householdsalongtheearlystagesoftheadoptionandimpactpathways.Research activitiesshouldinclude:
• ex-anteparticipatoryidentificationandquantificationofbenefitsandtrade-offs,totargetandprioritiseinterventions
• on-farmsystemsresearchtotestthetransformationalpotentialofadoptingsingleandmultipletechnologiesincrop–livestocksystemsincollaborationwithcasestudyfarmers
• developmentandtestingoftoolsforfarmers,suchasclimateinformationapplicationsandservices
• capacitybuildingonthedesignofintegratedfarmingsystems,cropsystemsmodelling,theuseofclimateapplicationstoinforminvestmentdecisionsonfarmandalongvaluechains,andengagementwithpolicy.
SIMLESA226
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
ReferencesAllen,MR,Dube,OP,Solecki,W,Aragón-Durand,F,Cramer,W,Humphreys,S,Kainuma,M,Kala,J,Mahowald,
N,Mulugetta,Y,Perez,R,Wairiu,M&Zickfeld,K2018,‘Framingandcontext’,inMasson-Delmotte,V,Zhai,P,Pörtner,H-O,Roberts,D,Skea,J,Shukla,PR,Pirani,A,Moufouma-Okia,W,Péan,C,Pidcock,R,Connors,S,Matthews,JBR,Chen,Y,Zhou,X,Gomis,MI,Lonnoy,E,Maycock,T,Tignor,M&Waterfield,T(eds),Global Warming of 1.5°C: An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty,IPCC.
AustralianBureauofAgriculturalandResourceEconomicsandSciences2019,https://www.agriculture.gov.au/abares.
Clarke,SJ,McLean,J,George-Jaeggli,B,deVoil,P,Eyre,J&Rodriguez,D2019,‘Understandingthediversityinyieldpotentialandstabilityamongcommercialsorghumhybridstoinformcropdesigns’,Field Crops Research,vol.230,pp.84–97.
GrainsResearchandDevelopmentCorporation2017,Farm business fact sheet: family and business,https://grdc.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0027/248166/GRDC_ORM_FS_Farm-expansion-decisions_LR.pdf.
Grassini,P,Eskridge,KM&Cassman,KG2018,‘Distinguishingbetweenyieldadvancesandyieldplateausinhistoricalcropproductiontrends’,Nature Communications,vol.4,pp.1–11,doi: 10.1038/ncomms3918.
Hammer,GL,McLean,G,Chapman,SC,Zheng,B,Doherty,A,Harrison,MT,vanOosterom,E&Jordan,D2014,‘Cropdesignforspecificadaptationinvariabledrylandproductionenvironments’,Crop & Pasture Science,vol.65,pp.614–624,doi: 10.1071/CP14088.
Rodriguez,D&Sadras,VO2007,‘Thelimittowheatwater-useefficiencyineasternAustralia.I.Gradientsintheradiationenvironmentandatmosphericdemand’,Australian Journal of Agricultural Research,vol.58,pp.287–302,doi: 10.1071/AR06135.
Rodriguez,D,deVoil,P,Hudson,D,Brown,JN,Hayman,P,Marrou,H&Meinke,H2018,‘Predictingoptimumcropdesignsusingcropmodelsandseasonalclimateforecasts’,Scientific Reports,vol.8,pp.1–13,doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-20628-2.
Roxburgh,C2017,Nutrient management under conservation agriculture systems: a comparative analysis of Queensland and Mozambique,PhDthesis,UniversityofQueensland.
Sadras,VO,Roget,D,Krause,M2003,‘Dynamiccroppingstrategiesforriskmanagementindry-landfarmingsystems’,Agricultural Systems,vol.76,no.3,pp.929–948.
Sadras,VO&Rodriguez,D2010,‘Modellingthenitrogen-driventrade-offbetweennitrogenutilisationefficiencyandwateruseefficiencyofwheatineasternAustralia’,Field Crops Research,vol.118,pp.297–305,doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2010.06.010.
Sadras,VO,HaymanPT,Rodriguez,D,Monjardino,M,Bielich,M,Unkovich,M,Mudge,M&Wang,E2016,‘InteractionsbetweenwaterandnitrogeninAustraliancroppingsystems:physiological,agronomic,economic,breedingandmodellingperspectives’,Crop and Pasture Science,vol.67,pp.1019–1053.
Sheng,Y,Ball,E&Nossal,K2015,‘ComparingagriculturaltotalfactorproductivitybetweenAustralia,Canada,andtheUnitedStates,1961–2006’,International Productivity Monitor,vol.29,pp.38–59.
Sheng,Y,Jackson,T,Zhao,S&Zhang,D2016,‘Measuringoutput,inputandtotalfactorproductivityinAustralianagriculture:anindustry-levelanalysis’,Review of Income and Wealth,vol.63,S169–S193,doi: 10.1111/roiw.12250.
Singh,V,Nguyen,CT,vanOosterom,EJ,Chapman,SC,Jordan,DR&Hammer,GL2015,‘Sorghumgenotypesdifferinhightemperatureresponsesforseedset’,Field Crops Research,vol.171,pp.32–40,doi: 10.1016/ j.fcr.2014.11.003.
UnitedStatesDepartmentofAgriculture2019,Agricultural productivity in the U.S.,viewed12June2020, https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/agricultural-productivity-in-the-us.aspx.
Zhang,D,Chen,C&Sheng,Y2015,‘PublicinvestmentinagriculturalR&Dandextension’, China Agricultural Economic Review,vol.7,pp.86–101,doi: 10.1108/CAER-05-2014-0052.
227SIMLESA
14 Achievements and prospects of CASI practices among smallholder maize–legume farmers in EthiopiaBedru Beshir, Tadesse Birhanu Atomsa, Dagne Wegary, Mulugetta Mekuria, Feyera Merga Liben, Walter Mupangwa, Adam Bekele, Moti Jaleta & Legesse Hidoto
Key points
• Conservationagriculture-basedsustainableintensification(CASI)practicesconsiderablyimprovedsoilpropertiesinmaize–legumefarmingsystems,resultinginincreasedcropproductivity,reduceddownsideriskandincreasedfarmers’incomesacrossdiverseagroecologicalzonesinEthiopia.
• Cropresidueretention,oneofthecomponentsofCASI,greatlyreducedsoillossbyerosionandincreasedrainwateruseefficiencyinmoisture-stressedareas.
• Partnershipsbetweenpublicandprivateactorsenhancedvarietyselection,production,disseminationandutilisationofmaize–legumeseedsforfood andfeed.
• CASIincludesmanydifferentpracticesthatcanbeappliedsimultaneouslyforincreasedbenefits.Disseminationneedstheapplicationofvariousextensionmethods,fromindividualmentoringtomassmediamessaging.CASIpromotioncanalsobeenhancedbyintroducingincentivesforfarmerssuchassubsidisedseedorfertilisersandsuitablefarmimplements.
• Cropresidueretentionismoredifficulttomaintainwithfreegrazinglivestockanditrequirespolicyinterventionatdifferentlevels,fromcommunitytonationalgovernment.
• Follow-upresearchprioritiesincludecrop–livestockintegrationforclimate-smartagricultureandriskandresiliencewithCASIpractices.
SIMLESA228
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Background
MaizeandlegumesareimportantsourcesoffoodandincomeforsmallholderfarmersinEthiopia.Conventionalfarmers’practice,consistingofrepeatedtillagewithoutcropresidueretentionandmonoculture,hasresultedinsoildegradation.Fieldsurveys,varietyselection,on-stationandon-farmexperimentshavebeenconductedacrossmajorcereal–legumefarmingsystemsofEthiopiasince2010.Theexperimentsweretoevaluatetheperformanceofconservationagriculture-basedsustainableintensification(CASI)againstconventionalpractice,andtoselectcompatiblelegumevarietiesfortheCASIsystems.Varietyselectionwasconductedthroughfarmers’participatorytechniquesindifferentagroecologicalregionsofEthiopia.CASIpracticesincludedmaize–legumeintercropping;notillage,noburning,previousyearresidueretention(mulch);recommendedmaizefertiliserrate(usingcompoundnitrogen,phosphorusandsulfurfertilisersatplantingandurea)appliedtothemaize;andlegumesseededatthemiddleoftwomaizerowssimultaneouslywithmaize.Conventionalpracticesincludedfrequenttillage(onaverage,fourtofive),solecroppingandnoresidueretainedonthefarm,andmaizeaftermaizerotations.ResultsshowedthatCASIconservedmoresoilmoistureinmultiplecroppingandrotationsystemscomparedwithmonoculturepractice.SoillossandsedimentconcentrationweresignificantlyreducedandrainwateruseefficiencywashigherinCASIcomparedwithconventionalpractice.CASIpracticesimprovedsoilbulkdensity,organiccarbon,infiltrationrateandpenetrationresistance,andcropproductivity.HighercropyieldsunderCASIsystemswereachieved,particularlyinyearswithlowrainfall,indicatingtheresilienceofthepracticesduringstressseasons.Significantcropyieldimprovements,higherfinancialbenefitsandreducedrisksofcropfailurewereestablishedunderCASIsystems.Seedproductionofimprovedmaizeandlegumevarietieswasconsiderablyenhancedinmajormaize-andlegume-producingareasofEthiopiabyinvolvingpublicandprivateseedenterprises.Inthisregard,farmers’participatoryvarietyselectiontechniquesandvarietyselectioncriteriawereinstrumentalinmaizeandlegumevarietydisseminationanduptake.On-farmdemonstrationsandscalingoutofCASIpracticesplayedapivotalroleinawarenesscreation,technologydisseminationandadoption.Fielddays,exchangevisitsandagriculturalinnovationplatformswereestablishedandutilisedforraisingawarenessofCASIpractices.Themostcommonpracticestobeadoptedwereintercroppingfollowedbyrotation,reducedtillage,residueretentionandherbicideuse.Theinvolvementofmultistakeholdersinthescaling-outactivitiesandpilotingofCASItechnologiesacrossmajormaize–legume-producingareaswillbeinstrumentalinthedisseminationofCASItechnologiesinthefuture.Unavailabilityofherbicides,shortageofimprovedseedsandlivestockfeed,andfreegrazingarechallengestotheadoptionofCASIpracticesinEthiopia.
CASIistheissueofthedayforEthiopiancropproduction.Accordingly,conservationagriculture-basedsustainableintensificationconstitutescroppingprinciplesaimedatsustaininghighcropyieldswithminimumnegativeconsequencesontheenvironment.Inthisrespect,maizeandlegumefarminghasacriticalpositioninEthiopia(FoodandAgricultureOrganization2014).MaizeandmajorgrainlegumesarethemainsourceofincomeforEthiopianfarmers.Theindigenouscerealteff,wheat,sorghumandbarleyarealsostaplecropsgrowninthediverseagroecologiesofEthiopia.Maizeisastrategiccropforfoodsecurity,whilelegumesprovidevitaldietaryproteinandgenerateincome.InEthiopia,especiallyinthesitesselectedunderSIMLESA,maizeandlegumescoexistandareplantedinintercropping,croprotation,relayanddoublecroppingsystems.Whilemaizeisamajorcrop,legumesareusedasfertility-replenishingcropsinmaize–legumefarmingsystems.
229SIMLESASIMLESA
Importance of maize and legumes and their production challenges in EthiopiaTheproductionofmaizeandlegumesisgrowingrapidlyinareaandvolumeofharvest,expandingintonewfrontiersinmanypartsofEthiopiawherethesecropshavenottraditionallybeengrown(e.g.north-west,CentralRiftValley,easternandsouthernregions).MaizeisproducedinmajoragroecologiesofEthiopiaandistakingoverindigenouscrops,suchassorghum(Figure14.1).
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
Somali
Oromiya
AfarAmhara
SNNP
Tigray
Gambella
BSG
Dire Dawa
HarariAddis Abeba
Asosa
Mekele
Adama
Hawassa
JiJiga
Gambela
AsayitaBahir Dar
45°0'0"E
45°0'0"E
36°0'0"E
36°0'0"E
11°1
5'0"
N
11°1
5'0"
N
4°30
'0"N
4°30
'0"N¹
LegendMaize production (in qtl)
<3,000,0003,000,001 - 8,000,0008,000,001 - 20,000,000>20,000,000Regional boundaryLakesRoads
!. Towns
Political boundaries should not be considred as authoritative
Prepared by: Demeke Nigussie
2015
0 180 36090 KMs
Maize long-term average production (in qtl) by zone
Production (in qtl)
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
Somali
Oromiya
AfarAmhara
SNNP
Tigray
Gambella
BSG
Dire Dawa
HarariAddis Abeba
Asosa
Mekele
Adama
Hawassa
JiJiga
Gambela
AsayitaBahir Dar
45°0'0"E
45°0'0"E
36°0'0"E
36°0'0"E
11°1
5'0"
N
11°1
5'0"
N
4°30
'0"N
4°30
'0"N¹
LegendAverage area (ha)under Maize
<150000150001 - 350000350001 - 700000>700000Regional boundaryLakes
!. TownsRoads
Political boundaries should not be considred as authoritative
Prepared by: Demeke Nigussie
2018
0 220 440110 KMs
Long-term average area (ha) under maize by zone
Production (in qtl)
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
Somali
Oromiya
AfarAmhara
SNNP
Tigray
Gambella
BSG
Dire Dawa
HarariAddis Abeba
Asosa
Mekele
Adama
Hawassa
JiJiga
Gambela
AsayitaBahir Dar
45°0'0"E
45°0'0"E
36°0'0"E
36°0'0"E
11°1
5'0"
N
11°1
5'0"
N
4°30
'0"N
4°30
'0"N¹
Legend Production (in qtl)
-99 - 01 - 20002001 - 1200012001 - 147000147001 - 310730
!. TownsRoadsRegional boundaryLakes
Political boundaries should not be considred as authoritative
Prepared by: Demeke Nigussie
2016
0 220 440110 KMs
Long-term average production (in qtl) map of Haricotbean by zone
Source: Agricultural sample surveydata from 1999-20014/15
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
Somali
Oromiya
AfarAmhara
SNNP
Tigray
Gambella
BSG
Dire Dawa
HarariAddis Abeba
Asosa
Mekele
Adama
Hawassa
JiJiga
Gambela
AsayitaBahir Dar
45°0'0"E
45°0'0"E
36°0'0"E
36°0'0"E
11°1
5'0"
N
11°1
5'0"
N
4°30
'0"N
4°30
'0"N¹
LegendArea (ha) underharicotbean
No production or data<15001500.01 - 4500.004500.01 - 10000.00>10000
!. TownsRoadsRegional boundaryLakes
Political boundaries should not be considred as authoritative
Prepared by: Demeke Nigussie
2016
0 220 440110 KMs
Long-term average area (in ha) Haricotbean by zone
Source: Agricultural sample surveydata from 1999-20014/15
Figure 14.1 Long-term average maize production in Ethiopia by (a) weight and (b) area; long-term average common bean production in Ethiopia by (c) weight and (d) area
Note:Quintal(qt)=100 kg
CHAPTER 14
(a)
(c)
(b)
(d)
SIMLESA230
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Between1995and2016,maizeproductionareasincreasedfrom1.5 Mhato2.1 Mhaandproductionjumpedfrom2.0 Mtto7.8 Mt(CentralStatisticalAgency2017).Maize(Zea maysL.)iscurrentlybeingproducedby10,863 millionfarmersinEthiopia(CentralStatisticalAgency2017).Thelegumespeciescommonlygrowninmaize-basedfarmingsystemsarecommonbean(Phaseolus vulgarisL.)andsoybean(Glycine maxL.).AccordingtotheCentralStatisticAgency(2017),commonbean(bothred-andwhite-seeded)isproducedbynearly4.0 millionhouseholdson290,202 haofland,withanannualproductionof480,000 tgrownoverwideragroecologiesinEthiopia.Soybeanisproducedby130,022householdson36,636 hawithtotalproductionof812,347 kg(CentralStatisticalAgency2017).Inaddition,mungbean(Vigna radiata)andlupin(Lupinus albus)occupylandareasof37,774 haand19,908 ha,respectively.Amongthelegumecrops,commonbeansareimportantasasourceofexportearningsinEthiopia.Forinstance,annualexportfromcommonbeanwasaboutUS$132 million,andthepricepertonnegrewatahighaveragerate(7.09%peryear)between2006and2015(Figure14.2).Legumesarealsoimportantforimprovingsoilfertility,astheyfixnitrogen.
Exp
ort
volu
me
(t)
Expo
rt v
alue
(US$
’000
)02005 2006
Volume Value Unit price (US$/t)
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
344
483
592610
559 569
644 668
781
683
0
100
200
300
800
700
600
500
400
900
Figure 14.2 Ethiopian common bean export volume, value and price per tonne, 2006–15
InEthiopia,amajorcountrywidedroughtoccursevery10years,whiletherateisasfrequentaseverythreeyearsindrought-proneareassuchastheCentralRiftValley(Beshir&Nishikawa2017).Monocropping,frequenttillage(fourtofivetimesbeforeplanting),andcropresidueremovalorburningareverycommonpracticesinmaize-basedfarmingsystemsofEthiopia.Furthermore,1.5 billiontonnesofsoilistakenawayannuallybyerosion,ofwhich45%isfromarableland(Bewket&Teferi2009;Gelagay&Minale2016).TherateofsoilerosioninEthiopia(20–93 t/ha/year)isfourtimeshigherthanthatforAfricaasawholeand5.5timeshigherthantheworldaverage.SoilerosionfromcroplandscostsEthiopiaabout1.5 Mtofannualgrainproduction(Hurnietal.2015).Lemenihetal.(2005)documentedacontinualdeclineinsoilqualitywithincreasedfrequencyoftillageinEthiopia,provingthattheexistingfarmlandmanagementisnotsustainable.
231SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 14
Thesamestudyfurtherrevealedlossesof50.4%soilcarbonand59.2%totalsoil nitrogenover53yearsofcontinualcropping,comparedtothenaturalforest.Haileslassieetal.(2005)documentedadepletionrateof122 kg N/ha/year,13 kg P/ha/yearand82 kg K/ha/yearinEthiopia.ThesameworkshowedthatsoilnutrientstocksacrossregionalstatesinEthiopiawerediminishing,exceptinareasundervegetation.Arecentstudyinnorth-westernEthiopiashowedintolerableratesofsoilerosionreaching42 t/ha/year.Thehighestlosswasrecordedfromcultivatedlandsonsteepslopes (Molla&Sisheber2017)
Anotherimportantpressureonfarmlandistherapidlygrowinghumanpopulation.TheEthiopianpopulationisgrowingatanalarmingrate(2.9%peryear).Thetotalpopulationiscurrently105.35 millionandtheyoungpopulation(under24yearsofage)constitutes63.6%.Themajorityofthepopulation(79.6%)areruralresidents(WorldFactbook2017),whoselivelihoodsareprimarilybasedonagriculture.Productionandproductivityofcrops,includingmaizeandlegumes,aregrowingduetotechnologicalchanges(e.g.newcropvarieties,chemicalinputsandimprovedagronomicpractices).Climatechangeandvariabilityhavebeenposingchallengesforsoilproductivityandcropproduction.
AlthoughmaizeandlegumearemajorstaplecropsinEthiopia,theyfacemultipleproductionconstraints.Themajormaizeproductionchallengesarecausedbycontinualmonocroppingandresidueremoval(Wakeneetal.2011).Largeareasofhighlands(>1,500 mabovesealevel)areaffectedbysoilacidity.Accordingly,about43%oftheEthiopianarablelandwasaffectedbysoilacidity(Ethiosis2014).Mesfin(2007)reportedthatmoderatelyacidicsoils(pH <5.5)influencedcropgrowthconsiderablyandrequiredintervention.ThemainfactorsgivingrisetoincreasedsoilacidityinEthiopiaincludeclimaticfactorssuchasahighamountofprecipitation(thatexceedsevapotranspiration,whichleachesappreciableamountsofexchangeablebasesfromthesurfacesoil),temperature,severesoilerosionandrepeatedtillagepractices,wherethesoilisintensivelycultivatedandovergrazed.
Maizeismainlycultivatedbysmallholderfarmerswhodependonanimaltractionpowerunderrainfedconditions.ConventionaltillageformaizeproductioninEthiopiainvolvesploughingthreetofourtimesuntilafineseedbedisobtainedandkeptfortwotothreemonthspriortoplanting(Debele&Bogale2011).Thispracticecoincideswithhighandintenserainfall,leadingtohighsoilerosionandresultinginincreasedsoilacidityandlowsoilfertility.Soilandwatererosionandacidityarethemainproblemstodayinwesternpartsofthecountry.ThelargestareasofthewesternOromiahighlandsaredominatedbynitisolswithhighacidity(Mesfin1998;Temesgenetal.2011).Repeatedapplicationofacidicinorganicfertilisercouldalsoenhancesoilacidity,particularlyinconventionalsystems.Thenitrificationismoreenhancedinmuch-disturbedsoilthanthatwithminimumtilling.Nitrateleachingmightbeaggravated,whichincreasestheconcentrationofH+inthesoilsolution.Pastresearchindicatesthattheuseofdifferentagronomicmanagementpracticeslikecropdiversificationandintensificationusingrotationandintercropping,reducedfrequencyoftillageandresidueretentioncangreatlyimprovesoilacidityandincreasesoilfertilityandproductivity.Croprotationandintercroppingpracticeswithconservationagriculturehaveimprovedandconsiderablyenhancedsoilfertility(Abebeetal.2014).
SIMLESA232
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
TheissuesoffoodsecurityinagrarianEthiopiacallsforsustainedfoodproductionbyimprovingandmaintainingsoilfertilityandenhancingitsmoistureconservationcapacity.Sustainablecropproductionsystemsneedtobedevelopedtoaddressthechallengesofdepletingsoilfertility,climatevariabilityandgrowingpopulationpressureinEthiopia.TheSIMLESAprogram,fundedbyACIAR,wasdevelopedandimplementedinfiveAfricancountries(Ethiopia,Kenya,Malawi,MozambiqueandTanzania).SIMLESAactivitieswerebasedontheprinciplesofCASI.SinceCASIpracticesmayvaryacrossareasbasedonsoiltypes,moistureandslope,experimentswereestablishedacrossmajoragroecologiesanddatawereobtainedandanalysed.CASIincludedsimultaneousapplicationofminimalsoildisturbance,permanentsoilcoverusingcropresiduesorlivingplants,andcroprotations/associations(FAO2014).
SIMLESA program objectives in EthiopiaTheSIMLESAprogramhadthefollowingmajorobjectivesforEthiopia.MostobjectiveswerecommonacrosstheSIMLESAcountries;however,forageproductionandabroadersetofagroecologieswereconsideredinEthiopia:
1. characterisingmaize–legume(fodder/forage)systemsandvaluechainsandidentifyingbroadsystemicconstraintsandoptionsforfieldtesting
2. testinganddevelopingproductive,resilientandsustainablesmallholdermaize–legumecroppingsystemsandinnovationsystemsforlocalscalingout
3. increasingtherangeofmaize,grainlegumeandfodder/foragevarietiesandtheirseedsforsmallholdersthroughacceleratedbreeding,regionaltestingandrelease
4. supportingthedevelopmentoflocalandregionalinnovationsystemsandscalingoutmodalitiesandgenderequityinitiatives.
Thefollowingagroecologieswereselectedandresearchteamswereestablishedtomeettheseobjectives.
Agroecologies SIMLESAresearchactivitieswereconductedinthedrought-proneareasofCentralRiftValleyandsouthernregion,subhumid,high-potentialmaize-growingareasofwesternandnorth-westernEthiopia,andsemi-aridareasoftheSomaliregion.Theresearchactivitieswereconductedbydifferentagriculturalresearchcentreslocatedacrossdiverseagroecologies(Table14.1):
• theCentralRiftValleywasmanagedbyMelkassaAgriculturalResearchCenter(MARC)
• thesouthernregionwasjointlymanagedbyHawassaMaizeResearchSubcenteroftheEthiopianInstituteofAgriculturalResearch(EIAR)andHawassaResearchCenterofSouthernAgriculturalResearchInstitute(Hawassa-SARI)
• westernEthiopiawasmanagedbyBakoAgriculturalResearchCenter(BARC)andPaweAgriculturalResearchCenter(PARC)
• north-westernEthiopiawasmanagedbyAdetandAndessaAgriculturalResearchCentersoftheAmharaRegionalStateAgriculturalResearchInstitute(ARARI)
• thesemi-aridareasofeasternEthiopiaactivitiesweremanagedbySomaliRegionPastoralandAgro-pastoralResearchInstitute(SoRPARI).
Thelong-termon-stationtrialsincludedsolecroppingofmaizeandlegumes,maize–legumeintercroppingandmaize–legumerotation.
233SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 14
Table 14.1 Research centres implementing CASI practices under the SIMLESA program in Ethiopia, 2010–17
Description MARC BARC PARC EIAR ARARI SoRPARI Hawassa-SARI
Altitude(metresabovesealevel)
1,500 16,50 1,120 1,694 2,240 1,761 1,689
Latitude(North) 8°24’ 9°6’ 11°5’ 7°03’ 11°17’ 24°27’ 07°03’
Longitude(East) 39°19’ 37°09’ 36°05’ 38°28’ 37°43’ 10°35’ 38°30’
Annualrainfall(mm)
763 1,244 1,586 955 1,771 545 1,001
Averagemaximumtemperature(°C)
28.4 27.9 32.6 27.6 25.5 28.2 27.3
Averageminimumtemperature(°C)
14 14.1 16.5 13.5 9 12.6 12.6
Averagetemperature(°C)
22 20.6 20.0 17.5 19.95
Soiltype andosol ulfisols nitisols sandyloam
clay vitricandosols
SoilpH 7.1–7.4 4.99 7.0 5.4–6.3 6.4–6.9
Agroecology moisturestress
subhumid hothumid
tepidtocoolhumid
mid-altitude
semi-arid
mid-altitude
Note:CASI=conservationagriculture-basedsustainableintensification
Research teams SIMLESAEthiopiawasimplementedbymultidisciplinaryteamsfromthedifferentagriculturalresearchcentres.Teamsincludedagriculturaleconomists,agronomists,breeders,entomologists,pathologists,weedscientists,agriculturalextensionandgenderspecialists.AgriculturaleconomistswereinvolvedintheidentificationofproductionconstraintstobeaddressedthroughCASIoptionsformaize–legumeproductionsystems.ValuechainandadoptionmonitoringsurveyswerecategorisedunderObjective1.Thisteamwasassistedbyagronomistsandbreederswhovalidatedtheresultsoffieldsurveys.Objective2wasledbyagronomists,whohadacriticalroleintestingCASIpracticesacrossdifferentagroecologies.Theagronomistsestablishedlong-term(since2010)on-stationandon-farmtrialsacrossdiverseagroecologiesinEthiopia.ThedataobtainedfromtheexperimentsweresharedwiththeteamofcountryprogramcoordinatorsandscientistsfromtheInternationalMaizeandWheatImprovementCenter(CIMMYT),whowereprovidingtechnicalsupporttoObjective2.
SIMLESA234
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Thethirdobjectivewasspearheadedbymaizeandlegumebreederswhowereassistedbysocioeconomistsandextensionpersonnelworkingwithfarmersinselectingimprovedmaizeandlegumevarieties.Themajortaskwastheidentificationoffarmer-preferredvarietiesusingparticipatoryvarietyselection(PVS).Bothfarmercriteriaandscientifictechniqueswereadoptedtoidentifyvarietiessuitablefortargetenvironments.Forexample,genotype-by-environmentinteractionanalysiswasusedtoidentifymaizevarietiesforadaptationtowideragroecologicalconditions.Similarly,grainandforagelegumevarietiesthatweresuitableforintercroppingwithmaizewereidentifiedandrecommendedforproductionundermaize–legumecroppingsystems.Likewise,on-farmdemonstrationsandmultistakeholderplatformswereestablishedtoaidfasterdisseminationofinformationandtechnologies.Accordingly,selectedmaizeandlegumevarietiesandCASIpracticesacrossvariousagroecologieswerepromotedwiththesupportofagriculturalextensionistsandgenderspecialistsundertheumbrellaofObjective4oftheSIMLESAprogram.Resultsoftheseresearchactivitiesarehighlightedinthefollowingsections.
BasedonresearchresultsunderObjectives1–3,demonstrationsandscalingoutactivitieswereestablishedin29districtslocatedin12administrativezonesacrossmajormaize-andlegume-growingagroecologiesofEthiopia.Thezonesrepresented31%ofhouseholdsinvolvedincerealand30%inpulsecropsproduction,and44%maizeand27%andcommonbeanproductionhectarageinEthiopia(Table14.2).Theremainingsectionspresentthefindings,followedbyconclusionsandimplicationsoftheworkdoneoversevenyears.
235SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 14
Tabl
e 14
.2
Num
ber
of h
ouse
hold
s, p
rodu
ctio
n ar
eas
of c
erea
ls, p
ulse
s an
d co
mm
on b
ean
in S
IMLE
SA p
rogr
am a
reas
, Eth
iopi
a, 2
016
Zone
/Cou
ntry
Cere
alM
aize
Puls
eCo
mm
on b
ean
Hou
seho
lds
(No.
)A
rea
(ha)
Hou
seho
lds
(No.
)A
rea
(ha)
Hou
seho
lds
(No.
)A
rea
(ha)
Hou
seho
lds
(No.
)A
rea
(ha)
Ethiop
ia16
,326
,448
10,219
,443
10,862
,725
2,13
5,57
29,06
2,00
81,54
9,91
23,94
7,66
429
0,20
2
EastShe
wazone
364,03
839
5,97
723
9,46
692
,374
191,82
570
,451
100,92
216
,723
WestA
rsizon
e46
4,51
529
0,66
029
6,04
963
,538
148,56
627
,146
109,60
818
,685
WestS
hewazone
523,40
552
5,38
233
4,61
998
,354
250,96
656
,910
1481
2–
Sida
mazone
402,25
453
,467
286,26
531
,548
644,58
023
,311
473,99
614
,535
Had
iyazone
268,03
110
7,64
197
,306
20,041
131,49
312
,335
54,454
2,72
5
EastW
ollegazon
e27
6,56
828
8,00
526
5,80
113
5,19
211
0,71
518
,140
47,297
–
Jigjigazone
86,773
66,421
48,813
21,314
––
––
Metekelzon
e10
5,29
510
0,45
183
,092
23,398
56,234
12,792
30,459
1,74
7
WestG
ojjamzon
e61
6,94
951
7,67
159
7,31
221
2,55
730
2,29
172
,631
36,046
10,763
Arsizon
e61
1,38
052
6,82
033
6,04
881
,089
310,58
962
,058
71,478
7,63
0
WestH
arargh
ezone
858,24
922
2,40
158
9,96
839
,808
348,12
012
,632
285,64
55,17
8
Awizon
e26
5,69
122
8,83
624
7,50
869
,659
94,482
25,047
3,69
70
Guragezone
195,59
096
,349
105,25
632
,151
130,74
612
,917
38,894
111
Alab
azone
61,395
38,924
58,658
19,898
30,128
1,81
228
,638
1,62
6
SIMLESA
program
areatotal
5,10
0,13
33,45
9,00
73,58
6,16
194
0,91
92,75
0,73
540
8,18
21,29
5,94
679
,724
Perc
enta
ge o
f Eth
iopi
a31
3433
4430
2633
27
SIMLESA236
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Findings
Farming systems and household characteristicsTheSIMLESAprograminEthiopiacharacterisedthefarmingcommunityfromthenationalregionalstatesofOromia,SouthernNationsandNationalitiesandPeople’s(SNNP)andBenishangulGumuz.ItlaidthegroundfortargetedresearchonCASIcroppingsystemintensification,insitusoilandwaterconservationandmaize–legumevarietyselectionandtheirdissemination.Itincluded53communitiesconstituting576householdsacrossninedistrictsinsemi-aridagroecologiesintheCentralRiftValleyanditssurroundingsfromSNNPtothesubhumidhighmoistureareaofwesternEthiopia(Bekeleetal.2013).Later,in2012,tworegionalstates—Amharafromnorth-westernandSomalifromsemi-arideasternEthiopia—werecoveredandthefocusofresearchexpandedtocompriseforageproduction,aslivestockkeepingisanessentialpartofthemaize–legumefarmingsysteminEthiopia.
Farmhouseholdswerecomposedofanaverageofsevenmembers(therangewas4–15)offairlyequalnumberofmaleandfemalemembers.Female-headedhouseholdsmadeup14.3%ofthetotal.Householdheadshadanaverageageof39(standarddeviation=12)withaboutfouryearsofformalschooling.Thenumberofhouseholdsperkebele3averaged746(standarddeviation=290).Thefarmhouseholdsownedsmallareasofland(1.29 ha),ofwhich90%(1.16 ha)wasusedforcropproductionandtheremainingforresidenceandgrazing(Bekeleetal.2013).Thepercapitalandholdingwas0.1 ha,makingfurtherlanddivisiondifficultandsustainingfoodsecuritythroughcropproductionchallengingwithoutintensification.Thepercapitalandholdingwas0.28 ha in1995inEthiopia(FoodandAgricultureOrganization2001),meaningtherewasa 35.7%reductioninjust15years.
Regardinghouseholdlabourincropproductionandmarketing,menandwomenparticipatedinmaizeandlegumelandpreparation,planting,weeding,harvestingandgrainmarketing.Theproportionofmen’sinvolvementinfieldoperationswashigherinlandpreparation,plantingandharvestingwhiletheparticipationofwomenandchildrenwasgreaterinweeding.Marketingofgrainharvestwasajointdecisionbetweencouples,andneitherofthemhadexclusivedecision-makingpower(Bekeleetal.2013).Thisrepresentedapositivemovetowardsgenderequityandequality,signallingthecommunity’srecognitionofwomen’sneedtoparticipateintheissuesthataffectahousehold’slivelihood.ThisresultisinlinewiththatofBeshir,HabtieandAnchala(2008),whodocumentedthepracticeofjointdecision-makinginresourceuseamongfarmhouseholdsincrop–livestockfarmingcommunitiesofbothChristiansandMuslimsinAdamadistrictintheCentralRiftValleyofEthiopia.Otherthancropfarming,livestockconstitutedalargepartoffarmhouseholdlivelihood:77%ofmaize–legume-growinghouseholdsownedcows,87%hadotherlivestockand43%keptdonkeys.Theaverageholdingofanimalswas2.88tropicallivestockunits4(TLU),amongwhichcattleconstituted2.36 TLU(Mulwaetal.nd).
3 KebeleisthelowestadministrativeunitinEthiopia.4 Onetropicallivestockunitisequivalenttolivestockweightof250 kg.Theconversionfactorvariesaccordingtothe
livestocktype:1ox=1.12TLU,1coworheifer=0.8TLU,1sheep=0.09TLU,1goat=0.07TLU,1horse=1.3TLU, 1mule=0.90TLU,1donkey=0.35TLU.
237SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 14
Financial viability of CASI practicesTherelativeadvantageofatechnologyisalong-establishedcriterioninagriculturalinnovationadoption.Thelevelofrelativeadvantageisusuallyexpressedinfinancialprofitability,statusobtainedorothervalues(Rogers1983).ThefinancialfeasibilityofdifferentCASImaize–legumeproductionpracticesacrossagroecologieswerecloselymonitoredanddocumented.TheCASImaize–legumeproductionpracticeswerecost-effectivewithahigherbenefit:costratio(3.79)intheCentralRiftValleyofEthiopiacomparedtotheusualfarmers’practiceofcontinualsolemaizemonocropping.Similarly,insemi-aridareasofJigjiga,apastoralist/agropastoralistcouldearn4.25timesmoreincomebyintercroppingmaizeandcommonbean(Table14.3).SimilarresultswereattainedfromproducingmaizeandcommonbeansunderCASIpracticesinotheragroecologies.InHawassa,CASImaize–legumeproductionpracticesoutperformedconventionalpractices,whilethemaizeandcommonbeanintercroppingsystemwasthemostprofitableproductionventure.Intermsoffinancialviability,maizeandcommonbeanintercroppinggavehighermargins(3.33–6.08)acrossmajoragroecologieswheretheSIMLESAprogramhasbeenexecuted(Table14.3).Grossmarginsofmaizeproductionunderconservationagriculturewere136%higherthanmaizeproducedunderconventionalpracticesinHawassa.
Table 14.3 Benefit:cost summary of conventional practices versus CASI maize and legume production across major agroecologies in Ethiopia
Location Conventional practices
CASI practices Benefit: cost ratio
(CASI sole maize vs conventional
practice sole maize) (%)
Sole maize
Sole maize
Maize–common bean intercropping
Maize–common
bean rotation
Common bean–maize
rotation
Hawassa 3.48 4.75 6.08 4.99 6.36 136
Bako 3.67 4.49 3.33 3.90 3.67 122
CentralRiftValley
3.51 3.95 3.79 2.05 3.51 113
SouthGojjam
1.95 2.97 – – – 152
Jigjiga 3.32 3.78 4.25 6.73 – 114
Notes:CASI=conservationagriculture-basedsustainableintensification;figuresareintermsofbenefittocostratiofrom unitarea(ha).
AmongCASImaizeandlegumeproductionpractices,cropdiversificationgavemultiplebenefits.First,itenhancedproductivity.Second,itdownsizedtheriskofcontinualsolemaizeproductiononplotsplantedwithimprovedvarietiesofmaizeusingchemicalfertilisers(Jaleta&Marenya2017).Withrespecttodroughtriskreduction,CASIpracticesshowedextraresilienceduringmoisture-stressseasons.Forinstance,commonbeanrotationandintercroppingwithmaizeunderCASIgaveconsistentlyhigheryieldsthanasimilarcroppingsystemunderconventionalpracticesinbothdrought-proneCentralRiftValleyandsubhumid,high-potentialagroecologiesinEthiopiaduringalowrainfallseasonin2012(Merga&Kim2014;Abebeetal.2014).Moreover,CASIpracticesgavehigheryieldadvantagesundersolemaize,comparedtosimilarconventionalpracticesinadroughtyear(Abebeetal.2014).
SIMLESA238
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Intermsoffinancialbenefit,MekuriaandKassie(2014)illustratedthatthehighestincomewasobtainedwhenconservationagriculturepracticeswerecombinedwithimprovedmaizevarieties(Figure14.3).Thesameworksubstantiatedthatthemaximumyieldincreasewasrealisedbyusingcropdiversification,minimumtillageandfertiliserapplication,wheretheminimumyieldwasobtainedwhenonlyminimumtillagewasadopted.
Figure 14.3 Impact of agronomic practices on maize variety performance and net maize income in Ethiopia
Source:Mekuria&Kassie2014
Adoption status of sustainable intensificationResultsofCASI-awarenessraisingeffortsinSIMLESAstudysitesinsouthernEthiopiarevealedthat97%oftherespondentswereawareofSIMLESA’sCASItechnologiesfromon-farmdemonstrations,attendingfielddays,participatinginexchangevisitsandmediabroadcasts.Inthisarea,themostimportantpracticesadoptedwereintercropping,minimumtillageandimprovedmaizeandlegumevarieties(Getahun2016).TheawarenesslevelofCASIpracticeswas71%intheBakoarea.Teklewoldetal.(2013)foundthatsocialnetworksandthenumberofrelativesinsideandoutsidethevillagepositivelyaffectedtheadoptionofCASItechnologies,particularlycroprotationandminimumtillage.SIMLESAdemonstrationplotsandextensionworkersplayedpivotalrolesincreatingawarenessofCASIpractices.
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000
Rotation + minimum tillage +improved maize varieties
Rotation + improvedmaize varieties
Minimum tillage +improved maize varieties
Improved maizeseed only
Minimum tillageonly
Rotationonly
Rotation + minimumtillage
Net maize income (Birr/ha)
Prac
tice
239SIMLESASIMLESA
Maizeandlegumevarieties,andminimumtillagewerethetechnologiespreferredmostbyfarmersintheBakoareainwesternEthiopia.InsouthernEthiopia(e.g.theLokaAbayaandBorichaareas),unavailabilityofherbicides,andshortageofimprovedmaizevarieties,foodlegumeseedsandlivestockfeedwerechallengesassociatedwithCASIadoption(Getahun2016).Fielddays,exchangevisitsandinnovationplatformswereimportantmeansofawarenesscreationamongfarmers(Table14.4).InBako,anadoptionmonitoringstudyshowedthat51%oftherespondentsknewofatleastoneCASItechnology.ThemajorCASIpracticesadopted,inorderofdecreasingawarenessanduse,werecroprotation,intercroppingandminimumtillage.Majorpositiveprogresswasnotedfromintercropping,residueretention,zerotillageorcombinationsofthese(Table14.4).Inthisstudy,farmers’preferenceswere,inorderofdecreasingimportance,intercropping,croprotation,cropresidueretentionandherbicideapplication(Figure14.4).
Table 14.4 Farmers’ awareness and use of CASI practices, Bako, 2013
CASI practice Awareness Ever used Used after 2010 Change after 2010 (%)
Intercropping 95.5 26.0 11.0 42.3
Rotation 93.0 58.5 2.5 4.3
Minimumtillage 32.5 17.5 16.0 91.4
Residueretention 80.0 29.0 14.0 48.3
Reducedtillage 52.5 27.0 12.5 46.3
Chemicalfertiliser 96.0 70.0 3.5 5.0
Herbicides 71.0 21.5 13.0 60.5
Handweeding 100.0 98.5 0.0 0.0
Intercropping+minimumtillage+residue
29.5 12.5 11.0 88.0
Rotation+minimumtillage+residue
22.0 8.5 7.0 82.4
Notes:CASI=conservationagriculture-basedsustainableintensification;n =200
Figure 14.2 Ethiopian common bean export volume, value and price per tonne, 2006–15
crop rotation
maize legume intercrop
zero tillage herbicide use in maize production
residue retention
22.94 1.84 61.46 5.51 8.26
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Mos
t lik
ed
CHAPTER 14
SIMLESA240
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
IntheCentralRiftValley,farmersreportedtoknowandhaveusedimprovedmaizeandcommonbeanvarieties.Amongthefarmerscontacted,12%werefoundtohaveexperienceinhostingthetechnologiesasamemberofaninnovationplatform.Thesegroupsareidentifiedasfirst-generationadopters.Consideringthedistributionofvarieties,Awash-1(aharicotbeanvariety)andMelkassa-2(amaizeopen-pollinatedvariety)aredominantamonghostandscaling-upfarmers,whereastheMelkassa-2andNasirvarietiesweregrownbymanysecond-generationadopters(Table14.5).
Table 14.5 Adoption of maize and common bean varieties by different categories of CASI farmers, Central Rift Valley, 2013
Crop Crop variety
Category of farmer involved in CASI practices TotalNo. (%)
Host farmersNo. (%)
Scaling-up farmersNo. (%)
Second-generation adoptersNo. (%)
Third-generation adoptersNo. (%)
Commonbean
Awash-1 10(18.5)
29(53.7)
11(20.4)
4(7.4)
54(100.0)
AwashMelka
5(17.2)
13(44.8)
6(20.7)
5(17.2)
29(100.0)
Nasir 8(14.5)
7(12.7)
33(60.0)
7(12.7)
55(100.0)
Maize BH-540 1(4.8)
5(23.8)
9(42.9)
6(28.6)
21(100.0)
Melkassa-2 19(15.2)
48(38.4)
48(38.4)
10(8.0)
125(100.0)
Melkassa-4 – 7(87.5)
– 1(12.5)
8(100.0)
Note:CASI=conservationagriculture-basedsustainableintensification Source:Adam,Paswel&Menalen.d.
Similarly,adoptionofCASIpracticesshowedthatmaize–beanintercropping,maize–beanrotation,minimumtillage,residueretentionandtheircombination,fertiliserandherbicideapplicationwereadoptedintheCentralRiftValley(Table14.6).Maize–beanintercropping(34%),minimumtillage(28%)andcroprotation(24%)werewidelypractisedbyfarmers.Hostfarmersweremorelikelytoadoptmaize–beanintercropping,whilescaling-upparticipantsweremorelikelytoapplyminimumtillagewithfertiliser.Maize–beanrotationwaspopularamongsecond-generationfarmersandmaize–beanintercroppingwaspopularamongthird-generationfarmers(Table14.6).
241SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 14
Table 14.6 Awareness of CASI practices by different categories of farmers in the Central Rift Valley in 2013
CASI practice Category of farmer involved in CASI practices TotalNo. (%)
Host farmersNo. (%)
Scaling-up farmersNo. (%)
Second-generation adoptersNo. (%)
Third-generation adoptersNo. (%)
Maize–beanintercropping
19(20.7)
34(37.0)
25(27.2)
14(15.2)
92(100.0)
Maize–beanrotation
14(21.5)
16(24.6)
32(49.2)
3(4.6)
65(100.0)
Minimum/zerotillage+fertiliser
8(10.7)
42(56.0)
16(21.3)
9(12.0)
75(100.0)
Minimum/zerotillage+residueretention
14(77.8)
2(11.1)
2(11.1)
– 18(100.0)
Minimum/zerotillage+herbicide
6(24.0)
8(32.0)
9(36.0)
2(8.0)
25(100.0)
Note:CASI=conservationagriculture-basedsustainableintensification Source:Adam,Paswel&Menalen.d.
Contribution of CASI practices in increasing yield and reducing downside riskThemajorcomponentsofCASIpracticesincludereducedtillage,residueretention, andcropassociation(rotationorintercroppingoflegumeandmaize).IntheCentralRiftValley,maizewasthemostcommonlyproducedfoodcrop,sowninanaverageof 1.08 ha/household(46%ofthecropland).Around0.45 haoflandwasallocatedtocommonbeanproduction.Bothmaizeandlegumesweregrownmainlyasasolecrop,withonlyafewhouseholdsintercropping(randomlyscattered)legumewithinmaize (Abdi&Nishikawa2017).Farmersproducedmaizecontinuallyunderconventionalpractices,withoutcropresidueretentiononfarmplots.TheaveragehighestmaizeyieldsobtainedunderCASIpracticeswas5.76 t/haintheCentralRiftValley(Merga&Kim2014),5.55 t/hainmoistsubhumidregions,and7.0 t/hainsubhumidnorth-westernEthiopia.
ThecombinationofmajorCASIpracticesincreasedmaizeandlegumeproductivity(Merga&Kim2014).Inadditiontoproductivitygains,adoptionofCASItechnologiesreduceddownsiderisksfromshrinkinginvestmentstolabour.Cropdiversification,useofimprovedvarietiesandapplicationofchemicalfertilisers,alongwithCASIpractices,gavethemaximumyield.Abandoningtheuseofthosetechnologiesresultedinloweryields.Likewise,maizeyieldfelltoaminimumifafarmerabandonedtheapplicationofbothimprovedvarietyandchemicalfertiliser(Jaleta&Marenya2017).Theriskofmaizeproductionwashigherintheabsenceofcropdiversification.Thesamestudyindicatedthatcropdiversification,applicationofchemicalfertiliseranduseofimprovedcropvarietiesreducedthedownsideriskby51%.Inthiscase,cropdiversificationservedtwopurposes:enhancingcropproductivityandreducingdownsiderisks.
SIMLESA242
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Increased rainwater productivity under CASI practicesHighersoilmoisturecontentinallsoilhorizonswasrecordedintheCASIcommon bean–maizerotationplot,followedbyCASIsolemaize,atbothplantingandharvestingtimes.TherainwaterproductivityofmaizewassignificantlyhigherinCASIplotscomparedtoconventionalpracticesplots,evenduringthelowestrainfallyear.Intermsofrainwaterproductivity,thehighestvalue(10 kg/mm/ha)wasobtainedfromcommonbean–maizerotationfollowedbymaize–commonbeanrotation(9.2 kg/mm/ha)andsolemaize (8.2 kg/mm/ha)grownunderCASImanagementpractices,comparedtotheaverage valueof7.4 kg/mm/haunderconventionalpractices(Merga&Kim2014).
Maize–legumeintercroppingsystemsunderCASIhadsignificantlyhigherrainwaterproductivity,comparedtocroprotationsystemsorconventionalpractices.Soybean–maizeintercroppingunderCASIinBakousedmorewaterthanconventionalpracticesingrowingseasonsunderawell-distributedrainfallpattern.However,undererraticandlowrainfallregimes(belowtheannualaverageseasons),commonbean/soybean–maizeintercroppingwasmoreefficientandincreasedrainwaterproductivityandaccumulatedmoreyield(Abebeetal.2014).IntercroppingmaizeandcommonbeansunderCASIreducedyieldloss(risk)typicaloftheshortrainfallseasons.Additionalyieldgainsof38–41%fromcommonbeanswereobservedinthemoisture-stressedseasonwhenrotatedwithandintercroppedwithmaizeunderCASI,comparedtosimilarpracticesunderconventionalpractices(Abebeetal.2014).
Duringmoisture-stressedyears,maize–commonbeanrotationunderCASIwasfoundtobemoreproductiveinthesemi-aridCentralRiftValley.Thiswasattributedtocropresiduecovertominimisesoilwaterevaporation,andenhancedsoilmoistureretention.Yieldsofmaizeintercroppedwithcommonbeansweresignificantlysuppressedinseasonswithlowrainfall,probablyduetocompetitionforsoilmoisture(Merga&Kim2014).CASIcroppingsystemsshowedbetterrainwaterproductivityinallseasons.Thedifferencewasparticularlyhighinseasonswithlowrainfall.ThisindicatesthatcroppingsystemsunderCASIweremoreresilientinsemi-aridareassuchastheCentralRiftValley.In2013,thehighestmaizegrainyield(5.76 t/ha)wasrecordedfromthecommonbean–maizerotationunderCASI,whilethelowestmaizegrainyields(4.02 t/ha)wererecordedfromcommonbean–maizeintercroppingunderconventionalpractices(Merga&Kim2014).Theyieldfromcommonbean–maizerotationwassignificantlyhigherthanyieldfromallconventionalpractices.GrowingcommonbeanandmaizeunderCASIatMelkassaproduced40%and28%grainyieldadvantagesoverconventionalpractices,respectively.Similarly,thestoveryieldofmaizeincreasedby25%underCASIcomparedtoconventionalpractices,whilethatofcommonbeanimprovedby34%inamaize–commonbeanrotation(Merga&Kim2014).
Thesamestudyshowedthatrainwaterproductivity—theratioofgrainorstoveryield(kg)torainfallamount(mm)fromplantingtophysiologicalmaturityofthecrop—wasaffectedbytillageandcroppingsystemsinyearswhentherotationcropwasmaize.Therainwaterproductivityformaizegrainyieldwithmaize–commonbeanintercroppingwas18%greatercomparedtomaizemonocropping.Whentherotationcropwasbean,rainwaterproductivitywassensitivetocertaincombinationsoftillagepracticesandseasonsaswellasthetypeofcroppingsystem.Therainwaterproductivitywas18%and20%greaterwithmaize–commonbeanintercroppingcomparedtomaizemonocroppingformaizegrainandstoveryield,respectively,whentherotationcropwasbean(Libenetal.2017).
243SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 14
Soil moisture and soil erosionResearchresultsfromCentralRiftValleybyMergaandKim(2014)revealedthatmoisturecontentofsoilhorizonswassignificantlyaffectedbytillageandcroppingsystems,basedondatafromfourcroppingseasons(2010–13).Thesamestudyrecordedhighermoisturecontentatadepthof30–60 cmbothduringplantingandafterharvest.Commonbean–maizerotationunderCASIretainedconsistentlyhighermoistureinallsoilhorizons.Thesoilundercommonbean–maizerotationhad34%highersoilmoisturewithinthefirst15 cmofsoildepthcomparedtoCASIwithsolemaizeatplanting.Thelowestsoilmoisturecontentatharvestwasobservedin2012inthecommonbean–maizeintercroppingplotsunderconventionalpractices.ThisresultisinagreementwiththeworkofErkossa,StahrandGaiser(2006)fromthehighlandsofEthiopia,whodocumentedCASI’ssignificantpositiveeffectonsoilmoistureretentionandsoilfertilityrestoration.
Ethiopiasuffersfromsoilerosion.Thisisthemaindriverofsoildegradationandcoststhenationmillionsoftonnesoffoodgrains.ResearchresultsfromtheBakoAgriculturalResearchCenterontheeffectsofdifferentsoilmanagementpracticesonrun-off,soilnutrientlossesandproductivityofcropsshowa25.39%and10.37%reductioninrun-offfromuseofmaize–commonbeanintercroppingunderCASIpracticescomparedtomaizemulchconventionalpractices(Table14.7).Residuemulchingnotonlyreducedthesurfacerun-offbutalsoprovidedacovertothesoilsurface,reducedsoildetachmentbyraindropimpactandtrappedthesedimentscarriedbysurfacerun-off.Asshownin Table14.7,treatmentsthatreceivedresiduemulchunderbothconventionalandminimumtillagereducedsoillossandsedimentconcentrationinrun-off.Soillossreductioncomparedtothecontrolwere97.9%formaizemulchconservationagricultureand92.27%formaizemulchconventionalpractices.Thismightbeattributedtothehighsedimenttrappingcapacityoftheresiduemulch(Degefa2014).
Table 14.7 Effect of different tillage and management practices on soil loss at BARC
Treatment Run-off depth (mm)
Sediment concentration (g/l)
Soil loss (t/ha)
Solemaize+minimumtillage(conservationtillage)
44.99a 667a 18.92a
Solecommonbean (conservationtillage)
28.39cd 45.17ab 7.03bc
Maize–commonbeanintercropping (conservationtillage)
22.12d 38.23ab 4.69bc
Solemaize+mulch (conservationtillage)
34.13cd 62.63a 9.84b
Maize–commonbeanintercropping(minimumtillage)
35.88cb 27.8b 4.04c
Solemaize+mulch+minimumtillage
40.76ab 48.57ab 9.56b
Mean 34.38 48.18 9.01
CV(%) 13.93 3.77 33.37
LSD(0.05) 8.729 33.07 5.47
Notes:CV=coefficientofvariation;LSD=leastsquaresdifference;valuesfollowedbyadifferentsuperscriptletter(a,ab,b,c,cb,andd)aresignificantlydifferentacrossmanagementtreatments. Source:Degefa2014
SIMLESA244
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
CASIpracticeswerefoundtobemoreeffectiveinsoillossreductioninmaizeproductionplotsinsubhumidzoneatBakoonUlfisols.Thesoillossdifferencewashighforsolemaizeunderconventionalpractices.CASIpracticesreducedsoillossintherangeof34–65%,comparedtoconventionalsolemaizeproductionpracticesundermorefrequenttillage.Thehighestsoillosswasregisteredundersolemaizeinconventionaltillage(Table14.8).
Table 14.8 Ecosystem benefits of practices of CASI and conventional practices at BARC
Practice Soil loss (t/ha/yr) Per cent % reduction
Maize–commonbeanintercroppingunderconservationagriculture
1.8 35 65
Solemaize,mulchandminimumtillage 1.95 37 63
Maize–commonbeanintercroppingandconventionaltillage
2.71 52 48
Maize–commonbeanintercroppingandconventionalpractice
3.44 66 34
Solemaizeusingconventionaltillage 5.21 100 0
Note:CASI=conservationagriculture-basedsustainableintensification Source:Degefa2014
Yield and seasonal rainfall variabilityExperimentsconductedintheBakoareainthesubhumidagroecologyandtheMelkassaareaundersemi-aridconditionsshowedthatCASIpracticesperformedbetterduringsoilmoisturestressyearssuchas2012—theyearinwhichthelowestrainfallfor20yearswasregistered(Merga&Kim2010;Abebeetal.2014).Maizegrainyieldshowedadecreasingtrendunderconventionalpractices,butanincreasingtrendunderCASIacrossthecroppingseasons2010–13(Merga&Kim2014).ThesamestudyrevealedthatmaizestoverandcommonbeanstrawproductionwashigherunderCASIthanconventionalpracticesintheCentralRiftValley.
Associatingmaizeyieldwithrainfalldistributionandpatternduring2010–13inBakoshowsthatmaizegrainyieldsubstantiallyincreasedacrosscroppingseasons.However,ayieldreductionwasobservedin2012,whichmightbeattributedtothelowestaverageannualrainfallonrecord(Abebeetal.2014).Moreover,reducedrainfallanderraticdistributionduringtasselingtosilkingstagesresultedinunusuallyearlymaturityofthemaincropmaize,whichcouldbeamajorreasonfortheyieldreduction(Figure14.5).
245SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 14
Figure 14.5 Daily rainfall and thermal degree days during the common bean–maize cropping systems, 2010–13
Note:Arrowscorrespondtophysiologicalmaturitystageofmaizethataffectedtheyieldofthecropcomponents. Source:AdaptedfromAbebeetal.2014
Grain yield, land productivity and incomeInnorth-westernEthiopia,anexperimentonintercroppingofnarrow-leaflupineandwhitelupinewithmaizewasconductedundertwointercropplantingarrangements:singlerowandpairedrowsoflegumebetweenpairedrowsofmaize.Theresultsshowthatmaizeandnarrow-leaflupineintercroppingwithpairedplantingarrangementsgavea16%highermaizegrainyield,18%higherlandequivalentratioand15%increasesinnetreturncomparedtosolemaizeproduction(Assefa2017).
Dai
ly r
ainf
all (
mm
)
2013
Thermal degree days
0102030
2012
4050
0102030
2011
4050
0102030
2010
4050
01020304050607080
SIMLESA246
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Thehighestlandequivalentratiowasalsoregisteredfromsinglearrangement,andmaize–whitelupinewithpairedarrangementwasassociatedtoactualyieldofthecomponentcropsintheintercropsystem.However,inthemaize–narrow-leaflupineintercroppingsystem,theyieldgainofmaizewasassociatedwithayieldlossof narrow-leaflupineandthelowestlandequivalentratio(Table14.9).Onaverage,theintercroppingsystemwas42%moreproductiveascomparedtosolecropproductionasmeasuredbythelandequivalentratio.Thisresultisconsistentwithpreviousfindings(Saban,Mehmet&Mustafa2008).
Table 14.9 Effect of planting arrangements on grain yield and land equivalent ratio of maize–common bean/lupine intercropping in north-western Ethiopia
Treatment Maize grain yield(t/ha)
Legume grain yield(t/ha)
Land equivalent ratio
Intercrop Planting arrangement
Maize+commonbean
Singlerowintercrop
5.86 0.79a 1.5a
Maize+commonbean
Pairedrowintercrop
5.66 0.74a 1.4ab
Maize+narrow-leaflupine
Singlerowintercrop
6.40 0.24c 1.3b
Maize+narrow-leaflupine
Pairedrowintercrop
6.55 0.38b 1.4ab
Maize+whitelupine
Singlerowintercrop
5.54 0.44b 1.4ab
Maize+whitelupine
Pairedrowintercrop
6.24 0.47b 1.5a
Solecropmaize 5.66
Probabilitydifference ns * **
CV(%) 6.91 25.83 14.70
Solecropcommonbean 1.86
Solecropnarrow-leaflupine 2.12
Solecropwhitelupine 1.14
Notes:Datawerecombinedoversites(JabitehinanandMecha)andyears(2012and2013).Numbersfollowedbydifferentlettersonthesamecolumnindicatedsignificantdifferenceatthe5%probabilitylevel.*,**and***aresignificantdifferenceatprobabilitylevelsof0.05,0.01and0.001,respectively. Source:Assefaetal.2017
Similarly,experimentalresultsconductedinsouthernEthiopiashowedthatadoptionofCASIpracticesandtechnologiesincreasedhouseholdreturnoninvestmentinmaize(32.6%)andcommonbean(49%)production,bygrowingcommonbeanstwiceayearintercroppingandrelaycroppingwiththesamemaizecrop.Thisisbecausethegrowthstagesofbothcropsoverlap.Commonbeanisplantedasasecondcropnearmaturitysomaizeisharvestedwhilecommonbeanisstillgrowinginthefield.Thissystemofcroppingincreasedtheyieldofcommonbeansby50%comparedtothatofconventionalpractice(Markosetal.2017).FinancialprofitabilityofintercroppingandthehighpreferenceoffarmersforintercroppingwasdocumentedacrossdifferentagroecologiesinEthiopia(Merga&Kim2014;Abebeetal.2014).Fieldexperimentsconductedon11plotsinsouthernEthiopiashowedthatmaize–commonbeanintercroppingproducedthehighestmaizeandcommonbeangrainandbiomassyields.Theperformanceofalltheintercroppingexperimentswassuperiortosolecroppingsystems(Table14.10).
247SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 14
Table 14.10 Grain yield and biomass of maize and first belg common beans in permanent long-term SIMLESA plots in Loka Abaya and Boricha districts, 2015
Treatment Maize Common bean Land equivalent
ratioMean grain yield
(t/ha)
Mean biomass
(t/ha)
Mean grain yield
(t/ha)
Mean biomass
(t/ha)
Maize/commonbeanintercroppedinconventionaltillage
7.66 15.33 0.07 0.1 1.47
Maize/commonbeanintercroppedinCASI
8.54 16.44 0.1 0.15 1.77
SolemaizeCASI 7.21 14.39 – – 1
Maize/cowpeaintercroppedinCASI
8.04 14.28 0.07 0.14 1.53
SolecommonbeanunderCASI
– – 0.17 0.32 1
CommonbeaninrotationunderCASI
– – 0.15 0.17 1
LSD(%) NS NS 390** 580* 0.328*
CV(%) 15.07 16.86 13.3 8.27 9.4
Notes:CASI=conservationagriculture-basedsustainableintensification;LSD=leastsquaresdifference;CV=coefficientofvariation.*,**and***indicatesstatisticalsignificanceat1.5and10%levelsrespectively. Source:ReportsfromSARI
Environmental sustainabilityRetentionofcropresiduessignificantlyreducedrainwaterandwinderosionandalsoresultedinhigherrainwaterproductivityinthesemi-aridCentralRiftValley(Megaetal.2014).Similarly,farmershostinglong-termCASItrialsintheCentralRiftValleyandsouthernEthiopiaoftenindicatedthatCASIplotsexperiencedlowornoerosiondamagescomparedtoconventionalpracticeplots.AcompellingillustrationofthisoccurredwhenaheavyflooddevastatedcropsintheHalabadistrictinsouthernEthiopiaduringthe2016croppingseason.Inthatseason,allcropsunderconventionalpracticewereseverelydamagedbytheheavyfloodandnoorveryminimumflooddamagewasobservedtocropsandsoilsunderCASI.Moreover,thebenefitofcropresidueretentionwaswitnessedbyfarmersinthesouthernpartofEthiopia,whereacut-and-carrysystemwaspractised.Inthoseareas,therewasaclearindicationthatsoilcoverincreasedmoistureretention.ThisagreeswiththefieldexperimentresultsfromMelkassa(Merga&Kim2014).
Moreover,anincreaseinthenumberofmacrofaunainsoilwasrecordedonplotsinsouthernEthiopiawheremaize–legumeintercroppingunderCASIwaspractised.Macrofauna,particularlyarthropods,decomposeandhumifysoilorganicmatter,andfunctionasecosystemengineers.Macrofaunaareessentialincontrollingthenumberofbacteriaandalgae.Certainmacrofauna,suchastermites,areresponsibleforprocessingupto60%oflitterinthesoil(Bagyaraj,Nethravathi&Nitin2016).Moreover,burrowinganthropoidssuchastermitesimprovesoilporosity,facilitaterootpenetration,preventsurfacecrustingandsoilerosion,andtheyfacilitatethemovementofparticlesfromlowerhorizontothesurface,helpingtomixtheorganicandmineralfractionsofthesoil(Bagyaraj,Nethravathi&Nitin2016).
SIMLESA248
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
ResultsfromthefieldexperimentsconductedinsouthernEthiopiaclearlyshowincreasedsoilmacrofaunawithcropintensificationcomparedtoconventionalpractices(monocropping).Theintensificationsystemhadasignificantlygreaternumberoftermites,ants,millipedesandcentipedesforallthecroppingsystemsunderCASIthanthoseunderconventionalpractices(Table14.11).ThisincreasewasattributedtointercroppingandresidueretentionunderCASI.
Table 14.11 Soil macrofauna under CASI and conventional practices in southern Ethiopia, 2015
Treatment Average number of soil macrofauna
Termites Ants Millipedes Centipedes Others
Maizeandcommonbeanintercroppingunderconventionalpractices
0.67 12.9 0.23 0.9 2.4
MaizeandcommonbeanintercroppingunderCASI
10.6 18.2 1.3 3 4
MaizeandcowpeaintercroppingunderCASI
2.8 42.8 0.1 1.3 4
SolemaizeunderCASI 0 24.2 0 1 3.3
SolecommonbeanunderCASI
7.9 10.8 0 0.7 1.4
Commonbean–maizerotationunderCASI
1.4 11.4 0.3 1.7 4.3
Note:CASI=conservationagriculture-basedsustainableintensification
Similarly,amarkedlygreaterimprovementinsoilproperties(bulkdensity,organic,carbon,infiltrationrateandpenetrationresistance)andcropproductivitywasobservedatMelkassawithCASIpractices,suggestingsuperiorityoftheCASIsystemforimprovedsoilqualityandenhancedenvironmentalsustainabilityinthesemi-aridareasofEthiopia(Mergaetal.2017,underreview).Thesamestudysubstantiatedreductionintopsoilbulkdensityinthesemi-aridMelkassaareaduetoincreasedsoilorganiccarbon(OC)asaresultofresidueretentionandreducedsoilcompactionunderCASIsystems.Increasedsoilcarbon(SC)andimprovedsoilmoisturecontentswereobservedbroadly,acrosscontrastingareasofEthiopia—thesemi-aridCentralRiftValleyandthesubhumidmoistBakoarea(Libenetal.2017;Abebeetal.2014).
ThelowestsoilpHwasrecordedwhenmaizewascontinuallyproducedunderconventionalpracticescomparedtoCASIsystems.TotalphosphoruscontentofthesoilwashigherforcommonbeancropsgrowncontinuallyorinrotationwithmaizeunderCASI(Figure14.6a).Higherpercentagesoforganiccarbonwererecordedinmaize–commonbeanintercropping,solecommonbeanandcommonbean–maizerotationsunderCASI,comparedtoconventionalpractices.ProductionofsolemaizeunderconventionalpracticesandCASIpracticessignificantlyreducedtotalnitrogencontentofthesoilswhereasasignificantimprovementwasobservedwithcroprotationandintercroppingsystemsunderCASIsystems(Figure14.6b).
249SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 14
Figure 14.6 Chemical properties of soil influenced by different cropping systems with tillage practices (across locations during 2010–12 cropping seasons)
Notes:pH=soilpH;CEC=cationexchangecapacity(cmol/100gsoil);P=phosphorus(mg/kgsoil);OC=organiccarbon(%); K=potassium(cmol/kgsoil);TN=totalnitrogen(%).Source:Abebeetal.2014
EventhoughfieldevidenceshowsthesuperiorityofCASIoverconventionalpracticesinimprovingenvironmentalsustainability,freegrazingisstillamajorchallengeinmanypartsofEthiopia,deterringresidueretentionandallowingongoingsoilerosionbyrainwaterandwind.Itisimperativethatalternativeforagecropproductionorforage/feedsupplysystemsareexplored.Itisclearthatmaizestalksareamajorforagesourceforlivestock.Maizestalkisgiventoanimalsfromtheearlyageofcropgrowththroughmaturitytopost-harvest.Thissystemofcontinualthinningofmaizecropforfeedmayaffectcropyield,asfarmersthinthroughoutthegrowingperiod.Aseparateplotcouldbeusedforforagebyplantingmaizedenselyandharvestingitbeforeitdriesupcompletely.ThisisaninnovativepracticeamongafewfarmersintheSiraroareainWestArsiZone.Policyinterventionmaybeneededtoestablishlocalorcommunity-basedactionstocontrolandminimisefreegrazing.
Maize, grain and forage legume varietiesWiththeobjectiveofprovidingvarietaloptionstofarmersformaize,foodandforagelegumes,aparticipatoryvarietyselectionapproachwasemployedbytheSIMLESAprogramindifferentagroecologiesinEthiopia.UnderObjective3ofSIMLESA,numerousvarietieswereevaluatedindifferentareasusingfarmers’andresearchers’selectioncriteria,andfarmer-preferredvarietieswerereleasedforcommercialproduction.Promisingpre-releaseandreleasedvarietiesobtainedfromongoingbreedingactivitieswereevaluatedunderparticipatoryvarietyselectiontrials.Thishasbeenfoundtobeareliableandquickapproachtoidentifyingfarmer-preferredvarietiesforbothsolecroppingandintercroppingsystems.Witcombeetal.(1996)provedthatparticipatoryvarietyselectionisaveryquickandcost-effectivemethodforidentifyingfarmer-preferredcultivars,whenasuitablechoiceofcultivarsispresented.
pH, C
EC a
nd P
(a)
Bako Tibe Gobu Sayo0
4
6
8
2
10
12
pH CEC P OC K TN
Bako Tibe Gobu Sayo
OC,
K a
nd T
N
(b)
0
1.0
1.5
0.5
25
2.0
2.5
SIMLESA250
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Participatory variety selection of maize
InEthiopia,anumberofon-stationandon-farmparticipatoryvarietyselectionandmother–babytrialsofreleasedandpre-releasevarietieswereconductedbeginningin2010.ThesevarietieswerealsogeneratedbyvariousCIMMYTprograms,suchasDroughtTolerantMaizeforAfrica,WaterEfficientMaizeforAfrica,ImprovedMaizeforAfricanSoilsandNutritiousMaizeforEthiopia.Participatoryvarietyselectionofmaizewasconductedindrought-proneareasofsouthernEthiopiaandidentifiedthatfarmers’majorselectioncriteriaweregrainyield,maturityanddiseaseresistance.Furthermore,farmersalsousedmorespecificselectioncriteriasuchascobsize,bare-tip,grainsizeanddroughttolerance.Basedontheseselectioncriteria,farmersidentifiedShalla,AbarayaandSC403asthemostsuitablevarietiesforthedrought-proneareasofsouthernEthiopia(Table14.12).
Preferencesandprioritiesvariedacrossgenders,basedondifferencesintheirroleinfarming.Womengenerallyparticipatedmoreinplanting,weeding,harvesting,seedandgrainstoragethanmen.Women(inbothfemale-andmale-headedhouseholds)playedamajorroleinselectingmaizevarieties,whilemenplayedamoresignificantroleinselectingthecommonbean(cashcrop)varieties.Thisdistinctionisexpectedundertheseconditions,wheremeninteractwiththemarketplacemorethanwomendo.
Table 14.12 Farmers’ selection criteria for maize varieties in Borecha and Loka Abaya districts of southern Ethiopia, 2013
Criterion Maize varieties ranked by farmers’ criteria*
Abaraya BH540 BH543 Shalla SC403 MH130
Earlymaturing 4 5 6 3 2 1
Adapttomoisturestressarea
3 6 5 2 4 1
Bigcobsize 2 4 5 1 3 6
Norottencobs 3 6 5 2 4 1
Bigseedsize 3 4 5 1 2 6
Heavyseedweight 3 4 5 1 2 6
Whiteseedcolour 1 2 4 6 3 5
Fullhuskcover 2 1 5 6 3 4
Droughttolerance 2 6 3 1 4 5
Sum rank point 23 38 43 23 27 35
Overall rank 1 1 3 4 5 6
Note:*Thelowerthesumofthescore,themorepreferredthevariety.
AnotherparticipatoryvarietyselectiontrialofeightreleasedmaizehybridswasconductedinJabitehinanandSouthAcheferdistrictsofnorth-westernEthiopia,acrosseightenvironments.Thethreemostimportantselectioncriteriausedbythefarmerswerediseaseresistance,droughttoleranceandhigh-yieldingpotential.Researchersalsonotedthatgrainyieldandotherimportantyield-relatedtraitswereusedtoidentifydesirablevarieties.AMH851andBH661,withrespectivemeangrainyieldsof7.8t/haand7.4 t/ha,wereidentifiedasthemostsuitablehybridsfortheregionbasedonresearchers’andfarmers’selectioncriteria(Table14.13).Farmersunanimouslypreferredthesehybridsforbetterfieldperformance,diseaseresistance,prolificacyandgrainyield.
251SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 14
Table 14.13 Days to maturity and yield of maize hybrids evaluated in Jabitehinan and South Achefer districts of north-western Ethiopia, 2012–13
Hybrid Days to maturity Mean grain yield (t/ha)
BH542 154.0 5.67
BH660 174.0 6.69
BH673 174.7 7.07
BH545 156.0 7.14
AMH850 169.1 7.35
PHB3253 149.3 7.42
BH661 178.7 7.43
AMH851 171.6 7.80
Source:Elmyhun,Abate&Merene2017
Tofurthersubstantiatetheselectioncriteriausedbyfarmersandresearchers,a GGE-biplotanalysiswasperformedtoidentifythemostidealvarietiesforthearea. TheGGE-biplotanalysisalsoidentifiedAMH851andBH661asthemostidealvarieties ofthehybridsevaluated(Figure14.7).
Figure 14.7 Comparison of maize hybrids for their suitability in north-western Ethiopia
Source:Elmyhun,Abate&Merene2017
PC2
- 37.
25%
Comparison biplot (total - 82.72%)
-0.50
Genotype scores
Environment scores
Average environment coordination
-0.25 0.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
-0.25
-0.50
-0.75
0.25 0.50 1.000.75
PC1 - 45.47%
G2 E3
E2
E4
E1
E5
E6
E7
E9
G6
E10
E8G5
G7
G4 G8
G1
G3
SIMLESA252
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Thechoicesmadebyfarmersusingthesecriteriaareinagreementwiththeyieldrecordsofresearchers.Thisshowsthatfarmers’evaluationcriteriaagreewiththemeasurementsandanalysismadebyresearchers.Acombinationoffarmers’andresearchers’selectioncriteriacouldbeusedforrapidselectionofimprovedvarieties,comparedtotheconventionalselectionapproachofresearchers,whichtakeslonger.SimilarselectioncriteriawereusedbyAbebeetal.(2005),whoidentifiedthemostdesirabledrought-tolerantmaizevarietiesusingamother–babytrialapproach.
Similarly,19commercialhybridswereevaluatedacross11environmentsunderdifferentmanagementconditionsthatrepresentmajormaize-growingareasofthecounty(Woldeetal.2018).Amongthehybrids,BH546(7.5 t/ha),BH547(7.4 t/ha),P3812W(7.2 t/ha)and30G19(7.00 t/ha)wereidentifiedasthehigheryieldingandmoststablehybrids.Thegroupingpatternofthehybridsobservedinthisstudysuggeststheexistenceoftwocloselyrelatedmaize-growingmega-environments(Figure14.8).ThefirstwasrepresentedbyBakoandPawe,inwhichPioneerhybridsP3812Wand30G19werethewinnervarieties.Thesecondmega-environmentwasrepresentedbyHawassa,Haramaya,MelkassaandTepi,andhybridsBH546,BB547andBH661weretheidealvarieties.Theotherhybridswereeitherunsuitableforornon-responsivetothetestenvironmentsused.Arsi-Negellewasanoutlierenvironmentthatwasnotsuitableforanyofthehybridsstudied.However,toconfirmthepatternsobservedinthecurrentstudy,additionalmultilocationandmultiyeardatawouldbeneeded.
Figure 14.8 Maize-growing mega-environments constructed using genotype plus genotype-by-environment biplot for 19 maize hybrids evaluated across 11 environments
Source:Woldeetal.2018
AXIS
2 14
.75%
-6 -4
-4
-2
0
2
4
-2 0 2
AXIS1 57.88%
Negele
Haramaya
Hawassa1
Hawassa2
Bako1
Bako2
Bako3 Melkasa
Pawe1Pawe2
Tepi
30G19
AMH760Q
BH140BH540
BH543
BH546
BH547
BH660
BH661
BH670BHQP542BHQPY545
Gibat
MH130
MH138
P3812W
SC627
Wenchi
SC403
253SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 14
Aseriesofvarietyevaluationtrialsresultedintheidentificationofbest-betmaizevarietiesforscalingup.Atotalof12maizevarietieswereidentified.Ofthese,sevenvarieties(BH546,BH661,BH547,MH138Q,MH140andGibe-2)werereleasedduringtheSIMLESAphase.Somevarieties,suchasBH546(erectandnarrow-leaved)andMH130(shortplantstature),wereidentifiedasbeingsuitableforintercroppingwithdifferentlegumespecies.Inaddition,thesevarietieshadhighergrainyieldthanthepreviouslyreleasedvarieties.Thesevarietieswerethenscaledouttoreachalargernumberoffarmingcommunitiesintargetareas.
Participatory variety selection of grain legumes
ParticipatoryvarietyselectiontrialsofcommonbeanvarietieswereconductedinthedrytomoistagroecologiesofsouthernEthiopia.FarmersidentifiedHawassa-Dume,SER119andSER180assuitablevarietiesforHawassaZuriaandBadawachodistricts(Table14.14).Farmers’selectionsweremainlybasedonseedsize,earlymaturity,marketdemandandgrainyield.Selectionsbasedonresearchers’evaluationcriteriaalsoidentifiedHawassa-Dume,NasirandSER-180asthemostdesirablevarietiesinHawassaZuriaandBadawachodistricts.TheselectedvarietiesarebeingwidelytakenupandproducedinsoutherncentralareasofEthiopia.Ingeneral,13high-yieldingandstress-tolerantlegumevarieties(7commonbeanand6soybean)werereleasedorrecommendedforfurtherpromotion.ThevarietiesweredevelopedwiththesupportofTropicalLegumesIIandIII(TL-IIandTL-III),andongoinggovernment-fundedprojects.
Table 14.14 Farmer evaluation criteria and ranking of nine common bean varieties at Hawassa Zuria and Badawacho districts in southern Ethiopia
Variety Criteria Hawassa Zuria
Badawacho
SS EM Mkt Yld DisR SSRFS BM colour Sum Rank Sum Rank
Dume 4 4 5 4 4 4 3 4 32 1 33 1
SER119 3 3 5 4 4 3 4 5 31 2 32 2
SER180 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 29 3 26 3
SER176 2 2 2 4 4 2 3 3 22 5 25 4
SER125 3 2 2 3 4 2 3 4 23 4 24 5
SER48 3 2 2 3 4 2 3 3 20 7 24 5
SER118 3 2 2 3 4 2 3 3 22 5 23 7
SER78 3 5 2 1 1 5 2 2 21 8 21 8
Nasir 4 1 1 4 2 1 4 2 19 9 19 9
Notes:SS=seedsize;EM=earlymaturity;Mkt=marketdemand;Yld=highyield;DisR=diseaseresistance;SSRFS=suitabilitytoshortrainfallfarmingsystem;BM=beanstemmaggot.Scoring:5=highlypreferred,1=leastpreferred.
Participatory variety selection of forage legumes
TheSIMLESAprogramfocusedonCASImaize–legumecroppingsystems.Inadditiontominimumorno-tillage,effectiveweedcontrolandmaize–legumeintercroppingorrotation,CASInecessitatesretentionofadequatelevelsofcropresiduesandsoilsurfacecovertoimprovesoilquality.InEthiopia,cropresiduesareusedasalternativesourcesofanimalfeed,aslivestockkeepingisanessentialpartofmaize–legumecroppingsystems.Forexample,wherethelivestockpopulationishigh,challengesofresidueretentionhavebeenidentifiedasthemajorbottleneckinadoptionofconservationagriculture.
SIMLESA254
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Theencroachmentofcropsontraditionalpasturelands,andthelackofappropriateforage/fodderspecies,compelledfarmerstoincreasinglyrelyoncropresiduesforfodder.Therefore,systemsforproductionandsupplyofforagecropsneedtobeinplacetoenablefarmerstoretaincropresiduesintheirfields.TheSIMLESAexpansionprograminEthiopiaaddressedissuesrelatedtofodderandforagesinmixedcrop–livestocksystemsinadditiontoSIMLESA’smainobjectives.
Severalforagelegumespecieswereevaluatedon-farmandon-stationacrossdifferentecologiesinSIMLESA’shostingcentresinEthiopia.Theprimeselectioncriteriaincludedrapidgrowthandgroundcover,shadetolerance(suitabilityforintercropping)andhighbiomassyield.Accordingly,twocowpeaaccessions(Acc.17216,Acc.1286)andvarieties(black-eyedpeaandKenkey)ofcowpeaandonelablabaccession(Acc.1169)wereselectedforfurtherscalingup.Awell-organisedandstructuredfieldevaluationwasundertakenonsweetlupinegenotypesinnorth-westernEthiopia.Inthisregion,lupineisusedformultiplepurposes,suchashumanconsumption,greenmanuringandforage.Itcanbeproducedonsoilsoflowfertilitywithminimumagronomicmanagementpractices.
Foursweetlupinevarietieswereevaluatedfordrybiomassandseedyieldononeresearchstationandfarmers’fieldsacrossdifferentlocationsoverseveralyears.Thevarietiesshowedanaveragedrybiomassyieldrangingfrom3.5to4.0 t/haandseedyieldrangingfrom1.7to2.7 t/ha.Amongthevarieties,SanbaborandVitaborshowedsuperiorfieldperformanceacrossalltestenvironmentsandhadacceptablelevelsofcrudeprotein(Figure14.9andTable14.15).Thesetwovarietieswereofficiallyreleasedandregisteredin2014forusebythefarmingcommunity.ThiswasthefirstreleaseofsweetlupinevarietiesinEthiopia.
Figure 14.9 Seed yield of sweet lupine varieties evaluated across Ethiopia
0
1.0
0.5
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Seed
yie
ld (t
/ha)
Sanabor Probor Bora Vitabor
255SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 14
Table 14.15 Traits of Sanabor and Vitabor sweet lupine varieties
Variety Seed yield (t/ha) Crudeprotein (%)
Maturity(days)
100 seed weight (g)
Height(cm)
On-station On-farm
Sanabor 3.7 3.1 35 140 16.0 90
Vitabor 3.8 2.8 32 141 13.8 78
Inanotherexperiment,12whitelupineaccessionsobtainedfromlocalcollectionswereevaluatedforseedyieldatsixdifferentlocationsinnorth-westernEthiopiaduringthe2014–15maingrowingseason.Theaccessionsincluded(asdesignatedbytheEthiopianBiodiversityInstitute)Acc.242281,Acc.238996,Acc.238999,Acc.236615,Acc.239029,Acc.239007,Acc.242306,Acc.239003,Acc.239045,Acc.239032,Acc.207912andalocalaccession.Theseedyieldrangedfrom1.60 t/ha(Acc.239045)to2.44 t/ha(Acc.238996),withagrandmeanof1.94 t/ha.Acc.238996(2.44 t/ha),localaccession(2.22 t/ha),Acc.239003(2.12 t/ha)andAcc.239029(2.07 t/ha)hadahigherseedyield(Table14.16).Ofalltheenvironments,DebreTabor(3.72 t/ha)andInjibara(3.43 t/ha)showedhigherseedyields,whereasDibate(0.75 t/ha)andMandura(0.40 t/ha)hadlowerseedyieldsthantheotherlocations(Table14.16).
Table 14.16 Mean grain yield of 12 white lupin landraces tested across six locations in Ethiopia
Accessions Mean grain yield (t/ha) Mean
Fenote Selam
Merawi Debre Tabor
Injibara Dibate Mandura
Acc.242281 1.98 0.33 4.91 3.14 0.69 0.41 1.91
Acc.238996 2.70 1.71 4.23 4.58 1.01 0.42 2.44
Acc.238999 2.69 1.03 3.29 2.50 0.75 0.34 1.77
Acc.236615 1.47 1.42 2.88 2.96 0.62 0.32 1.61
Acc.239029 2.15 2.03 3.98 3.11 0.84 0.33 2.07
Acc.239007 2.40 0.80 3.17 3.90 0.66 0.44 1.90
Acc.242306 1.90 1.81 3.37 3.17 0.72 0.36 1.89
Acc.239003 1.58 1.56 4.17 4.04 0.82 0.56 2.12
Acc.239045 1.71 2.02 2.74 2.08 0.69 0.37 1.60
Seed production and dissemination of selected maize and legume varieties
Seedsofselectedmaizeandlegumecropswereproducedbydifferentstakeholdersanddistributedtothefarmers.Well-designedseedproductionplanningsystems,calledseedroadmaps,weredevelopedforselectedvarietiesreleasedbeforeandduringtheSIMLESAprogramforseedproductionandscalingup.Bako,HawassaandMelkassaAgriculturalResearchCenterswereresponsiblefortheproductionandsupplyofearlygenerationseeds,whilepublicandprivateseedcompaniesandfarmers’cooperativeunions,suchasMeki-Batu,wereinvolvedintheproductionandmarketingofcertifiedseeds.Twoprivateseedcompanies(AnnoAgro-IndustryandEthioVegFruPLCs)andfourpublicseedenterprises(AmharaSeedEnterprise,EthiopianSeedEnterprise,OromiaSeedEnterpriseandSouthSeedEnterprise)wereveryactiveinseedproductionofmaizehybridsidentifiedbySIMLESA.
SIMLESA256
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Morethan30tofbreederseedswereproducedandsuppliedtoseedgrowerstostimulatetheseedproductionanddisseminationsystems.Theseedcompanieswereencouragedtoproducerequiredquantitiesofbasicandcertifiedseeds.Overthelastsevenyears,nearly300 tofbasicseedsand6,500 tofcertifiedseeds(80%hybridsand20%open-pollinatedvarieties)wereproducedanddisseminatedwiththedirectandindirectsupportoftheSIMLESAprogram.Thequantityofcertifiedseedsproducedunderthisprogramcouldplant260,000ha.Consideringanallocationof0.5 halandformaizeandafamilysizeofsevenpeopleperhousehold,theseedproducedcontributedtothefoodsecurityof520,000householdsandmorethan3.64 millionpeople.
Taking SIMLESA output lessons to scaleOnthebasisoffieldresearchresultsfromlong-termon-stationandon-farmtrialsacrosscontrastingagroecologies,CASIpracticestestedbySIMLESAactivitiesprovedtobetechnicallyfeasibleandfinanciallyviableforsmallholderfarmers.Thesetechnologiesweretakenupforlarge-scaledisseminationusingdifferentscaling-upandscaling-outapproaches.Inthefirststage,demonstrationsofbest-bettechnologieswereconductedacrossvaryingagroecologieswhereSIMLESAhostingcentreswereoperating.Incollaborationwithlocalextensioninstitutions,CASIpracticeswerepromotedinvillagesthroughfielddays,exchangevisits,printedextensionmaterialsandaudiovisualmedia.Anumberoffielddays,demonstrationsandtrainingsessionswereorganisedand16,683,1,564and3,596stakeholdersattendedtheseeventsrespectivelyovertheperiodofsevenyears.Printedextensionmaterials(leaflets,manuals,pamphletsandposters)wereproducedanddisseminated.Audioandvisualtools(TVandradiobroadcasts)werealsousedforwidercoverageofthescaling-outefforts.Themediamessageswerebroadcastinanumberoflanguages,includingAmharic,AfanOromoandSomali.
Basedontheseexperiences,agrantagreementwasmadewithagriculturalandnaturalresourcesdepartmentsinthezonestohandlethedisseminationofCASIpracticesusingEthiopia’shighlystructuredandwell-establishedextensionsystem.SevenzonesofagriculturalandnaturalresourcedepartmentsfromOromia,AmharaandSNNPregionalstateswereinvolvedintheSIMLESA-basedbest-betpracticesscaling-outactivities(Figure14.10).Theseregionalstatesrepresentedthefirstthreemajormaize-andlegume-producinganddenselypopulatedregions,andconstituted80%ofthepopulationand50%ofthelandmass.Theycontributedupto96%oftheproductionofmaize–legumes(CentralStatisticalAgency2015).Inmostcases,theidentifiedscalableconservationagriculturebest-betpracticesandtechnologiesundertheschemeincluded:
• reduced/minimumtillage
• maize–legumeintercropping
• legume–maizerotation
• herbicideapplicationforweedcontrol.
Thefinancialandtechnicalfeasibilityofthesetechnologiesandpracticeshavebeenprovenacrossthedifferentagroecologies.
257SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 14
Figure 14.10 Major districts of the SIMLESA program implementation areas in Ethiopia
SIMLESAoutputsalsoledtoinitiativesbythefederalandregionalofficesoftheagriculturalandnaturalresourcedepartmenttopromoteandscaleoutCASIbest-betpracticesinplaceswheretheybestfitandenhancedtheproductivityandsustainabilityofmaizeandlegume-basedproductionsystems.Theseinclude:
• Thescalingoutofmaize–lupineintercroppinginAmhararegionalstate.Thelocalbureauofagricultureandnaturalresourcesincludedthepracticeinitsextensionpackage.ExtensionmanualswerepreparedinEnglishandAmharicforextensionagentsandfarmers.
• ReducedtillageinitiativesbytheOromiaBureauofAgricultureandNaturalResources.
• ThedevelopmentofrecommendationdomainsandmanualstopractiseCASItechnologiesinselecteddistricts.TheFederalMinistryofAgricultureestablishedaunittopromoteclimate-smartagricultureandCASIpracticestestedbySIMLESAEthiopia.
• Theestablishmentofacountry-levelconservationagriculturetaskforcetocoordinateinitiativespromotingtheapplicationofconservationagriculturepracticesbydifferentinstitutesandorganisations.
A.A.
Harari
Dire Dawa
Gambella
BenishangulGumuz
Tigray
SNNP
Amhara
Afar
Oromia
Somali
7
6
9
1
14
3
4
8
20
191729
16 15
28
23
213
10
22 27
24
11
12
18
21
2526
5
37°0'0"E 44°0'0"E
44°0'0"E
14°0
'0"N
7°30
'0"N
0 180 36090
Kilometers Prepared by Demeke Nigussie
SIMLESA project area districts
1. Jijjiga2. Gursum3. Jabitenan4. South Achefer5. Guangua
6. Jawi7. Dangur8. Mandura9. Dibate10. Pawe Spe.
11. Wayu Tuqa12. Gobu Seyo13. Bako Tibe14. Boset15. Adama
16. Dugda17. Adami Tulu Jido K.18. Dodota19. Zeway Dugda20. Meiso
21. Ilu Gelan22. Siraro23. Shala24. Meskan25. East Badawacho
26. Hawassa Zuria27. Boricha28. Loko Abaya29. Halaba
14°0
'0"N
7°30
'0"N
37°0'0"E
SIMLESA258
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Gender roles in maize–legume production AstudyongenderintheCentralRiftValleyofEthiopiashowedthatwomencontributedtohouseholddecision-makingacrossmaizeandcommonbeanvaluechains(Table14.17)onissuesofaccesstoandcontroloftangibleandnon-tangibleassets.Thedatashowthatthegapbetweenmenandwomenfarmers’accesstoagriculturalinformationwasdiminishing(asexpressedbyfarming-relatedinformationfromextensionworkers)andseveralimportantdecisionswerereportedlymadejointlybybothspouses.
Table 14.17 Access to resources and decision-making in Central Rift Valley in Ethiopia (n = 61)
Description Gender/measure Average/count
Ageofthehouseholdhead(years) 39(±13)
Typeofhousehold male-headed 54
female-headed 7
Modeofmainfarmlandacquisition inheritance 39
villageallocation 21
both 1
Landuserdecision-maker men/husbands 32
women/wives 6
joint(spouse) 22
husband’sfather 1
Malefarmerusuallyobtainsfarming-relatedinformationfromextensionagent
yes 42
no 19
Femalefarmerusuallyobtainsfarming-relatedinformationfromextensionagent
yes 36
no 25
Womengrowseparateplots yes 6
no 54
Maindecision-makertogrowmaize man 26
woman 6
joint 29
Maindecision-makertogrowcommonbean man 25
woman 6
joint 25
Source:Ownfieldstudy,April2017
259SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 14
Gender roles in maize and common bean production Manycropproductionactivitieswerejointlyperformedbymenandwomen.Marketingwasdonebymenandwomen,althoughthevolumewashigherformenwhilewomensoldlesservolumesatfarmgateandvillagemarkets.Concerningcontrolovercropproductionresources,themajorityofhouseholdsmadejointdecisions.Womencontrolledtheincomefromcropsalesinone-thirdofhouseholds,showingimprovementinthisaspectfromwhatwascommonlyperceivedasloworinsignificant.Thereis,however,limitedaccesstoandcontroloverproductiveresources(landandlabour)amongwomeninmale-headedhouseholds.Likewise,accesstoextensionservices,trainingandmarketinformationwaslesscommonamongfemale-headedhouseholdsthanmale-headedhouseholds.Thismayhindertechnologyadoption,contributingtolowproductionandproductivitythatmayleadtolimitedmarketparticipationbywomen.Attentionshouldbegiventowomenintrainingandextensionserviceprovisions.
Women’sandmen’spreferencesandprioritiesvaried.Morewomen(bothinfemale-headedandmale-headedhouseholds)preferredmaize(themajorfoodcrop)thanmen,whilemoremenpreferredcommonbean.Althoughmaizeandcommonbeanwerethemajorcropsforfoodandcash,thesecropsaresoldsolelyasgraininlocalmarketstomiddlemenorconsumers.Therewaslittleopportunitytoaddvaluetomaizeandcommonbeanthroughproductprocessing,whichcouldinvolvemorewomenandyouth.Thisneedsattentionfromresearchersanddevelopmentpractitioners.Decision-makingaboutcropproduction(includingseedselection,seedstorage,landreparation,planting,diseaseandpestcontrol,weeding,residueincorporation,harvesting,storingtransportingandmarketing)primarilyinvolvedadultmales,withfeweradultfemalesandchildren.Adultwomenparticipatedmoreinplanting,weeding,harvesting,seed,grainstorageandmarketing.Childrencontributedmoreduringplanting,weeding,harvestingandlandpreparationofmaizeandcommonbeanproduction.
Conclusions
CASIpracticesinmaize–legumesystemsacrossthedifferentagroecologiesinEthiopiaprovedtobeenvironmentallyfriendlyandeconomicallyfeasible.MaizegrainyieldwasconsistentlyhigherunderCASIsystemscomparedtoconventionalpractices.CASIpracticesconsiderablyimprovedsoilqualityintermsofbulkdensity,organiccarbon,infiltrationrateandpenetrationresistance.Asaresultofimprovedsoilquality,increasedcropproductivitywasrecordedacrossdifferentagroecologicalconditionsofEthiopia.Likewise,ahigherlevelofsoilorganiccarbonwasachievedinmaize–commonbeanintercropping,solecommonbeanandcommonbean–maizerotationsunderCASIsystems,comparedtosimilarpracticesunderconventionalpractices.Maize–legumeintercroppingsystemsunderconservationagricultureconsiderablyincreasedrainwaterproductivity.Bothintercroppingandconservationagricultureincreasedrainwaterproductivity,whichtranslatedintohighergrainandstoveryieldadvantages.
CASIwasfoundtobevitalforsoilconservationbyreducingsoilerosionbywaterandwind.Cropresidueretentionwithconservationagriculturereducedsoillossbynearly100%.Reducedrun-offfromCASIfieldsresultedinhigherrainwateruseefficiencyinmoisturestressareas.Maize–legumeproductionintensificationprovedtohavemultiplebenefitsinEthiopia,includingenhancedproductivity,reduceddownsideriskinmaizeproductiononplotsplantedtoimprovedmaizeand/orchemicalfertiliser,andhigherfinancialreturns.Thehighestincomewasobtainedwhenconservationagriculturepracticeswerecombinedwithimprovedcropvarieties,whichisdirectlycorrelatedwithCASIandcropsystemdiversification.
SIMLESA260
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Anumberofmaizeandlegumeswereselectedandutilisedbyinvolvingpublicandprivatepartnersinseedproductionanddissemination.Involvementoffarmersinparticipatoryvarietyselectionwasinstrumental.Participatoryvarietyselectionwasatooltodevelopconfidenceamongfarmersaswellasseedproducers,whichspeduptheuptakeofimprovedvarieties.Farmers’varietyselectioncriteriaprovedtobeconsistentwithobjectivemeasurementsadoptedbybreeders.
AdoptionmonitoringindicatedthatawarenessofCASItechnologywashigh.Thiswasaresultofhostingon-farmdemonstrations,attendingfielddays,participatinginexchangevisitsandlisteningtomediabroadcasts.ThemostimportantCASIpracticesadoptedbyfarmerswereintercropping,minimumtillageandimprovedvarieties.Improvedvarietiesandminimumtillagewerethetechnologieslikedbymostsmallholderfarmers.However,therewerestillchallengesthathinderedadoptionofthetechnologiesdevelopedthroughSIMLESA,suchasunavailabilityofherbicides,shortageofimprovedseedandlivestockfeed.Therewerealsobiophysicalconditions,suchassealingofsoils,whichreducedthebenefitsofCASIpracticesinsomepartsofEthiopia.Moreimportantly,opengrazingwasachallengeforresidueretention.Thiswouldneedpolicyinterventionsatmanydifferentlevels,fromcommunitytohigherdecision-makingbodies.
CASIpracticeshadapositiveinfluenceonsustainablecropproduction.IntercroppingmaizewithcommonbeanunderCASIshowedthehighpotentialofavoidingcropproductionrisksundervariableandshortrainfall,includingdroughtyears.IntercroppingwasmoreprofitablethanotherCASIandconventionalpractices.Intermsoflabourdemand,CASIreducedtotaloxendraughtpowercomparedtoconventionalpractices,mainlyduetoreduced/minimumtillageandintercropping.
Manycropproductionactivitieswerejointlyperformedbymenandwomen.Marketingwasdonebymenandwomen,althoughthevolumewashigherformenbecausewomendidlessatthefarmgateandvillagemarkets.Mosthouseholdsmadejointdecisionsaboutcropproductionresources.Womencontrolledtheincomefromcropsaleinareasonableproportionofhouseholds,showingimprovementonpreviousreportsofwomen’sinvolvement(loworinsignificant).Womeninmale-headedhouseholds,however,stillhadlimitedaccesstoandcontroloverproductiveresources(landandlabour).Likewise,accesstoextensionservice,trainingandmarketinformationwaslesscommonamongwomenthanmen.Thismayhindertechnologyadoption,contributingtolowproductionandproductivitythatmayleadtolimitedmarketparticipationbywomen.Thiscallsforgreaterfocusonwomenintrainingandserviceprovisionactivities.Men’sandwomen’spreferencesforcropproductionvaried.Women(inbothfemale-andmale-headedhouseholds)hadastrongerpreferenceformaize(themajorfoodcrop)andmenhadastrongerpreferenceforcommonbean.
MaizeandcommonbeanwerethemajorfoodandcashcropsinSIMLESAinterventionareas.Thecrops,however,weresoldsolelyasgraininlocalmarketstomiddlemenorconsumers.Therewaslittleopportunitytoaddvaluetothecropsthroughproductprocessing,whichinvolvedmorewomenandyouth.Thisneedstheattentionofresearchers,developmentpractitionersandpolicymakers.
261SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 14
ReferencesAbebe,G,Assefa,T,Harun,H,Mesfin,T&Al-Tawaha,M2005,‘Participatoryselectionofdroughttolerant
maizevarietiesusingmotherandbabymethodology:acasestudyinthesemi-aridzonesoftheCentralRiftValleyofEthiopia’,World Journal of Agricultural Sciences,vol.1,no.1,pp.22–27.
Abebe,Z,Birhanu,T,Tadesse,S&Degefa,K2014,‘Conservationagriculture:maize-legumeintensificationforyield,profitabilityandsoilfertilityimprovementinmaizebeltareasofwesternEthiopia’,International Journal of Plant and Soil Science,vol.3,no.8,pp.969–985.
Adam,B,Paswel,M&Menale,Kn.d,‘Maizeandharicotbeantechnologyadoption-monitoringinthecentralriftvalleyareaofEthiopia:ThecaseofShalla,AdamituluJidokombolcha,andBosetdistricts’.
Assefa,A,Tana,T,Dechassa,N,Dessalgn,Y,Tesfaye,K&Wortmann,CS2017,‘Maize–commonbeanintercroppingtooptimizemaize-basedcropproduction’,The Journal of Agricultural Science,vol.15,no.7,pp.1124–1136.
Bagyaraj,DJ,Nethravathi,CJ&Nitin,KS2016,‘Soilbiodiversityandarthropods:roleinsoilfertility’,inAKChakravarthy&SSridhara(eds),Economic and ecological significance of arthropods in diversified ecosystems,doi:10.1007/978–981–10–1524–3-2.
Bekele,A,Kassie,M,Wegary,D&Sime,M2013,Understanding maize-legume cropping systems: a community survey approach,ResearchReport97,EthiopianInstituteofAgriculturalResearch,AddisAbaba.
Beshir,B&Nishikawa,Y2017,‘Understandingsmallholderfarmers’accesstomaizeseedandseedqualityinthedrought-proneCentralRiftValleyofEthiopia’,Journal of Crop Improvement,vol.31,no.3,pp.289–310.
Beshir,B,Habtie,E&Anchala,C2008,‘GenderbasedfarmingsystemsanalysisinAdamaWereda’,inYChiche&KKelemu(eds.),Gender differentials for planning agricultural research,AddisAbaba,Ethiopia.
Bewket,W&Teferi,E2009,‘Assessmentofsoilerosionhazardandprioritizationfortreatmentatthewatershedlevel:casestudyintheChemogawatershed,BlueNilebasin,Ethiopia’,Land Degradation & Development,vol.20,pp.609–622.
CentralStatisticalAgency2015,The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia agricultural sample survey 2013/2014 (2007 EC) report on area and production of major crops (private peasant holdings, meher season),May2015,vol.I,StatisticalBulletin578,AddisAbaba.
CentralStatisticalAgency2017,The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia agricultural sample survey 2016/17 2014 (2009 EC) report on area and production of major crops (private peasant holdings, meher season), May2017,Vol.I,StatisticalBulletin584,AddisAbaba.
Debele,T&Bogale,T2011,‘ConservationagricultureforsustainablemaizeproductioninEthiopia’,Proceedings of the Third National Maize Workshop of Ethiopia,AddisAbaba,Ethiopia.
Degefa,A2014,Effects of different soil management practices under maize-legume production system on soil, water and nutrient and yield in Bako, West Oromia, Ethiopia,MScthesis,HaramayaUniversity.
Elmyhun,M,Abate,F&Merene,Y2017,‘Evaluationofmaizehybridsusingbreeders’andfarmers’selectioncriteriainnorthwestEthiopia’,posterpresentationinArusha,June2017.
Erkossa,T,Stahr,K&Gaiser,T2006,‘SoiltillageandcropproductivityonVertisolinEthiopianhighlands’,Soil and Tillage Research,vol.85,pp.200–211.
Ethiosis2014,Soil fertility mapping and fertilizer blending,AgriculturalTransformationAgencyreport,Ethiopiasoilinformationsystem,MinistryofAgriculture,AddisAbaba.
FoodandAgricultureOrganization2001,Soil fertility management in support of food security in sub-Saharan Africa,FoodandAgricultureOrganizationoftheUnitedNations,Rome.
FoodandAgricultureOrganization2014,Conservation Agriculture,viewedAugust2017,www.fao.org/ag/ca.
Gelagay,HS&Minale,AS2016,‘SoillossestimationusingGISandremotesensingtechniques:acaseofKogawatershed,northwesternEthiopia’,International Soil and Water Conservation Research,vol.4,pp.126–136,doi: 10.1016/j.iswcr.2016.01.002.
Getahun,D2016,‘AdoptionmonitoringsurveyanalysisofCA(conservationagriculture),southernregion,Ethiopia’, Greener Journal of Agricultural Sciences,vol.6,no.6,pp.195–202.
Haileslassie,A,Priess,J,Veldkamp,E,Teketay,D&Lesschen,JP2005,‘Assessmentofsoilnutrientdepletionanditsspatialvariabilityonsmallholders’mixedfarmingsystemsinEthiopiausingpartialversusfullnutrientbalances’,Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment,vol.108,pp.1–16.
SIMLESA262
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Hurni,K,Zeleke,G,Kassie,M,Tegegne,B,Kassawmar,T,Teferi,E,Moges,A,Tadesse,D,Ahmed,M&Degu,Y2015,Economics of Land Degradation (ELD) Ethiopia case study: soil degradation and sustainable land management in the rainfed agricultural areas of Ethiopia: an assessment of the economic implications,WaterandLandResourceCentre,CentreforDevelopmentandEnvironment,DeutscheGesellschaftfürInternationaleZusammenarbeit.
Jaleta,M&Marenya,P2017,‘Downsideriskreducingimpactsofcropdiversificationinmaizeyieldenhancinginvestments:evidencefromEthiopiausingpaneldata’,posterpresentationinArusha,June2017.
Lemenih,M,Karltun,E,Olsson,M2005,‘AssessingsoilchemicalandphysicalpropertyresponsestodeforestationandsubsequentcultivationinsmallholdersfarmingsysteminEthiopia’,Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment,vol.105,pp.373–386.
Liben,FM,Hassen,SJ,Weyesa,BT,Wortmann,CS,Kim,HK,Kidane,MS,Yeda,GG&Beshir,B2017,‘ConservationagricultureformaizeandbeanproductionintheCentralRiftValleyofEthiopia’,Agronomy Journal,vol.109,no.6,pp.1–10.
Merga,F&Kim,HK2014,‘Potentialofconservationagriculture-basedmaize–commonbeansystemforincreasingyield,soilmoisture,andrainfall-useefficiencyinEthiopia’,inNVerhulst,MMulvaney,RCox,JVanLoon&VNichols(eds),Compendium of deliverables of the conservation agriculture course 2014,HramayaUniversity,pp.1–9.
Mesfin,A1998,Nature and management of Ethiopian soils,AlemayaUniversityofAgriculture,ILRI,Ethiopia.
Mesfin,A2007,Nature and management of acid soils in Ethiopia,HaramayaUniversityPrintingPress,Ethiopia.
Molla,T&Sisheber,B2017,‘EstimatingsoilerosionriskandevaluatingerosioncontrolmeasuresforsoilconservationplanningatKogawatershedinthehighlandsofEthiopia’,Solid Earth,vol.8,pp.13–25.
Mekuria,M&Kassie,M2014,Sustainable intensification-based CA for sustainable food security and poverty reduction: evidences from SIMLESA,WCCA6presentation,Winnipeg,22–26June2014,http://www.soilcc.ca/news_releases/2014/congress/June%2023%20Menale%20Kassie.pdf.
Mulwa,C,Kassie,M,Bekele,A,Jaleta,Mn.d.,Socioeconomic profile of maize–legume based farming system in Ethiopia: characterization of livelihood strategies, production conditions and markets,BaselinesurveyreportfortheprojectSustainableIntensificationofmaize–legumefarmingsystemsforfoodsecurityineasternandsouthernAfrica(SIMLESA).
Rogers,E1983,Diffusion of Innovations,3rdedn,TheFreePress:MacmillanPublishing,NewYork.
Saban,Y,Mehmet,A&Mustafa,E2008,‘Identificationofadvantagesofmaize–legumeintercroppingoversolitarycroppingthroughcompetitionindicesintheEastMediterraneanregion’,Turkish Journal of Agriculture,vol.32,pp.111–119.
Temesgen,D,Getachew,A,Tesfu,K,Tolessa,D&Mesfin,T2011,‘PastandpresentsoilaciditymanagementresearchinEthiopia’,reviewpaperpresentedatthe2ndNationalSoilandWaterManagementWorkshop,28–31January2011,AddisAbaba,Ethiopia.
Wakene,N,Tolera,A,Minale,L,Tolessa,D,Tenaw,W,Assefa,M&Zarihun,A2011,‘SoilfertilitymanagementtechnologiesforsustainablemaizeproductioninEthiopia’,inProceedings of the Third National Maize Workshop of Ethiopia,18–20April2011,AddisAbaba,Ethiopia.
Wolde,L,Keno,T,Berhanu,K,Tadesse,B,Bogale,GT,Gezahegn,B,Wegary,D&Teklewold,A2018,‘Mega-environmenttargetingofmaizevarietiesinEthiopiausingAMMIandGGEbi-plotanalysis’,Ethiopian Journal of Agricultural Science,vol.28,pp65–84.
WorldFactbook2017,CIADirectorateofIntelligence,viewed5October2017,https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/.
263SIMLESA
15 Intensification of maize and legumes in KenyaCharles Nkonge, Alfred Micheni, George Ayaga, Martins Odendo, Christine Ndinya, Rosalyne Juma, Bernard Rono, Catherine Muriithi, Vincent Weyongo, Patrick Gicheru, Ludovicus Okitoi, Felister Wambugha Makini & Leonard Rusinamhodzi
Key points
• Conservationagriculture-basedsustainableintensification(CASI)experimentswerestartedinKenyaformaizeandlegumeswiththeobjectivesofincreasingrainfedproductivityby30%andreducingdownsideriskby30%for100,000small-scalehouseholdsinonedecade.
• Farmersidentifiedtheirpreferredmaize,legumeandpasture/fodder varietiesandtestedthemunderCASIpracticesandotheragronomicpracticesandvarieties.Theyieldsofmaizeandlegumestripledandquadrupled amongcollaboratingandneighbouringfarmersrespectively,comparedtootherfarmers.
• FarmersrealisedlaboursavingsofuptoUS$250/hacomparedtoconventionaltillagemethodsofgrowingcrops.
• CASIresultedinsignificantlymoresoilwateratvariousdepthsandatharvesttime,lowersoilbulkdensityandhighermicrobialpopulationscomparedto conventionaltillage.
• ProfitabilityandsustainabilityofCASIandtheadvantagesofinnovationplatformsinexperimentation,solvingfarmers’problemsandlinkingfarmerstomarketswereevidentlessonsfromthisprogram.
• ThereisaneedtoembedCASIinKenya’sClimateSmartAgricultureStrategytorealisethebenefitsofincreasedfarmprofitabilityandenvironmentalsustainability,andtoalsoformulatesupportivepolicyforinnovationplatformstosupportfarmerstoaddressproductionconstraintsandlinkthemtomarkets.
SIMLESA264
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Introduction
Fordecades,maizeandbeanyieldsinKenyahaveremainedlow,at25%and20%ofpotentialyields,contributingtoproductionrisksforfarmers.TheSIMLESAprogramactivitiesstartedin2010toaddressthisproblem.Theobjectivewastoincreaseproductivityofmaizeandlegumesby30%andreducedownsideriskby30%inonedecadefortargetcommunities.Keyactivitiesoftheprojectwere:
• participatoryvarietyselection
• agronomictrials
• gendermainstreaming
• thedevelopmentofinnovationplatforms.
Aninitialcharacterisationofmaizeandlegumecroppingsystemswascarriedouttoidentifytargetcommunities.Participatoryvarietyselectiontrialsevaluatednewlyreleasedandpre-releasevarietiesofmaize(47varieties),legume(39varieties),andfodder(12varieties).Agronomictrialswereconductedtoevaluateandidentifybest-performingconservationagriculture-basedsustainableintensification(CASI)practices.ProductionlevelswerecomparedforspecificCASIpracticesformaize,legumeandfodderproduction:
• zerotillage
• zerotillagewithDesmodium
• furrowsandridges.
Farmersidentified14maize,23legumeandsevenfoddervarietiesfromthe participatoryvarietyselectiontrials,whichtheyendorsed.Participatingfarmersalsoexpressedsupportforallconservationagricultureoptions.Thirteeninnovationplatformswereinitiatedtobuildresearchcapacity,supportexperimentationandscalingoutoffarmer-selectedtechnologiesandpractices.Short-termtrainingofKenyaAgriculturalandLivestockResearchOrganization(KALRO)staff,partnersandlong-termtrainingoffourKALROscientistswascarriedout.
Farmerssharedinformationonthebenefitsofconservationagriculture-basedsustainableintensification(CASI)practices.Gendermainstreamingwascarriedoutthroughtrainingofscientistsandpartners,resultinginmorefemaleparticipantsthanmaleparticipants.Maizeandlegumeyieldsamongparticipatingandneighbouringfarmersincreasedthreefoldandfourfoldrespectivelywhencomparedtonon-participatingfarmers.Severalscaling-outmethodsweretestedanddemonstrationswerefoundtobethemosteffective.By2017,povertylevelsinthecountiesinwhichtrialswereimplementedhadnotchangedsignificantlycomparedto2010.ProventechnologiesandCASIpracticescanbescaledoutateconomiccorridorlevelsandmorebroadlytohelpmeetproductionandpovertyalleviationgoals.
What was the situation in 2010?Kenyahasasurfaceareaof580,397 km2andapopulationof50 millionpeople(Worldometer2017).Thepeoplearecomprisedof42ethnicgroups,withthesixlargestonesaccountingfor80%ofthepopulation.Thecountryliesbetween4.5°Nand4.0°Sand34°Eand42°E,spanningahighlyvariedagroecologicalzonationfromcoastalandinnerlowlandstoalpine.ThecoastalregionandtheareasurroundingLakeVictoriaexperienceatropicalclimate.
265SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 15
TheareaontheslopesofMtKenyaandMtElgonexperienceatemperateclimate.Atotalof18.4%ofthelandishigh-andmedium-potential,8.5%issemi-aridand53%isaridland.Twentypercentofthelandisveryarid(Adimo2017).Forty-ninepercentofthelandisagricultural.TheagriculturesectoristhemaindriverofKenya’seconomyandlivelihoodsforthemajorityofKenyans.Thesectorcontributes26%directlytothegrossdomesticproduct,andafurther25%indirectlythroughlinkageswithagrobasedandassociatedindustries(KALRO2017).
Maizeisadaptabletoawiderangeofclimateconditions,andisthemostextensivelygrowncropinKenya.Dependingonvariety,maizeisgrowninareaswithaslowas750 mmrainperyeartoareaswithashighas2,200 mmrainperyear(Kogoetal.2019).Seventy-fivepercentofthecropisproducedbysmall-scalefarms(lessthan25acres)locatedinallareasofKenyawherefarmingiscarriedoutand25%bylarge-scalefarmslocatedmainlyinTransNzoia,Nakuru,BungomaandUasinGishucounties(Kirimi2012).Maizegrowingaccountsfor56%ofcultivatedlandinKenya(Chumo2013).Itisgrownby98%ofruralfarmhouseholds(GovernmentofKenya2011)andhasapercapitaconsumptionof88 kgperyear(Ariga,Jayne&Njukia2010).Maizeproductionbyruralfarmhouseholdshasmosttypicallybeenintercroppedwithlegumeswithlittleornocroprotation(Michenietal.2015).
ThemostimportantlegumesinKenya,basedonproductionvolume,havebeencommonbeans,pigeonpea,cowpeaandsoybean,inorderofdecreasingimportance.Legumesarearichsourceofprotein,typicallyeatenwithmaize,andhavesupplementedcerealcarbohydratestoimprovethenutritionprofileofKenyandiets.Legumeandmaizecroppingsystemshavealsocomplementedoneanother.Forinstance,beanshavebeenharvestedearlierthanmaize,providingasourceoffoodandincomebeforemaizeisreadyforconsumption.In2010–14,maizeandbeansproductionsatisfied90%and86%ofdemand,withthebalancebeingimported.Pigeonpeaandcowpea,however,exceededconsumptionvolumesby75%and60%respectively.Asthemostimportantcropsintermsofproductionvolume,andamainsourceoffoodandincomeforsmallholderfarmersinKenya,maizeandlegumesprovideagoodentrypointforimprovinglandproductivity,foodsecurityandwelfareoffarmers.
AverageyieldsofmaizeandbeansinKenyain2010were1.6 t/haformaizeand0.5 t/haforbeans(Oumaetal.2013).Theseyieldswereespeciallylowrelativetotheirpotentialyieldsofover6.0 t/haforformanydrought-tolerantmaizevarieties(Abateetal.2015)and2.5 t/haforbeans(Karanjaetal.2008;Michenietal.2015).Theyieldgaphasbeenattributedtolowadoptionofimprovedvarietiesandagronomicpractices,decliningsoilfertilityandpoorlydistributedrainfall,amongotherfactors(Murichoetal.2011).In2011,67%offarmersfromwesternandeasternKenyaSIMLESAclustersplantedhybridmaizewhile31%plantedlower-yieldingrecycledseed.Forty-fourpercentoffemalefarmersand28%ofmalefarmersfromthesamecommunitiesplantedrecycledmaizeseedthathadbeenrecycledbywomenandmenfor11and8.5seasons,respectively(Murichoetal.2011).Mostofthehybridseedplantedbyfarmerswereolder,less-productivehybridvarietiesthanmorerecentlydevelopedandreleasedvarieties.
In2010,priortotheirinvolvementintheSIMLESAprogram,manyhouseholdspractisedmanagementstrategieswithlittleproductionpotential.Averagefertiliserandseedrateswere40%and47%ofrecommendedlevels,respectively.Farmersnormallydidnotapplyfertiliseronlegumes.Only1%ofthefarmerspractisedzerotillageontheirfarms.ThemajorproductionconstraintsreportedbyhouseholdsfromwesternKenyain2011wererelatedtomarketsandsoilfertility,suchashighpricesoffertiliser,lackofavailabilityoffertiliserattherighttimeandlackofcredittobuyfertiliser.
SIMLESA266
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
IneasternKenya,farmersrankeddroughtandseed-relatedconstraintsasthemostimportantmaizeproductionconstraints.About54.3%ofhouseholdswhereSIMLESAactivitieswerecarriedouthadadailypercapitaexpenditurebelowtheinternationallydefinedpovertylineofUS$1perday(Murichoetal.2011).TheKenyaSIMLESAprogramevaluatedtheseproductionfactorstoidentifyopportunitiesforproductiongainsanddeveloptargetedstrategiestosupportadoption.In2017,thepovertylevels(AnswersAfrica2017)werethesameas2011becauseSIMLESAandotherKALRO-developedtechnologieshadnotbeenscaledoutwidelyenoughtohaveanimpactonproductivitiesandtheincomesoffarmingcommunities.
MaizeistheleadingsourceofcarbohydratesandlegumesaretheleadingsourceofproteintotheKenyanpopulation.However,mostfarmerspractisemixedfarming,wheredifferentcropsandlivestockareraisedonthesamefarm.Thetypesofcropsgrownandlivestockkeptdependverymuchontheagroecologies,butthenumberofdifferentcropsgrownandlivestocktypeskeptareusuallylarge.ThisisexemplifiedbyKALROKitaleresearchintheMandateregion,whichfoundthat34differentcrops,withmanydifferentvarietiesorcultivars,weregrownandninedifferentlivestocktypeskept(Nkongeetal.1997).Manyofthecropsandlivestocktypesareoflittlenationaleconomicvalue.
Somecropsaregrownforexportpurposesandothersforlocalconsumption.Livestockproductionismainlyforlocalconsumption.
Crops grown mainly for exportTeaistheleadingexportearnerforthecountry.Itisgrowninabout110,000 hainthewesternandeasternhighlandsofKenya,wherethereisadequaterainfallandlowtemperatures.Sixtypercentoftheteaisproducedbyabout260,000small-scalefarmers,whilelarge-scaleteaestatesproducethebalance(SmartFarmerKenya2017).
Horticulturalcrops,mainlyvegetables(spinach,cabbages,broccoliandkales),fruits(lemons,grapes,orangesandpineapples)andflowers(rosesandorchids)arethesecond-largestagriculturalenterpriseintermsofforeignexchangeearningsforKenya.About70%ofthetotalrevenueisaccountedforbyflowersalone.
CoffeeinKenyaistypicallygrownonrichvolcanicsoilsthatarelocatedatelevationsofbetween1,500mand2,100ontheslopesofMtKenyaandMtElgon.Asof2015,coffeeexportsfromKenyamadeupapproximately20%ofthecountry’stotalexportearnings.
Crops grown mainly for local consumptionIrishpotatoisthesecondmostimportantcropinKenyaaftermaize,intermsofconsumption.Itisgrownbymorethan800,000farmersgeneratingmorethan50 billionKenyanshillings(KSh)tothecountrywithinthelocalmarket(SokoDirectory2017).Thecropisproducedmainlyin13countiesofKenya,includingBomet,Bungoma,Elgeiyo-Marakwet,Kiambu,Meru,Nakuru,Narok,Nyandarua,Nyeri,Taita-Taveta,TransNzoia,UasinGishuandWestPokot(PotatoFarminginKenya2017).Thesecountieshaveatemperateclimatesuitableforpotatogrowing,withrainfallof850–1,200 mmperyearandaltitudesof1,500–2,800 mabovesealevel.
WheatisthesecondmostimportantcerealgraininKenyaaftermaize.WheatfarminginKenyaislargelydoneforcommercialpurposesonalargescale.Kenyaisself-sufficientinthehardvarietiesofwheat,butisanetimporterofthesoftervarieties.WheatismainlygrownintheRiftValley,inareaswithaltitudesrangingbetween1,200 mand1,500 mabovesealevel,andannualrainfallvaryingbetween800 mmand2,000 mm,withupto2,500 mmonhighergrounds(Shawiza2016).
267SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 15
RiceisKenya’sthirdstaplecerealaftermaizeandwheat.RicefarminginKenyaisestimatedat33,000–50,000 Mt,whileconsumptionis180,000–250,000 t.About95%ofriceinKenyaisgrownunderirrigationinpaddyschemesmanagedbytheKenyaNationalIrrigationBoardineasternKenyaandNyanzaprovinces.Theremaining5%israinfed.
Livestockandcropssectorscontribute46%and54%respectivelytotheagriculturalgrossdomesticproduct.InKenya,mostmeatandmilkproductionisfromcattle,goatsandsheepand,toasmallextent,camels.Poultryformeatandeggproductionisalsoanimportantsectorandbothindigenousandcommercialchickensarekept.
Exoticdairycattleformilkproductionarekeptbybothsmall-scalefarmersandlarge-scalefarmerswhoproduce80%and20%ofthemilkrespectively.Approximately90%oftheredmeatconsumedinKenyacomesfrompastoralistswhokeepmostoftheindigenouscattle,sheep,goatsandcamels(Farmer&Mbwika2012).
What did SIMLESA do?
Program objectivesToidentifypracticestoenhancehouseholdmaizeandlegumeproductionsystems,theInternationalMaizeandWheatImprovementCenter(CIMMYT)andregionalnetworkswithfinancialsupportfromACIARformulatedaCASIresearchprogram.Theaimoftheprogramwastoincreasetheproductivityofmaizeandlegume-basedfarmingsystemsunderrainfedconditionsby30%andreducethedownsideriskby30%inatleast100,000householdsinKenyainonedecade.
Theprogramevaluatedthreeprinciplesofconservationagriculture:
• minimumsoildisturbance
• cropresidueretentiononthesoilsurface
• croprotation.
Minimumtillageandresidueretentiononthesoilsurfacehavereducedsoilerosionfromrainwaterandwindandimprovedsoilmoistureretention,alleviatingtheadverseeffectofloworpoorlydistributedrainfallforfarmersinKenya(Moetal.2016).Croprotationhasminimisedthebuild-upofdiseaseandinsectpestsinthesoilandincreasedsoilfertility.Itisusedtoreducepestsanddiseasesincroppingsystemsandgivebetterdistributionofnutrientsinthesoilprofile.Farmersoptedtogrowmaizeandlegumesasintercropsinsteadofrotationasawayofintensification,duetothesmallsizesoftheirfarms.Thus,maizewasintercroppedwithlegumeseveryseason.
Toachievetheprogram’ssettargets,researchandscaling-outactivitieswereplannedandimplementedunderfivebroadthemes:
• evaluatethedynamicsandperformanceofCASIoptionsformaize–legumeproductionsystems,valuechainsandimpactpathways
• testandadaptproductive,resilientandscalableCASIoptionsforsustainablesmallholdermaize–legumeproductionsystems
• increasetherangeofmaize,legumeandfodder/foragevarietiesavailabletosmallholderfarmers
• supportanddevelopmentoflocalinnovationplatformsforscalingout
• buildresearchcapacity.
SIMLESA268
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Program sitesEmbu,MeruandTharakaNithicountiesineasternKenyaandBungomaandSiayacountiesinwesternKenyawereidentifiedasthemajormaizeandlegumeproductionareaswiththegreatestpotentialforincreasedyield.Strategicpartnershipswereestablishedandhistoricproductiondatawerecollectedtocharacterisethemaizeandlegumeproductionsystemsintheseregionsandidentifytargetcommunities.
AbaselinestudywasconductedusingprimarydatafromfarminghouseholdsandsecondarydatafromMinistryofAgricultureLivestockandFisheriesandotherdevelopmentorganisations.Collectionofprimarydatainvolvedathree-stagesamplingproceduretoselectthestudyhouseholds.First,thedistrictswerepurposivelyselected.Second,administrativedivisionswererandomlysampled.Intheselecteddivisions,88villagesweresampled,proportionatetothenumberofvillagesinthedivision.Forthesampledvillages,arandomsampleofhouseholdswasselectedproportionaltothenumberofhouseholdsinthevillages.Intotal,613householdscomprising494male-headedhouseholdsand119female-headedhouseholdsweresampled.Enumeratorsweretrainedandinvolvedinthecollectionofprimarydatathroughface-to-facepersonalinterviewsofhouseholdheadsor,intheirabsence,seniorhouseholdmemberswellversedinfarmingactivities.AstructuredquestionnairewasusedunderthesupervisionofsocioeconomistsfromtheKenyaAgriculturalResearchInstitute’sKakamegaandEmbucentres.
Datawerecollectedregardingdemographicandsocioeconomicprofilesofthehouseholds,resourceendowments,adoptionofmaizeandlegumevarieties,cropandlivestockproductionsystems,andinputandoutputmarkets.Thedatawereanalysedbysimpledescriptivestatistics(percentages,crosstabulationsandmeans)todiscerngeneralcharacteristicsofthedatausingtheStatisticalPackageforSocialScientists(SPSS).Non-parametricanalysisofthevariableswasdonetotestsignificanceacrossthedifferentcomparisongroupsusingchi-squareandt-tests.FactorandclusteranalysismethodswereusedtoestablishfarmtypologiesusingR-software.
Fourclustersineachoftheregions(easternandwesternKenya)wereselectedasresearchsitesbasedonareviewofhistoricproductiondataandhouseholdsurveys.Kyeni(Embucounty)andMweru(Merucounty)inhumidareaswereidentifiedineasternKenya.Twoothersites,Mariani(TharakaNithicounty)andMworoga(Merucounty)wereearmarkedfortrialsinsubhumidecologiesinthesameregion.Likewise,BumulaandKanduyiinBungomacountyinhumidzones,andKaremoandLiganwainSiayaCountyinthesubhumidareawereidentifiedinwesternKenya(Figure15.1).
Intheseeightclusters,communitieswerefurthercharacterisedthroughkeyinformantdiscussionsinvolving302femaleand301malefarmers.Theselectedsiteshadmaizeandlegumesasmajorenterprisesandgoodpotentialforagriculture,withwell-drainedsoilsandrelativelyhighrainfallof1,100–1,600 mmperyear,althoughpoorlydistributed(Jaetzoldetal.2005a,2005b,2006).OtherregionsineasternandwesternKenyahadabimodalrainfallpatternandtwocroppingseasonsperyear.Thesitesweredenselypopulatedandthemajorityoffarmerspractisedmixedfarming.
269SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 15
Bungoma
Kakamega
Siaya
Meru
TharakaEmbu
Kenya SIMLESA trial sitesSIMLESA trial counties
Figure 15.1 SIMLESA trial sites in western and eastern Kenya
ImplementationTheKenyaSIMLESAprogramcommencedimplementationin2010.Atthisstage,discussionswereheldwithfarmersandotherkeystakeholders,includingprovincialadministration,MinistryofSocialServices,KenyaSeedCompany,KilimoSalamaCropInsuranceCompanyandOrganicAfrica(aninputstockist).Thediscussionswerefocusedonexplainingtheobjectivesandestablishingrolesandresponsibilitiesforparticipatoryfieldresearchactivities.
The2010baselinesurveyincludedinformationoncroptypesandvarietiesgrown,accesstoagriculturalinputsandservices,broadsystemicconstraintsandoptionsforfieldtesting.Thesedataestablishedbenchmarksagainstwhichtheprogressofprograminterventionscouldbeevaluated.ThesurveyfindingswerediscussedinmeetingswithresearchandextensionpartnersfromtheMinistryofAgriculture,farmersandcommunityleaders.Farmers’viewsweresolicitedandincludedintheresearchagenda.Possiblesolutionstoagriculturalconstraintswerediscussedandagreeduponinaparticipatorymanner.Farmersandotherstakeholdersagreedtointroduceandtestnewandmore-productivemaize,legumeandpasturevarietiesunderparticipatoryvarietyselectiontrials,inwhichfarmersselectedpreferredvarietiesusingtheirowncriteria.
Maizeandlegumevarietiesweretestedasintercrops,apracticewhichwasalreadypopularamongthefarmersandunderadditionalCASIpractices.Sixfarmersperclusterwereinitiallyidentifiedbyotherfarmerstohostexperimentalplotsontheirfarms.TheexperimentalplotsweretobeusedforvarietyandCASIsystemtesting,demonstrations,exchangevisitsandforlearningpurposesbyotherfarmerswithinandbeyondthesites.Toaddressnonagronomicchallenges,otherstakeholdersalongthevaluechainwereincludedasmembersofinnovationplatforms.
SIMLESA270
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Participatory variety selectionsMore-productivenewlyreleasedandpre-releasemaize,legumeandfoddervarietieswereidentifiedfromthenationalresearchprograms(DroughtTolerantMaizeforAfrica,InternationalMaizeandWheatImprovementCenter,InternationalCropsResearchInstituteforSemiAridTropics,InternationalLivestockResearchInstitute,TropicalLegumes2,seedcompaniesandEgertonUniversity)inaparticipatorymannerwithfarmers.Atotalof47maize5,39legume6and12fodder7varietiesweretestedundertheparticipatoryvarietyselectionapproach.Multiplecropswereevaluatedinparticipatoryvarietyselectiontrials.Theseincludedmaizevarietiesunderintercropswithcommonbean,pigeonpea,soybean,peanutandcowpea.TheseweretestedunderCASIsystemsinfarmers’fields.FertiliserwasappliedaccordingtoKALROrecommendations.Trialswerecarriedoutbyfarmerswithsupportfromresearchandextensionproviders.Evaluationswerecarriedoutseparatelybyfemaleandmalefarmers,andreportscompiled.Researchersconductedseparateevaluations.Dataweretriangulatedtoidentifythebest-performingvarieties.Thesamestudieswereconductedonresearchstations.
Thevarietiespreferredbyfarmerswereusedbyresearchersandseedcompaniestoproduceseedfollowingwell-definedseedroadmaps,whichprovidedneccessaryagreementswithseedcompaniesontheamountofseedtobeproducedforfarmerswithinaspecifiedperiod(Table15.7).Basicseedwasproducedbyresearchersandgiventoseedcompaniestomultiplyseedforfarmers.
Testing CASI optionsFourCASItreatmentswereselectedbyfarmers,researchersandextensionstafffortesting(Table15.1).
1. Zerotillagethatinvolvednolandtillage,onlymakingseedandfertiliserholesatspecifiedspacing.Weedswerecontrolledusingherbicides.Over75%ofthecropresidueswereleftonthesurfaceoftheplotsattheendoftheseason.
2. Zerotillage+Desmodiumthatinvolvednolandtillage,onlymakingseedandfertiliserholesatspecifiedspacing.Desmodiumwasinterplantedtocontrolweedsandprovidefodderforlivestock.Over75%ofthecropresidueswereleftonthesurfaceoftheplotsattheendoftheseason.
3. Furrowsandridgesthatinvolvedmakingfurrowsandridgesatthestartwithlittlemaintenanceinthefollow-upseasons.Weedswerecontrolledusingherbicides.Over75%ofthecropresidueswereleftonthesurfaceoftheplotsattheendoftheseason.
4. Conventionaltillagethatinvolvedploughing,harrowingandatleasttwostagesofhandweedingtocontroltheweeds.Allcropresidueswereremovedfromtheplotsattheendoftheseason.
5 Maize varieties tested under participatory variety selection KALROEmbu:KH500–39E,KH500–38E,KH631Q,Embu225,Embu226,EmbuSynthetic,KDV1,KDV5,KDV6,DK8033,MZ1202(H529),12ML1,Pioneer2859W,Pioneer30G19
KALROKakamega:KSTP94,KH633A,IRWS303,KAKSUT2,KM0403,H520,H624,KM0221,KH533A,GAF4,DH014,KM0111,KM0311,KM1001,H527,KM0404,KM0406;commercialvarieties:DK8031,H513,DH04,WH105,WH505;farmers’varieties:NyaUganda,Obabari,Sipindi,Duma49,Nambanane,Panadol,DK8031,H614,Duma43,H624,H513
6 Legume varieties tested under participatory variety selection KALROEmbu:bean(KATB9,KATB1,KATX56,KATX69,Embean14,KK8,KK15,Embean7,Embean118,Chelelang,KKRII05/Cal130,Ciankui,Tasha,KATRM-01,KKRII05/cal14B);pigeonpea(KAT60/8,ICEAP00554,00040,00850,00557,KAT60/8,CPL87091);cowpea(K80,M66,KVU-27–1);farmers’varieties:bean(Mwitemania);pigeonpea(Kendi,Ndombolo)
KALROKakamega:bean(KK8,kk071,kk072,kk15,kk20,Emben14,KATB9,KATB1,KATX56,KATX69,KKRosecoco,KKRedBean16);soybean(SB19,SB25,SB3,EAI3600);peanut(ICGV-SM99568,ICGV-SM-12991,ICGV-SM-90704);farmers’varieties:beans(Nyaseje,Rosecoc);peanut(RedValencia)
7 Fodder varieties tested under participatory variety selectionSorghum(E6518),vetch,Calliandra calothyrsus,Morus alba(mulberry),Leucaena trichandra,Brachiaria decumbens(Basilisk),Brachiaria brizantha(Toredo),Brachiaria brizantha (Piata),green-leafDesmodium,silver-leafDesmodium,Dolichos lablab,dual-purposecowpea
271SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 15
Recommendedratesoffertiliserwereappliedinalltreatments.Formaize,60 kg Nand60 kg P205wereappliedperhectare.Forlegumes,20 kg Nwasappliedperhectare.
Table 15.1 Tillage methods selected by farmers for testing
Tillage method
Land preparation
Weed control
Residue management
Example
Zerotillage onlyseedandfertiliserholesmade
herbicidesusedasneeded
over75%retainedonsoilsurface
Furrowsandridges
furrows/ridgesmadeatthestartandmaintainedthereafterwithminimalrepairs
herbicidesusedasneeded
over75%retainedonsoilsurface
ZerotillageandDesmodium intercrop
onlyseedandfertiliserholesmade
herbicidesusedatfirstseasonbeforeplanting
over75%ofmaizeandbeanresidueretainedonsoilsurface,Desmodiumfedtolivestock
Conventionaltillage
landdugbyhandfollowedbyplantingofseedandfertiliser
twohandweedingsessions
allresidueremovedandfedtolivestock
SIMLESA272
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Adoption monitoring of SIMLESA technologiesAdoptionoftechnologiesandpracticesinSIMLESAwasevaluatedthroughsurveyscarriedoutbytheAdoptionPathwaysProjectincollaborationwithSIMLESAscientists.TheAdoptionPathwaysProjectwassupportedbytheAustralianInternationalFoodSecurityCentre.In2012–13,thefirstadoptionsurveywascarriedout.TheobjectiveofthesurveywastoestimatethenumberoffarmerswhohadheardofandadoptedSIMLESAtechnologiesorpracticessince2010.Asnowball/chainsamplingtechniquewasused.Themethodstartedbyinterviewingfirst-generationfarmers(i.e.hostfarmers),membersofinnovationplatformsandagriculturalextensionofficersinSIMLESAclusters.Thefirst-generationfarmersandagriculturalextensionofficersprovidedalistofsecond-generationfarmers(i.e.farmerstheyhadtrainedinissuesrelatedtoSIMLESAactivities,orwhohadparticipatedinthefielddaysorvisitedexperimentalplots,andwerepractisingSIMLESAtechnologies).Thesecond-generationfarmerssuppliedalistofotherfarmerswhowereimplementingSIMLESAactivities.Atotalof4,503farmerswereinterviewed.Asecondadoptionstudywasundertakeninlate2015ineasternKenya,withintheprogramsitesinthethreecountiesofEmbu,MeruandTharakaNithi.Atotalof100femaleand76malefarmerswereinterviewed.
Capacity buildingBuilding credentials
Researchersandpartnersweretrainedindifferentareasanddisciplinesaslistedbelow.Trainingwasconductedbytheprogramlocally,whileothersessionswereheldinTanzania,ZimbabweandbytheAgriculturalResearchCouncilofSouthAfrica.Apartfromshortcourses,oneKenyanreceivedsupporttoenrolinanMasterofScienceandthreeKenyansreceivedsupporttoenrolinPhDprogramsandconductSIMLESAresearch.OfthethreePhDprograms,onestudentsuccessfullygraduatedinJuly2015.
Gender mainstreaming
Fourfemaleandtwomalescientistsweretrainedinfourgendermainstreaming workshopsin2011and2012.Eachtrainingtookaweek,onaverage,andincludedafieldpractical.Scientiststrainedothersand,withthetrainees,recordedgender-responsive andgender-sensitivedataduringplanning,implementationandevaluationof technologies.Documentationoffivegenderstudycasesofgoodpracticewascarried out(CIMMYT-ACIAR2013).
Monitoring and evaluation training
Fourresearchersbuilttheircapacityinmonitoringandevaluationinfourtrainingworkshopsin2011and2012.ThetrainingswerecarriedoutinKenyaandTanzaniaandlastedaboutthreedayseach.Researchersusedtheiracquiredskillstodevelopgender-responsivekeyperformanceindicatorsthatwereusedtomonitortheprogressofSIMLESAprogramimplementation.
273SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 15
APSIM model training
TwoofficersweretrainedoncropsystemsresearchinfarmtypologymodellingandtheAgriculturalProductionSystemssIMulator(APSIM)model.Cropsimulationmodelswereusedtocalibratedatafromtargetedareastoassesstheproduction,profitabilityandriskinessofcertainidentifiedproductionstrategies.DataforthecalibrationoftheAPSIMmodelwereobtainedfromexistingnationalclimaticdatabases,andsupportedbysoilandcultivarinformation.
What did we learn?Baseline survey and farming systems characterisationOfthe613householdsthatwereinterviewed,119werefemale-headedand494weremale-headed.Farmingwasthemainoccupation(74.2%)ofthehouseholdheads.Theaveragefarmsizeinthefivecounties(Embu,Meru,TharakaNithi,BungomaandSiaya)was1.20 ha/householdandthisdidnotdiffersignificantlybetweenthecounties.Thecropsgrownbymostfarmersweremaizeandlegumes.About76%ofthesurveyedhouseholdsfedcropresiduestotheirlivestockand65%usedlivestockmanureontheirfarms.Thisflowofresourcesacrosscropandlivestocksystemsrequiredanintegratedapproachtocropandlivestockresearch.
Thethreemostimportantmaizeproductionconstraintsreportedbythesurveyedhouseholdswerehighfertiliserprices,droughtandhighpricesofimprovedseeds.Thisinformedongoingresearchintoalternativesourcesofcropnutrients,high-yieldinganddrought-tolerantmaizeandlegumevarietiesandstrategiestoincreaseaccesstoaffordableseed(e.g.community-basedseedproduction).
ThestatisticsthatsummarisetheentireSIMLESAresearchareapopulationprovided abroadunderstandingofhouseholdproductionsystemsinKenya(Table15.2). Householdtypologiesweredevelopedtounderstandthediversityandmajorsources ofsocioeconomicdisparityamongthepopulationofSIMLESAfarmers.Householdsfellintooneofsixfarmtypologiesbasedonfactorsidentifiedfrombaselinesurveydataandfocusgroupdiscussions(Figure15.2)(Wilkus,Roxburgh&Rodriguez2019).Asaresult ofthefactorandclusteranalysismethodusedtoestablishtypologies,householdswithinafarmtypologyhadsimilarsocioeconomiccharacteristics.Thesesimilaritiessuggest thathouseholdswithinthesametypologywouldbenefitfromsimilartechnologies. CASItechnologieswerethereforeevaluatedanddevelopedforspecifictypologiesthatcouldbetargetedwhenpromotingtechnologies.
SIMLESA274
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Table 15.2 Household characteristics in Kenya
Cluster variables Frequencies (%) or cluster medians (standard deviations)
1 2 3 P-valuea
Western Kenya
Farmsize(ha) 3.0(3.9) 1.5(1.1) 1.3(1.3) >0.000***
Householdsize(adultmaleequivalent)
4.5(2.0) 2.4(0.7) 2.5(1.4) >0.000***
Sheeporgoats(head) 4(3.7) 1(1.3) 2(2.3) >0.000***
Householdassets(KSh1,000) 44(115) 19(35) 11(17) >0.000***
Sampledpopulation(%) 40 40 20 -
Female-headed(%) 18 16 30 0.118
Reliantoncropping(%) 23 24 23 0.950
Reliantonoff-farmwork(%) 71 78 82 0.083.
Reliantonnon-croppingfarming(%) 31 24 23 0.222
Ageofhouseholdhead(years) 53(14) 42(14) 58(15) 0.653
Highesteducationofhouseholdhead(years)
8(3.9) 8(2.9) 2(2.1) >0.000***
Householdincome(KSh1,000) 143(913) 60(325) 37(203) 0.000***
Eastern Kenya
Farmsize(ha) 1.5(1.4) 2.1(1.3) 5.4(3.7) >0.000***
Householdsize(adultmaleequivalent)
2(0.7) 3.6(1.4) 3.5(1.5) >0.000***
Maizearea(ha) 0.2(0.2) 0.1(0.2) 0.6(1.1) >0.000***
Sheeporgoats(head) 3(1.7) 3(2.0) 8(3.6) >0.000***
Cattle(TLU) 0.5(0.5) 1.4(0.7) 1.4(1.0) >0.000***
Sampledpopulation(%) 60 29 11 -
Female-headed(%) 23 17 9 0.036*
Reliantoncropping(%) 51 51 59 0.759
Reliantonoff-farmwork(%) 66 66 44 0.047*
Reliantonnon-croppingfarming(%) 26 26 35 0.434
Ageofhouseholdhead(years) 45(15) 52(12) 54(14) >0.000***
Highesteducationofhouseholdhead(years)
7(4) 8(4) 7(4) 0.865
Householdincome(KSh1,000) 67(211) 134(1,789) 225(440) 0.027*
Notes:TLU=tropicallivestockunit.1TLUisequivalenttolivestockweightof250 kg.Theconversionfactorvariesaccordingtothelivestocktype:1ox=1.12TLU,1coworheifer=0.8TLU,1sheep=0.09TLU,1goat=0.07TLU,1horse=1.3TLU,1mule=0.90TLU,1donkey=0.35TLU.a=ANOVAtest(*,**,***forP-value<0.05,0.01and0.001respectively).
275SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 15
Figure 15.2 Heat map of the characteristics and livelihood strategies of farmer groups from western (clusters W1, W2 and W3) and eastern Kenya (clusters E1, E2 and E3)
Theintensityofcolourindicatesthevalueofthefarmsystemvariableforahouseholdgrouprelativetoothergroups (0–1,lighttodark,respectively).Threetypesoffarmingsystemvariableswereused:foodavailabilitylevels(black),socialmobilityfactors(orange)andsourcesofincomegeneration(blue).Foodavailabilityvariableswerethemedianvaluesforlandarea,tropicallivestockunitsandconsumptionequivalentswithineachgroup.Thesocialmobilityfactorsweremedianeducationlevel(yearsofformaleducation),proximitytomarkets(walkingminutes)andtheprobabilityofbeingamale-headedhouseholdwithinthegroup.Incomegenerationcomponentsweremedianincomelevelsfromcropsales,off-farmactivities andothernon-cropfarmsales. Source:Wilkus,Roxburgh&Rodriguez2019
Hou
seho
ld c
lust
er
Land
are
a
Scale
Live
stoc
k ow
ned
Cons
umpt
ion
equi
vale
nt
Educ
atio
n
Prox
imity
to m
arke
ts
Prob
abili
ty o
f mal
e-he
aded
hou
seho
ld
Crop
inco
me
Off
-far
m in
com
e
Oth
er in
com
e
W3
W2
1.00
0.750.50
0.25
0
E1
E2
W1
E3
SIMLESA276
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Participatory variety selection trialsFarmersidentified14preferredmaizevarieties(Table15.3)inparticipatoryvarietyselectiontrialsfromthe47varietiestested.Farmerspreferredvarietiesfordifferentreasons,andfemaleandmalefarmersdidnotalwaysrankvarietiesthesameway.
Table 15.3 Maize varieties selected and endorsed by farmers
Variety Hybrid/OPV Source Reasons for selection
Eastern Kenya
PHB30G19 hybrid PioneerSeedCompany
highyields(>5 t/ha),doublecobs, well-filledgrainsandlowearplacement
PHBP2859W hybrid PioneerSeedCompany
earlymaturity(approximately120days),highyields(>5 t/ha),drought-tolerant
KH500–39E hybrid KALRO highyields(4.5–5 t/ha),well-filledcobs,heavygrains,goodhuskcover
KH500–38E hybrid KALRO moderatelyhighyields(4.5–5t/ha)
H529 hybrid KenyaSeedCompany
highyields(>4.5 t/ha),goodroastingandcookingqualities
DK8031 hybrid Monsanto highyields(>4.5 t/ha)
Emb225 OPV KALRO highyields(>4 t/ha),earlymaturing,drought-tolerant,goodroastingquality
Emb226 OPV KALRO earlymaturing
KDV1 OPV KALRO earlymaturing,drought-tolerant,highyields
KDV5 OPV KALRO earlymaturing(upto90 days),highyields(>4.0 t/ha),drought-tolerant
KDV6 OPV KALRO earlymaturing(<95 days),highyields(>4.0 t/ha),drought-tolerant
Western Kenya
H520 hybrid KenyaSeedCompany
highyields,bigcobs,notdented,whitekernels
KH633A hybrid KALRO earlymaturing
KSTP94 OPV KALRO tolerancetostrigaweed,highyield
Note:OPV=open-pollinatedvariety
Farmersendorsed24legumevarieties(Table15.4)fromthe42varietiestested.Criteriaforendorsingagivenvarietyincludedearly/mediummaturity,graincolour,highgrainyieldandlevelofdisposal(consumption/marketing).
277SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 15
Table 15.4 Legume varieties endorsed by farmers
Variety Legume type
Source Reason for selection/preference
Chelalang bushbean EgertonUniversity
highyields,earlymaturing
KKRosecoco194
bushbean KALROKakamega
highyields,toleranttorootrot,appealingcolour
Ciankui bushbean EgertonUniversity
earlymaturing,highyields,fastcooking
Tasha bushbean EgertonUniversity
earlymaturing,disease-andinsect-tolerant
KKRedBean16
bushbean KALROKakamega
highyields,toleranttorootrot,appealingcolour
KK8 bushbean KALROKakamega
highyields,toleranttorootrot
KK15 bushbean KALROKakamega
highyields,toleranttorootrot,goodforfoodsecuritybecauseoflowmarketability
Embean14 bushbean KALROEmbu highyields,earlymaturity,goodtaste,verymarketable
KATX69 bushbean KALROKatumani
highyields,withstandsheavyrains,marketable
Ndombolo pigeonpea local(Meru)variety
highyields
Kendi pigeonpea local(Meru)variety
highlydrought-tolerant,cooksfast,highyields,withstandsheavyrains,marketable
KAT60/8 pigeonpea KALROKatumani
highyields,withstandsheavyrains
ICEAP00554 pigeonpea ICRISAT highyields,withstandsheavyrains,marketable
ICEAP00850 pigeonpea ICRISAT highyields,withstandsheavyrains
ICEAP00040 pigeonpea ICRISAT earlymaturity,highyields
ICPL87091 pigeonpea ICRISAT large-seeded,highyields,withstandsheavyrains
ICGV99568 peanut ICRISAT largegrain,goodforroasting,goodtaste
ICGV90704 peanut ICRISAT largegrain,goodforroasting
ICGV12991 peanut ICRISAT goodforbutterprocessing
SB19 soybean CIAT highyields,doesnotlodge
M66 cowpea KALROKatumani
dualpurpose,highyields,goodforintercropping,highlydrought-tolerant,cooksfast
M80 cowpea KALROKatumani
dualpurpose,resistanttoaphids,highlydrought-tolerant,marketable
KVU-27–1 cowpea KALROKatumani
dualpurpose,moderatelyresistanttoaphids,highlydrought-tolerant,marketable
Testingoffodder/foragecropsforfeedinglivestockstartedin2015withtheaimofprovidingalternativestomaizeandlegumecropresidues.Outof12foddervarietiesthatweretestedandpromoted,sevenvarietieswerepreferredbyfarmers(Table15.5).Fromthesetofpreferredvarieties,threedifferentBrachiariavarietiesweredistributedto54womenand27menfarmersineasternKenyabyDecember2016.PreliminaryBrachiaria feedingtrialsbyfarmersshowedincreasedmilkproductionfrom0.5l/dayto1.5l/day.BiomassyieldsforBrachiariagrasseswere50%morethanthatofNapiergrass.
SIMLESA278
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Table 15.5 Fodder varieties endorsed by farmers
Variety Type Source Reason for selection/preference
Brachiaria decumbens (Basilisk)
fodder ILRI highbiomass,easytocarrycomparedtoNapier,highmilkincrease,goodinsoilconservation
Brachiaria brizantha (Toredo)
fodder ILRI highbiomass,easytocarrycomparedtoNapier,highmilkincrease,goodinsoilconservation
Brachiaria brizantha (Piata)
fodder ILRI highbiomass,easytocarrycomparedtoNapier,highmilkincrease
Calliandra calothyrsus fodder KALRO 3 kgoffreshCalliandrahadthesameeffectas1 kgofdairymealinmilkproduction(Paterson,Kiruiro&Arimi1999)
Leucaena trichandra fodder KALRO milkincreasewhenfedtodairycattle,palatableandlikedbyanimals,easilyadaptable,drought-tolerant
Morus alba(mulberry) fodder KALRO milkincreasewhenfedtothedairycattle,palatable,likedbyanimals,easilyadaptable,drought-tolerant
Desmodium fodder KALRO substituteformaizeresidue,increasedmilkproduction
Resultsfrommaize,legumeandfoddervarietiesselectedandendorsedbyfarmersshowedthatfarmers’preferencesarehighlyvariableandcouldnotbesatisfiedbyafewvarieties.Yield,earlymaturity,droughttolerance,insect-anddisease-tolerance,colourofgrain,volumeofgrainthatfillsa50 kgor90 kgbag,cookingqualities,tasteandmarketabilitywerecharacteristicsthatdifferentfarmersvaluedwhenselectingvarieties.Farmersdidnotvaluecharacteristicsthesameway.Femaleandmalefarmers’selectioncriteriawerenotalwayssimilar.Whilewomentendedtovaluequalitiesthatimpactedtheenduser,liketaste,cookingandroastingqualitiesandgraincolourmorethanyield,menweremoreconcernedwithyieldasittranslatedtohigherreturns.Fodderforagespecieswereequallyappreciatedbyfemaleandmalefarmersfortheirfastgrowthratesandhigherbiomass.
CASI practices endorsed by farmersIrrespectiveofmanagementpractice,maizeandbeansyieldsoftheSIMLESAprogramparticipantsandneighboursofparticipantsweresignificantlyhigher(4.5 t/haand 2.0 t/harespectively)thanyieldsofnontrialfarmers(1.6 t/haand0.5 t/harespectively).Thiswasattributedtotheuseofmore-productivenewlyreleasedvarieties,correctratesoffertilisers,correctseedrates,timelycontrolofweedsandcontrolofdiseaseandinsectpests.Thisincreaseinyieldrepresented300%formaizeand400%forbeansintheSIMLESAclustersandtheneighbouringfarms.
Maizeandbeanyieldsobtainedunderzerotillage,furrowsandridgesandconventionaltillagewerenotsignificantlydifferent(Figures15.3and15.4).
279SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 15
Figure 15.3 Average annual maize grain yield under different tillage practices in eastern Kenya SIMLESA sites, 2010–16
Conventional tillage Furrows/tillage Zero tillage
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Gra
in y
ield
(t/h
a)
Conventional tillage Furrows/tillage Zero tillage
0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Bean
yie
ld (t
/ha)
Figure 15.4 Average annual bean yield under different tillage practices in eastern Kenya SIMLESA sites, 2010–16
SIMLESA280
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Returnsonlabour,andthereforeprofitability,CASIpracticesweresignificantlyhigherthanconventionaltillage.LabourcostsassociatedwithzerotillageandfurrowsandridgeswereUS$800–$1,200/ha(Figure15.5).ConventionaltillageineasternKenyainvolvedhanddiggingbeforeplantingfollowedbytwohandweedingsessions.InCASIsystems(zerotillageandfurrowsandridges),herbicidesreplacedhanddiggingandweeding.Thecostoffurrowsandridgeswereonlysignificantlyhigherthanzerotillageinthefirstseason(2010),whenthefurrowswerenewlymade.However,yieldlevelsunderzerotillagecomparedtofurrowsandridgeswerenotsignificantlydifferentforeachseasonfrom2010to2016.Althoughtheyieldsofmaizefordifferenttillagemethodswerenotsignificantlydifferent,farmersrealisedmuchhigherreturnsfromzerotillageandfurrowsandridgesduetotheirhigherlabourcostsaving.
Figure 15.5 Labour costs of different tillage practices in eastern Kenya
Theaveragecropwateruseefficiencyforthethreetillagemethodsisshownin Figure15.6.ThefirstyearofexperimentationdidnothavemulchesontheCASIplots.ThismaybewhyCASItreatmentsdidnothaveanadvantageovertheconventionaltillagepracticeonmoisturecapture.EnhancedcropwateruseefficiencieswereobservedlaterundertheCASItreatments,duringsubsequentyearsofthestudy.ThisiswhenadequateresidueshadaccumulatedundertheCASItreatmentsandthereforemoremoistureretentionwasachieved.Allseasonsfrom2011recordedsignificantlyhighercropwateruseefficiency(above7.0 kg/ha/mm)forthefurrowandridgetreatmentcomparedto lessthan6.1 kg/ha/mmforconventionalandzerotillagesystems.Relatedstudiesshowedthatutilisationofresourcesbycropsisgreatlyaffectedbyweedswhenthecropandweedscompeteforlight,nutrientsandmoisture.BetterweedcontrolundertheCASItreatments,usingpre-andpost-emergenceherbicides,mighthavegreatlyimproved cropwateruseefficiency.
Theeffectofthreetillagepracticesonsoilmoistureat0–15 cmsoildepthatharvesttimewastestedforsixseasonsinthesemi-aridareasofeasternKenya.Inthefourthseason,thetillagemethodswerealreadysignificantlydifferentfromeachother,withthefurrowsandridgesretainingthehighestamountofmoisture.
0
200
600
400
800
1000
1200
1400
Labo
ur c
ost (
US$
/ha)
Conventional tillage Zero tillage Furrows/ridges
2010 2016
281SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 15
Figure 15.6 Effect of tillage practices on crop water use efficiency in eastern Kenya
Maizeandlegumesonfurrowsandridgesweremoretoleranttodroughtthaninzerotillageorconventionalpractice.Thiswasexplainedbythehigheraveragemoisturelevelsoffurrowsandridgescomparedtozerotillageorconventionalpractices.Residualmoisturecouldbeexploitedbygrowingashort-maturingandless-water-demandingcrop,suchascowpea,leadingtoincreasedproductivity.
Furrowsandridgeshadsignificantlylowerbulkdensitythaneitherzerotillageorconventionaltillage(Figure15.7).Lowerbulkdensityincreasedcropyield.
Mai
ze w
ater
use
effi
cien
cy (k
g/ha
/mm
)
Conventional tillage Furrow/ridges Zero tillage
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 20163.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Figure 15.7 Effect of tillage practice on soil bulk density in eastern Kenya, 2010 and 2016
0
0.2
0.6
0.4
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
Soil
bulk
den
sity
(kg/
m3 )
Initial (2010) Furrows/ridges(2016)
Zero tillage(2016)
Conventional tillage(2016)
1.21.0 1.0 1.0
y = - 0.04x + 1.15R² = 0.3883
Tillage practice/time
SIMLESA282
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
FarmersexpressedpositiveimpressionsofallthreeCASIpracticesthatwereevaluatedinfarmers’experimentalplots.Preferencestendedtodependonthegenderofthefarmer.FemalefarmerspreferredzerotillageovertheotherCASIpracticesbecauseitdecreasedlabourdemand.Incontrast,malefarmerspreferredfurrowsandridgesovertheotherCASIoptionsbecauseitperformedthebestunderdrierconditions.
What was the impact?
Innovation platformsBy2014,thenumberofinnovationplatformshadgrownto13andthestakeholderswhoweremembershadgrowntomorethan40.Theinnovationplatformsthatweredevelopedcontributedtohighlevelsoffarmerinvolvementinresearchandknowledge-sharing.Farmerswereinvolvedfromtheinitialstageofprogramimplementationintheidentificationoffarmingchallengesandopportunities,andinselectingfarmerstoactashostsforagronomictrials.Afterestablishingtrials,farmersandmembersofthelocalinnovationplatformswereinstrumentalinconductingseasonalmonitoringandevaluationwiththeaimofquantifyingtheeffectsofCASIpracticesoncropperformance,soilfertilityimprovementandweedmanagement.FarmersarrangedandhostedfielddaysforwiderscalingoutofSIMLESAtechnologiesandknowledgeaswellastrainingotherfarmersonCASIprinciplesandpractices.FarmerssharedinformationonthebenefitsofCASIpractices.
Thepartnershipsdevelopedundertheinnovationplatformscontributedto:
• exchangeofagriculturalknowledgefromresearchtofarmers
• ongoingmanagementandevaluationoftechnologies(i.e.adaptivelearning)
• scalingoutofcropsandlivestocktechnologies
• exchangeofsupply-and-demandinformationbetweenfarmersandinputandoutputmarkets.
Thesefunctionsofsocialnetworksfacilitatedrapidcommunitymobilisation,networking,synergycreationandself-driveninterventions.Withintheinnovationplatformframework,farmersandotherstakeholdersactedasagentsofchange,fillingthegapofthelimitedextensionservicesandincreasingawarenessofimprovedtechnologies,increasedadoption,increasedscalingoutandproductivity.Dialoguewithintheinnovationplatformframeworkincreasedcommunityvisioningwithsettargetsforimprovedproductivityandmarketing,andcreatedopportunitiesforproducerstospearheadfielddays,educationtoursandotherscaling-outactivities.
ScalingoutoftechnologiesandpracticesinSIMLESAwascarriedoutthroughdemonstrations,farmerfielddays,exchangevisits,agriculturalshows,innovationplatforms,partnerextensionsystems,seedroadmaps,partnernon-governmentorganisations,faith-basedorganisations,community-basedorganisationsandselectedpartnersthroughcompetitivegrantsystems.ThevariouscomponentsthatwerescaledoutareshowninTable15.6.Mostofthesettargetswereexceeded.
283SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 15
Table 15.6 Scaling out of SIMLESA technologies and activities
Research aspect Target by 2016 Achieved
Numberoffarmersreached 11,500farmers 7,000women;11,000men
NumberoffarmerswhoadoptedSIMLESAtechnologies 958women; 4,082men
2,066women;1,401men
Numberofmaize–legumefarmingcommunitiesselected
48 51
Numberofcommunitiescharacterisedonsocioeconomicandbiophysicalprofiles
15 72
Numberoflong-termtrialsestablished 2 5
Numberofbest-betoptionstested 4 6
Numberofbest-betoptionsselectedforscalingout 2 3
Numberoffarmerstryingoutconservationagriculture-basedexperimentsontheirownfieldsdocumented
340 2,669women;1,766men
Numberofnewmaizevarietiesidentifiedandevaluated notarget 47
Numberofnewmaizevarietiesendorsedthroughparticipatoryvarietyselectionprocedures
3 14
Amountofseedofnewmaizevarietiesproducedanddistributedtopartners
0.15 t 8.25 t
Numberofnewlegumevarietiesidentifiedandevaluated
notarget 42
Numberofnewlegumevarietiesendorsedthroughparticipatoryvarietyselectionprocedures
2 23
Amountofseedofnewlegumevarietiesendorsedthroughparticipatoryvarietyselectionprocedures
0.3 t 12.71 t
Numberofnewfoddervarietiesidentifiedandevaluated
notarget 12
Numberofnewfoddervarietiesendorsedbyfarmers notarget 7
Numberofseedcompaniesthecountryteamworkingwith
notarget 8
Numberofinnovationplatformsformed 8 13
Numberoffunctionalinnovationplatforms 8 11
Numberoffarmersreachedbyinnovationplatforms(approximate)
notarget 1,600
Numberoffarmersreachedthroughfielddays 12,000 11,497women;7,405men
Numberofexchangevisitsconducted approx.6 4
Numberofstakeholdersparticipatinginexchangevisits 149women; 191men
156women; 169men
SIMLESA284
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Development of seed road mapsToprovideenoughquantitiesofseedofthemaizeandlegumevarietiesselectedbyfarmers,scientistsfromKALROagreedonseedroadmapswithseedcompaniesandprovidedthemwithbasicseedtomultiplyforfarmers.TheamountofseedproducedthroughtheseedroadmapsisshowninTable15.7.TheseedcompaniesthatparticipatedinseedroadmapsandthevarietiestheymultipliedareshowninTable15.8.
Table 15.7 Seed road maps showing the type and amount of seed produced
2010–11 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14 2014–15
Breederseedproduction
EML1:40 kg EML1:450 kg 1.16 t
Pre-basicandbasicseedproduction
EML2:200 kgEML3:200 kg
EML1:4.5 tEML2:2 tEML3:2 t
EML1×EML2:6 t
1.2 t pre-basic1.8 tbasicAllbyKSU
Certifiedseedproduction
Production:17 tofKH500-39Ein
March2014
55 t•25 t(Freshco)
•30 t(KSU)
Maize:breederseed
0.375 t 0.125 t 3.672 t 1.0 t 0.045 t
Maize:certifiedseed
1.5 t 12.4 t 0.436 t 162 t 202 t
Legumes:breederseed
0.684 t 0.630 t 1.212 t
Legumes:certifiedseed
29.4 t
Table 15.8 Key seed companies and partners
Seed company Seed multiplied
MogotyoPlantations KH500-39Emaize
FreschoSeedCompany KH500-39E,KH633A,KH631Q,KDV6maizevarieties
KALROSeedUnit KH500-39Emaize,KSTP94maizeandlegumeseed
KenyaSeedCompany HB520maizevariety
BubayiProductsLimited KK8beanvariety
LeldetSeedCompany Peanut
WesternSeedCompany KK8andKK15beanvarieties
OneAcreFund KK8andKK15beanandSB191soybeanvarieties
ICRISAT Peanutbreederseed(1.0 t)giventoKALRObyICRISAT
Acompetitivegrantsystemapproachwasadoptedtoexploitthecomparativeadvantagesofpartnerstoreachhighernumbersandensurethatatleast100,000householdswerereachedbySIMLESAtechnologiesandpracticesinonedecadefromthestartoftheprogram.Fourpartnerswerecompetitivelyselectedoutof29thatexpressedinteresttoscaleoutSIMLESAtechnologies(Table15.9).
285SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 15
Table 15.9 Targets to be reached by partners in the competitive grant system
Partner Technologies to scale out Coverage Targets
NationalCouncilofChurchesofKenya
newmaizeandlegumevarieties
Embu,Kitui,MeruandTharakaNithicounties
• 30,000householdsreachedout• 10,500householdsapplyingthetechnologiesontheirfarmsbyMay2018
agri-innovationplatforms KituiandTharakaNithicounties
• 2agri-innovationplatformsestablishedbyMay2018
informationsets Embu,Kitui,MeruandTharakaNithicounties
• 30,000informationsets(brochures,SMS,billboards,radiotranscriptsandoutreachprograms,audiovisualcontentandprograms)byMay2018
MediaeCompany
SIMLESAsustainableintensificationoptions
filmingforcontenttobecarriedoutinEmbu,Kakamega,Kitale,Kitui,Machakos,Meru,TharakaNithiandUasinGishucounties
• intensificationoptionsairedonCitizenTVinShambaShapeUpSeries7covering5,000,000farmhouseholdsthroughoutKenyawith400,000expectedtobenefitdirectlybyApril2018
EgertonUniversity
newlegumeandmaizevarietiesandconservationagriculture-basedtechnologiesandpractices
Busia,Kakamega,SiayaandVihigacounties
• atleast30,000householdsandusersreachedwith7,500applyingontheirfarmsbyAugust2018
• atleast30,000informationsets(brochures,SMS,billboards,radiotranscriptsandoutreachprograms,TVcontentandprograms)developedanddisseminated
• atleast350nextuserpartnerstaffengagedandsupportingtheprocessesabove
FreschoKenyaLimited
maizevarieties(KDV6,KDV1,KH500-33A,KH500-39E,KH500Q,KH600-14E);beans(KATX56,KATB1);sorghum(Gadam,Seredo);greengrams(N26);cowpea(K80/M66);Dolichos lablab(DL1002)
Embu,Meru,TharakaNithi,Bungoma,KakamegaandSiayacounties
• reach30,000householdswithdistributionoffreesamplesofmaizeandlegumevarietiesforfarmerstotryontheirfarms
• reach36,000farmersinfarmers’fairsandfielddays
• target80%ofthefarmersandhouseholdstoembraceandcontinuewiththetechnologiesandfarmingmethods
Mobile phone system for the delivery of information to farmers and agribusinessesMobilephonenumbersofrecipientsofSMSmessageswerecollectedandenteredinto anExcelspreadsheetandloadedintotheestablishedwebsitebeingmanagedfromAustraliabytheQueenslandAllianceforAgricultureandFoodInnovation.Aninitialtargetof2,000farmersfromwesternKenyawereloadedandtested.Thenumberoffarmersinthenetworkwasincreasedprogressivelyto20,000recipientswhoreceivedandsentmessages.
SIMLESA286
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Adoption rates of SIMLESA technologiesTheadoptionsurveycarriedoutin2012–13foundthattheadoptionofCASIpracticesinprogramsitesineasternKenya(4,503households)increaseddramaticallyfromlessthan1%whentheprogrambeganin2010to58%in2013forzerotillageand38%forfurrowandridgetillagesystems.Thesurveyalsoestablishedthatmorewomenwereadoptingzerotillagepracticesthanmen,whilemoremenwereadoptingfurrowandridgepractices.Atleast50%ofthehostfarmerswereplantingnewvarietiesbeyondtheexploratorytrialplots.Amongthelegumes,71%offarmersweregrowingEmbean14,whichwasmorepopularamongfemalefarmers.Itspreferredattributesweregoodtaste,highyieldsandgoodpricecomparedtoothervarieties.
By20168,anumberoffarmersbeyondthetargetedSIMLESAhouseholdshadheardofandadoptedSIMLESAtechnologiesandpracticesbasedonknowledgegainedfromSIMLESAparticipants.Adoptionpatternssuggestedthatthemostcommonandeffectiveapproachesofdisseminatingprogramtechnologiesandpracticeswerevisitstodemonstrationsites(96.6%ofrespondents),attendingfielddays(73.7%)andexchangevisits(39.2%).ThemostpopularcropswereDK8031,KDV6maizevarietiesandEmbean14beanvariety,knownby44.3%,20.7%and15.5%ofrespondents,respectively.Furrowsandridges,residuereturnandfertiliserusewereknownby30.4%,18.7%and13.4%ofrespondents,respectively.
What should we do next?
SIMLESAhouseholdsrealisedthepotentialbenefitsofthemore-productivetechnologiesandpractices.However,thesebenefitshavenotbeenfullyrealisedbythebroadercommunity.Themaintaskthatweneedtoengagewithbetween2020and2030istoscaleouttheproventechnologiesatcorridorandhigherlevelsusingapproachesthathavebeenfoundtobeeffective,suchasdemonstrations,fielddaysandexchangevisits.
CurrentseedsuppliesarealsotoolowtomeetdemandifthehouseholdsthatwerereachedbySIMLESAwishtoadoptimprovedvarieties.Futureeffortswillneedtoaddressthissupplyconstraint.Optionsincludemultiplicationbyfarmersorbyseedcompanies.
FarmersandotherpartnerscanbesupportedastheycontinuetoapplySIMLESAtechnologiesandpracticesontheirfarms.LeafletsandbookletsaboutSIMLESA-developedtechnologiesandpracticescanalsosupportwiderknowledgedissemination.Thiscanachievethedesiredimpactandimprovethestandardoflivingoffarmersandotherstakeholdersalongthemaize–legumeandfoddervaluechains.
TheeffectofCASIpractices,includinglaboursaving,wateruseefficiencyandsoilbulkdensity,resultedinhigherproductivityandwereenvironmentallyfriendly.ThiswillenableKenyatotransitiontoclimate-smartagriculturalresearchforhigherproductivityandsustainabilityandsupporttheClimateSmartAgricultureStrategy.On-stationtrialsshouldcontinueforlongertoaccumulateadequatedatatoconfidentlydefinetheeffectsofCASI.
8 During2018,theresultsofafinaladoptionandbenefitssurveyestimatedsubstantiallygreaterlevelsofadoptionthanin2012or2016.
287SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 15
ReferencesAbate,T,Mugo,S,Groote,H&Regassa,MW2015,DT Maize,QuarterlybulletinoftheDroughtTolerant
MaizeforAfricaProject,vol.4,no.3,CIMMYT,Kenya,https://repository.cimmyt.org/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10883/4477/57029-2015%20v4(3).pdf.
Adimo,O2017,Description of cropping systems, climate, and soils of Kenya,viewed12December2017, http://www.yieldgap.org/kenya.
AnswersAfrica2017,Poverty in Kenya statistics, rate and facts you should know,viewed15October2017,https://answersafrica.com/poverty-kenya.
ArigaJ,Jayne,TS&Njukia,S2010,Staple food prices in Kenya,COMMESAAfricanAgriculturalMarketsPolicyConference,Maputo,25January2010.
Muheebwa,AR&Chiche,Y2015,Best practices and lessons learnt: Case studies on gender mainstreaming in the sustainable intensification of maize-legume cropping systems for food security in Eastern and Southern Africa (SIMLESA) Programme,ASARECA,Entebbe,Uganda.
Chumo,MK2013,Determining factors that affect maize production in turbo constituency, Kenya,viewed 26December2017,http://erepository.uonbi.ac.ke/handle/11295/56008.
Farmer,E&Mbwika,J2012,End market analysis of Kenyan livestock and meat: a desk study,USAID.
GovernmentofKenya2011,Kenya feed the future multiyear strategy,viewed23April2013,http://Kenya.usaid.gov/sites/default/filesKenyaFTFMulti-Yearstrategy.pdf.
Jaetzold,R,Schmidt,H,Hornetz,B&Shisanya,C2005a,Farm management handbook of Kenya,vol.II,2ndedn,partA:WestKenya,subpartA1:WesternProvince:Nairobi.
——2005b,Farm management handbook of Kenya,vol.II,2ndedn,partA:WestKenya,subpartA2:NyanzaProvince:Nairobi.
——2006,Farm management handbook of Kenya,vol.II,2ndedn,partA:WestKenya,subpartC1:EasternProvince:Nairobi.
Karanja,DR,Mulwa,D,M’Ragwa,L&Rubyogo,J2008,Grow improved beans for food and income,KARIinformationbrochureseries13/2008.
KenyaAgriculturalandLivestockResearchOrganization2017,Strategic plan 2017–2021,KALRO,Nairobi,Kenya,ISBN:978-9966-30-032-4.
KenyaMaizeDevelopmentProgram(KMDP)II2011,Annual report,KenyaMaizeDevelopmentProgram.
Kirimi,L2012,History of Kenya maize production, marketing and policies,TegemeoInstituteofAgriculturalPolicyandDevelopment,EgertonUniversity.
Kogo,BK,Kumar,L,Koech,R&Kariyawasam,C2019,‘ModellingclimatesuitabilityforrainfedmaizecultivationinKenyausingamaximumentropy(MaxENT)approach’,Agronomy,vol. 9.doi:10.3390/agronomy9110727.
Micheni,A,Kanampiu,F,Kitonyo,O,Mburu,DM,Mugai,E,Makumbi,D&Kassie,M2015,‘On-farmexperimentationonconservationagricultureinmaize–legumebasedcroppingsystemsinKenya:wateruseefficiencyandeconomicimpacts’,Experimental Agriculture,vol.52,no.1,pp.51–68,doi: 10.1017/S0014479714000556.
Mo,F,Wang,JY,Xiong,YC,Nguluu,SN&Li,FM2016,‘Ridge-furrowmulchingsysteminsemiaridKenya:apromisingsolutiontoimprovesoilwateravailabilityandmaizeproductivity’,European Journal of Agronomy,vol.80,pp.124–136.
Muricho,G,Kassie,M,Odendo,M&Ouma,J2011,Characterization of maize–legume farming systems and farm households in Kenya: analysis of technology choice, resource use, gender, risk management, food security and poverty profiles,CIMMYT,Nairobi,Kenya.
Nkonge,C,Walela,B,Ngeny,JMA&Rees,DJ1997,‘Areviewoftheagro-ecologicalzonation,productionpracticesandconstraintsoftheKitaleNationalAgriculturalResearchCentreMandatearea’,inDJRees,CNkonge&JWaandera(eds),A review of practices and constraints in the north Rift Valley provinces, Kenya, Kitale,KenyaAgriculturalResearchInstitute,ISBN:9966-879-36-6.
Ouma,E,Dickson,L,D,Matonyei,T,Agalo,J,Were,BA,Too,E,Augustino,O,Gudu,S&Peter,K2013,‘EnhancingmaizegrainyieldinacidsoilsofwesternKenyausingaluminiumtolerantgermplasm’,Journal of Agricultural Sciences and Technology,vol.A3,pp.33–46.
SIMLESA288
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Paterson,RT,Kiruiro,E&Arimi,HK1999,‘Calliandra calothyrsusasasupplementformilkproductionintheKenyahighlands’,Tropical Animal Health and Production,vol.31,no.2,pp.115–126.
PotatoFarminginKenya2017,viewed27December2017,https://softkenya.com/kenya/potato-farming-in-kenya.
Shawiza2016,The status of wheat industry in Kenya,SokoDirectory,viewed5January2018,https://sokodirectory.com/2016/12/status-wheat-industry-kenya.
SPSSInc.Released2009.PASWStatisticsforWindows,Version18.0.Chicago:SPSSInc.
SmartFarmerKenya2017,viewed30December2017,https://smartfarmerkenya.com/tea-farming-in-kenya.
SokoDirectory2017,viewed25December2017,https://sokodirectory.com/2017/11/status-potato-farming-kenya-contribution-economy.
Wilkus,EL,Roxburgh,CW&Rodriguez,D(eds)2019,Understanding household diversity in rural eastern and southern Africa,AustralianCentreforInternationalAgriculturalResearch:Canberra,ACT.
Worldometer2017,viewed12December2017,http://www.worldometers.info/population/countries-in-africa-by-population.
289SIMLESA
16 Sustainable intensification of maize and legume farming systems in TanzaniaJohn Sariah, Frank Mmbando, Lameck Makoye & Bashir Makoko
Key points
• ScalingoutSIMLESAtechnologiesthroughinnovationplatformsincreased thenumberoffarmersusingimprovedseedsofmaizeandlegumesfrom30–40%to85%.
• Adoptionofaconservationagriculture-basedsustainableintensification(CASI)technologypackageincreasedyieldsformaizefrom1.5 t/hato4.5 t/haandlegumesfrom0.38 t/hato1.5 t/ha.
• CropresiliencetoclimatevariabilityincreasedwithCASIduetoimprovementsinnaturalsoilfertility(increasedsoilorganiccarbonfrom2.55%to3.23%)andstructure(increasedsoilwaterholdingcapacityfrom20.69%to22.23%).
• TheCASItechnologypackagereducedlabourtimeby50%andincreasedprofitsby33%comparedtofarmers’conventionalpractices.
SIMLESA290
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Introduction
Tanzaniahasatotalareaof94.5 Mhaofland,ofwhich44 Mhaisclassifiedassuitableforagriculture.Oftheavailablearableland,only10.1 Mha(23%)iscurrentlyundercultivation.AgricultureinTanzaniaismainlyrainfedandisdominatedbysmallholderfarmerscultivatingonsmallareasofland,averaging2.5 ha.About70%ofTanzania’scropareaiscultivatedbyhandhoe,20%byoxploughand10%bytractor.Foodcropproductiondominatestheagricultureeconomy,with85%oftheannuallycultivatedlandunderfoodcrops.Womenrepresentthemajorityoftheagriculturallabourforce.
TheagriculturesectorinTanzaniafacesvariouschallenges.Majorconcernsfor agricultureinTanzaniaaredecreasinglabourandlandproductivity.Majorproductivityconstraintsincludelimitedaccesstoagriculturaltechnology,lowsoilfertilityandclimatechange(Makuvaroetal.2017).A2011SIMLESAbaselinesurveyreportedyieldsaslowas1–2 t/haformaizeand0.5 t/haforpigeonpeaduringthe2010croppingseason.Overcomingthesechallengestoreducepovertyhasbeendeclaredatopgovernmentpriority(PolicyForum2016).
Effortsthatsupportsmallholderfarmershavebeenviewedasaneffectivewaytodriveeconomicgrowthandcombatpoverty,basedonthesignificantsharethatimpoverishedhouseholdproductionsystemscontributetothenationalagriculturesector.Higherfarmproductivityandmorediversifiedfarmproduceareexpectedtoreducetheneedtopurchasesupplementaryfoodstuffsandofferthepossibilityofsellingsurplusforcash.Conservationagriculturehasthepotentialtoachievethesebenefitsasitaimsatminimisingsoildisturbance,soilwaterandnutrientlosses,thereforepreservingmanyoftheecologicalfunctionsofnaturalecosystemsthatsupportcropproduction(Gilleretal.2009).Benefitsofconservationagriculturecanmultiplywhencombinedwithsustainableintensificationpracticeslikeimprovedvarietiesandgoodagronomy.Thisproductionsystemisalsoknownasconservationagriculture-basedsustainableintensification(CASI).
CASIoffersanumberofpotentialbenefitsforfarmerssuchassoilimprovementthroughnitrogenfixation,increasedorganicmatterthroughcropresiduedecompositionandreducedincidenceandseverityofdisease,weedandinsectpopulationdamage.Italsoimprovesmicroandmacro-organismactivitiesandsoilstructure.Theseareallimportantfactorsforcropgrowthandestablishment(Derpsch2008).EmpiricalstudieshaveshownthatCASIhasbenefitsacrossawiderangeofagroecologicalconditions(Thierfelder&Wall2011).Manystudieshavehighlightedthepotentialofconservationagriculture,especiallywhencomplementedwithsustainableintensificationpracticesasCASI,inaddressinglivelihoodsecuritychallengeswhileimprovingsoilandwatermanagement(Kassametal.2009).CASIhasbeenincreasinglypromotedinTanzaniabymanyinternationalandnationalorganisationsasameansforsmallholdersineasternandsouthernAfricatoavoidsoildegradationandenhanceproductivity(Mazvimavi&Twomlow2009).
TheSIMLESAprogramconductedseveralon-farmstudiestoidentifymajorproductionconstraintsandmanagementpracticesthatenhancemaize–legumecroppingsystemperformanceinTanzania.Thestudiescoveredfivedistricts:Karatu,Mbulu,Mvomero,KilosaandGairo.Thebaselinesurveyconductedin2010revealednumerousproductionconstraints.Theseincludedunimprovedseeds,pooragronomicpractices,cropdiseases,insectinfestations,lowsoilfertility,moisturestress,weedslikeStriga,unreliableinputandoutputmarkets,lackofcreditfacilitiesandpoorinfrastructure(SIMLESA2016–18;Sariahetal.2019).
291SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 16
SIMLESAstartedtopromoteCASItechnologiesin2010,basedontheconstraintsobservedinthebaselinesurvey.TheCASItechnologiesthatwerepromoted,inconjunctionwithimprovedvarietiesandpropercropmanagement,included:
• zerotillage
• cropresidueretention
• maize–legumeintercropping
• useofherbicideforweedcontrol.
On-farmandon-stationagronomyinterventionstudiesunderSIMLESAidentified specificsetsoftechnologiesandintensificationpracticesthatincreasedproductivitybymorethan50%.Theuseofimprovedcropvarieties,properagronomicpracticesandconservationagricultureimprovedthemaizeyieldsfrom1.5 t/habaselinelevelsto4–6 t/haandlegumeyieldsfrom0.5 t/hato2 t/ha.Fourimprovedmaizeandlegumevarieties,recentlydevelopedandreleasedwithsupportfromSIMLESA,increasedavailabilityofbetter-performingcropvarieties.Theseimprovedtechnologiesreachedfarmersthroughinnovationplatforms,shortmessageinformation,nationalagriculturalshows(commonlyknownasNANENANE),nationalagribusinessexpos,anddifferentmediaandscaling-outpartnersundertheSIMLESAcompetitivegrantscheme.
Theadoptionrateofthesetechnologieswerefairlyconsistentbetweenmale-andfemale-headedhouseholds,rangingfrom42%inMbuludistrictto54%inKilosadistrict.Theseeffortshavepotentiallong-termimpact,giventheenhancedcapacityofNationalAgriculturalResearchSystemresearcherandextensionthatresultedfromSIMLESAtraining.Inaddition,thisprogramsupportedonePhDandsevenMScstudents,andtworesearchinstituteswereendowedwithtwovehiclesandlabequipmenttobolsterresearch.Ninety-eightfarmers(24femaleand74male)alsobenefiteddirectly,gainingknowledgeofCASImanagementpracticesthroughshortcourses.
What did SIMLESA do?
Toaddressproductionconstraints,SIMLESAconductedon-farmandon-stationstudies.On-farmstudieswereconductedinfivedistrictsofTanzania:Karatu,Mbulu,Mvomero,KilosaandGairowith10trialsitesineachdistrict.On-stationstudieswereconductedattheSelianAgriculturalResearchInstituteandtheIlongaResearchStation.Theon-farmstudieswereconductedinhigh-andlow-productionpotentialenvironmentsinthenorthernandeasternzonesofTanzaniaformorethanfourconsecutivecroppingseasons,beginningin2010(Sariahetal.2019).
Thetechnologiesevaluatedthroughon-farmexploratoryandon-stationtrialswere:
1. CASI:characterisedbyminimumsoildisturbance,useofherbicide(mainlyglyphosate),cropresidueretention,useoffertilisers(basalandtopdressing),useofimprovedcropvarieties,intercroppingofmaizeandlegumesandpropercrophusbandry.
2. Conventionalpractice:similartoconservationagriculture,excepttillageispractisedasmaximumsoildisturbance,withouttheuseofherbicideorcropresidueretention.
3. Farmers’practice:suboptimalornouseatalloffertilisersdependingontheindividualfarmer’sdecision,poorplantpopulation,poorweedandpestmanagement,soildisturbancebyoxenorhandhoe,nocropresidueretention.
SIMLESA292
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Program sitesKaratu
KaratuisoneofthefivedistrictsintheArusharegionofTanzania.Itsgeographicalcoordinatesare3°20’S,35°40’Eandthedistrictmeasuresabout3,300 km2.Landuseisclassifiedintoarable(102,573 ha),pasture(155,808 ha)andforest,bushandtreecover(61,218 ha).Thepopulationisestimatedat178,434(92,895menand85,539women)aggregatedinto33,000households.Basedonrelief,landphysiographyanddrainagepattern,Karatucanbecategorisedintothreezones—uplands,midlandsandlowlands—withanaltituderangingfrom1,000mto1,900 mabovesealevel.Rainfallinthedistrictisbimodal.TheshortrainseasonlastsfromOctobertoDecemberandthelongrainsoccurfromMarchtoJune.Rainfallmayrangefromlessthan400 mmintheEyasiBasintoover1,000 mminthehighlands,withrainzonesclassifiedassemi-arid(300–700 mm/year)andsubhumid(700–1,200 mm/year).Rainfallintensitycanbeveryhigh,causingerosion,particularlyduringtheonsetoftherainyseasonwhensoilsarebare.Soilfertilityislowtomoderate.Agricultureinthehighlandsusedtobeveryproductivebutinrecentyearscropyieldshavedeclined,mainlyduetounreliablerainfall(erraticprecipitationandlowerannualtotals)andpoorsoilfertility.
Mbulu
MbuluisoneofthefivedistrictsoftheManyararegionofTanzania.Mbuluislocatedinnorth-easternTanzania,3°51’S,35°32’E.Thealtituderangesfrom1,000mto2,400 mabovesealevel.Thedistrictcontainssemi-aridandsubhumidclimatesthatreceiveannualrainfallof<400 mmand>1,200 mm,respectively.ThelongrainyseasonextendsfromMarchtomid-MayandtheshortrainyperiodextendsfromNovembertoDecember.Relativehumidityrangesfrom55%to75%andmeanannualtemperaturerangesfrom15°Cto24 °C.LivelihoodsinbothKaratuandMbuludistrictsdependoncropandlivestockkeeping.Thefarmingsystemismaize–legumeintercropping.Themajorcerealcropsgrowninthesetwodistricts(KaratuandMbulu)aremaize,wheatandbarley.The majorlegumecropsarepigeonpea,commonbean,chickpeaandgreengram(Douwe &Kessler1997).
Kilosa,MvomeroandGairoaredistrictsintheMorogororegionofeasternTanzania.RainfallhasabimodalpatternwithamainseasonthatbeginsinMarchandendsinJuneandshortrainsthatoccurfromOctobertoDecember.Theaverageannualrainfallvariesfromyeartoyearandbetweenecologicalzones.Anaveragerainfallof1,000–1,400 mmiscommoninthesouthernfloodplains,whileGairointhenorthaverages800–1,100 mm.Themountainforestareascanreceiveupto1,600 mmannually.ThroughoutKilosa,thedryperiodextendsfromJunetoOctober.Theaverageannualtemperatureis25 °CinKilosatownwithextremesinMarch(30 °C)andJuly(19 °C).Livelihoodsinthesedistrictsdependmainlyonmaize,legumes,vegetables,sweetpotato,oilseedproductionandlivestockkeeping.Thedominantcroppingsystemismaize–legumeintercropping (Paavola2004).
Selian Agricultural Research Station
SelianAgriculturalResearchStationislocatedat3°24’S,36°47’Eatanaltitudeof 1,250 mabovesealevelandthesoiltypemolisol.Rainfallusedtobebimodalbuthasrecentlybeenunimodal,withaverageannualrainfallreaching1,500 mm.SelianAgriculturalResearchStationhasminimumtemperaturesofabout20 °Candmaximumtemperaturesofabout25 °C.
293SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 16
Ilonga Research Station
IlongaResearchStationislocatedat6°47’Sand37°2’Eatanaltitudeof498 mabove sealevel,withminimumtemperaturesofabout25 °Candmaximumtemperaturesofabout35 °C.Themainsoiltypeiseutopicfluvisolsandtherainfalltypeusedtobebimodal.However,therainfallpatternismorerecentlyunimodal,withaverageannualrainfallof1,059 mm.
Program objectivesOn-farm trials1. Characterisemaize–legumeproduction,inputandoutputvalue-chainsystems,impact
pathwaysandidentifybroadsystemicconstraintsandoptionsforfieldtesting.
2. Testanddevelopproductive,resilientandsustainablesmallholdermaize–legumecroppingsystemsandinnovationsystemsforlocalscalingout.
3. Increasetherangeofmaizeandlegumevarietiesforsmallholdersthroughacceleratedbreeding,regionaltestingandrelease.
On-station trials1. Determinethelong-terminfluenceofdifferenttillagepracticesanddifferentfertiliser
levelsonsoildynamicsandmaizeandpigeonpeacropyieldsunderintercroppingsystems.
2. Determinethelong-terminfluenceofdifferenttillagepracticesonyieldsofdifferentratooningregimesofpigeonpeaandmaize.
Researcher and extension capacity building
Theprogramfacilitatedcapacitybuildingforresearchersandextensionthroughlong-termandshort-termtraining,reachingatotalof148trainees(Table16.1).
Table 16.1 Course and number of trainees by gender
Training course Participants
Gendermainstreaming 27(17male,10female)
Monitoringandevaluationtrainingoftrainers 3(3male,0female)
Principlesofconservationagriculture 25(17male,8female)
Weedmanagement 26(21male,5female)
Datamanagement 29(22male,7female)
Innovativeplatforms 10(7male,3female)
Climatevariability 5(4male,1female)
APSIM 3(3male,0female)
Statisticalanalysis 20(12male,8female)
Total 148 (106 male, 42 female)
SIMLESA294
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
What we foundCharacterisation of maize–legume production and input and output value-chain systems and impact pathwaysTheaverageyieldsforvariouscropsduring2010were:
• drymaize:1,198 kg/ha
• drylegumes:– commonbean:413 kg/ha– pigeonpea:385 kg/ha– peanut:389 kg/ha– cowpea:148 kg/ha.
TheaverageyieldformaizevarietieswasrelativelyhigherinKaratuandMbuludistrictscomparedtoMvomeroandKilosa.
Resultsfurthershowthatfloods,pooragronomicpractices,poorgenotypes,droughtandinaccessibilityofagriculturalinputs—bothintermsofavailability,costsinvolvedandtiming—werethemostimportantlimitingfactorsincropproductionformaize–legumefarmingsystemsinTanzania.Themainmeansoftransportationamonghouseholdsalsoindicatedthathouseholdsrequiredconsiderabletimetoacquiregoodsandservices.Averagewalkingdistancetothenearestvillagemarketwasabout6.6 minutes.Themainmeansoftransporttotheselocalmarketswasonfoot(46%)andbicycle(11%).
Household characteristicsAtthehouseholdlevel,themajorityofsurveyedhouseholdsweremale-headed(82%).Mbuludistrictreportedthehighestproportionofthemale-headedhouseholds(Table16.2).Theaverageageofthehouseholdheadwasabout47years,althoughKaratufarmerswereolder(51years)thanotherdistricts.Theaveragelevelofformaleducationforthehouseholdheadswasaboutsevenyears,buthouseholdsinMbuluhadslightlymoreyearsofeducationonaverage(7.4years).Theaveragesizeofthesurveyedhouseholdswasaboutfivemembers.Mbuluhadthesmallestfamilysizeoffourmembers,whileKaratuhadthelargestfamilysizeofsixmembers.Themajority(about80%)ofthehouseholdheadsweremarried,whileabout5%weredivorcedorseparatedand7%werewidowers.
Land ownershipLandwasthebasicproductiveassetbysmallholderfarmersinthesurveydistricts.Descriptiveanalysisofthisimportantassetrevealedthattheaveragelandholding amongthesurveyedhouseholdswasabout2.7 ha(Table16.3).Anaverageof2.1 ha wascultivatedwhile0.8 hawasleftuncultivated.Kilosahadthelargestaveragelandholding(3.9 ha).
295SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 16
Table 16.2 Household demographics
Characteristic District Average (n = 410)
Karatu (n = 114)
Mbulu (n = 96)
Kilosa (n = 105)
Mvomero (n = 49)
Gairo (n = 46)
Male-headedhouseholds(%) 82.5 85.4 81.0 77.6 84.6 82.2
Ageofhouseholdhead(years) 50.9 47.3 47.0 46.2 44.5 47.2
Householdsize(number) 6.0 4.3 5.2 5.5 6.6 5.5
Educationofhouseholdhead(years)
6.8 7.4 6.7 7.1 6.0 7.3
Marital status
Married(%households) 82.5 80.2 77.1 73.5 84.8 79.6
Divorced/separated (%households)
2.7 2.0 17.2 10.2 4.3 7.3
Widow/widower (%households)
3.8 4.1 3.8 10.2 4.3 5.2
Nevermarried(%households) 13.2 15.6 1.9 6.1 6.5 8.7
Table 16.3 Land ownership at district level
Land category District Average (n = 410)
Karatu (n = 114)
Mbulu (n = 96)
Kilosa (n = 105)
Mvomero (n = 49)
Gairo (n = 46)
Totalfarmsize(ha) 2.1(3.3) 1.5(2.2) 3.9(3.0) 2.8(3.3) 3.4(4.7) 2.7(3.8)
Cultivated(ha) 1.6(2.7) 1.4(1.3) 3.2(2.3) 1.3(2.4) 2.8(4.7) 2.1(2.2)
Uncultivated(ha) 0.6(1.3) 0.4(1.6) 0.7(1.4) 1.1(1.7) 1.3(2.0) 0.8(1.3)
Rentedin(ha) 0.02(1.7) 0.3(0.3) 1.5(2.4) 0.7(1.2) 2.0(2.8) 0.9(2.1)
Rentedout(ha) 0.01(0.0) 0.0(0.2) 0.2(0.7) 0.5(1.2) 0.2(1.5) 0.2(0.1)
Note:Numbersinparenthesesarestandarddeviation. Source:SIMLESA2016–18
Technology adoptionThemostwidelyadoptedmanagementpracticesweremaize–legumeintercropping(96%)followedbycropresidueretention(52%),herbicideuse(38%)andcroprotation(34%).ZerotillagewastheleastadoptedCASIpractice(adoptedbyabout25%ofsampledhouseholds).
Theproportionoffarmersadoptingthesemanagementpracticesvariedbydistrict.Adoptionofmaize–legumeintercroppingrangedfrom94%inKaratuandMbuluto98%inKilosaandMvomero(Table16.4).Adoptionofcropresidueretentionwasmorevariableacrosstheresearchsites,rangingfrom39%inGairoto76%inMvomero.Herbicideusealsovariedacrosssites,aslowas12%inMbuluandashighas57%inMvomero.Adoptionofcroprotationwasalsorelativelylow(22%)inMbuluandrelativelyhigh(47%)inMvomero.Few(about25%)ofthesampledfarmershadadoptedzerotillageatthehouseholdlevel.Thiswasvariableacrossdistricts,withKaratureportingthehighest(about47%)andMvomeroreportingthelowest(about10%).
SIMLESA296
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Table 16.4 Adoption of CASI practices at household level
CASI practice District Average (n = 410)
Karatu (n = 114)
Mbulu (n = 96)
Kilosa (n = 105)
Mvomero (n = 49)
Gairo (n = 46)
Zerotillage 46.5 25.0 17.1 10.2 26.1 25.0
Maize–legumeintercropping 94.0 93.8 98.2 98.0 96.8 96.2
Croprotation 33.5 22.0 33.3 46.9 32.6 33.7
Residueretention 39.6 47.4 59.0 75.5 39.1 52.1
Herbicideuseinzerotillage 27.4 12.3 55.2 57.1 39.1 38.2
Note:CASI=conservationagriculture-basedsustainableintensification Source:SIMLESA2016–18
About48%ofthesamplehouseholdsadoptedatleastoneCASIpractice(Table16.5). Theadoptionraterangedfrom42%inMbuludistrictto54%inKilosadistrict.Resultsshowthatfemale-headedhouseholdswereslightlymorelikelytoadoptthan male-headedhouseholds.
Table 16.5 Adoption of at least one CASI practice, by gender
District Male-headed household
(n = 331)
Female-headed household
(n = 79)
Average (n = 410)
Karatu 47.8 50.0 48.9
Mbulu 40.2 42.8 41.5
Kilosa 52.9 55.0 53.9
Mvomero 52.6 45.5 49.1
Gairo 38.4 57.1 47.8
Average 46.4 50.1 48.2
Note:CASI=conservationagriculture-basedsustainableintensification Source:SIMLESA2016–18
Number of adoptersTheestimatednumberofadoptersoftheCASIpractices(maize–legumeintercrop,zerotillage,croprotation,residueretentionandherbicideuse)forthe2015–16seasonisshowninTable16.6.Resultsrevealthattheestimatednumberofadoptersforthefivedistrictswasabout12,046farmers.Kilosadistricthadthehighestnumberofadopters(about3,579),followedbyGairo(about2,844)andKaratu(about2,844)districts.MvomeroandMbuludistrictshad1,829and1,049adopters,respectively.
297SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 16
Table 16.6 Estimated number of adopters of CASI practices, 2015–16
District Sample size Number of respondents
adopting at least one component
of CASI
Adoption rates Projected number of adopters
Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total
Karatu 94 20 114 45 10 55 47.8 50.0 48.9 2,245 500 2,745
Mbulu 82 14 96 33 6 39 40.2 42.8 41.5 887 162 1,049
Kilosa 85 20 105 45 11 56 52.9 55.0 53.9 2,112 1,467 3,579
Mvomero 38 11 49 20 5 25 52.6 45.5 49.1 1,044 785 1,829
Gairo 39 7 46 15 4 22 38.4 57.1 47.8 1,979 865 2,844
Total 338 72 410 158 39 197 46.4 50.1 48.2 7,686 3,666 12,046
Note:CASI=conservationagriculture-basedsustainableintensification Source:SIMLESA2016–18
Farmers’ sources of informationFarmers’mainsourcesofinformationaboutCASIpracticeswereSIMLESAdemonstrations(34%),fellow/neighbouringfarmers(25%)andextensionservices(11%)(Figure16.1).Othersourcessuchasradio/TVandinnovationplatformsalsoplayedasignificantroleininformationtransfer.
Figure 16.1 Farmers’ sources of information about CASI practices
0
25
20
30
35
40
Perc
enta
ge
15
10
5
Karatu Mbulu Kilosa Mvomero Gairo Mean
Sites
SIMLESA demo plots Fellow farmer Extension services
Radio/TV broadcasting Innovation platform
SIMLESA298
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
On-farm testing of sustainable and resilient climate-smart technologiesCASIandconventionalpracticesincreasedyieldsfromfarmers’practice.Yieldsincreasedtwofoldforpigeonpeaandthreefoldtofourfoldformaize,comparedtothebaselineyieldrepresentedbythefarmers’practice(Figures16.2and16.3).
Pige
onpe
a bi
omas
s yi
eld
(t/h
a)
(a)
FP CASI
Low potential zone
CONV0
0.8
1.0
1.2
0.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
0.6
0.4
Pige
onpe
a bi
omas
s yi
eld
(t/h
a)
(b)
FP CASI
High potential zone
CONV0
0.8
1.0
1.2
0.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
0.6
0.4
FP = Farmers’ practice; CASI = conservation agriculture-based sustainable intensification; CONV = Conventional agriculture
Figure 16.2 Average pigeonpea yield for four seasons for (a) low-potential and (b) high-potential environments in northern Tanzania
Mai
ze y
ield
(t/h
a)
(a)
FP CASI
Low potential zone
CONV0
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
Mai
ze y
ield
(t/h
a)
(b)
FP CASI
High potential zone
CONV0
2
3
4
5
5
8
7
1
FP = Farmers’ practice; CASI = conservation agriculture-based sustainable intensification; CONV = Conventional agriculture
Figure 16.3 Average maize yield for four seasons for (a) low-potential and (b) high-potential environments in northern Tanzania
299SIMLESASIMLESA
Thereweresignificantdifferences(P < 0.05)betweentheCASIsystemandconventionalpracticeforbothpigeonpeaandmaizeyieldsinhigh-potentialenvironments(Figures16.2band16.3b).ThiswasattributedmainlytorelativelyhighermoistureatdifferenttimesofcropdevelopmentinCASIplotsduetosoilcoverandrainfall.Inlow-potentialenvironments,thepigeonpeayieldwashigherintheCASIsystemthanconventionalpractice,althoughnotsignificantly.Incontrast,maizeyieldswerehigherinconventionalagriculturethantheCASIsysteminthelow-potentialenvironment.ThereasonforlowmaizeyieldunderCASIinlow-potentialenvironmentwasduetohightermiteinfestationcausedbyearlyonsetofdrought.Underdryconditions,termiteactivitytypicallybecomessevere.Termitespreferentiallyattackeddriedmaizecropsoverpigeonpea,becausepigeonpeastayedgreenforalongerperiodoftimebeyondmaizematurity(Figure16.4).
Figure 16.4 Alternating rows of maize (matured and dried) and pigeonpea
ThetimespentonvariousoperationsintheCASIplotswasalmost20%lesscomparedtootherpractices(Table16.7).CASIhasbeenshowntobeatimesavingtechnology.CASIshowedsevenfoldincreaseinnetbenefitsoverconventionalpractice(Table16.8).Thesoilanalysisresultsindicateslightlyimprovedsoildynamicsintermsofincreasedsoilmoistureretention,soilorganicmatterandtotalnitrogeninCASIcomparedtoconventionalpractice(Table16.9).ThissuggeststhatpractisingCASIoveralongerperiodoftimewillchangethesoilconditionsinfavourofcropgrowthanddevelopmentandincreaseresiliencetoclimatechange.Inaddition,CASIincreasedorganiccarbonandmoistureretentioncomparedtofarmers’practiceandconventionalagriculturepracticesinthetwocontrastingenvironments(high-productionpotentialenvironmentrepresentedbyRhotiaandBargishsitesandlow-productionpotentialenvironmentrepresentedbyBashayandMasqaroda)(Table16.9).ThisindicatesthesuperiorityofCASIpracticesoverotherpractices,regardlessoftheenvironment.
CHAPTER 16
SIMLESA300
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Table 16.7 Average time over four seasons spent in different activities for different practices
Practice Herbicide application (hour/ha)
Ploughing (hour/ha)
Weeding (hour/ha)
Total (hour/ha)
Farmers’practice – 13.6 91.8 105.4
Conventionalpractice
– 13.3 100.2 113.5
CASI 9.9 – 74.9 84.7
Note:CASI=conservationagriculture-basedsustainableintensification
Table 16.8 Average farm partial budget for different practices for different communities in Tanzania
Costs/revenue for inputs and outputs across different practices
Conventional practice
CASI Farmers’ practice
Costofcultivation(US$/ha) 109.4 0 109.4
Costoffertiliserbasal(100 kg DAP/ha)+topdressing(100 kg N/ha)
168.8 168.8 0
Costoffertiliserapplication(US$/ha) 28.1 28.1 0
Costofherbicide(US$/ha) 0 18.8 0
Costofherbicideapplication(US$/ha) 0 28.1 0
Costofweeding(US$/ha) 234.4 78.1 234.4
Costofmaizestover(US$/ha) 0 31.3 0
Total variable costs (US$/ha) 540.6 353.1 343.8
Gross yield of maize (t/ha) 4.5 5.0 2.0
Grossrevenuefrommaize(US$) 1,2 1,3 427.1
Grossrevenuefromstover(US$/ha) 31.2 62.5 20.5
Gross yield of pigeonpea (t/ha) 1.6 1.8 0.8
Grossrevenueofpigeonpea(US$/ha) 842.1 947.4 28
Total revenue (US$) 2,027.4 2,324.9 519.2
Net benefit (US$) 1,486.7 1,971.8 175.5
Note:CASI=conservationagriculture-basedsustainableintensification
301SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 16
Table 16.9 Soil dynamics analysis of four communities hosting exploratory trials for four seasons
Location Practice At sowing
MC (%) pH EC (mS/cm)
OC (%) TN (%) AP (mg/kg)
K (cmol(+)/
kg)
Rhotia farmers’practice
26.02 7.00 0.074 1.548 0.160 11.480 1.300
conventionalpractice
26.10 6.98 0.070 1.574 0.172 13.034 1.360
CASI 29.40 7.06 0.068 1.908 0.200 11.312 2.380
Bashay farmers’practice
24.60 6.98 0.058 0.989 0.116 8.992 4.140
conventionalpractice
23.96 7.02 0.070 0.936 0.106 10.088 1.520
CASI 24.30 7.04 0.066 1.428 0.148 9.286 1.600
Masqaroda farmers’practice
16.23 7.30 0.098 0.958 0.082 10.720 0.404
conventionalpractice
16.60 7.40 0.106 0.930 0.088 11.280 0.484
CASI 17.56 7.22 0.098 1.222 0.106 13.280 0.326
Bargish farmers’practice
14.40 6.78 0.072 1.210 0.092 2.960 0.458
conventionalpractice
18.91 7.16 0.152 1.562 0.110 6.280 0.804
CASI 19.89 7.20 0.118 1.794 0.120 3.840 0.640
Notes:MC=moisturecontent;EC=exchangablecation;OC=organiccarbon;TN=totalnitrogen;AP=assimilatedphosphorus;K=potassium;CASI=conservationagriculture-basedsustainableintensification.
SIMLESA302
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Adoption of CASI increases resilience to climate changeInasituationofclimatevariability,CASItechnologyperformedbettercomparedtoconventionalandfarmers’practices.Withalternatingseasonsofgoodandbad weather(Figure16.5),CASIperformedbetterinboth,provingresiliencetoclimatevariabilityandchanges.
Improved technology CASI
CASI = conservation agriculture-based sustainable intensification
Farmers’ practice
0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
2010 2011 2012 2013
Mai
ze g
rain
yie
ld (t
/ha)
Figure 16.5 Response of different practices in varied seasons, 2010–13
Influence of tillage practices on different fertiliser rates and soil dynamics on yields of maize and pigeonpea TheinfluenceoftillagepracticesongrainyieldswasclearbetweenCASIandconventionalpractice.TheSelianAgriculturalResearchStationsitereceivedrainfallforthreemonthsonly(March–May)(Figure16.7).AllthefertiliserratesintheCASIsystemyieldedsignificantly(P < 0.05)highercomparedtothesameratesinconventionalpractice(Table16.10).OnereasonfortheobserveddifferenceswasrelativelyhighconservedmoistureintheCASIsystem(Figure16.6),whichwasefficientlyutilisedbyplantsandreflectedingrainyields(Table16.10).
ThehighestmaizegrainyieldwasrealisedunderCASIpracticesanddifferedsignificantlyfromconventionalpractice(P < 0.05)(Table16.9).ThissuggeststhatfertiliseruseefficiencywasgoodunderCASIduetorelativelyhighsoilmoisturecontentatdifferentstagesofcropdevelopmentandalsohighorganicmatterbuild-upduetodecompositionofcropresiduesovertime(Table16.9).
TherewasasignificantdifferenceamongthefertiliserleveltreatmentsunderCASI.Thehighest(100 kg N/ha)levelgavethehighestyields.However,the60 kg N/hadidnotdiffersignificantlyfrom40 kg N/ha(P> 0.05)(Table16.8).Thissuggeststhatmicrodosingfertiliserapplicationatarateof40 kg N/haismoreeffectivethan60 kg N/ha.The40 kg N/harateproducedsignificantlyhigher(P<0.05)yieldsof2.653 t/hathan10 t farmyardmanureperhectare,whichyielded2.083 t/ha.Thewaythemanurewasstored andappliedshouldbeconsidered,becausesomeofnutrientsmighthavebeenlost intheprocess.
303SIMLESASIMLESA
Table 16.10 Mean grain yield for maize in CASI and conventional practice for four seasons at Selian Agricultural Research Station
CASI Conventional practice
Fertiliser levels Grain yield (t/ha) Fertiliser levels Grain yield (t/ha)
100 kgN/ha 3.190a 100 kgN/ha 2.753bc
60 kgN/ha 2.820b 60 kgN/ha 2.440c
40 kgN/ha 2.653bc 40 kgN/ha 2.093d
10 tFYM/ha 2.083d 10 tFYM/ha 1.657e
0 kgN/ha 1.670e 0 kgN/ha 1.430e
Notes:CASI=conservationagriculture-basedsustainableintensification;Mean=2.279,LSD(0.05)=0.342,CV(%)=7.07. FYM=Farmyardmanurefromcattle;LSD=leastsquaresdifference;CV=coefficientofvariation.Figuresfollowedby differentlettersdiffersignificantly.
0
10
20
15
25
30
35
Moi
stur
e co
nten
t (%
)
5
Planting Flowering Grain filling
26
2220
3129
26
Conventional practice CASI
CASI = conservation agriculture-based sustainable intensification
Figure 16.6 Average soil moisture level at different stage of plant development at Selian Agricultural Research Station
0
100
50
150
200
250
Aver
age
rain
fall
(mm
)
Oct Nov Dec January Feb March April May Jun
Figure 16.7 Average monthly rainfall at Selian Agricultural Research Station
CHAPTER 16
SIMLESA304
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Effect of tillage and cropping system on growth parameters in the intercropping systemTheeffectoftillageandcroppingsystemsongrowthparametersofmaizeforthe2016seasonatIlongaareasshowninTable16.11.ResultsshowthattherewasaslightvariationinplantheightandshootweightunderCASIcomparedtoconventionalpractice,buttheydidnotdiffersignificantly.Thereasonmightbethattheseriouscropresiduedamagefromhighinfestationoftermitestowardstheendofthewetseasonsignificantlyreducedthemoistureconservationthatcouldotherwiseberealised.PigeonpeagrainyieldunderCASIwassignificantlyhigherthanyieldsunderconventionalpractice.
Phenologyvariedacrosstreatments.Therewasasignificantdifference(P≤0.05)betweenthetwotillagesystemsindaysto50%emergence.SeedsunderCASIemergedsignificantlyearlierthanthoseinconventionalpractice(Table16.12).ThismighthavebeenattributedtothehighinfiltrationrateinCASIduetothepresenceofmulch,highporosityduetomicrobialactivities,andhighorganicmatterfrompreviousorganicmatteraccumulationfrommulchdecomposition(asopposedtorun-offinconventionalpractice).
Table 16.11 Effect of CASI and conventional practice tillage systems on growth parameters of maize, Llonga, 2016
Treatments 50% emergence
Plant height (cm)
Shoot weight (t/ha)
Tillagesystems CASI 5.75b 123.83 0.56
conventionalpractices 6.58a 89.17 0.20
Standarderror± 0.0589 11.2696 0.09
Notes:CASI=conservationagriculture-basedsustainableintensification;figuresfollowedbydifferentlettersdiffersignificantly.
Table 16.12 Effect of CASI and conventional practice tillage systems on growth parameters of pigeonpea, Llonga, 2016
Treatments 50% emergence
50% flowering
Plant height (cm)
100 seed weight
(g)
Grain yield (t/ha)
Tillagesystems CASI 8.58a 136.5a 215.0a 13.03a 1.57a
conventionalpractices
9.08a 138.5a 186.75a 12.75a 1.41b
Standarderror± 0.27 0.81 7.0497 0.087 0.027
Notes:CASI=conservationagriculture-basedsustainableintensification;figuresfollowedbydifferentlettersdiffersignificantly.
305SIMLESASIMLESA
Yield across maize varieties VarietiesCKH10692andSelianH308performedrelativelybetteracrossalltestingsites inMbulu,especiallyBargishUa.Theyieldperformancesrangedfrom5.36 t/hato8.94 t/ha(Figure16.8).Thesevarieties(CKH10692andSelianH308)wereselectedforMbulu.Ingeneral,allvarietiesperformedhighest(>8.0 t/ha)inBargishUaoverthelocalcontrol,whichproducedamaximumofabout7 t/ha.InKaratu,theyieldsrangedfrom4.0 t/ha to6.0 t/ha(Figure16.9).
0
76
89
10
Yiel
ds (t
/ha)
54321
CKH10692 LISHEH2 QSC/KILMA173 SELIAN H308 MERUHB513 614Check
Sites
Bargish Antsi BargishUa Daudi Masqaroda Tlawi
Figure 16.8 Yield of maize varieties, Mbulu
0
6
7
Gra
in y
ield
s (t
/ha)
5
4
3
2
1
Sites
Selian H308 Selian H208 SC 627 CHECK IF 510 ZM 538 ZM 536
Bashay G.Arusha K.Simba G.Lambo Kansay K.tembo
Figure 16.9 Yield of maize varieties, Karatu
InKilosa,among10varietiesthatwereevaluated,SelianH208,TAN250,TAN600andZM525hadthehighestyields(Table16.13).Thesewereselectedbyfarmersforwiderscalingoutintheeasternzone.
CHAPTER 16
SIMLESA306
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Table 16.13 Maize grain yield mean performance, Kilosa
Variety Yield (t/ha)
LISHEH2 2.93
SELIANH208 3.09
SITUKAM1 2.68
TAN254 2.66
TAN250 3.07
TANH600 3.77
TMV-1 2.86
ZM309 2.38
ZM523 2.73
ZM525 3.28
LSD (0.05) 0.71
CV (%) 24
Note:LSD=leastsquaresdifference;CV=coefficientofvariation.
Productionandmaintenanceofbreederseedswasundertakentoensuresustainableavailabilityoftheselectedmaizevarieties.Theproductionandmaintenanceofbreeders’seedswasdoneatSelianandIlonga,whilethecertifiedseedswereproducedbyASA,SATEC,MERUAGRO,TanseedInternationalandKrishnaSeed(Tables16.14and16.15).
Table 16.14 Production amount of pigeonpea breeders’ seeds, 2011–14
Variety Target production per year (kg)
Actual production per year (kg)
2011 2012 2013 2014
ICEAP00557 100 300 45 600 200
ICEAP00554 100 250 43 500 490
ICEAP00932 100 270 41 550 0
ICEAP00053 100 280 49 350 550
Mali 100 320 85 750 1,400
Tumia 100 250 80 1,150 1,150
Total 600 1,770 343 3,900 3,790
Table 16.15 Production of maize breeders’ seeds and certified seeds for Selian H208
Grade 2011 2012 2013
Breeders’seedproduction(SARI)
SelianH208:• Parent1(70 kg)• Parent2(30 kg)• Parent3(120 kg)
SelianH208:• Parent1(70 kg)• Parent2(30 kg)• Parent3(120 kg)
Foundationseedproduction(ASA)
SelianH208:• Parent1(400 kg)• Parent2(200 kg)• Parent3(1,200 kg)
SelianH208:• Parent1(6 t)• Parent2(3 t)• Parent3(3 t)
SelianH208:• Parent1(12 t)• Parent2(5 t)• Parent3(2t)
Certifiedseedproduction SelianH208:20 t SelianH208:350 t SelianH208:750 t
307SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 16
What did we learn?
Obstacles,constraintsandpotentialsexistwithinfarmingcommunities,includingtheneedforimprovedtechnology.CASIwasabletosolvethechallengesfacingthefarmingcommunities.Theextensiveexposureoffarmerstoimprovedtechnologiesthroughdemonstrationplots,fielddays,farmerexchangevisits,extensionmaterials,media (TV,radio),includingtheSMSplatform,significantlycontributedtoincreasedadoptionoftheimprovedmaizeandlegumeproductiontechnologiesinTanzania.
Beforetheprogram,meanmaizeyieldwasabout1.5 t/ha.UndertheCASIsystemstheyieldincreasedtoanaverageof4–6 t/haforthemajorityofadoptingfarmerswhereSIMLESAtrialswereconducted.Thisproductivitywasaresultoffarmersadoptingimprovedseeds,properagronomicpracticesandemployinginnovationsystemsunderSIMLESA.
Capacitybuildingofresearchersandextensioncontributedtoasignificantlyimprovedqualityofthenationalstaffandcontributedtoincreasedworkefficiency.
DuringthefouryearsofSIMLESAimplementations,farmerslearnedandadoptedimprovedtechnologiesthatwerecompatiblewiththeirfarmingsystems.Adoptedtechnologiessavedtimeandlabour.Farmerswerewillingtoinvestinagriculturaltechnologiesthataddressedclimaticchallenges.
SIMLESA successes in Tanzania
• OfthefarmerstargetedunderSIMLESA,48%adoptedatleastoneofthemostpreferredSIMLESAtechnologies(intercroppingofimprovedmaizeandlegumeunderpropermanagement).
• TheSIMLESAtechnologiesintroducedCASI,includingtheuseofimprovedcropvarieties,andproperagronomicpractices.Thesetechnologieswereproventobepracticalandproductivemethodsforincreasingyieldsofmaizefrom2.5 t/hatoanaverageyieldof6 t/haobservedinSIMLESAinterventionsinvariouscommunitiesinhigh-andlow-potentialenvironments.Pigeonpeayieldincreasedfrom0.5 t/hato2 t/ha.
• SIMLESAtechnologiesshowedresiliencetoclimatevariability.TheyieldsfromtheCASIinterventionremainedaboveothercommonpractices,anddemonstratedhighprofitabilityandtimesavingcomparedtotheothertestedtechnologies.
• Thedownsideriskoftotalcroplossdroppedsignificantlywiththeintroductionofdrought-tolerantvarietiescoupledwithproperagronomicpracticesand CASIpractices.
SIMLESA308
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Conclusions
UsingadoptionmonitoringdatacollectedfromsmallholderfarmersinthenorthernandeasternzonesofTanzania,thestudyanalysedtheadoptionofCASIpractices.About48%ofthesamplehouseholdsadoptedatleastoneCASIpractice.Maize–legumeintercroppingwasthemostpopularcomponentofCASItobeadoptedbyfarmers,followedbycropresidueretention,zerotillageandcroprotation.HerbicideuseinzerotillageasacomponentofCASIwasadoptedtheleastbythesampledhouseholds.
TheestimatednumberofadoptersoftheCASIpractices(maize–legumeintercrop,zerotillage,croprotation,residueretentionandherbicideuse)forthe2015–16seasonwasabout12,046farmers.SomeimpedimentstocompleteadoptionofCASIpracticesincludedcompetitionforcropresiduesbetweensoilhealthandlivestock(Rodriguezetal.2017),andlabourdemands.Farmers’practiceandconventionalagricultureinTanzaniawaslabour-intensive,withthemajorityoffarmerscultivatingbyhandhoeandonly10%usingtractors.AlthoughCASIdecreasedlabourtime,labourtimestillremainedhigh.Laboursavingsmayneedtobemoresubstantialforfarmerstoexperimentwithnewtechnologies.
AdoptionofCASIhasbeendirectlycorrelatedwithgender,farmsize,ageandexposuretothetechnology.Householdtypologiesmayprovideausefultoolforidentifyingtargetcommunitiesforagiventechnology.On-farmexperimentationanddemonstrationsofvarioustechnologieshasalsobeeneffectiveatpromotingadoptionofnewtechnologies.Effectivemeansofpromotingadoptionoftheimprovedtechnologiesbasedontheadoptionmonitoringstudieswastheon-farmtrialsanddemonstrations(participatoryvarietyselection)establishedonfarms.Farmerssawimprovedproductivity,timesavings,increasedyield(twofoldtofourfold)andfinancialgains(11-fold).Involvingfarmersandotherkeystakeholdersinnewimprovedagriculturaltechnologydisseminationwascrucialforadoptionandsustainability.
Tocopewithever-changingagriculturalenvironmentandproductiontechnologies,capacitybuildingforagriculturalpractitionerswasapriority.Thelong-andshort-termtrainingcapacitybuildingdonethroughtheSIMLESAprogramcontributedsignificantlytothesuccessoftheprogram.
309SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 16
ReferencesDerpsch,R2008,‘No-tillageandconservationagriculture:aprogressreport’,inTGoddard,
MAZaebisch,YTGan,WEllis,AWatson&SSombatpanit(eds),No till farming systems, WorldAssociationofSoilandWaterConservation,Bangkok,Thailand,pp.1–554.
Douwe,J&Kessler,J1997,Towards better use of environmental resources: a planning document of Mbulu and Karatu districts, Tanzania,MbuluDistrictCouncilTanzania.
Giller,KE,Witter,E,Corbeels,M&Tittonell,P2009,‘ConservationagricultureandsmallholderfarminginAfrica:theheretics’view’,Field Crops Research,vol.1,pp.23–34.
Kassam,A,Frederich,T,Shaxson,F&Pretty,J2009,‘Thespreadofconservationagriculture:justification,sustainabilityanduptake’,International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, vol.7,pp.292–320.
Makuvaro,V,Walker,S,Munodawafa,A,Chagonda,I,Masere,P,Murewi,C&Mubaya,C2017,‘Constraintstocropproductionandadaptationstrategiesofsmallholderfarmersinsemi-aridcentralandwesternZimbabwe’,African Crop Science Journal,vol.25,no.2,pp.221–235.
Mazvimavi,K&Twomlow,S2009,‘SocioeconomicandinstitutionalfactorsinfluencingadoptionofconservationfarmingbyvulnerablehouseholdsinZimbabwe’,Agricultural Systems, vol.101,pp.20–29.
Paavola,J2004,Livelihoods, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change in the Morogoro region, Tanzania,CentreforSocialandEconomicResearchontheGlobalEnvironment,WorkingPaperEDM.
PolicyForum2016,Reducing Poverty Through Kilimo Kwanza,https://www.policyforum-tz.org/reducing-poverty-through-kilimo-kwanza.
Rodriguez,D,deVoil,P,Rufino,MC,Odendo,M,vanWijk,MT2017,‘Tomulchortomunch? Bigmodellingofbigdata’,Agricultural Systems,vol.153,pp.32–42.
Sariah,J,Florentine,L,Makoye,L,Mmbando,F,Ngatoluwa,R&Titi,U2019,EnhancingresilienceandsustainabilityonAfricanfarms:keyfindingsandrecommendationforTanzania,SIMLESAProjectCountrySynthesisReport,ACIAR.
SIMLESA2016–18,SIMLESATanzaniaannualreports.
Thierfelder,C&Wall,PC2011,‘ReducingtheriskofcropfailureforsmallholderfarmersinAfricathroughtheadoptionofconservationagriculture’,inABationo,BWaswa,JMOkeyo, FMaina&JMKihara(eds),Innovations as key to the green revolution in Africa,SpringerScienceandBusinessMediaB.V.
310
17 Identifying and out-scaling suitable CASI practices for cropping systems in MalawiSarah E. Tione, Donald Siyeni, Grace T. Munthali, Samson P. Katengeza, Kenneth Chaula, Amos Ngwira, Donwell Kamalongo, Geckem Dambo, Justus Chintu, Esnart Yohane, Florence Kamwana, Cyprian Mwale & Pacsu Simwaka
Key points
• ThroughSIMLESA,Malawiidentifiedandpromotedsuitablemaizeandlegumevarieties,andout-scalingoptionsofconservationagriculture-basedsustainableintensification(CASI)ofcroppingsystemsacrossdifferentagroecologicalzones.
• Theidentifiedcroppingsystemswerefoundtohavethepotentialtohedgefarmerswellagainstclimateandeconomicrisks.
• CASItechnologiesprovideanavenuethroughwhichMalawicanincreaseproductivityandreducefoodinsecurityacrossdifferentsocioeconomicgroups.
• Capacitybuildingandknowledgemanagementwerecentraltosustainingprogramachievementsbeyondtheimplementationperiod.
311SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 17
Introduction
ThefrequentoccurrenceofdroughtandfloodsinthenewmillenniumhasgreatlyaffectedagriculturalproductionandproductivityinMalawi.Inresponse,thegovernmentofMalawiintensifiedeffortsfocusingonsustainableagriculturalproductionpractices.Onemajorpolicyactionistheintensivepromotionofconservationagriculturethroughdifferentprogramsandprojects.OnesuchprogramisSIMLESA.Thisregionalprogramwasestablishedin2010withthegoalofreducingfoodinsecuritythroughintensifiedsustainableagriculturalproductionsystems.
ThischapterreviewstheimplementationandassociatedimpactsoftheSIMLESAprograminMalawi.Itfurtheridentifiesout-scalingoptionsthatextendbeyondtheprogramperiodtosustaintheidentifiedconservationagriculture-basedsustainableintensification(CASI)croppingsystemsofdifferentagroecologicalzones.EmpiricalevidenceindicatesthatSIMLESAidentifiedandpromotedCASIsystemswiththepotentialtohedgeagainstclimaticandeconomicrisks,therebysustainingmaizeproductionbothathouseholdandnationallevels.SIMLESApromotioneffortscontributedtotheadoptionofCASIpracticesthatimprovedmaizeproductivityand,consequently,productionatthehouseholdlevel.Toachieveintensiveandextensiveout-scalingoftheCASIsystems,SIMLESAleveragedvariousstrategies,strengtheningexistinginnovationplatformsandestablishingnewpartnerships.Toenhanceadoption,thepolicyrecommendationwastopromoteacommunityapproachtofieldmanagementandvalue-chainapproachininputandoutputmarkets.Knowingthatthereisnosilverbulletsolutiontoallthecomplexproblemsintheagriculturesector,Malawiwillcontinuetocarryoutsystemicresearchinagricultureandcapacitybuildingatalllevelsofthevaluechain.
What was the situation before 2010?Malawiisalandlockedcountrylocatedinthesouth-easternpartofAfricaalongtheGreatEastAfricanRiftValley.ItsharesitsboundarieswithZambiatothenorth-west,Tanzaniatothenorth-eastandMozambiquetothesouth,south-westandsouth-east.Thecountrycoversatotalareaof118,484 km2ofwhich94,276 km2issuitableforagriculture(GovernmentofMalawi2002).Theweatherconditionsofthemainlysubtropicalcountryincludeawet/rainyseasonbetweenNovemberandApril,adryandcoldseasonbetweenMayandJulyandadryhotseasonbetweenAugustandOctober.Asof2017,thepopulationestimatewas17.6 millionwithapopulationdensityof186people/km2.Ofthetotalpopulation,80%livedinruralareasand50.7%ofthecountrywasimpoverished(GovernmentofMalawi2018;WorldBank2016).ThisputMalawiamongtheleast-developedcountriesintheworld.
AgriculturalproductionhasrepresentedamajorindustryinMalawisinceindependencein1964,utilisingthemajorityoflandareaandgeneratingmajorreturnsforthenationaleconomy.In2010,cultivatedlandaccountedfor56%oftotallandarea(GovernmentofMalawi2010).In2016,agriculturecontributed28%ofthecountry’sgrossdomesticproduct(GovernmentofMalawi2016b;WorldBank2016).Thesectorhascontributeddirectlytodomesticlevelsoffoodavailabilityandindirectlythroughexportactivities.Themajorfoodcropsgrownaremaize,riceandcassava,whiletobacco,tea,sugarcaneandcottonarecashcropsmainlyfortheexportmarket(GovernmentofMalawi2016b,2016c).Legumeproductionalsorepresentsasubstantialshareofagriculturalproductionactivitiesandisthemainsourceoffoodandincomeinthedomesticmarket(GovernmentofMalawi2016a).
SIMLESA312
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Productionofthesecropshasinvolvedbothsmallholderandestatefarmers (GovernmentofMalawi2016b,2016c).Exceptforteaandsugarcane,smallholderfarmershaveproducedalmost90%ofthecropsunderunimodalrainfedconditions(GovernmentofMalawi2016b).Notwithstandingthisdiversityoffoodcrops,maizehasbeenmostdominantinMalawiproductionsystems,grownnationallyandtreatedasthenation’sfoodsecuritycrop.Maizeproductionhasaccountedfor90%ofthelandcultivatedbysmallholderfarmers(Denningetal.2009),wheresmallholderfarmersholdalmost 60%ofthetotalcultivatedland(GovernmentofMalawi2002).Malawihadapersistentnationaldeficitinmaizefromthenewmillenniumuntil2004–05(Figure17.1).Lowlevelsofmaizeproductionhavebeenattributedtolowsoilnutrientlevelsandin-seasondroughtamongotherfactors.
Maize production National requirement
0
1
2
3
4
5
2001
-02
2002
-03
2003
-04
2004
-05
2005
-06
2006
-07
2007
-08
2008
-09
2009
-10
2010
-11
2011
-12
2012
-13
2013
-14
2014
-15
2015
-16
Prod
ucti
on (M
t)
Drought effect
El-Nino effect
Input subsidy
Figure 17.1 Maize production and national food requirement
Source:GovernmentofMalawi2016a
Climate risk
LargedependenceonrainfedmaizeandtobaccoproductionunderunimodalrainfallconditionshasmadeMalawi’seconomyespeciallyvulnerabletoclimateshocks.Dilley(2005)reportedthat5.5%oflandand12.9%ofthepopulationfacedapersistentriskoftwoormorenaturalhazards.Thisanalysisconcurswithgovernmentrecordsindicatingthat,inthepast100years,Malawirecordedatleast20incidencesofdroughtaswellasfloodsandstorms.Theserecordsshowthefrequentoccurrenceofdroughtandfloodsinthenewmillennium,citing1999–2000,2002–03,2004–05,2007–08and2015–16asproductionseasonsaffectedbydroughtwhile2014–15wasaseasonaffectedbyfloods(WorldBankGroup,UnitedNations&EuropeanUnion2016).Apartfromthesephenomena,thevolatilityofaveragerainfallandtemperatureacrosstheyearsalsoaffectedoverallagriculturalplanningandproduction(Figure17.2).Theseoccurrences,coupledwithnutrientdepletionandlownutrientsoilinput(Weberetal.2012),havegreatlyaffectedmaizeproductionandfoodsecurityagendasovertheyears.
313SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 17
Figure 17.2 Average rainfall and temperature, 1991-2015
Source:WorldBankGroup2017
Government subsidy program
Inlightoflowmaizeproductionlevelsandsoilnutritionconstraints,thegovernmentofMalawiimplementedtheFarmInputSubsidyProgramsince2004–05toencourageinvestmentinfarminputs.Theprogramsubsidisedone50 kgbagofbasalandtop-dressingfertilisereachandupto10 kgofimprovedseed.Theprogramtargeted,atmost,45%ofresource-poorfarmersregisteredwiththeMinistryofAgriculture(CentreforDevelopmentManagement2017).
Coupledwithgoodweatherconditionsandextensionservices,theimprovedsoilnutrientlevelsthroughtheFarmInputSubsidyProgramledtoimprovedmaizeproductionandtheachievementofnationalfoodself-sufficiency(Denningetal.2009;Dorward&Chirwa2011).DespiteimprovementsfromtheFarmInputSubsidyProgram,maizeproductioncontinuedtoshowevidenceofcertainvulnerabilities(Figure17.1).Forinstance,nationalproductiondroppedconsiderablyin2014and2015.ThishasbeenattributedtofloodsanddroughtassociatedwithElNiño(WorldBankGroup,UnitedNations&EuropeanUnion2016).Thisillustratesthelimitationsofsubsidiesinhedgingagainstdrought(Holden&Mangisoni2013;Holden&O’Donnell2015).Consideringtheimportanceofmaizeintheeconomy,thevulnerabilityofagriculturetoclimateshockseasilytranslatestonationalfoodandeconomicrisks.
Variousavenueshavebeenexploredtoaddressthesechallenges,includingagriculturesectordevelopmentfortechnologiesthatcanenhancecropproductivityandyieldstabilitythroughdroughtresilience,increasednutrientintakeandnutrientmaintenance.In2010,thegovernmentofMalawilaunchedtheAgricultureSectorWideApproachasthesectorinvestmentplanfor2011–15.Oneofthekeypriorityareasoftheinvestmentplanwassustainableagricultureandlandandwatermanagement,withafocusonsustainablelandandwaterutilisation.Inalignmentwiththispriority,MalawiparticipatedintheSIMLESAprogram:Phase1in2010–14andPhase2in2015–18.
Mean rainfall Mean temperature
60
70
80
90
100
21.8
22.2
22.6
23.0
1991 1997 2003 2009 2015
Mea
n ra
infa
ll (m
m)
Mean tem
perature (ºC)
SIMLESA314
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Conservation agriculture
BeforetheAgricultureSectorWideApproach,thegovernmentofMalawihadbeenpromotingsustainablemanagementofagriculturallandandwatersince2000,aftertheintroductionofSasakawaGlobal2000(Ngwira,Thierfelder&Lambert2013).UndertheSasakawainitiative,thefocuswasondenserplantpopulations,specificherbicidesusedforcontrollingweedsandfertilisationguidelines(Ngwira,Thierfelder&Lambert2013).Thisresultedinincreasedmaizeyieldbutlimitedsoilnutrientmanagement(Ito,Matsumoto&Quinones2007).After2007,therewasmorefocusonconservationagriculture,whichisbasedonthreebasicprinciples:
1. minimalmechanicalsoildisturbance
2. permanentsoilcoverbyorganiccropresiduesand/orcovercrops
3. diversifiedcroprotationsorassociationswithlegumes(FoodandAgricultureOrganization2015).
Theideawastopromoteasustainablecroppingsystemthatmayhelpreversesoildegradation,stabiliseandincreaseyieldandreducelabourtime.
AccordingtoNgwira,ThierfelderandLambert(2013),conservationagriculturemanagementpracticesalsohelptoimproverainfallinfiltrationasawayofimprovingwateruseefficiency,reducingsoilerosion,increasingsoilbiologicalactivityandreducinglabourhoursperunityieldandhectare.Priorto2010,thebaselinereportfromsampledfarmhouseholdsinthesixdistrictstargetedtoimplementSIMLESA,compiledbyMulwaetal.(2010),showedthatfarmersdidnotvaluetheuseofcropresiduesinMalawi(Figure17.3).Thepercentageofhouseholdsreportedtohavebeenpractisingreducedorminimumtillagewasalmostzeroinalldistricts,comparedtoothertechnologies.Toincreaseproductionandimprovesoilnutrientmanagement,SIMLESAinMalawifocusedonCASImanagementpracticesinlinewiththethreeprinciplesoutlinedabove.
Figure 17.3 Technology use in Malawi, 2010
Source:Mulwaetal.2010
Maize–legume intercropping Maize–legume rotation
Reduced tillage Crop residue retention
0
20
40
60
80
100
Perc
enta
ge o
f far
mer
s
Lilongwe(n = 322)
Kasungu(n = 138)
Mchinji(n = 70)
Salima(n = 91)
Balaka(n = 157)
Ntcheu(n = 107)
Total(n = 885)
315SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 17
Therestofthischapterisorganisedintofoursections.First,wepresenttheimplementationofSIMLESAinMalawiinlinewiththeoverallobjectivesoftheprogram.Thenextsectionhighlightslessonslearnedfromexploratorytrialsconductedin Malawi—bothon-stationandon-farm—andfarmers’experiences.Next,wepresenttheestimatedimpactsobtainedfromprogrammonitoringreportsandotherempiricalpapers.Thechapterconcludeswithoptionsforout-scalingsuitableconservationagriculturepracticesanddiscusseskeyprioritiesforsustainingagriculturalproductivityandproductioninMalawi.
What did SIMLESA do?
Local project partnersSIMLESAactivitiesweredesignedandimplementedwithintheframeworkofexistingregionalagriculturaldevelopmentefforts.TheDepartmentofAgriculturalResearchServicesundertheMinistryofAgriculturewastheleadinstitutioninMalawi,supportedbytheInternationalMaizeandWheatImprovementCenter(CIMMYT)andtheQueenslandAllianceforAgricultureandFoodInnovation.Thedepartmentcollaboratedwithotherinstitutionswithinthecountry,boththroughdirectimplementationofprogramactivitiesandinnovationplatforms.Thecollaboratinginstitutionsincludedseedproducers,agrodealers,associationsofsmallholderfarmerslikeNationalSmallholderFarmers’AssociationofMalawiandnon-governmentorganisationsthatpromotedconservationagriculturesuchasTotalLandCareandtheCatholicDevelopmentCommissioninMalawi.TheLilongweUniversityofAgricultureandNaturalResourcesplayedakeyroleinadoptionandmonitoringstudiesthroughtheAdoptionPathwayssisterproject.
Project sitesInlinewiththeresearchandfarmerpracticeobjectivesoftheprograms,Malawiselectedsixdistrictsintwoagroecologicalzones:lowandmid-altitudezones(Figure17.4).Themid-altitudedistrictswereLilongwe,MchinjiandKasungu.Thelow-altitudedistrictswereSalima,BalakaandNtcheu.Themid-altitudeareashavefavourablerainfallpatternsandgoodsoilsformaizeandlegumeproduction.Thealtitudeisbetween760mand1,300 mabovesealevelandthedistrictstypicallyreceive600–1,000 mmofrainfallperannumwithannualminimumandmaximumtemperaturesof16–18 °Cand26–28 °C(Kanyama-Phiri,Snapp&Wellard2000).Thelow-altitudeareasincludedthelakeshoreandrainshadowareasthattendtoreceivelowaveragerainsformaizeandlegumeproduction.Thisregionspansaltitudesof200–760 mabovesealevel,tendtoreceive500–600 mmofrainfallperannumwithannualminimumandmaximumtemperaturesof18–20 °Cand28–30 °C(Kanyama-Phiri,Snapp&Wellard2000)
SIMLESA316
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Figure 17.4 (a) SIMLESA districts and (b) agroecological zones based on elevation
Sources:(a)LandResourcesDepartment—MappingUnit2012;(b)LandResourcesDepartment—MappingUnit1998
Ineachofthetargeteddistricts,theprogramalsotargetedoneextensionplanningareaandonesection(administrativeunitsinthedistrict)toconducttheexploratorytrials.Withineachsection,theprogramselectedsixfarmerstohostexploratorytrialsfordemonstrationsforaperiodoffouryears(2010–14).Thesefarmerswerereferredtoas‘hostfarmers’.Thecommunitiesidentifiedhostfarmersfromsixdifferentvillagesthroughopenforumdiscussions.Thehostfarmerslivedwithina1 kmradiusofeachotherforeaseofdatacollectionandmonitoring.Ahostfarmerwasonewhowasbelievedtobereceptive,innovative,representative,hardworkingandaccessiblebyfollowerfarmers,projectstaffandresearchers.Eachfarmerallocatedupto3,000 m2oftheirlandforalltheexploratorytrials,whichcovereduptosixplotseachmeasuring20 m×25 m(500 m2).
Lakes
SIMLESA districts<250 m elevation
250 to 650 m elevation>650 m elevation
(b)(a)
BalakaNtchea
Salima
Kasungu
Michinji
Lilongwe
317SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 17
Adoption monitoring and identification of social constraintsToenhancetheunderstandingofCASIoptionsformaize–legumeproductionsystems,socialscientistscollectedhousehold-leveldataandconductedcomplementary value-chainstudies.Specifically,householdadoptionmonitoringsurveyswereconductedin2013and2015.TheinterviewswerewithfarmerswithintheproximityofhostfarmerstoassesstheirknowledgeanduseoftheCASIsystemsdemonstratedbythehostfarmers.Theadoptionmonitoringsurveysusedasnowballingmethodofsampling,startingwiththehostfarmer,thenfarmerswholearnedfromeachhostfarmer,orfollowerfarmers.Thesesurveysgaveanoverviewoffarmerawarenessanduptakeofthetechnologies.Complementarystudiesincludedassessingthemaize–legumeinputandoutputvaluechains,agrodealersurveysandimpactpathways(using2013and2015surveydata).
Long-term CASI trialsLong-termtrialswereintroducedtounderstandcropresponsesbeyondoneseasonaltrialandunderstandsoileffects.ThetrialsevaluatedthemajorcomponentsofCASI:
1. minimalmechanicalsoildisturbance
2. permanentorganicsoilcoverbycropresiduesand/orcovercrops
3. diversifiedcroprotationsorassociationswithlegumes.
Thetreatments(Table17.1)wereimplementedinbothlow-andmid-altitudeagroecologicalzones.Theon-stationtrialswereconductedattheChitalaresearchstation,locatedinthelow-altitudedistrictofSalima.Inaddition,36on-farmexploratorytrialswereconducted,sixineachofthesixSIMLESAdistricts.ThesetrialswereimplementedinSIMLESAPhase1(2010–14)andmodifiedinSIMLESAPhase2(2015–18).ThemodificationwastheinclusionofdifferentmaizeandlegumevarietiesbasedontheexperiencesofSIMLESAPhase1.
Table 17.1 Treatments for on-farm trials in different agroecologies of Malawi
Low-altitude agroecology site treatments Mid-altitude agroecology site treatments
Farmerscheck:soiltillage,cropresiduesburnedorburied
Farmerscheck:soiltillage,cropresiduesburnedorburied
Minimumtillage+basins(15 cm×15 cm)+maize–pigeonpeaintercropping
Minimumtillage+dibblesolemaize,noherbicides
Minimumtillage+dibblemaize–pigeonpeaintercropping
Minimumtillage+dibblesolemaizewithherbicides
Minimumtillage+dibblesolemaize Minimumtillage+dibblemaize–soybeanrotation
Minimumtillage+dibblemaize–peanutrotation Minimumtillage+dibblesoybean–maizerotation
Minimumtillage+dibblepeanut–maizerotation
SIMLESA318
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
SIMLESAprovidedthefarmerswithhybridseed,fertiliserandherbicidesforthetrials.Toensurepropermanagementofthetrials,theprogramtrainedagricultureextensionworkersintheidentifiedsectionstomonitorandadvisethefarmers.Eachcommunityestablishedaresearchcommitteetoensurepropermanagementofthetrials.Thecommitteesalsoactedascommunitymonitoringinstitutionsbymonitoringperformance,recordingtrialobservationsatagreedupontimepoints,organisingexchangevisitsduringtheseasonandcommunicatingissuesandconcernsregardingtrialmanagementtoextensionworkersorotherprojectpersonnel.
TotesttheeffectofCASIsystemsonreducingseasonaldownsiderisks,researchersfromChitedzeResearchStationincollaborationwiththeQueenslandAllianceforAgricultureandFoodInnovationusedtheAgriculturalProductionSystemssIMulator(APSIM)model.Soilcharacteristics,includingsoilnutrientuptake,maintenanceofnutrients,waterinfiltrationandresiliencetopestattack,werealsoevaluatedtocompareCASIandconventionalfarming(Table17.2).
Table 17.2 Initial chemical soil characterisation of trial sites, 2010–11
Threshold values
pH Organic carbon (%)
Organic matter (%)
Nitrogen (%)
Phosphorus (µg/g)
Range for critical values
District Extension planning area
5.5–7.5 0.88–2.35 1.50–4.0 0.09–0.15 19.0–25.00
Ntcheu Nsipe 6.57 0.47 0.81 0.04 69.89
Balaka Rivirivi 6.33 0.85 1.46 0.07 74.04
Salima Tembwe 5.84 0.98 1.69 0.08 166.40
Kasungu Mtunthama 6.14 0.67 1.15 0.06 93.56
Mchinji Kalulu 5.28 0.55 0.96 0.05 83.38
Lilongwe Mitundu 5.39 1.04 1.79 0.09 41.05
Varietal trialsBreedersattheDepartmentofAgriculturalResearchServicestogetherwithseedcompanies,theInternationalCropsResearchInstitutefortheSemi-AridTropics,theInternationalInstituteforTropicalAgricultureandnon-governmentorganisationpartnersdidaninventoryofpotentialdrought-tolerantmaizeandlegumevarieties.ThevarietiesidentifiedformaizewereMalawiHybrid(MH)26,MH30,MH31,MH32andMH38.Underlegumes,theidentifiedvarietiesinMalawiwereNasoko,TikoloreandMakwachaforsoybean;Mwaiwathualimi,Chitedzepigeonpea1andChitedzepigeonpea2forpigeonpea;Sudan1andIT82E-16forcowpea;andCG7,Chitala,KakomaandNsinjiroforpeanut.
BreedersalsodevelopedandreleasedpeanutvarietiesofVirginiaandSpanishgenotypes.Theevaluationofbothgenotypesindicatedthattheywerehigh-yielding,resistanttorosettedisease(amajorchallengeinlegumeproduction)andhadmediumseedsize.Themajordifferencewasinthematurityperiod.ThematurityperiodoftheVirginiagenotypewasmediumdurationwhilethatoftheSpanishgenotypewasshortduration.
319SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 17
Breedersfurtherconductedon-stationtrialsfortheevaluatedvarietiesunderCASIsystemstocompareproductionresultswithconventionalfarmingmethods.Thesetrialsevaluatedtheleveloftolerancetodroughtandmaizenitrogencontent.Basedontheidentifiedandreleasedvarieties,seedcompaniesassistedinthemultiplicationofpre-basicandbasicseedofbothmaizeandlegumes.Theultimateobjectivewastomaketheidentifiedseedavailabletofarmers.
Knowledge-sharing platformsTocreateaknowledge-sharingplatform,hostfarmerswereencouragedtosharetheirexploratoryresultswithfellowfarmersintheirsectionsthroughfielddaysandfarmer-to-farmerexchangevisits.Toscaleouttechnologies,SIMLESAalsofacilitatedfarmerexchangevisits,demonstrations,farmerfieldschools,andfarmbusinessschoolsandcapacitybuildingforextensionworkers.Inlinewiththis,SIMLESAestablishedsixlocalinnovationplatforms,oneforeachoftheselecteddistricts.Theseplatformsweredevelopedtobringtogetherfarmers,seedproducers,agrodealers,non-governmentorganisationsandextensionworkers.Mainlytheplatformswereformedtohelpmobiliseresourcesandincreaseaccesstomarketinformation.
Capacity buildingSIMLESAsupportedbothlong-termandshort-termtraining,withinandoutsideMalawi.Theprogramcontributedtothecapacitybuildingofscientists,extensionagentsandfarmersintheuseofCASImanagementoptions,extensionmethodologies,gendermainstreaming,useofmodellingtoolsandscientificwriting,withtheattainmentofcertificates,mastersanddoctoraldegrees.
What did we learn?
Yield gainsTheexploratorytrialsfromPhase1foundthatconservationagricultureproducedhigheraveragemaizeyieldwhencomparedtoconventionalfarmingintreatmentone.Tables17.3and17.4indicatedifferencesinmaizeyieldsacrossthemid-altitudeandlow-altitudedistricts.Fromthisdata,weobservedthattheaverageyieldsoftheCASIsystemwerehigherthantheconventionalsystem.
Table 17.3 Average maize yields by cropping system in low-altitude districts, 2010–11 to 2013–14 cropping seasons
Cropping system 4-year mean yield
(kg/ha)
Yield increase
(%)
Conventionalpractice 2,397 0
CASI:basins,maize–pigeonpeaintercrop 2,824 18
CASI:dibblestick,maize–pigeonpeaintercrop 2,628 8
CASI:dibblestick,maizesole 2,718 12
CASI:dibblestick,maize–peanutrotation 3,286 33
Note:CASI=conservationagriculture-basedsustainableintensification
SIMLESA320
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Table 17.4 Average maize yields by cropping system in mid-altitude districts, 2010–11 to 2013–14 cropping seasons
Cropping system 4-year mean yield
(kg/ha)
Yield increase
(%)
Conventionalpractice 3,7981 (2,943)2
0(0)
CASI+solemaize+noherbicide 3,889 2(32)
CASI+solemaize+herbicides 4,088 7(39)
CASI+herbicides+maize–soybeanrotation 4,434 17(51)
Notes:1.Conventionalyieldestimatedinthetrialplot.2.Resultsinparenthesisarecalculatedmaizeyieldsfromplotsnexttotheexploratorytrialsunderfarmermanagement
withouttheinfluenceofresearchers.
Percentagecomparisonsforconventionalpracticeareinparenthesis;CASI=conservationagriculture-basedsustainableintensification.
ThisconcurswithNgwira,ThierfelderandLambert(2013),whoreportedthatmaizeyieldbiomassinMalawiincreasedby2.7 Mg/haunderCASImanagementofamonocropandby2.3 Mg/haunderCASIforamaize–legumeintercropwhencomparedtoconventionalmethodsinthe2009–10productionseason.Ngwira,Aune&Mkwinda’s(2012)on-farmevaluationsinBalakaandNtcheudistrictsalsoindicatedpositiveyieldchangesfromCASIsystems.Theirstudyreportedapositiveeffectonmaizeyieldwithanaverageyieldof4.4 Mg/haobservedinCASIsystemscomparedto3.3 Mg/hawithconventionalpracticeduringthedryproductionseasonsof2009–10and2010–11.SummaryyieldresultsfromthefirstfouryearsofSIMLESAinbothagroecologicalzoneshavebeenreportedelsewhere(Nyagumboetal.2016).Yieldincreaseswerehighestinmaize–peanutrotationsystems(33%)inthelowlandswhilethemaize+soybeanrotationenableda17%increaseinmaizeyieldsinthemid-altitudes.
Performance across agroecological zonesDespitepositiveaverageresultsunderCASI,variableimpactshavebeenreportedacrossagroecologicalzonesfrompriorstudies.Forexample,Gilleretal.(2009)informedanassessmentofconditionsunderwhichCASIisbestsuitedtoSIMLESAhouseholds.TheexploratorytrialsdemonstratedhighlevelsofyieldvariabilityforagivensetofCASImanagementpracticesacrosssites.Differencesinyieldswereattributedtotheonsetofplantingrains,varietychoice,rainfalldistribution,soilqualityandplotmanagement.
ThesetofCASImanagementpracticeswiththegreatestyieldbenefitdependedonthespecificsiteattributes.Inthelowlanddistricts,CASIplusrotationandCASIplusbasinsyieldedsuperiorgrainyieldsinyearswithmid-seasondryspells(Tables17.3and17.4).Thebasinshadawaterharvestingeffectwhilerotationhadasoilnitrogen-fixingeffect.Incontrast,basinsperformedpoorlyinseasonswithabove-normalaveragerainfallandgoodrainfalldistribution.Withbasins,excessrainresultedinwaterloggingthatdecreasedmaizeyields(Nyagumboetal.2016).SimilarobservationshavebeenhighlightedbyNyamangaraetal.(2014)inZimbabwe.InSalimaandNtcheu,thegeneralperformanceofCASIplusbasintechnologywaspoorbecauseofwaterloggingandinfestationofwirewormacrossallseasons.However,CASIandrotationwerehighlyeffectiveinSalimabecauseofweedmanagement,consideringthatthesoilsinthisareaarepoorandsusceptibletowitchweed(Striga asiatica)infestation(Berner,Kling&Singh1995).
321SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 17
Inmid-altitudeareas,technologiesthatperformedbetterwereCASIplusherbicidesandCASIplusrotation,becauseoftheirabilitytosuppressweeds.ThisisinlinewiththeobservationsofNicholsetal.(2015).Apartfromclimaticconditionsinthisregion,fieldobservationsshowedthatfarmers’experiencesincropvarietyandplantingtimepositivelyinfluenceddifferencesinyields.Mostfarmersfromthemid-altitudeareasweremoreexperiencedinmaizeproductionunderconventionalfarmingthanthosefromlow-altitudeareas.
Farmers’ preferenceFarmers’preferenceswerealsoevaluatedacrosstrialsitestoidentifypracticesforsite-specificrecommendations.Theirpreferenceswereevaluatedbasedonlabour,timeandcost(savingpotential)measuresinlinewithliteraturethatthesefactorscanalsosignificantlyinfluenceadoptiondecisions(Gilleretal.2009;Ngwiraetal.2014).Focusgroupdiscussionswereconductedduringfielddemonstrations,farmerfieldschools,fielddaysornationalandinternationalexchangevisits(farmersinMozambiquevisitedMalawianfarmersin2015)tosolicitfarmerpreferencesinthechoiceoftechnologies.Table17.5presentsasummaryofthepreferredtechnologiesfromthefocusgroupdiscussions.
Table 17.5 Technologies preferred by farmers in SIMLESA districts
District CASI + legume–maize intercropping
CASI + legume–maize
rotation
CASI + basin + herbicides + sole maize
CASI + sole maize minus
herbicides
CASI + sole maize + herbicides
Balaka √ √
Ntcheu √ √
Lilongwe √ √
Mchinji √ √
Kasungu √ √
Salima √ √
Note:CASI=conservationagriculture-basedsustainableintensification
FarmersmostlypreferredCASIpracticesthatallowedforintercroppingmaizeandlegumes.Althoughrotationanduseofherbicidesgavehigheryieldsandwerepreferredduringtrials,farmersreportedlimitedaccesstolandandcapitalasmajorchallengesaffectinguptakeofthesehigh-performingtechnologies.
Dissemination pathwaysTheevaluationofdisseminationmodalitiessuggeststhatpartnershipwithnon-governmentorganisationsandgovernmentprogramsandprojectsinmountingdemonstrationsandhostingfielddaysassistedinachievingintensiveandextensivedisseminationofCASItechnologies.Atthesametime,innovationplatformsplayedakeyroleintechnologyadoptionanduse.Furthermore,theinvolvementoflocalleaderswasinstrumentalintechnologyadoptionthroughenforcementofby-lawsthatprotectresidueuseinconservationagricultureagainstcompetingneeds.Oftenfarmersreportedfree-rangegrazingoflivestock,wildfiresandhuntingofmiceasreasonsfornotmulchingtheirfieldsintime.Wherelocalleadersenforcedby-laws,theareasweresuccessfulinthemanagementofCASIsystems.Thissuggeststhatacommunityapproachoffersmajoradvantageswhenout-scalingCASIsystemsthroughinnovationplatforms.
SIMLESA322
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Thevalue-chainreviewstudyformaizeandlegumeproductionfrom2013foundthatcollectivepurchasingandmarketingwasoneofthekeystrategiesthatproducersappliedtoenhanceeconomiesofscale.However,theagrodealersstudyin2015showedlimitedeffortbyagrodealerstotakecost-effectiveopportunitiesthatexistamongsmallholderfarmersinacquiringinputsandsellingoutputs.Together,theseresultshelpedtoidentifypromisingmanagementpracticesforscalingout(Table17.6).
Table 17.6 Scalable technologies
Agroecology Scalable technology Crop varieties
Lowaltitude • useofplantingbasins/minimumtillage• useofstress-tolerantcropvarieties• maize–peanutrotation• maize–pigeonpeaintercrop
Maize:MH26Peanut:Kakoma&ChitalaPigeonpea:MwaiwathualimiCowpea:IT18E-16
Midaltitude • maize–soybeanrotationincludinginoculation• improvedmaizeandlegumevarietiesthat withstandmultiplestresses• flatplanting
Maize:MH26&MH27Soybean:Nasoko
What was the impact?
SIMLESAactivitiesincreasedadoptionofCASItechnologiesandoverallcropyieldatthehouseholdlevel.Evidencepresentedhereshows:
1. theprogramcontributedtothedevelopmentandadoptionofuser-preferredmaizeandlegumeconservationagriculturetechnologies
2. adoptionincreasedinon-farmproduction.
Weusefindingsfromadoptionmonitoringsurveysin2013and2015andstudiesfromtheAdoptionPathwaysproject.
Adoption of CASI technologiesBy2013,allsampledfarmerswereawareoftheCASItechnologiesdemonstratedbySIMLESAandabout63%hadtriedthemaseitherSIMLESAhostfarmersorfollowerfarmers.Ofthosethattried,78%hadadoptedthesetechnologies.Minimumtillage(basins)wasthemostpreferredandadoptedtechnology.MinimumtillagepracticesbecamemorecommonaftertheimplementationofSIMLESAcomparedtoreducedtillagein2010.Onaverage,32%offarmersindicatedtheywerepractisingminimumtillagein2013(Figure17.5).
By2015,95%oftheinterviewedfarmershadtriedCASItechnologies,anincreasefrom 63%in2013.Themostwidelyadoptedtechnologieswereresidueretention/mulching(24%);useofimprovedseedandherbicides(17%)andacombinationofminimumtillageandrotation(13%)(Figure17.6).Furthermore,13%ofinterviewedfarmerspreferredandadoptedcroprotationwhile11%adoptedzero/minimumtillageby2015.Between2013and2015,farmerscontinuedtointensifyuseofminimumtillageorresidueretentionbutwithanemphasisoncombiningthetechnologies.Female-headedhouseholdsweremorelikelytoadoptacombinationofminimumtillageandcroprotationthanmale-headedhouseholds.Alternatively,male-headedhouseholdsweremorelikelytoinvestinherbicidesandhybridseeds(Figure17.6).
323SIMLESASIMLESA
Minimum tillage Herbicides
Improved maize varieties Improved legume varieties
0
20
40
60
80
100
Perc
enta
ge o
f far
mer
s
Lilongwe(n = 150)
Kasungu(n = 132)
Mchinji(n = 160)
Salima(n = 44)
Balaka(n = 44)
Ntcheu(n = 63)
Total(n = 543)
Figure 17.5 Technology adoption, 2013Source:GovernmentofMalawi2013
0 5 10 15 20 25
Percentage
Use of hybrid seed
Zero tillage Maize-legume intercropping Crop rotation Residue retention
Herbicide use in zero tillage Combinations
Use of hybrid seed
Combinations
Herbicide use in zero tillage
Residue retention
Crop rotation
Maize–legume intercropping
Zero tillage
(b)(a)
Female-headed households
Male-headed households
17%
11%
13%24%
17%
13%
5%
Figure 17.6 Technology adoption by (a) total sample and (b) gender of household head, 2015
Note:‘Combinations’meansthefarmersarepractisingminimumtillagewithmulchandrotations. Source:GovernmentofMalawi2015
CHAPTER 17
SIMLESA324
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Ofthetotalsamplein2015,52%ofthehouseholdshadstoppedusingatleastoneoftheCASImanagementpracticesintheearlystagesofadoption.Themostcommonlyreportedreasonsfordisadoptioninboth2013and2016includedlackofequipment/inputsandcashconstraints(Figures17.7and17.8).ThesereasonsareconsistentwithobservationsbyGilleretal.(2009).
0 5 10 15 20 25
Percentage of farming households
Difficult to obtain mulch/Lack ofadequate supply
Lack of seed
Lack of inputs
Lack of cash
Need more labour
Legume production decreases
Maize production decreases
Tried out other crop and varieties
Increase pest and disease
Livestock feed shortage
Shortage of extension workers
Lack of land
Grass resistant to herbicides
Destroys natural fertility
Figure 17.7 Reasons for disadoption of technologies, 2013
Source:GovernmentofMalawi2013
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percentage of farming households
Lack of skill to use technologies
Told by fellow farmers that it is not increasing yieldsLack of cash for herbicides
Lack of equipment (DS, rippers)
75
41
79
68
4
27
72Other
Livestock feed shortage
Increase pest and disease
Cash constrained
Labour shortage
Lack of herbicides
Lack of equipment
Low productivity
(b)(a)
92%
1.5%2%
3% 1.5%
Rank 1
Rank 2
Rank 3Labour shortage
39
Figure 17.8 Disadoption of technologies by (a) overall main reason and (b) ranked reasons, 2015
Source:GovernmentofMalawi2015
325SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 17
Impact on yield and incomeMaizeproductivityhasincreasedsinceSIMLESAwasimplemented(Figure17.9). Zero/minimumtillageincreasedyieldsbyanaverageof67%whileadoptionofimprovedmaizeandlegumevarietiesincreasedyieldsbyanaverageof68%and67%respectivelyin2013.ThestoryoftheMpomolafamilyincasestudyattheendofchapter(page328)isoneofmanycasesofincreasedmaizeproductionwhenfarmerspractisedconservationagriculturetechnologies.
Figure 17.9 Average change in maize yield (2010–13)
Source:GovernmentofMalawi2013
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Minimum tillage + sole crop
Minimum tillage + intercrop
Minimum tillage + rotation
Minimum tillage + herbicides
Minimum tillage + herbicides + intercrop
Minimum tillage + herbicides + rotationMinimum tillage + herbicides + intercrop
Use herbicides
MH26
MH27
Nasoko
Mwaiwathualimi
Chitala
Percentage change in yield
SIMLESA326
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Figure 17.10 Cumulative run-off at different rates of nitrogen and crop residuesSource:SIMLESAfarmtrials
Days after sowing
0
200
300
400
500
600
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Cum
ulat
ive
rain
fall
and
run-
off
(mm
)
100
Cumulative rainfall
CP-0N-0M
CP-120n-0M CA-120n-0M
CA-0n-8M CA-120n-8M
FarmerssuggestedthatyieldchangesweretheresultofimprovedsoilnutrientandnutrientmaintenancefromusingCASIsystems.Farmersalsoindicatedthatamidchangingrainfallpatterns,CASIsystemsretainedmoisturetoalleviatedroughtstress.Empiricalresearchvalidatedthefarmers’perceptionsofreducedrisk.BasedonAPSIMresults,adoptionofacombinationofdifferentrecommendedconservationagriculturetechnologiesdecreaseddownsiderisksby16%.Amongtheconservationagriculturemanagementpractices,cropresidueretentioncontributedmosttoriskreductionbysubstantiallyreducingtheamountofrun-offthatcancontributetolanddegradationorsoilerosion(Figures17.10and17.11).Cropresiduesalsomaintainedbiodiversityandhelpedtoreducethebuild-upofpestsanddiseases.Legume–maizerotation/intercroppingimprovedsoilnutrientsbyfixingnitrogen.
327SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 17
TheseresultsconcurwithKassie,Teklewold,Marenyaetal.(2015),whoreportedpositiveimpactsofadoptingCASIpracticessuchasmaize–legumediversificationandminimumtillageonincreasedfoodsecurityandreductioninyieldriskandcostofriskinMalawi.TheestimatedimpactwashighestwithsimultaneousadoptionoftheentiresetofCASIpractices.Specifically,theyreportedanincreasedmaizeyieldof850 kg/haonplotswithcropdiversificationandminimumtillagecomparedtothoseonconventionalmethods.ThestudyfurtherreportedthatadoptingacombinationofsustainableintensificationpracticestogetherwithcomplementaryinputssuchasimprovedseedscouldraisemaizenetincomeinMalawiby117%.Estimatedresultsindicatethattheincomeeffectisnotonlyfromincreasedyieldbutalsofromreducedintensityoffertiliserandchemicalpesticides.KankwambaandMangisoni(2015)alsoreportedhigherandconsistentfarmoutputandincomesinhouseholdswhoadoptedCASIpracticescomparedtonon-adoptinghouseholds.
PhysicalevidenceofimprovedincomefromthefieldisprovidedbyacaseofonehostfarmerinLilongwe(mid-altitudearea)whoattributedherfamily’snewironsheethousewithproceedsfromincreasedproductionafteradoptingaCASIsystem(Figure17.12).GiventhatsmallholderfarmersinMalawifacerecurrentlowandunstablecropyieldduetoweathershocksandlownutrientintake(Weberetal.2012),thesefindingssuggestthatjointadoptionofcropdiversificationandminimumtillagecanhedgeagainstincomeandclimaticriskexposure.SeethecasestudybelowformoresuccessstoriesonCASIsystemsandmaizeproductioninMalawi.
Figure 17.11 Extractable soil water at different rates of nitrogen and crop residues
Source:SIMLESAfarmtrials
Days after sowing
0
80
120
160
200
240
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Extr
acta
ble
soil
wat
er a
nd
rain
fall
(mm
)
40
Rainfall
CP-0N-0M
CP-120n-0M CA-120n-0M
CA-0n-8M CA-120n-8M
SIMLESA328
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Case study: Through SIMLESA, CASI increases maize production in Malawi ChrissySamsonMpomolahailsfromBalakadistrict,whichislocatedinthelowlandsofMalawi.IfChrissywastochooseamethodoffarmingforherwholefarm,itwouldbetheCASIsystemoflandmanagement,withnoridges,maizeintercroppedwithpigeonpeaandherbicideapplied(onlyglyphosate)forweedcontrol.Why?‘Becausetheworkisnotsodifficultandthuslaboursaving.Weleavetheresidueontheground,andthecropthatgrowshasagoodstandandyieldsmore,’shesays.‘Ithinkthisisaprofitablefarmingmethod,andmyneighboursalwaysadmiremycropstand.’
ChrissyandAfikiMpomolaareamarriedcouplewithsixchildren,threeofwhomarealsomarried.Chrissyisafull-timefarmerwithabout30years’farmingexperience.Herfamilyownsatotalof4.2 acres(1.7 ha).Thecouplemainlyproducemaizeforfoodself-sufficiencyandpeanutforfoodandincome.Theyalsogrowcottonandpigeonpeaascashcrops,whicharesuitableforthisagroecologicalzone.
BeforeshejoinedSIMLESA,Chrissy’shouseholdwasconstantlychallengedbyclimateshocks,includingpersistentdryspells,seasonaldroughtsandintenserainfall,whichresultedinlowproductivityandleftherhouseholdchronicallyfoodinsecure.ThankstoSIMLESA,shestartedpractisingCASImanagementinherownfieldandnowherchronicfoodshortagehasturnedintosurplustosell,eveninpoorrainfallseasons.
Chrissysays,‘Beforethe2013–14productionseason,usingconventionalfarmingpractice,weusedtogetfourtofivebagsofmaizeonourlandbutnowwearegettingabout20bags.’Theyieldincreaseisfourfoldtofivefold.
Ontherecommendationofextensionworkersandanopenforumcommunityvote,theMpomolafamilyhostedallsixSIMLESAtreatments.Becauseofthis,Chrissyhasfollowerfarmerswhoimitatewhatshehasdoneonherfarm.AliceMpochera,Chrissy’sneighbour,sayssheadmiresChrissy’sCASIcrop,and,althoughshedoesnotknowmuchaboutthetechnology,shecanseethatthecropstandonChrissy’sfarmappearstohaveahigheryieldthanherfield.Alicesaysshewouldbeinterestedinlearningmoreabouttheimprovedfarmingmethodsusedbyherneighbour.
329SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 17
What should we do next?
ThesustainabilityofagriculturalproductivityandproductioninMalawidependsonintensiveandextensiveuseofCASIpracticessuchastheonesSIMLESApromoted.WithincreasingpopulationdensityinMalawi,improvinglandproductivityisthekeytothetwinproblemsofincreasingproductionforfoodsecurityandsustainingsoilnutrition.Inthissection,wepresenttheout-scalingoptionsandkeyprioritiesforMalawi,basedonthelessonslearnedfromexploratorytrialsandfarmers’evaluationsofthetechnologies.
ExistinginnovationplatformsandnewpartnershipscanbebothstrengthenedandestablishedtoprovidetheinstitutionalcapacityforscalingouttechnologiesbeyondSIMLESA.Specificareasforimprovementandobservedchallengesencounteredintheprograminclude:
• inadequatepublishedextensionmaterials/guidesdistributedtoextensionworkers,whichlimitedthedeliveryofknowledgetothefarmers
• inefficiencyinmarketingsystems.
Theresultssurroundingdisadoptionfurthersuggesttheneedtoestablishandstrengthenlocalinstitutionsandprovidefarmerswithcredibleandtimelyinformationoncapitalsources,creditfacilities,businessdevelopmentandmanagementskills.Ingeneral,thiscallsforavalue-chainapproachtothedevelopmentofagriculturesystems.Withthisapproach,serviceproviderscanbeequippedwithbetterskillstosupplyfarmerswithqualityandtimelyinformationwhilefarmersrespondwithtimelydecisions.
Kassie,Teklewold,Jaletaetal.(2015)reportedotherkeyfactorsthatcreatedbarrierstolong-termadoption,includingtheexistingcapacityforinstitutionalsupportintheformofextensionservicesandskillsofextensionagentsontheadoptionofCASIpracticesinMalawi.Furthermore,Marenyaetal.(2015)showedthatinputsubsidiesandstrongextensionservicesenhancetheadoptionofCASIpractices.Theresultsimplythatkeepingdownthecostsofcomplementaryinputs,suchasinorganicfertiliser,improvedseed,herbicidesandequipment,andenhancingextensionservicesarekeytoincreasingadoptionofCASIpractices.GiventhatthegovernmentofMalawihasbeenimplementingtheFarmInputSubsidyProgram,integratingtheSIMLESApracticeswiththeFarmInputSubsidyProgramhaspotentialtodrivethecountry’sfoodsecurityagendabeyondtheareasinitiallytargeted.Generally,theselessonsindicatethecomplexityofproblemsinMalawithatrequireholisticsolutions.
Innovationplatformsmightbeafeasibleandpromisingvalue-chain-basedavenueforaddressingthesechallenges.Innovationplatformscansupportpartnershipsamongdifferentplayerstoholisticallysupportfarmerstoaccessinputs,credit,transportationandextensionsupport.Throughtheseplatforms,farmerscanengageinforwardingcontractsorstructuredmarketsandavoidspotmarkets.Innovationplatformscanalsopresentanopportunitytolobbythegovernmenttoinvestinmarketinginfrastructureandinstitutepoliciesthatpromotefarmingasabusiness.
Futureeffortscanalsoworktoensureequitablebenefitsacrossdemographicgroups.Differencesintheconservationagriculturetechnologiesadoptedbymale-headed
SIMLESA330
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
householdsandfemale-headedhouseholdsmightreflectgapsinaccesstoresourcesandproductioncapabilitiesbetweenthesehouseholds.Althoughenhancingequalaccesstoresourceswouldsignificantlycontributetoincreasedproductionamonggendergroups,Gilbertetal.(2002)andKassie,Stageetal.(2015a)reportedthatthefoodinsecuritygapwouldremainwithoutappropriatepoliciestoaddressdifferencesinreturnstoresources(e.g.improvedlabour-useefficiency).Thus,reducinggendergapsinadoptionbenefitsfromCASIpracticeswouldhaveamajorimpactonfoodsecurity,especiallyamong female-headedhouseholds(Kassie,Stageetal.2015).
Key prioritiesKeyprioritiesinsustainingagriculturalproductionthroughCASIcroppingsystemsinclude:
• continuallyandsystemicresearch.Knowingthatthereisnosinglesolutiontoallthecomplexproblemsinagriculture,Malawiwillcontinueconductingsystemicresearch.ThisisbecauseamongthetechnologiesorimprovedfarmingpracticestriedinSIMLESA,thereisnosilverbullet,onlyashoppinglistwithchoicesdependingon,notonlyecologicalfactors,butalsosocioeconomiccharacteristics.Thatis,goingbeyondadisciplinaryapproachtoaninterdisciplinaryapproachinresearch.
• Embeddingtheinnovationplatformsintogovernmentagriculturalpolicytofacilitatelegalandsocialrecognition.Thisisonewayofensuringthattheinnovationplatformsefficientlyassistinresourcemobilisationandcontractagreements.InMalawi,thereisaneedforinnovativeinstitutionalarrangementandpolicyalignmenttotransformagriculture.
• Enhancedprivate–publicpartnershipsasawayoffacilitatingscalingoutandscalingupofCASIpracticesamongfarmers.
• Enhanceknowledgemanagement.ReferringtothewordsofthephilosopherGeorgeBerkeley,‘Ifatreefellintheforestandno-oneistheretohearit,diditmakeasound?’Thereisaneedtopackageinformationforvarioususersifthesefindingsaretobeofimpact.
• continuallyresearchonlabour-andland-savingtechnologiesinlinewithnewchallengesthatmightarise.Maize–legumeintercroppingisvitalforacountrylikeMalawi,duetoincreasedlandpressurefrompopulationgrowth.
• Facilitateshort-termandlong-termtraining.Theneedtocontinuallytrainandbuildcapacityatalllevelsremainsvitalamidnewchallengesandnewmethodologiesfordealingwiththesechallenges.
331SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 17
ReferencesBerner,D,Kling,J&Singh,B1995,‘Strigaresearchandcontrol:aperspectivefromAfrica’,Plant Disease,
vol.79,no.7,pp.652–660.
CentreforDevelopmentManagement2017,Evaluation of the 2016/2017 Farm Input Subsidy Programme (FISP),MinistryofAgriculture,IrrigationandWaterDevelopment,Lilongwe,Malawi:DFID.
Denning,G,Kabambe,P,Sanchez,P,Malik,A,Flor,R,Harawa,R,Nkhoma,P,Zamba,C,Banda,C&Magombo,C2009,‘InputsubsidiestoimprovesmallholdermaizeproductivityinMalawi:towardanAfricangreenrevolution’,PLOS Biology,vol.7,no.1.
Dilley,M2005,Natural disaster hotspots: a global risk analysis,vol.5,WorldBankPublications.
Dorward,A&Chirwa,E2011,‘TheMalawiagriculturalinputsubsidyprogramme:2005/06to2008/09’,International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability,vol.9,no.1,pp.232–247.
FoodandAgricultureOrganization2015,What is conservation agriculture?,FoodandAgricultureOrganization,viewed18September2017,http://www.fao.org/ag/ca/1a.html.
Gilbert,R,Komwa,M,Benson,T,Sakala,W,Kumwenda,J,Chavula,K,Chilimba,A,Kabambe,V,Mughogho,S&Sizilande,B2002,A comparison of best-bet soil fertility technologies for maize grown by Malawian smallholders,MinistryofAgricultureandIrrigation,Lilongwe,Malawi.
Giller,KE,Witter,E,Corbeels,M&Tittonell,P2009,‘ConservationagricultureandsmallholderfarminginAfrica:theheretics’view’,Field Crops Research,vol.114,no.1,pp.23–34.
GovernmentofMalawi2002,Malawi national land policy,MinistryofLandsPhysicalPlanning&Survey:GovernmentofMalawi.
——2010,Malawi state of environment and outlook report: environment for sustainable economic growth,MinistryofNaturalResources,EnergyandEnvironment,Lilongwe,Malawi.
——2013,SIMLESA 2013 adoption monitoring report,InternationalMaizeandWheatImprovementCenterandDepartmentofAgriculturalResearchServices,Malawi.
——2015,SIMLESA 2015 adoption monitoring report,InternationalMaizeandWheatImprovementCenterandDepartmentofAgriculturalResearchServices,Malawi.
——2016a,Agricultural production estimates Survey database,MinistryofAgriculture,IrrigationandWaterDevelopment,Lilongwe,Malawi.
——2016b,Annual economic report 2016,MinistryofFinance,EconomicPlanningandDevelopment,Lilongwe,Malawi.
——2016c,National agriculture policy,MinistryofAgriculture,IrrigationandWaterDevelopment,Lilongwe,Malawi.
——2018,2018 population and housing census preliminary report,NationalStatisticsOffice,Malawi.
Holden,S&Mangisoni,J2013,Input subsidies and improved maize varieties in Malawi: -What can we learn from the impacts in a drought year?,CLTSWorkingPapers 7/13,NorwegianUniversityofLifeSciences,CentreforLandTenureStudies,revised10October2019.
Holden,S&O’Donnell,CJ2015,Maize productivity and input subsidies in Malawi: a state-contingent stochastic production frontier approach, WorkingPaperSeries 02–2015,NorwegianUniversityofLifeSciences,SchoolofEconomicsandBusiness.
Ito,M,Matsumoto,T&Quinones,MA2007,‘Conservationtillagepracticeinsub-SaharanAfrica:theexperienceofSasakawaGlobal2000’,Crop Protection,vol.26,no.3,pp.417–423.
Kankwamba,H&Mangisoni,J2015,Are sustainable agricultural practices improving output and incomes of smallholder farmers in Malawi?,InternationalAssociationofAgriculturalEconomistsConference,Milan,Italy,9–14August2015.
Kanyama-Phiri,G,Snapp,S&Wellard,K2000,Towards integrated soil fertility management in Malawi: incorporating participatory approaches in agricultural research,ManagingAfrica’sSoils,no.11,InternationalInstituteforEnvironmentandDevelopment(IIED),London.
Kassie,M,Stage,J,Teklewold,H&Erenstein,O2015,‘GenderedfoodsecurityinruralMalawi:whyiswomen’sfoodsecuritystatuslower?’,Food Security,vol.7,no.6,pp.1299–1320.
Kassie,M,Teklewold,H,Jaleta,M,Marenya,P&Erenstein,O2015,‘UnderstandingtheadoptionofaportfolioofsustainableintensificationpracticesineasternandsouthernAfrica’,Land Use Policy,vol.42, pp.400–411.
SIMLESA332
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Kassie,M,Teklewold,H,Marenya,P,Jaleta,M&Erenstein,O2015,‘ProductionrisksandfoodsecurityunderalternativetechnologychoicesinMalawi:applicationofamultinomialendogenousswitchingregression’,Journal of Agricultural Economics,vol.66,no.3,pp.640–659.
LandResourcesDepartment—MappingUnit1998,Elevation—Malawi,GovernmentofMalawi,Lilongwe,Malawi.
LandResourcesDepartment—MappingUnit2012,SIMLESA Districts,GovernmentofMalawi,Lilongwe,Malawi.
Marenya,P,Kassie,M,Jaleta,M,Rahut,D&Erenstein,O2015, Adoption of conservation agriculture under alternative agricultural policy and market access indicators: evidence from eastern and southern Africa,InternationalAssociationofAgriculturalEconomistsConference,Milan,Italy,9–14August2015.
Mulwa,C,Chikwekwete,P,Munyaradzi,M,Kassie,M,Mandula,B&Kabuli,A2010,Characterization of Maize-Legume Farming Systems and Household Socio-Economic and Risk Profiles in Malawi: Baseline survey report for the project: Sustainable Intensification of maize-legume Farming Systems for Food Security in Eastern and Southern Africa (SIMLESA), InternationalMaizeandWheatImprovementCenterandDepartmentofAgriculturalResearchServices,Malawi.
Ngwira,A,Johnsen,FH,Aune,JB,Mekuria,M&Thierfelder,C2014,‘AdoptionandextentofconservationagriculturepracticesamongsmallholderfarmersinMalawi’,Journal of Soil and Water Conservation,vol.69,no.2,pp.107–119.
Ngwira,AR,Aune,JB&Mkwinda,S2012,‘On-farmevaluationofyieldandeconomicbenefitofshorttermmaizelegumeintercroppingsystemsunderconservationagricultureinMalawi’,Field Crops Research,vol.132(supplementC),pp.149–157.
Ngwira,AR,Thierfelder,C&Lambert,DM2013,‘ConservationagriculturesystemsforMalawiansmallholderfarmers:long-termeffectsoncropproductivity,profitabilityandsoilquality’, Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems,vol.28,no.4,pp.350–363.
Nichols,V,Verhulst,N,Cox,R&Govaerts,B2015,‘Weeddynamicsandconservationagricultureprinciples: areview’,Field Crops Research,vol.183(supplementC),pp.56–68.
Nyamangara,J,Nyengerai,K,Masvaya,E,Tirivavi,R,Mashingaidze,N,Mupangwa,W,Dimes,J,Hove, L&Twomlow,S2014,‘Effectofconservationagricultureonmaizeyieldinthesemi-aridareasofZimbabwe’,Experimental Agriculture,vol.50,no.2,pp.159–177.
Nyagumbo,I,Mkuhlani,S,Pisa,C,Kamalongo,D,Dias,D&Mekuria,M2016,‘Maizeyieldeffectsofconservationagriculture-basedmaize-legumecroppingsystemsincontrastingagro-ecologiesofMalawiandMozambique’,Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems,vol.105,no.3,pp.275–290.
Weber,VS,Melchinger,AE,Magorokosho,C,Makumbi,D,Bänziger,M&Atlin,GN2012,‘Efficiencyofmanaged-stressscreeningofelitemaizehybridsunderdroughtandlownitrogenforyieldunderrainfedconditionsinsouthernAfrica’,Crop Science,vol.52,no.3,pp.1011–1020.
WorldBank2016,Malawi socio-economic data,viewed11September2017,https://data.worldbank.org/country/malawi.
WorldBankGroup2017,Climate change knowledge portal—for development practitioners and policy makers,WorldBankGroup,viewed19December2017,https://climateknowledgeportal.worldbank.org.
WorldBankGroup,UnitedNations&EuropeanUnion2016,Malawi drought 2015–2016: post-disaster needs assessment,WorldBank,Washington,DC.
333SIMLESA
18 The sustainable intensification of agriculture in MozambiqueDomingos Dias, Nhantumbo Nascimento, Isabel Sitoe, Isaiah Nyagumbo & Caspar Roxburgh
Key points
• Theuseofconservationagriculture-basedsustainableintensification(CASI)technologiesinMozambiqueincreasedmaizeandlegumeyieldsbyupto 37%comparedtocurrentfarmerpractices.
• Theuseofmechanisedanimaltractionandwinterpreparationoffieldswasapotentialstrategyforlabourreductionandimprovedtimelinessofoperations,particularlyinfemale-headedandlabour-constrainedhouseholds.
• Theapplicationofmaizeresidueshadmorepositiveeffectsinlowrainfallconditions,andcoulddepressyieldsinunfertilisedhighrainfallenvironments.
• Uptakeofimprovedvarietiesandcroppingsystemscontinuestobenegativelyimpactedbylowinput/outputmarketincentivestofarmers.
• Innovationplatformsandotherfarmer-drivenstrategiescreatedopportunitiesfortheuptakeoftechnologies.By2018,morethan38,000farminghouseholdswerereached.
• ResultsfromlaboratoryanalysisoffiveyearsofcontinuousmaizecroppingsystemsunderCASIpracticesinSussundengashoweda0.12%(+/- 0.10)gainintotalcarboninthe0–5 cmsoillayer.Thisequatestoapproximately124,000 Mt C/yearinputacrossallSIMLESAfarmersinManica.
• TofosteragricultureproductivitythroughCASI,policymakersshould:
– includeprovenCASIstrategiesatalllevelsofpolicyconversations
– investintheincubationofnewbusinessopportunities,includingdemandcreation
– facilitateinvestmentfundstosupportacquisitionofmachinerybyagribusinesses
– investintrainingforlargecohortsoftechnicianstomainstreamsmallholdermechanisation
– investintheestablishmentandmaintenanceoflargenetworksofcommunity-baseddemonstrationplotsandfarms
– initiatefundsandseedcapitaltocatalyseprivateinvestmentsinscalingCASI.
SIMLESA334
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Introduction
TheaveragemaizeyieldinMozambiqueislowat0.85 t/haandhighlyvariable.Despitetheampleavailabilityofland,goodsoilfertility,researchandextensioncapacity,theagricultureinfrastructureisweak.Agricultureischaracterisedbyfrequentdroughtsandfloods,pooraccesstoseedofimprovedvarieties,restrictedaccesstofertilisersanduseofunsustainablesoilmanagementpracticescoupledwithdysfunctionalagriculturalmarketsandweakresearchandextensionservices.
Toimprovecropyieldsamongsmallholders,ACIARandtheInternationalMaizeandWheatImprovementCenter(CIMMYT),inpartnershipwiththeInstitutodeInvestigaçãoAgráriadeMoçambique(IIAM),implementedSIMLESAin2010.Best-bettechnologiesweretested,includingtheuseofconservationagriculture-basedsustainableintensification(CASI)practices,whichhadastrongpotentialtoenhanceyieldsandsustainfoodsecurity.CASIpracticeswereappliedandthebestfitwereselectedbyfarmersandout-scaledbythreemajorscalingpartnersandinnovationplatformsincentralMozambique.Intheproject,34varieties(11maize,4bean,5pigeonpea,6cowpeaand8soybean)weresuppliedtosmallholderfarmersthroughparticipatoryvarietyselectiontrialsforlegumesandmother–babytrialsformaize.InnovationplatformswereestablishedineachofthesixSIMLESAcommunities,locatedinfourdistrictsandthreeprovincesofMozambique(Figure18.1).
Figure 18.1 Location of SIMLESA communities in central Mozambique
Maniamba
Marrupa
Maua
UlongweFingoe
Zumbo
Mazoi
Moatize
Cheba Morrumbala
Marromeu
Vila Fontes
V. Paiva de And
Sussundenga
ChibabavaEspungabera
Malvernia
Massinga
Chokwe
Magude
Manhica
Marracuene
Moamba
Mazeminhama
Ricatla
Vilanculos
Panda NhacoongoInharrime
Inhambane
Xai-Xai
Maputo
Dondo
Namacura
Mocuba
Gurue
Moma
Angoche
Nametil
RibaueMalemaMutualiCuamoe
Mecanhelas
ErregoAlto Molocue
Muecate
Mocimboa da Pra
MuedaMacomia
Montepuez
ChiureOcua Namapa
Monapo
Nacala
NamarroiTete
Quelimane
Beira
Chimoio
Nampula
PembaLichinga
MeoulaTete: Angonia Ciphole & Cabanco, Domue, Chikudu, Nsendeza, Chabuni, Nchenga, Dzatumbee, Kalinthulo
Manica: Manica Chinhamdombwe, Mavonde, Vanduzi, Macadera, Pina , Messica
Manica: Gondola Macate, Marera, Zembe, Matsinho
Manica: Sussundenga, Rotanda Sussundenga-sede, Munhinga, Muoha, Dombe, Chichira, Chimbua, Rotanda-sede, Messambuzi
Sofala: Gorongosa Canda-sede, Vunduzi
335SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 18
Preliminaryresultsshowedthatmorethan38,000farmersweredirectlyengagedingroundactivitiesthroughinnovationplatformsandreachedouttosome100,000farmers.CASIandotherbest-managementpracticesincreasedmaizeyieldsby37%,cowpeayieldsby33%andsoybeanyieldsby50%acrossfarmsinSussundenga(Manicaprovince)andmaizeyieldsby46%inAngonia(Teteprovince).ThiswaswellabovethetargetsetbytheMinistryofAgricultureofa7%inyieldincreaseabovecurrentbaseyields.Keylessonsfrommonitoringandevaluationactivitiessuggestthatimprovedtimelinessandmanagement,includingfertilitymanagementandweeding,werekeyproductivityfactorsthatneedattentioninfuture.
What was the situation in 2010?
Mozambiquehasavarietyofregionalcroppingpatternsdrivenbyagroclimaticzonesrangingfromarid,semi-aridandsubhumid(mostlyinthecentralandthenorthernagroecologicalregions)tothehumidhighlands(mostlythecentralprovinces).Themostfertileareasareinthenorthernandcentralprovinces,whichhavehighagroecologicalpotentialandgenerallyproduceagriculturalsurpluses.
Atleastthreeagroecologicalzones(AEZ)canbeidentifiedineachofthefourprovincesincentralMozambique(InstitutoNacionaldeInvestigaçãoAgronómica1997):
• Manica(AEZR4,R6,R10)
• Sofala(AEZR5,R4,R6)
• Tete(AEZR6,R7,AEZ)
• Zambezia(AEZR7,R5,R8,R10).9
Withthelargemajorityofagriculturalproductionbeingrainfed,weathervariabilityisamajorfactorindeterminingcropperformance.ThemaingrowingseasonstartswiththefirstrainsinSeptemberinthesouthandDecemberinthenorth.Thereisalsoaminorgrowingseason,basedonresidualsoilmoisture,fromMarchtoJuly,accountingforapproximately10%oftotalcultivatedarea.Thereareabout36 Mhaofarableland,suitableforagriculture.Maizeisthemostwidelygrowncrop,occupyingsome1.4 Mhaandproducing1.2 Mtannually,butthisishighlyvariablefromyeartoyear.Despiteampleland,soilfertilityislow,withsouthernprovinceshavingpoorersoilsandmoreerraticrainfall,andbeingsubjecttorecurrentdroughtsandfloods.
Mozambiqueisoneoftheworld’spoorestcountries,despiteitsgreatpotential.Itsagricultureischaracterisedbylowsoilfertility,frequentdroughtsandfloods,useofunimprovedvarieties,pooraccesstogood-qualityseedofimprovedvarieties,restrictedaccesstofertilisersanduseofunsustainablesoilmanagementpracticescoupledwithdysfunctionalagriculturalmarketsandweakresearchandextensionservices.Toimprovecropyieldsamongsmallholders,CIMMYTinpartnershipwithIIAMimplementedSIMLESAin2010,aresearchinitiativefromACIARaimedatpromotingsustainableintensificationofmaize–legumecroppingsystemsforfoodsecurityineasternandsouthernAfrica.TheuseofCASImanagementandadoptionofbestpracticeswasconsideredtohavegreatpotentialtoboostyieldsandsustainfoodsecurity.
9 AtleastthreeagroecologicalzonescanbeidentifiedineachoneofthefourprovincesincentralMozambique:Manica(AEZ-R4,AEZ-R6andAEZ-R10),Sofala(AEZ-R5,AEZ-R4andAEZ-R6),Tete(AEZ-R6,AEZ-R7andAEZ-R10)andZambezia(AEZ-R7,AEZ-R5,AEZ-R8andAEZ-R10).
SIMLESA336
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
What did SIMLESA do?
IIAMstaffdirectlytargeted27,000householdsinsixcommunitieswithtwocontrastingagroecologiesofthefollowingprovinces:• Manica:Sussundenga-sede,Muoha(AEZ4),ChinhandombweandRotanda(AEZ10)• Sofala:Canda-SedeinGorongosa(AEZR4)• Tete:ChipoleandCabangoinAngonia(AEZR10).
Overtheseven-yearperiod(since2010),36on-farmCASIexploratorytrialscoveringmorethan38,057householdswereconducted(Table18.1).Apartfromtheexploratorytrials,871participatoryvarietyselectionandmother–babytrialswereconductedacrossallSIMLESAtargetcommunities.AfterthereviewofSIMLESA-1,theIIAMconcentrateditseffortsonscalingoutearliersuccessesbydevelopinglocally-relevantinnovationplatformsforCASI.ThescalingoutofCASItechnologiesincentralMozambiquewasmainlyconductedduringSIMLESA-2throughacompetitivegrantschemewithlocalpartnersandtargetedManicaandTeteprovinces.
Table 18.1 Results from on-farm trials in Mozambique comparing yields in conservation agriculture to conventional maize production and the number of households impacted
Location Maize yields under conventional
practices (kg/ha)
Maize yields under CASI
(kg/ha)
Estimated number of households impacted
National teams
Scaling partners
Sussundenga,Manica,Rotanda(Manica)
1,497 2,063 27,000 50,000
Angonia(Tete) 3,600 4,200 11,057 50,000
Total 38,057 100,000
Note:CASI=conservationagriculture-basedsustainableintensification
Evaluating the benefits of local CASI packagesExploratorytrialsduringSIMLESAPhase1comparedlocallyadaptedCASIsystems(no-till,fertiliserapplication,legumerotation,newmaizeandlegumevarieties)withconventionalsystems(continuousmaize,deeptillage).Onaverage,CASIincreasedmaizeyieldsby37%,cowpeayieldsby33%andsoybeanyieldsby50%acrossfarmsinSussundengaandGorongosa(Table18.2)(Nyagumboetal.2016).Thiswaswellabovethe7%yieldincreasetargetsetbytheMinistryofAgriculture.
Table 18.2 Sussundenga and Gorongosa (low-potential area) yield increase in six years of CASI practices
Cropping systems Maize grain yield (kg/ha) % increase
Conventionalpractice 1,497a 0.0
CASI+jabplanter 1,784b 19.2
CASI+basins 1,789b 19.5
CASI+basinsmaize–cowpeaintercrop 1,802b 20.4
CASI+basinsmaize–cowpearotation 2,063c 37.8
Notes:CASI=conservationagriculture-basedsustainableintensification;figuresfollowedbydifferentlettersdifferssignificantly.
337SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 18
Whenon-farmimpactofvariousconservationagriculturepackageswerecomparedwithconventionalsystems,allwithsameleveloffertiliserinnorth-westMozambique,only onesiteobservedsignificantincreasesinyieldfromCASIusingthedibble-stickmethod.Inthisregion,yieldsincreasedfrom3,066 kg/ha(conventionalproduction)to3,145 kg/ha(dibblestick,solemaize),representingonlya2.5%yieldincrease(Table18.3)(Nyagumboetal.2016).
Table 18.3 Maize yields across CASI practices for two communities in Angonia, Mozambique
Cropping system Maize grain yield (kg/ha)
Kabango Chiphole Overall mean
Farmers’check(i.e.flathoepreparedseedbed) 3,712 2,579 3,066
CASI+basins+solemaize 3,622 2,510 3,145
CASI+dibblestick+maizesole 4,182 3,091 3,636
CASI+dibblestick+maize–beanrotation 4,043
CASI+dibblestick+maize–beanintercrop 3,881
CASI+basins+maizerotation 2,549
CASI+basins+maize–beanintercrop 2,424
LSD(0.05)=574
df=20
CV=37.7%
N=120
LSD(0.05)=282
df=20
CV=39.5%
N=120
LSD(0.05)=316
df=20
CV=39.7%
N=144
Notes:CASI=conservationagriculture-basedsustainableintensification;LSD=leastsquaresdifference;df=degreesoffreedom;CV=coefficientofvariation.
Duetothedetrimentaleffectoftermitesonresidueretentionandmaizelodging,theprojectevaluatedvariousmethodsoftermitecontrolsuitablefortheconditionsofthesitesinMozambique.Fieldstudiesin2011–12and2012–13foundthattermiteactivitycouldbereducedthroughapplicationoffipronil(1.5 g a.i./ha)butthattermitecontroldidnotincreasemaizeyieldsintheshortterm(Nyagumboetal.2015).Thepresenceofsurfaceresiduesdecreasedtheincidenceofmaizelodgingfromtermiteactivity.
Theprojectfoundthatbyreducingtheconstraintoflabouravailability,mechanisedCASIpracticesimprovedtimelinessofplanting,whichledtoreductionsinmaizeyieldvariability(Nyagumboetal.2017).Finally,twoon-stationintensificationtrialsweretestedduringSIMLESAPhase2and,whilethesedataareavailable,moreseasonsareneededtoproducerecommendations.
AsurveyoffarmersinMacatedistrictconductedbytheQueenslandAllianceforAgricultureandFoodInnovation(QAAFI)foundwidevariabilityinon-farmimplementationofpromotedCASIsystemsin2013(Roxburgh2017).SowingdensitieswerefoundtovarywidelyonfarmsandmosthouseholdswerenotusingfertiliserintheirCASIsystems.Modellinganalysisfoundthattherewerepotentialyieldgains(120%)simplybyfocusingonbestagronomicpracticessuchasweedingandpopulationdensitieswhenimplementingCASIsystems.WorkdoneinRotandaandMacate(Manica)byQAAFIalsorecommendedastepwiseintensificationapproach,withgoodagronomicmanagementasthefirststep.
SIMLESA338
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Selecting improved maize and legume seed varietiesTheSIMLESAprogramactivitiesidentified22legumeand12maizevarietiesfromIIAM,DroughtToleranceMaizeforAfrica–CIMMYTandTropicalLegumesIIprojects.Theimprovedseedwasmadeavailabletohouseholds.From2012to2014,64motherand228babyvarietydemonstrationswereevaluated.Demonstrationplots,hostfarmersandextensionofficersallincreasedtechnologyawareness.Anestimated7,436and5,295householdswereusingimprovedmaizeandlegumevarieties,respectively,by2016.HouseholdersestimatedthattechnologiespromotedbySIMLESAincreasedtheiryieldbyanaverageof19%(male-headedhouseholds)and20%(female-headedhouseholds).
Approximately360maizegenotypeswereevaluatedthrough15regionaltrialsacrossrepresentativeenvironments.Thebestentrieswereselectedforevaluationinadvancedtrialstofast-trackimprovedvarietyrelease.Atotalof183maizemotherandbabytrials(Table18.4)andlegumeparticipatoryvarietyselectiontrials(Table18.5)wereevaluatedinthreeyearsacross24sitesinvolving183farmers.SixmaizevarietieswerereleasedwiththesupportoftheSIMLESAprogramin2011(onehybridandthreeopen-pollinatedvarieties)andin2013(onehybridandoneopen-pollinatedvariety).Fromtheparticipatoryvarietyselectiontrials,atotalof24legumevarietieswerereleased(eightcommonbean,threecowpea,fourpigeonpeaandninesoybean).Allwerereleasedin2011.Theseedofreleasedvarietiesweremultipliedbyseedcompaniesandsoldincommunities,aswelldistributedforscaling-upvarietyandCASIdemonstrationplots.
Table 18.4 Number of trials conducted under the mother–baby trial design, 2012–14
Type of trial 2012 2013 2014 Total
Mother 16 24 24 64
Baby 54 72 102 228
Demonstration 0 24 24 48
Farmerfields 62 108 138 308
Table 18.5 Number of participatory selection trials conducted for legume varieties, 2012–14
Legume type Number of trials and host
farmers
Number of harvested
trials
Number of varieties
Number of sites
Soyabean 219 202 32 22
Cowpea 208 198 16 24
Pigeonpea 136 126 8 14
Total 563 526 56 60
339SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 18
Preliminary scaling-out activities and resultsThroughthecompetitivegrantschemeaimedatscalingoutSIMLESA-1CASItechnologiesinManicaandTete,implementedbypartnersInstitutoSuperiorPolitécnicodeManica(ISPM),AGRIMERCandManicaFarmersUnion(UCAMA),SIMLESA-2reachedafurther100,000households.Resultsfromthefirstyearofthecompetitivegrantschemeactivities,i.e.the2016–17croppingseason(Table18.1),showthattargetedhouseholdswereprovidedwithspecialisedassistanceinimplementingCASIsystems.Thiswasachievedthroughanetworkofon-farmdemonstrationplots,fielddays,businessdevelopmentsupportandinputloans,SMSpilotingsystemswithtailoredCASItechnologicalinformationpackages,andawarenesscreationcampaignsconductedthroughtheradio.Thisinterventionledtoanaverageestimatedmaizeyieldincreaseof19%and21%inparticipatinghouseholdsinTeteandManicaprovince.
Assessing downside risk from CASI adoption
AteamofresearchersatIIAM,incollaborationwithQAAFIandCIMMYTresearchers,alsousedexperimentalresultsfromadditionalon-farmtrialsconductedinSussundengaandAngoniatoassesstheimpactofvariousconservationagriculturecomponentsonmaizeyieldsandyieldstability.Fulladoptionofminimumtillage,residueretentionandcroprotationdecreasedthefrequencyofmaizeyieldsbelowthe25thpercentileforimprovedpracticeby37%forManicaand9%forTete,comparedtotheconventionalcontrolwiththesamelevelofinputs(i.e.improvedseedandfertiliser)(Figure18.2).
Grain yield (kg/ha)
Manica Tete
Grain yield (kg/ha)
CASI CASI with basins Conventional cultivation
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0 6,000 12,000 0 6,000 12,000
Yiel
d di
stri
buti
on
CASI = conservation agriculture-based sustainable intensification
Figure 18.2 On-farm maize yield distributions in Tete and Manica provinces for full adoption of CASI with and without planting basins vs conventional tillage with local fertiliser recommendations and improved seed
SIMLESA340
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Results of modelling residue management interaction with soil type
Modellinganalyses(64years)wereconductedtosimulatetheeffectofcarbon-richresiduesonnitrogen-deprivedsoilsincentralMozambique.TheVanduzidistrict,inagroecologicalzone4(AEZ4)withaverageannualrainfallof834 mm(1951–2015)was thesimulationsite.Maize–legumesystemsmanagedunderCASIatdifferentlevelsof nitrogensupplyweresimulatedforthreesoilsofcontrastingwaterholdingcapacity:
• sandyclayloamtexturedredferralsol(cSaCL)
• lowlandsandyloamtexturedGleysol(SaL)
• drierfinesandytexturedarenosols(fSa).
Resultsfromthemodellingexercisesindicatethatresidueswereonlybeneficialtomaizeyieldsonthelowwaterholdingcapacityfinesandysoils(fSa),althoughlegumeyieldsincreasedonallsoiltypes.
Simulationsalsoshowedthatinunfertilised(0 kg N/ha)andlimitednitrogen-application(23 kg N/ha)systems,theapplicationandretentionofcarbon-richresiduesreducedmaizeyieldsby42.4%in80–85%oftheseasonsinthecSaCL.Theyieldreductionwasmostlydrivenbylossesinbothnutrientuseefficiencyandwateruseefficiency,whichrangedbetween6–20%and33%respectively.Benefitsfromwateruseefficiencyduetoresidueapplicationwereonlyobservedinthedriest20%ofthesimulatedseasonsforthetwonitrogen-applicationlevels.Thesameresultswerealsoobservedonthesandyloamtexturedsoils(SaL),commoninthelowlandspacesofthecatena.
Positiveyieldresponses(40.5–55.9%)frommulchedsoilsweresimulatedinlessthan20%oftheseasonsinunfertilisedandlownitrogen-appliedcSaCLandSaLmaizesystems.Athighnitrogen-applicationlevels(92 kg N/ha),simulationsindicatedmaizeyieldbenefitsofalmost50%fromapplicationofcarbon-richresiduesin20%ofseasonsonhighwaterholdingcapacitysoils.Thesebenefitswereonlyattainedduringthedriestyears.Incontrast,cowpeayieldwasimproved29%,72%and99%byresidueapplicationinunfertilisedplotsoffSa,SaLandcSaCLrespectively.Nevertheless,benefitsfromresidueapplicationdecreasedwithincreasednitrogenapplicationabove23 kg N/hainallsoils.Inthedrierandlowwaterholdingcapacityfinesandysoil(fSa),positiveresponsestoresidueapplicationweresimulatedin85–90%oftheseasonsforbothmaizeandcowpea.
Intermsofresourceproductivity,maizewasmoreresponsivetonitrogenapplication,especiallyonthewetandhighwaterholdingcapacitysandyloamsoil.Here,maizeresponsetonitrogenapplicationwasattributedtobetternitrogenuptakeandtranslocationefficiencyduetohighin-cropmoistureregimes.InthedrierfSa,poorsoilwateravailabilityledtopoornitrogenuptakeandconsequentlylowermaizenutrientuseefficiencyandyields.
Model-assistedfieldtrialsalsoshowedthat,intherainfednitrogen-deprivedsystemsofcentralMozambique,theoverallperformanceofmaize–legumecroppingsystemsmanagedunderCASIisgovernedbytwocriticalinteractions:
1. croptypeandsoilwaterholdingcapacityinducedresidueresponse
2. residuemodified,nitrogen-drivenwateruseefficiencyandnutrientuseefficiencytrade-off.
341SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 18
Therefore,understandingthesetworesponsesisthekeytovalidatinglocallyfeasibleresourcemanagementstrategiesthatarecrucialtoeffectivelytailorCASIsystemsforsmallholderhouseholdsincentralMozambique.Tofine-tuneresidueandfertiliserallocationatthefieldlevel,asetofrulesbasedonexistingsoilwaterholdingcapacitygradientsintheregionareproposed:
• InhighwaterholdingcapacitysoilsandAEZR4,R5,R7andR10,whereincropsoilmoistureisnotalimitingfactor,highcarbon:nitrogenratioresiduesshouldbeusedtoimprovetheperformanceofthesolelegumecropduringthelegumephaseoftherotationratherthanappliedintoanunfertilisedcerealcropwherethesoilmoistureadvantagesprovidedbyresidues(wateruseefficiencyincrements)donotcompensatefortheyieldlossesduetoN-immobilisationinmostoftheseasonsexceptinthe driestyears.
• Highcarbon:nitrogenratioresiduesonlyofferasignificantyieldadvantagetomaizeindrierenvironments(AEZR6andR8)andacrosslowwaterholdingcapacitysoils.Inthesesoils,poorsoilmoisturedelaysresiduedecompositionandsignificantlyimprovesin-croprainfallcapture,generatingmoisturebenefitsthatsurpassthenegativeimpactsfromnitrogenimmobilisationonmaizeyield.
• Bestresponsesfrominorganicnitrogenfertiliserarelikelytobeattainedinwetandhighwaterholdingcapacityenvironmentswherethereisenoughmoistureforthecroptoefficientlyusethesuppliedinorganicnitrogenfertiliser.Thisisbecause,indryandlowwaterholdingcapacitysoils,poorsoilmoistureregimesreducecropNuptakeleadingtopoorresponsestoinorganicnitrogenapplication.
• Forwetandhighwaterholdingcapacitysoils,thebeneficialeffectsofapplyingcropresiduesonthelegumecroparelikelytobeobservedonthesubsequentyearsofcerealcrop.
Residual effects from carbon-rich residue application on maize and cowpea
LowC:Nresidueapplicationandretentionincontinuousmaizeshowedoverallmaizeyieldpenaltiesrangingbetween0%and40%incontinuousmaizecroppingsystems.However,thepenaltiesdifferedacrossresiduelevelsandwerelargelyovercomebyincreasingN-applicationlevels.Nevertheless,gainsfromhighcarbon:nitrogenratioresidueapplicationincontinuousmaizesequencesweresimulatedinthelowestrainfallseasonsforthehighwaterholdingcapacitycSaCLsoil.Thesebenefitswereonlyattainedinlessthan25%oftheseasonsfor0 kg N/haand23 kg N/haandlessthan35%with92 kg N/ha.Ontheotherhand,penaltiesfromresidueapplicationandretentionincontinuousmaizesystemsweresimulatedinalmost75%oftheseasons,for0 kg N/haand23 kg N/hafertilisationlevels.Thisindicatesthattheuseofresiduesmightbemorebeneficialduringthelegumephaseofthelegume–maizesequence,ratherthanapplyingthecropresiduesonthemaizecrop.
SIMLESA342
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
What did we learn?
Evidence for increased environmental sustainabilityCropresidueretention(akeycomponentofCASIinMozambique)hasbeenwidelyadoptedbysmallholderhouseholds.Previously,burningofcropresiduesbeforeplantingwascommonpractice(Woldemariam2012),leadingtocarbonemissionsandlossofsoilsurfacecover.
Householdsarenowawareoftheimportanceofresidueretention,soilcover,noburningandzerotillageamongotherCASIpractices.Resultsfromsurveysshowedthatabout25%ofinterviewedhouseholdsareusingresidueretentionand7%areusingherbicides.ResultsfrommorelocalisedQAAFIsurveysindicateaveragesurfacecoveratsowingisnow61%intheMacatedistrictofManicaprovince.However,benefitsfromresidueretentioninthesystemprovedtobecrop-andsoil-dependentacrosssites.
ArecentreviewconcludedthatCASIpreventsthelossofsoilorganiccarbonthrougherosionbutsoilorganiccarbonincreasesareinconsistentacrossexperimentsinAfrica(Thierfelderetal.2017).ResultsfromlaboratoryanalysisofSIMLESAcontinuousmaizecroppingsystemstrialsinChimoioidentifieda0.12%(+/- 0.10)gainintotalcarboninthe0–5 cmsoildepthlayerafterfiveyears(Table18.6).Thisequatestoapproximately124,000 Mt C/yearinputacrossallSIMLESAfarmersinManica.
Table 18.6 Soil carbon and nitrogen changes, Chimoio, Mozambique
Treatment Soil depth (cm)
Total carbon (%) mean (s.e.)
Total nitrogen (%) mean (s.e.)
Continuousmaize+minimumtillage+residueretention
0–5 1.06(0.05) 0.08(0.00)
5–15 1.08(0.06) 0.08(0.01)
15–30 0.95(0.04) 0.07(0.00)
Continuousmaize+conventionaltillage+residueremoval
0–5 0.94(0.01) 0.08(0.00)
5–15 0.92(0.01) 0.07(0.00)
15–30 0.91(0.03) 0.08(0.00)
Note:s.e.=standarderror
Improvements to gender equality RaisingawarenessofgenderequalitywascriticaltoadoptionoftechnologiesunderSIMLESA.Duetotheinitiallackofcapacitytomainstreamgender,28stakeholdersweretrainedatregional,nationalandlocallevelstoreachacommonunderstandingofgendermainstreamingandimplementitcorrectlyinthecountry.Thesetrainingscontributedtoincreasedawarenessamongresearchers,extensionofficers,participatinghouseholdsandotherpartnersofgenderintegrationinagriculturalprograms.
Improvementsmadeingenderequalityincluded:• equalopportunitiesformen,womenandyouthintermsofaccesstoinformation,
markets,participationindemonstrations,trialsandfielddays• provisionofleadershiptraininginlocalagriculturalinnovationplatformsandother
scalingframeworks• improvedaccesstoinputs,creditandmarkets• betterincomethroughinnovationplatforms.
343SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 18
Allkeyactivitiesweregendermainstreamedbytakingintoaccountgenderandusinggender-sensitiveindicators.Forinstance,theSIMLESAprojectdevelopedstrategiesthatallowedfortheparticipationofbothmenandwomeninallactivities(e.g.demonstrationsandfielddays),theevaluationofthetechnologywasmadeinrecognitionofpreferencesofmenandwomen,andequalopportunitiesformenandwomenweremadeavailableintermsofaccesstoinputsandmarkets.
TheseimprovementsingenderequalityaredocumentedinvariousSIMLESAreports(Manjichi&Dias2015;Dias,Nyagumbo&Nhantumbo2011;Quinhentos&Mulima2016).Forinstance,astudyconductedwithamemberofSussundengainnovationplatformshowedthatwomenwhowereengagedinafarmers’associationwereempoweredandhadincreasedproductionandincome,aswellasimprovedhouseholdnutrition.Yields,nutrition,incomeandsocialharmonyalsoincreasedformenandwomeninvolvedinSIMLESA,becausewomenhadtheopportunitytoincreasetheirincome.Additionally,womenreportedimprovementsinproductionduetoparticipationindemonstrationplotsandfielddaysandincreasedaccesstonewinformationandknowledgeovertheproject’slifetime.
Anotherimprovementingendermainstreamingwasrecognisingthatwomen,menandyouthhavedifferentaccesstovaluechainnodes.Thereisthereforeaneedtocollectdatadisaggregatedbygenderalongthevaluechainandconductriskanalysisstudiesinordertoincreasetheadoptionoftechnologies.Theconcerns,needsandchallengesofmen,womenandyouthwerecollected,documentedandincorporatedinpolicyrecommendations.Intheseexercises,legumespreferredbywomenwerescaledupinrecognitionoftheidentifiedneedtoimprovehouseholdfoodsecurity,nutritionandoverallwellbeing.Gender-disaggregateddataalsoallowedtheprojecttofosterwomen’sleadershippositionsatlocalandregionalagriculturalinnovationlevels.
SIMLESAPhase1endedin2014and,basedontheexperiencesofthisphase,agenderstrategywasdevelopedforSIMLESAPhase2.Thisstrategyincludedeffortstoincreasethecapacitytointegratemenandwomen’sneeds,preferencesandaspirationswhensettingpriorities,offeringthepotentialtoimprovethelivesandlivelihoodsofmenandwomeninMozambique.
SIMLESAgreatlycontributedtotheconceptofgenderinMozambique’sagriculturalresearchprogramming,whichspilledovertootherprograms.
Improvements and knowledge acquired for the private sector Theprivatesectorisanimportantactorinthemaize–legumevaluechain.DifferentprivatesectorpartnersweremembersoftheSIMLESAinnovationplatform.Somewereengagedinproduction,someinprocessingandothersinmarketinginputsandoutputs.SomeexamplesofpartnersincludeseedcompaniesthatmultiplyandsellseedproducedunderthecontributionofSIMLESA,andprivatecompaniesthatscaledoutdemonstrationstoreachmorefarmers.
Theapproachofworkingwithprivatecompanieswasinnovativeinthesensethattheywerenotonlyengagedinthediscussionsatthelocallevel,butalsoattheregionallevel.Privatepartnerscouldattendregionalmeetingswheretheywereabletomeetmultidisciplinaryteamsandvisitfarms.Inadditiontothesemeetings,theycouldalsoattendexchangevisitswheretheyhadtheopportunitytounderstandmoreaboutseedbusinessesinothercountries.Thus,theycouldnotonlyincreasetheirbusinessconnectionswithothercountriesbutalsounderstandmoreaboutthechallengesandopportunitiesoftheagriculturesectorineasternandsouthernAfrica.
SIMLESA344
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Anotherbenefittotheprivatesectorwastrainingonhowtodefineandusetheseedroadmap.UnderSIMLESA,theprivatesectorcouldplantheirproductionandsalesforthenextseason.TheywereaskedtoestimatetheamountofseedtheywerewillingtoreceivefromSIMLESAthatwouldbemultipliedandsoldinthenextseason.Thiswasnewformanyofthepartners,sotheyhadtheopportunitytolearnalotfromengagingwithSIMLESAscientists.Thisincreasedtheirbusinessskillsandmayhavebenefitedtheirperformance.
Theprivatesectorwasalsotrainedintheimportanceofrecordkeeping,becauseSIMLESAneededrecordsofwhatwasbeingdonebythepartnersintermsofquantitiessoldbyvariety.Inthebeginning,mostoftheinformationtheprivatesectorprovidedwasincomplete.Whentheystartedtounderstandtheimportanceofthisdata,thequalityofthedataimproved.
Despitealltheseimprovements,SIMLESAMozambiquerecognisesthatattractingtheprivatesectortotheSIMLESAinnovationplatformswasachallenge(Manjichi&Dias2015)andeffortsshouldbemadetohavemoreprivatecompaniesworkingwithSIMLESA.
Key messages Throughoutthelastnineyearsofresearchtrials,innovationplatformsandscalingoutwithcompetitivegrantschemepartners,theIIAMteamidentifiedclearmessagesforhouseholds,extensionofficers,policyworkersandagribusiness.
Households
ImprovedmaizeandlegumevarietiesandCASIpracticeshaveapositiveeffectonyield.Encouraginghouseholdstoadoptanduseimprovedmaizevarietiesthataretoleranttoextremeweatherconditions,suchasdrought,butalsogivegoodyieldsinotheryearsunderoptimalconditionswerethekeymessagesdeliveredtohouseholds.HouseholdswerealsoabletoselectvarietiesandCASIpracticesthattheypreferredandthataresuitabletotheirlocalconditionsinordertoimproveyield,soilfertilityandreduceerosion.Modelsimulationresultssuggestthatresiduesaremostbeneficialtolegumeyieldsbutmaynegativelyimpactmaizeyieldsonsandiersoils.
Extension officers
Extensionofficerswereadvisedtoworkmorecloselywithhouseholdsandaidbothmenandwomen.Theywerealsoadvisedtosupportlinkagestoinputsupplyandmarkets,andimprovetheconnectionbetweentheinnovationplatformsandextensionagentstoimprovedeliveryofinformation.
LabourconstraintsprovedtobeasignificantbarriertoadoptionofCASIpractices,particularlytheapplicationofresidues.ThereisaneedtoeducatehouseholdsonhowtopreparefieldsandsowusingCASIpractices.Themeritsofimprovedplantingtechniques(inlinewithSIMLESACASIpackages)needtobereiterated.Residuesweremostbeneficialtolegumeyieldsbutmaynegativelyimpactmaizeyieldsonsandysoilswithoutsufficientfertiliserintheshortterm.
FertiliserandseedsuppliersmustbeconnectedwithhouseholdsadoptingCASIpracticessothattimelypurchaseofinputscanoccur.Thisrequiresstrategicsharingofmarketinformationwithhouseholdsduringthegrowingseasonattimeswhenfertiliserapplicationswouldbemostrewarding.
345SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 18
Policy
ASIMLESAprogramforum,NationalPolicyForumonSustainableIntensificationBasedonConservationAgricultureSIMLESA-OYE,washeldon8 March 2019atIIAMheadquartersinMaputo.Thethemewas‘Policyforumonintensificationbasedonconservationagriculture’.TheeventwasofficiallyopenedbyHerExcellencyDeputyMinisterofAgricultureandFoodSecurity,DrLuisaMeque,assistedbyIIAM’sgeneraldirector,DrOlgaFafetine.TheeventwasalsoattendedbythefirstregionalSIMLESAcoordinatorandCIMMYTrepresentative,DrMuluguettaMekuria,aswellasthenationalcoordinatorinMozambique,DomingosDias.TheforumwasalsoattendedbyIIAMtechnicians,MinisterofAgricultureandFoodSecuritytechnicaldirectorates,directorsofregionalzonalcentres,SIMLESAprogramcollaborators,cooperationpartners,competitivegrantrecipientsandacademicinstitutions.Theeventwasattendedby60guests.Theobjectiveofthepolicyforumwastofindmechanismstoincreasecapacitytorespondtotheneedsoffarmersandthecountrywithagriculturaltechnologiesappropriateforthevariousagroecologicalzoneswithaviewtoincreaseproduction,productivityandincomegeneration.ThespecificobjectivesweretosharetheoverallresultsofSIMLESAresearchoverthelast10yearswithpolicymakersandotheractorsandstakeholdersintheagriculturesector,andalsotosharetheinformationandpolicydocumentsrelevantforthedevelopmentoftheagriculturalresearchintheSIMLESAcontextwithdecision-makers.
Policyrecommendationsincluded:
• increasethenumberofextensionofficersortheircapacitytoreachmorefarmers
• bringextensionservicesclosertohouseholdsandaidbothmale-andfemale-headedhouseholds(thelackofcashandaccesstocreditservices,accesstoinputandoutputmarketsareaconstrainttoadoptionoftechnologies,andmarketsaredistantfromthevillages)
• improvethelinkagebetweenproducersandsuppliersinthevalue-chainprocess:
– intensifythedisseminationofinformationontheproposedlawofagricultureingeneralandparticularlyCASI
– reactivatethecoursesonagriculturalmechanisationinuniversities,highereducationandtechnical-professionalinstitutions
– improvecommunicationwithfarmers
– reachmorefamiliesduringtechnologytransfer
– enablegreaterdiffusionofinformationgeneratedbytheSIMLESAprogram
– createmechanismstofacilitatetheavailabilityofinformationfromtheSIMLESAprogram
– adoptSIMLESAasadevelopmentfocusindistricts
– involvethegovernmentintheimplementationofprivatesectorprojects
– reducefarmers’expectationsoftheexistenceofresourcesoutsidetheircommunitiesandenhancestabilitythroughlocalsustainabilityandresiliency
– generatenewtechnologiestocopewiththeeffectsofclimatechange
– encouragefarmerstouseandpurchasegood-qualityseed
– providesmartincentivestosupportfarmers
– studythepossibilityofmaintainingCASIonfarmsaftertheSIMLESAprogramends
– providetheMinistryofAgriculturewithrelevantinformationontheCASIsystem
SIMLESA346
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
– raiseawarenessamongfarmersaboutthevalueofpurchasingimprovedseed
– identifyregionstoinvestinimprovedseedproduction
– scaleinandoutproductionmethodstoyouthwithsomelevelofeducationtoallowthemtosharetheirknowledgewithothers
– invitepoliticianstoparticipateinagriculturalandscientificforumstohelpthemunderstandfarmers’concerns
– intensifytheuseofsmartincentivestoremovemarketbarriers
– createacreditsystemtomanagetheseedproductionsector
– addressseedproblemsacrosscommunitieslikeaccess,quantityandqualityaswellashighprices
– improvecerealandlegumesilos.
Inputmarkets(e.g.fertiliser,seeds,herbicides)mustfunctioneffectively.Poorroadinfrastructureinruralareascontinuestobeasignificantproblem,affectingmanyaspectsofagriculturaldevelopment.Illiteracyinruralareascontinuestobeabarriertoextensionefforts,particularlyinknowledge-sharingthroughinformationandcommunicationtechnology.Ensuringradiocommunicationsandtelecommunicationnetworkcoverageinruralareaswillbeessentialtoconnectinghouseholdstomarketsandinformationtohelpthembettermanagetheircrops.
Agribusiness
Householdsareincreasinglyinterestedinanddemandingherbicides.Thereareopportunitiesinherbicidemarketingusingavillage-basedadviserapproachtoexpandherbicidebusinessesatlocalandvillagelevels.
What was the impact?
Incollaborationwithlocalcompetitivegrantschemes,wescaledoutmaize–legumetechnologiestoreachafurther100,000farmers.Resultsfromthefirstyearofthecompetitivegrantschemeactivities(season2016–17)showedthat38,057farmerswerehelpedtoadoptCASIsystems(intheformofdemonstrations,fielddays,businessdevelopmentandloans,SMSpilotingsystemswithtechnologicalpackages,trainingandotheractivitiesandawarenesscreation).
Thegranteesworkedtoincreasequantitiesofseedatvillagelevel.In2017,theyproduced12 tofsoybeanseed(Glycine max),12 tofcowpeaseed(Vigna unguiculata)and15 tofcommonbeanseed(Phaseolus vulgaris).Thedegreeofcommunityparticipationwassatisfactoryinallpartners,whichcontributedtotheachievementofplannedobjectives.However,theremustbeastronglinkwithotherlocalactorstoacceleratescaling-outtechnologiesandincreasesynergiesthatcouldbecreatedbyinputsuppliers,marketsandtechnicalassistanceinknowledgedissemination.Theparticipationofyouthisadimensionthatdeservesemphasis,astheyarethefuturefarmers.Accordingtolocalinformation,youthworkontheirparents’fieldsonholidays,weekendsorintheafternoonsafterschool.Thissituationispositive,asitshowsthatparentshaveopportunitiestoeducatetheirchildren.
347SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 18
Immediateimpactsinclude:
• increasedproductivitythroughimprovedinputuseinsoilmanagementpractices(currently,yieldsaverage800 kg/haandthiscouldincreaseto1,600 kg/hathroughadoptionofimprovedinputs)
• lesstimeandlabourspentoncontrolofweedsduetoherbicideefficiency
• reduceddistancestravelledlookingforinputsandoutputmarkets
• farmersaccessedbetterpricesfortheirproducethroughpricenegotiations,andstoringproduceinsilosandwarehousestoallowittobesoldduringperiodsofscarcity
• farmers’cooperativesbecameseedproducerswithnon-governmentagricultureandmarketsupport(e.g.AGRIMERC)
• improvedfarmers’technicalassistancethroughvillage-basedagentsandagrodealerswhobecomepublicextensionsupportpromoters
• 1,563newentriesintheSMSdatabase,takingthetotaltoalmost1,800farmers
• asignedcontractwiththeYouthEmploymentProgramtoreach5,000youthinManica,SofalaandZambeziathroughSIMLESA’sSMSprogram.
What should we do next?
TherearestillanumberofchallengesandopportunitieswithinthemaizeandlegumevaluechaininMozambiquewhich,ifcarefullyhandled,canimprovethefunctionalityofthechain.
Recentvalue-chainstudies(Cachombaetal.2013)showthat,ontheinputside,gapsinclude:
• ashortageofimprovedseedoflegumesinthemarket
• hightransportcostsofseedsandfertilisers
• lackofincentivesforseedproduction
• lackofmicrocreditincommunities
• lackofinformationaboutandmarketaccesstofertiliser,pesticidesandherbicides.
Ontheoutputside,gapsinclude:
• alackofqualitygradingsystem(mainlyforlegumes)
• poororganisationsoffarmers
• poorrisk-mitigationmechanisms
• poorstorageinfrastructure
• seasonalityofgrainsupplyforprocessing
• poorprocessingactivities
• poorroadnetwork
• poorinformationflow
• highlyseasonalpriceswithinandacrosstheyears
• lackofvalue-addedproducts,particularlyinthelegumesector
• lowqualityofproductsavailableinthemarket
• poorstoragefacilities.
SIMLESA348
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Therearehugeopportunitiesforthemaizeandlegumevaluechain(Cachombaetal.2013).Ontheinputside,opportunitiesinclude:
• goodenvironmentforseedproduction(policy,landandlabour)
• existenceofportsforimportingfertilisers
• awarenessofimprovedseedbyfarmers.
Ontheoutputside,opportunitiesinclude:
• favourableweathertoproducearangeofcrops
• donorsandgovernmentinterestedininvestinginthissubsector
• manyfarmersengagedinmaizeandlegumeproduction
• nationalandinternationalmarketsforlegumes
• amarketinformationsystemformaizeandlegumes
• beansbeingthemain(vegetable)sourceofproteinsandvitaminsforhumansinthecountry
• highdemandformaizeprocessing
• useoflegumesinthepoultryindustry.
Somecompanies,suchasVanduziandDanmoz(bothinManica,closetoBeiraport),demonstratedthepotentialtotakeadvantageofMozambique’sfavourableclimatetoproducehigher-valueproductsandexportthemoverseas.
AnotheropportunityisthatManicaprovince’sagroecologyisfavourableforproductionofanumberofcrops.ThiscanbeconfirmedbythefactthatmanysmallholdermaizehouseholdsinManicaprovincepractisesomeformofhorticulturalproduction.Additionally,climateanalysesindicatethatavocadosandmacadamiascouldbewidelygrownandhavethepotentialtobeharvestedearlierthankeycompetitivemarketsoverseas.Ifoutputmarketswereproperlyfostered(initiallyinkeydomesticmarketssuchasVilanculos,whilesimultaneouslyprovidingadequateassistanceforhouseholdsinseedsandpestanddiseasecontrol),thepotentialtoincreasecommercialagriculturalproductionandimprovelivelihoodscouldbesubstantial.
MaizemillingcompaniesalsoprocuredmaizeOPVZM523,releasedwiththeassistanceofSIMLESA,asaprimaryrawmaterial.InAngonia,thepresenceofthenearbyMalawianmaizeandsoybeanmarketofferscommercialopportunities,aspricesareveryattractive.Also,AbilioAntunes,asuccessfulpoultryproducer,isabletobuymorethan5,000 tsoybean/yearinAngonia,wherethecropissuccessfullygrown.Thepresenceofanewlargemaizebuyer,bigwarehousecompaniesandgrainbuyers(ExportTradingGroup),isapromisingmeansofboostingadoptionofnewCASItechnologies.
OtherexamplesoftheopportunitiesavailableareprocessingcompanieslikeDECAinChimoioandEscoladoPovoinUlóngue(Angonia)thatbuymaizefromhouseholds,processitintoflourandsellitaturbanandexportmarkets.TheexistenceofpoultryindustriesinManicaandTeteprovincesandasoybeanprocessingcompanyinChimoioareotherexampleofopportunitiestoincreasesoybeanproduction.
TradersandbuyersoflegumesindicatethattheproductionofpigeonpeainMacatedistrictisrelativelylowcomparedtotheirdemand.Theexistenceoftradersandbuyersofpigeonpeaintheseareaspresentanopportunityforhouseholdstoincreasepigeonpeaproductionasacashcrop.Additionally,companiessuchasLUTEARIthatprovidemaizeandpigeonpeaseedincredittohouseholdsandthenbuytheproductionprovidesagreatopportunitytodevelopthisvaluechain.
349SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 18
From2017,SIMLESAscaling-outpartnersworkedinmaizeandlegumeseedproductionand,inpartnershipwithagrodealers,soldtheseedtohouseholds.Thisincreasedtheavailabilityofseedandprovidesanopportunitytoincreaseproductionandproductivityinyearstocome.
ReferencesCachomba,I,Nhantumbo,A,Manjichi,A,Mutenje,M&Kassie,M2013, Maize and legume input and output
value chains in central Mozambique: opportunities and constraints for smallholder farmers,AgriculturalResearchInstituteofMozambique.
Dias,D,Nyagumbo,I&Nhantumbo,N2011,Initiating sustainable agricultural systems through conservation agriculture in Mozambique: preliminary experiences from SIMLESA,InstitutodeInvestigaçãoAgráriadeMoçambique.
InstitutoNacionaldeInvestigaçãoAgronómica1997, Características das Regiões Agroecológicas de Moçambique,InstitutoNacionaldeInvestigaçãoAgronómica,Maputo,Moçambique.
Nyagumbo,I,Mkuhlani,S,Mupangwa,W&Rodriguez,D2017,‘PlantingdateandyieldbenefitsfromconservationagriculturepracticesacrossSouthernAfrica’,Agricultural Systems.vol. 150,pp. 21–33.
Nyagumbo,I,Mkuhlani,S,Pisa,C,Kamalongo,D,Dias,D&Mekuria,M2016,‘Maizeyieldeffectsofconservationagriculturebasedmaize–legumecroppingsystemsincontrastingagro-ecologiesofMalawiandMozambique’,Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems,vol. 105,pp. 275–290.
Nyagumbo,I,Munamati,M,Mutsamba,EF,Thierfelder,C,Cumbane,A&Dias,D2015,‘Theeffectsoftillage,mulchingandtermitecontrolstrategiesontermiteactivityandmaizeyieldunderconservationagricultureinMozambique’,Crop Protection,vol. 78,pp. 54–62.
Manjichi,A&Dias,D2015,Does gender matter? Findings from SIMLESA Mozambique,InstitutoSuperiorPolitécnicodeManica,MozambiqueandInstitutodeInvestigaçãoAgráriadeMoçambique.
Quinhentos,M&Mulima,E2016,Report on monitoring adoption of technologies promoted by SIMLESA in Mozambique.InstitutodeInvestigaçãoAgráriadeMoçambique.
Roxburgh,C2017,Drivers for high yield in rainfed cropping: A comparative analysis between Manica, Mozambique and Queensland,PhDthesis,QldAllianceforAgricultureandFoodInnovation,TheUniversityofQueensland,doi:10.14264/uql.2017.518.
Thierfelder,C,Chivenge,P,Mupangwa,W,Rosenstock,TS,Lamanna,C&Eyre,JX2017,‘Howclimate-smartisconservationagriculture(CA)?—itspotentialtodeliveronadaptation,mitigationandproductivityonsmallholderfarmsinsouthernAfrica,’Food Security,vol.9,no.3,pp.537–560.
Woldemariam,H,Cachomba,I,Menale,K&Mutenje,M2012,Characterization of maize–legume farming systems and farm households in Mozambique: analysis of technology choice, resource use, gender, risk management, food security and poverty profiles,Resultsofthebaselinesurveyconductedin2010undertheSustainableIntensificationofMaizeandLegumeSystems(SIMLESA)projectinMozambique,CIMMYT.
350
19 Promoting conservation farming for the sustainable intensification of maize–legume cropping systems in UgandaDrake N. Mubiru, Jalia Namakula, James Lwasa, William N. Nanyeenya, Ramsey Magambo, Godfrey A. Otim, Joselyn Kashagama & Milly Nakafeero
Key points
• Overgrazingandsoilerosionhasledtocompactedsoillayersandoftenbareground,inextremecases.
• Compactedsoillayershaveaffectedagriculturallandbyinhibitingrootgrowthandwatermovement,limitingwaterinfiltrationandretention.Thishasfacilitatedrun-offandmadeploughingdifficult.Agriculturalproductivityhasbeendirectlyaffected,resultinginyieldgaps.
• TheSIMLESAUgandaprogramfoundthatcompatiblemaize–beanintercroppingpatternsincreasedlabourandlanduseefficiencyandreducedsoildegradationduetoreducedsoilnutrientminingandsoilerosion.
• Maize–beanintercroppingsystemsimprovedthefood,nutritionandincomesecurityofsmallholderfarminghouseholdsinUganda.
• Acombinationofpermanentplantingbasinsandrip-linetillage,togetherwithimprovedseedandfertiliser,broughtmaizeandbeangrainyieldswithintheexpectedproductivitytargetsforSIMLESAhouseholds.
351SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 19
Introduction
TheUgandaSIMLESAprograminitiatedaprojecttoimprovemaize–legumefarmingsystemsbyaddressingdownsideproductionrisksassociatedwithclimatevariabilityandcommodityvalue-chainconstraints.Theoverallobjectiveoftheprojectwastoimprovelivelihoodsofmaize–legumeproducersbyaddressingpre-production,productionandpost-harvestchallenges.Keyactivitiesoftheprojectentailedevaluatingconservationagriculture-basedsustainableintensificationpractices(CASI)throughon-farmtrialswithfarmergroups,anddemonstratingandpromotingthoseproventobeeffectiveunderspecificconditions.Withtheaimofpromotingperformancethroughsynergies,crop–livestock–household–soil–weatherrelationshipswereevaluatedforspecificCASIpractices:minimumsoiltillage,soilmoistureretentionandsoilfertilityenhancement.Theproject,coordinatedbytheNationalAgriculturalResearchOrganization(NARO)in2012,wasimplementedintworuraldistricts:NakasongolaandLira.
Throughadiagnosticstudy,producers’challenges,constraintsandoperatingcircumstanceswereanalysed,settingthestagefortechnologyexposureandskillsimprovement.Themainchallengeswerefailuretoopenlandontime,unreliablerainfallanddecliningsoilfertility.Riplinesandpermanentplantingbasins,introducedbytheSIMLESAprogram,incombinationwithimprovedseedsandfertilisers,contributedtoenhancedbeangrainyieldsofupto1,000 kg/ha,adrasticimprovementfrombaselinesaslowas300 kg/ha.Maizegrainyieldsundertheseconditionsdoubledfromanaveragebaselineof3,000 kg/hato6,000 kg/ha.Theseinterventions,coupledwithprivatesectorandpolicymakerengagements,effectivelyreduceddownsideproductionrisks,andenhancedfoodandincomesecurityandsmallholderlivelihoods.
Thereispotentialforlong-termimpact.TechnologyexposureandskillsdevelopmentthroughtheUgandaSIMLESAprogramledtoenterprise,household,communityandvalue-chainleveladjustments.Theseincludeshiftsinenterprisemanagementandperformance,costreduction,laboursavings,demandforrelevantagriculturalinputsandservices,andgenerallivelihoodenhancement.
What was the situation in 2010?
Ugandaliesacrosstheequatorandextendsfromlatitude10°29’Sto40°12’Nandlongitude290°34’Eand350°0’W.ItislocatedineasternAfricaandhasatotalsurfaceareaof241,551 km2,withalandsurfaceof199,807 km2.Theremaining41,743 km2areswampsandopenwater,includingpartofLakeVictoria,thethird-largestlakeintheworld.Itisalsothesourceoftheworld’slongestriver—theNile.By2015,Ugandahadapopulationof34.9 millionpeople,withanannualpopulationgrowthrateof3.03%andanaveragepopulationdensityof174 people/km2(UBOS2015).
Uganda’sgeographyinfluencesitsclimate.Themeanannualrainfallspatiallyvariesfrom510 mmto2,160 mm(Komutunga&Musiitwa2001).Thereisadefinedbimodalrainfallpatterninthesouthandaunimodalpatterninthenorth,abovelatitude30°N.Thetemperatureacrossthecountryishighlyinfluencedbyaltitudinalvariations,whichrangefrom610 mabovesealevelintheRiftValleyto4,324 mabovesealevelonMtElgon(Wortmann&Eledu1999).However,seasonalvariationinmeanmonthlymaximumtemperatureshashistoricallyremainedatorbelow6°C(Komutunga&Musiitwa2001).Thecountryhasadiverseagriculturalproductionsystemwith10agriculturalproductionzones(GovernmentofUganda2004).
SIMLESA352
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Thezonesaredeterminedbysoiltype,climate,topographyandsocioeconomicand culturalfactors,andcontributetothediversityoffarmingsystemsacrossthecountry(Mubiruetal.2017).Duetothedifferentzonalcharacteristics,theagriculturalproductionzonesexperiencevaryinglevelsoflanddegradationandvulnerabilitytoclimate-relatedhazards,whichhaveincludeddrought,floods,storms,pestsanddisease(Government ofUganda2007).
Duetodiverseagriculturalproductionsystems,thecountryhasvariedcropenterprises,includingbanana,rootcrops,cerealsandlegumes,amongothers.Amongthecerealsandlegumes,maizeandbeansaremajorstaplefoodsformuchofthepopulation,andareamajorsourceoffoodsecurity.Theyhaveplayedanimportantroleinhumanandanimalnutritionandconstitutedamajorshareofmarketeconomies(Goettschetal.2016;Namugwanyaetal.2014;Sibikoetal.2013;Pachico1993).Atthehouseholdlevel,household-sourcedmaizeandbeanshaveservedasastaplefoodsupplyingproteins,carbohydrates,mineralsandvitaminstoresource-constrainedruralandurbanhouseholdswithrampantshortagesofthesedietaryelements.Theannualpercapitamaizeconsumptionhasbeenestimatedtobe28 kg,andbeanconsumption58 kg(Soniia&Sperling1999).Reportedly,thedietaryintakeforthemostresource-constrainedhouseholdsinUgandacomprises70%carbohydrates.Thisismainlyfrommaize,supplying451 kcal/person/dayand11 gprotein/person/day.Beansprovideabout25%ofthetotalcaloriesand45%oftheproteinintakeinthedietsofmanyUgandans(NARO2000).
DespitetheimportanceofmaizeandbeansinUganda,availabledatafromtheFood andAgricultureOrganizationStatisticalDatabase(FAOSTAT)indicatethattheyieldof maizeiscurrentlystagnantat2.5 t/hacomparedtoapotentialyieldof4–8 t/ha(Otungeetal.2010;Semaana2010;RegionalAgriculturalExpansionSupport2003),withtheopen-pollinatedvarietiesbeingonthelowerendcomparedtohybridvarieties.TheactualmeanbeangrainyieldinUgandais500 kg/hacomparedtopotentialyieldof1.5–3 t/ha(Namugwanyaetal.2014).
Land degradationInUganda,landdegradationhashadsignificantimpactsonsmallholderagroecosystems,includingdirectdamageandlossofcriticalecosystemservicessuchasagriculturalland/soilandbiodiversity(Mubiruetal.2017).Poorlandmanagement,includingovergrazingandsoilerosion,hasproducedcompactedsoillayersandbaregroundinextremecases(Figure19.1)(Mubiruetal.2017).Mubiruetal.(2017)furtheridentifiedhandhoeing(Figure19.2),themaintillagepracticeappliedonmostfarmlandsinUganda,asamajorcontributingfactortosoilcompaction.Handhoeingonlydisturbsthefirst15–20 cm—orsometimesaslittleas5 cm—ofthetopsoiland,ifdoneconsistentlyandregularly,canpotentiallyproducerestrictivelayersbelow0–20 cmofthetopsoil.Soilcompactionhasaffectedagriculturallandinseveralways,byinhibitingrootandwatermovement(Coyne&Thompson2006;Brady&Weil1996,p. 224),limitingwaterinfiltrationandretentionfacilitatingrun-off,resultinginmoisturestressandmakingploughingdifficult(Coyne&Thompson2006).
Moisturestressarisingfrompoorlandmanagementhasbeencompoundedbyclimatechangeandvariability.Recently,erraticweatherpatternsthatimpactnegativelyonsoilmoisturecontenthaveledtoeitherreducedcropyieldsortotalcropfailure(Mubiruetal.2012;Mubiru,Agona&Komutunga2009).Onthesocioeconomicside,limiteduseofgood-qualityagro-inputssuchasimprovedseedandfertiliser,andrudimentarymeansofproduction,arewidelyregardedasamajorimpedimentstoincreasedoutputandproductivity(MinistryofAgriculture,AnimalIndustryandFisheries2010).Thecombinedeffectofthesefactorshasdirectlyaffectedagriculturalproductivityandcontributedtotheyieldgapbetweenpotentialoutputandfarmeroutputs.
353SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 19
Figure 19.1 Bare land patches interspersed with shrubs in Nakasongola district
Photo:JamesLwasa,2013
Figure 19.2 Hand hoeing in Uganda
Photo:DrakeN.Mubiru,2014
SIMLESA354
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Productive and sustainable practices, tactics and strategiesCASIofferslandmanagementtechnologypackageswiththepotentialtohelpfarmersproducecompetitivelyandprofitablyandmeetmarketexpectations.Thetechnologypackagespresentanopportunitytodisturbthesoilaslittleaspossible,keepthesoilcoveredasmuchaspossibleandpermitmixingandrotationofcrops.Thesepracticesareexpectedtosupportsoilmoistureconservationandminimisesoilerosionfromwindandwaterwhiletheleguminouscovercropsinconservationfarmingsystemsfixnitrogen,therebyimprovingthefertilitystatusofthesoilandpromotingeconomywithnitrogenousfertilisers(Calegari2001;Calegari&Alexander1998).Thesetechnologypackageshaveaddressedthesoilandwatermanagementconstraintsfacedbysmallholderfarmers(Mupangwa,Twomlow&Walker2007).Inmaize–legumecroppingsystems,CASIfarmingcanmakeanenormouscontributiontowardssustainablefoodproductionatarelativelylowcosttothefarmers,whileconservingsoilandwater.
CASIstrategiesforsustainableproductionandadaptationtoclimatechangeincludeutilisationofoptimumseedingratesandintercropping.Whenthequalityofseed,plantnutrientsandsoilmoistureareensured,theotherhighlyimportantfactoristheamountofradiantenergyreachingtheplantcanopy.AccordingtoJohnson(1980),thefactorthatsetstheupperlimitonpotentialyieldisthequantityofenergythatcroptissuescapturefromthesun.Ithasthereforebeenimportanttodeterminetheoptimumseedingrateforaplantpopulationwithaclosedcanopyearlyinthegrowthperiod.
Inordertoincreaselandproductivityandenhancesustainablecropproduction,farmershavetakendiversecroppingsystemapproaches(Hauggaard-Nieson,Ambus&Jensen2001).Thecroppingsystemshavetypicallybeenshapedbysoiltypes,climate,topography,andsocioeconomicandculturalfactors.Onecommoncroppingsystemamongsmallholdersisintercropping.Intercroppingisdefinedasatypeofmixedcroppingwheretwoormorecropsaregrowninthesamespaceatthesametime(Andrew&Kassam1976).Smallholderfarmerspractiseintercroppingforvariousreasons,includingdiversificationandreducingproductionriskstoaverttotalcropfailureintheeventofunsuitableclimaticconditions.Thispracticealsohastheadvantageofcateringforthestarchandproteinneedsofhouseholds,especiallyamongresource-poorfarmers.Judiciousintercropping,whichentailsgrowingsuitableandcompatiblecropstogether,increasesproductivitythroughmaximumutilisationofland,labourandcropgrowthresources(Craufard2000;Marshal&Willy1983;Quayyum,Ahmed&Chowdhury1999).Ithasalsobeenobservedthatyieldsfromintercroppingareoftenhigherthaninsolecroppingsystems(Lithourgidisetal.2006)duetoefficientutilisationofresourcessuchaswater,lightandplantnutrients(Lietal.2006).
Smallholderfarmershavethepotentialtoimproveruralfoodsecurity,livelihoodsandadaptationtoclimatechangethroughadoptionofappropriateCASIpractices.Barrierstoadoptioncan,however,besubstantialandlimituptakeofpracticesthatoffermaximumeconomicreturns(Parvan2011;Wreford,Ignaciuk&Gruere2017).SIMLESAUgandaaddressedtheneedtoidentifyappropriateCASIpracticesandsupportuptakeandadoption.
355SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 19
What did SIMLESA do?
Toaddressproductionconstraints,theUgandaSIMLESAprogramfirstidentifiedCASIpracticesthatincreasedyieldsandreduceddownsideproductionrisks.TheprogramcarriedoutdemonstrationsandpromotedCASIpracticesandotherclimatechangeadaptationtechnologies.Relationshipsbetweencrop,livestock,household,soilandweatherwereexploitedthroughminimumsoiltillagebyuseofherbicides,andsoilmoistureretentionbycoveringsoilwithcropresidues.Soilfertilitywasimprovedthroughjudicioususeofchemicalandorganicfertilisersandcroprotations.Toaddressmarket-relatedlimitationsonuptakeandadoption,thesecondaimoftheUgandaSIMLESAprojectwastoidentifycommodityvalue-chainconstraints.
Project objectivesTheprojectgoalwastounlockthepotentialofthemaize–legumeproductionsystemasastrategyforaddressingfoodandnutritionsecurity,incomesandlong-termenvironmentalmanagementthroughimprovedproductivity.Theoverallobjectiveoftheprojectwastoimprovelivelihoodsofmaizeandlegumeproducersbyaddressingpre-production,productionandpost-harvestchallengesofthecommodityvaluechains.
Thespecificobjectiveswereto:
• evaluateproductionconstraintsandopportunitiestoincreaseproductionthroughCASIpractices
• evaluateandovercomevalue-chainconstraints.
Project sitesTheproject,whichcommencedin2012,wasimplementedintworuraldistricts:NakasongolaincentralUgandaandLirainthenorth(Figure19.3).Thetwodistrictswerecomprisedprimarilyofsmallholderfarmerswithacombinedpopulationof623,100in2016(UgandaBureauofStatistics2015).Nakasongoladistrict,inanagropastoralsetting,islocatedinwhatisknownasthecattlecorridorofUganda.Thecorridorcutsacrossthecountry,fromsouth-westernUganda,throughthecentre,tonorth-easternUganda.Agriculture(crops,livestockandfisheries)hasbeenbyfarthemostimportantactivityinthedistrict,employingabout90%ofthepeople(Magunda&Mubiru2016;Nanyeenyaetal.2013).Althoughthemajorityofproductionactivitieshavebeenforsubsistence,Liraislargelycrop-orientedandislocatedinahigherpotentialproductionzoneinnorthernUganda(Nanyeenyaetal.2013).Liraischaracterisedbyacontinentalclimatemodifiedbythelargeswampareassurroundingthesouthernpartofthedistrict.ThemajoreconomicactivityinLiraisagriculture(crops,livestockandfisheries).
SIMLESA356
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Wabinyonyi SC
Kalongo SC
Aromo SC
Lira SC
Lira
LIRA
Nakasongola
NAKASONGOLA
0 60 120 180 24030km
SIMLESA project districts
Cattle corridorLakes
Figure 19.3 Uganda SIMLESA program sites: Lira and Nakasongola districts and the cattle corridor
Source:GeographicInformationSystems,NationalAgriculturalResearchLaboratories,Kawanda
357SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 19
Site selectionDiagnosticsurveyswereconductedintheimplementingdistrictstounderstandtheproducers’challenges,constraintsandoperatingcircumstancesinordertosetthestagefortechnologyexposureandskillsimprovement.Inthesamplingprocedures,eachdistrictwasdividedintotwobroadzonesdependingonagriculturalpotentialbasedonsoil,climateandmajorcommunitylivelihoodsources.Fromthese,twosubcountieswereselectedtorepresenthigh-andlow-potentialproductionareas.InLira,AromoandLirasubcountiesweresampledashigh-andlow-potentialareas,respectively.InNakasongola,KalongoandWabinyonyisubcountiesweresampledashigh-potentialandlow-potentialareas,respectively.
Assessing the biophysical state of soilsBaregroundcoveragedatawasincludedintheprojectsiteevaluationsasaproxyforextremelanddegradation.SupportedbytheSIMLESAprogram,NAROscientistsevaluatedtheextentofbaregroundinNakasongola,oneoftheprojectsites.DatawerecollectedbyaninitialphysicalsurveyusingGPStoestimatethespatialextentofafewbaregrounds.Thesedatawerethenusedtolocatethesamefeaturesonasatelliteimageofalltheresearchsitesfromafairlydrymonth.Thesepointswereusedtodevelopdigitalsignaturesforsearchingsimilarfeaturesintherestoftheimageandgeneratingcoveragestatisticsusinggeographicinformationsystemtools(Mubiruetal.2017).
Intensification of sustainable productionCoveringthesoilwithliveordeadvegetalmaterialsisoneofthreeprinciplesofCASIproductionsystems.Covercropsareplantsgrowntoimprovethequalityandproductivityofthesoilbyenhancingorganicmatterbuild-upandsoilmoistureconservation,whichallimprovethesoilbiologyanditshealth.WithsupportfromSIMLESA,fivepigeonpea(Cajanus cajan)elitelines(ICEAP00850,ICEAP00540,ICEAP00557,KAT60/8andICEAP00554)wereacquiredfromtheInternationalCropsResearchInstitutefortheSemi-AridTropicsandplantedattheNationalAgriculturalResearchLaboratories(NARL)—Kawandain2015.Thesewereevaluatedforperformanceandtheseedwasmultipliedforupscaling.Atthefloweringstage,a0.25 m2quadrantplacedatfourrandompositionswithineachplotwasusedtodeterminetheaccumulatedabove-grounddrymatter.
Pigeonpeausedascovercropsprovidedmultipurposebenefitssuchasimprovingthequalityandproductivityofthesoil,suppressingweedsandprovidingnutrient-richpigeonpeagrain,whichdirectlybenefitedthefarmers(Odeny2007;Upadhyayaetal.2006;Valenzuela&Smith2002).
SIMLESA358
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Maize–bean intercropping patternsThreeseasonsofmaize–beanintercroppingtrialswereconductedwithfarmergroupstodeterminetheoptimummaize–beanintercroppingpatterns(Figure19.4).Themaizeandbeanseedsweredrilledusingconventionalmethods.
T1: 2maizerows+1beanrow in-between
T2: 2 maizerows+2beanrows in-between
T3: 1maizerow+1beanrowwithin themaizerow
T4: 2 maizerows+1beanrowwithinthe maizerow+1beanrowin-between
T5: Maizeonly(control)
Figure 19.4 Maize–bean intercropping patterns
359SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 19
Maize and bean seeding ratesPermanentplantingbasinsandriplines,widelyusedinsouthernAfrica(ZambiaandZimbabwe),wererecentlyintroducedinUgandaasnewtillagemethodsundertheumbrellaofCASI.Thetwotillagepracticescanenhancethecaptureandstorageofrainwaterandallowprecisionapplicationandmanagementoflimitednutrientresources,reducingtheriskofcropfailureduetoerraticrainfall.
Trialstodetermineoptimummaizeandbeanseedingratesusingpermanentplantingbasinswereconductedfortwoseasons(2013Aand2013B)atNARL–KawandaincentralUgandaandNgettaZonalAgriculturalResearchandDevelopmentInstitute(NgettaZARDI)innorthernUganda.Theseedingratetrialsunderriplineswerealsoconductedfortwoseasons(2013Aand2013B)atNgettaZARDI.InUganda,riplinesweremadeusingoxen.Duetotheheavyclaysoilsinthecentralregion,animaldraughtpowerwasrarelyused(edsOmoding&Odogola2005).
Basins,dugbeforetheonsetofrains,weredesignatedusingplantinglinesanddiggingplantingbasins.Thebasinswere35 cmlong×15 cmwide×15 cmdeep,withaspacingof75 cmbetweenrowsand70 cmwithinrowsfromcentre-to-centreofthepermanentplantingbasin.Availablecropresidueswerelaidbetweenrowstocreateamulchcover.Themaizeseedingrateswere3seeds/basin(57,144plants/ha),4seeds/basin(76,192plants/ha),and5seeds/basin(95,240plants/ha).Theseedingratesforbeanswere6seeds/basin(114,286plants/ha),8seeds/basin(152,381plants/ha)and10seeds/basin(190,476plants/ha).Thecontroltreatmentswere3seeds/basinformaizeand6seeds/basinforbeans.
Riplineswerealsopreparedbeforetheonsetofrainsbyanoxrippersetatadepthof15 cm.Maizewasseededatthreespacingswith1seed/hill:60 cm×25 cm(66,667plants/ha),65 cm× 25cm(61,538plants/ha)and75 cm×25 cm,(53,333plants/ha).Beanswerealsoseeded(with2seeds/hill)atthreespacings:60 cm×10 cm(333,333plants/ha);65 cm×10 cm(307,692plants/ha)and75 cm×10 cm(266,667plants/ha).Anopen-pollinatedLong5maizevarietyandaNABE15beanvarietywereused.Themaizeandbeangrainyieldsweredeterminedbyharvestingthewholeplot.
Comparison of tillage methodsThreetillagemethodswerecompared:conventionalfarmerpractice,permanentplantingbasinsandriplines.
Underconventionalfarmerpractice,plantingholesformaizeweredesignatedbyplantinglinesanddiggingwithahandhoeataspacingof75 cmbetweenrowsand60 cmwithinrows.Therowswereseededwith2seeds/hole(44,444plants/ha).Inthecaseofbeans,spacingwas50 cm×10 cm,seededwith1seed/hole(200,000plants/ha).
Thepermanentplantingbasinsweredesignatedasmentionedearlier.Thebasinswereseededwith3maizeseeds/basin(57,143plants/ha)and6beanseeds/basin(114,286plants/ha).
Theriplinesweredesignatedasmentionedearlier.Maizewasseededwith1seed/hillataspacingof75 cm×25 cm(53,333plants/ha).Beanswereseededwith2seeds/hillataspacingof75 cm×10 cm(266,667plants/ha).
SIMLESA360
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Business model analysisThebusinessmodelanalysis,fundedbyACIARundertheSmallResearchandDevelopmentActivityproject,wasconductedinNakasongolain2015.ThestudyfocusedontheroleofsmallruralenterprisesincontributingtotheadoptionandscalingupofarangeoftechnologiesdevelopedbytheUgandaSIMLESAprogramtosupportadoptionofCASIpractices.Theprojectinvolveddisseminatingprovenagriculturaltechnologiesthatrangedfromcomplexandknowledge-intensivetosimplerule-of-thumbapproaches.Thesetechnologiesincludedminimumtillage,integratedsoilfertilitymanagement,useofimprovedseedandwaterharvesting.
Impact assessmentTheimpactassessmentwascarriedouttoexaminetransformationstosocietyasaresultofprojectinterventions.Specifically,thestudy:
• assessedtheenterpriseperformance(yield)responseduetotheinterventions
• determinedhouseholdandsocietallivelihoodtransformations
• examinedprojectspillovereffects.
What did we learn?
Improved understanding of socioeconomic conditionsThediagnosticsurveyshelpedtounderstandproducers’challenges,constraintsandoperatingcircumstances.Farmers’challengesinthemaize–legumevaluechainsweregroupedintothreecategories:pre-production,productionandpost-harvest.Table19.1showsthemainchallenges/constraintsinthethreecategories,indescendingorderofimportance.
Table 19.1 Challenges faced by farmers along the maize–legume commodity value chains, Nakasongola and Lira
Maize Legume
Pre-production constraints (descending order of importance)
failuretoopenlandontimeshiftsinseasons/prolongeddrought
shiftsinseasons/prolongeddrought lackofgood-qualityseed
poor-qualityseed failuretoopenlandontime
lackofagro-inputsupplies lackofreliableagro-inputsupplies
Production constraints (descending order of importance)
weedinfestation weedinfestation
cropdamagebypests cropdamagebypests
decliningsoilfertility decliningsoilfertility
cropdamagebydiseases cropdamagebydiseases
Post-harvest constraints (descending order of importance)
poorstorage poorstorage
exploitativemarkets exploitativemarkets
361SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 19
Themainchallengeinthepre-productionphaseformaizewasfailuretoopenlandontime.Thiswasfollowedinimportancebyshiftsinseasonsand/orprolongeddroughts.Thequalityofmaizeseedandpooraccesstoagro-inputswerealsoissuesofconcern.
Intheproductionphase,themainchallengewasweedinfestationfollowed,indecliningorderofimportance,bycropdamagebypests,decliningsoilfertilityandcropdamagebydiseases.Afterharvest,farmersreportedthattheyfacedchallengesinstorageandfindinggoodmarketsfortheirmaizeproduce.
Inthecaseoflegumes,themainchallengeduringthepre-productionphasewasreportedasshiftinseasonsand/orprolongeddroughts.Thiswasfollowed,indecliningorderofimportance,bylackofgood-qualityseed,failuretoopenlandontime,andpooraccesstoagro-inputs.Intheproductionandpost-harvestphases,theissuesaswellastheirlevelofimportancewerethesameasreportedformaize.
Thedifferencesintheimportanceofchallengesexperiencedduringthepre-productionphasebetweenmaizeandlegumes(forexample,failuretoopenlandontime)canbeattributedtotheacreageusedforbothcrops.Inlegumeproduction,lessacreageisusedamongsmallholders.Formaize,alargeracreageisrequired.Theunderlyinginputandconstrainttoopeninglandontimeisthelabourrequirementsforlandpreparation.Thisgreatlylimitstheacreage,asmostfarmersuseahandhoeforopeninglandasopposedtomechanisedservices(edsOmoding&Odogola2005).Themostimportantchallengeinthepre-productionphaseforlegumeswasshiftsinseasonsand/orprolongeddrought.Thiswasonlyofmoderateimportanceinmaize.Itcouldbearguedthat,sincemaizetakeslongerinthefieldthanlegumes,ithasachancetorecoverfromerraticrainfalloncetherainsstabilise.Thismaynotbethecaseforlegumes,whichtakeashorterperiodtomature.However,incaseofashortenedrainyperiod,whichisuncommonthesedays,thelegumewouldsurvive,unlikemaize,whichtakeslongertomature.
Lackofgood-qualityseedwasthesecondmostlimitingfactorforlegumeproductionaftershiftsinseasons/prolongeddroughts.Mostfarmersreportedthathigh-yieldinganddrought-,disease-andpest-tolerantbeanvarietieswererareintheirproductionsystems.Unlikelegumes,poor-qualityseedwastheissueinmaize.Whereitiseasytoidentifyseedsofdifferentlegumevarieties,especiallybeansandpeanut,thisisnotthecaseformaize.Therefore,inanunregulatedmarket,suchasthatprevailinginUganda,farmersoftenendedupbuyingmaizeseedofinferiorvarietiesdisguisedassuperiorvarieties.Theviabilityofmaizeseedgenerallycanalsobeeasilycompromisedbyunsuitableenvironmentalconditionscomparedtolegumeseed.Accordingtodocumentedevidence,maizeseedgenerallystaysgoodforonlyoneyearwhereasbushbeanseedlastsfortwoyears(Savonen2003).Theissueoflackofreliableagro-inputsupplieswasofequalimportanceforbothmaizeandlegumes.Thingslikefertilisers,pesticidesandchemicalstocontroldiseasesareoftenunavailableorinaccessibleandwhenavailablethepricesareprohibitive(Okoboi,Muwanga&Mwebaze2012).
Inregardtomarkets,whenfarmersdonothavepropergrainstorage,theyareforcedtoselltheirproducewhensupplyisstillveryhighandcanbeexploitedbyshrewdtraders.Severalworkers(Salami,Kamara&Brixiova2010;WorldBank2008)havestatedthatlowproductivityamongsmallholderfarmersstemsfromlackofaccesstomarkets.
SIMLESA362
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
The biophysical state of soilsBaregroundcoverageinNakasongola,duetoextremecasesofsoilcompaction, was187 km2(11%)ofthe1,741 km2ofarableland(Table19.2andFigure19.5) (Mubiruetal.2017).
Table 19.2 Spatial distribution of different land cover classes in Nakasongola
Class Area (km) Cover (%)
Openwater 233 7.9
Vegetated 1,527 51.7
Bareground 187 6.3
Seasonalwetland 915 31.0
Cloudcover 48 1.6
Permanentwetland 46 1.6
Total 2,956 100
Source:Mubiruetal.2017
Figure 19.5 Spatial distribution of bare grounds in Nakasongola and surrounding areas
Source:Mubiruetal.2017
water
bareground
vegetated
Nakitoma
KakoogeKalongo
KalungiNakasongola TC
Migeera
Nabisweera
Lwabyata
Lwampang
Wabinyonyi
363SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 19
Intensification of sustainable agricultural productionGenerally,allpigeonpeaelitevarietiesyieldedsignificantly(P < 0.05)moreabove-grounddrymatterthanthenaturalfallow(Figure19.6).Thiscanpotentiallyenhanceorganicmatterbuild-upandsoilmoistureconservation.Inthatregard,theintroducedpigeonpeaelitevarietieswerepromotedformultipurposeimprovedfallows.
Figure 19.6 Above-ground dry matter yield of pigeonpea elite varieties compared to natural fallow
Note:MeansaredifferentaccordingtotheLSDmethod(P < 0.05)ifdifferentlettersappearabovethebars.
IntercroppingAsameansofintensifyingmaize–beanproduction,theUgandaSIMLESAprogramevaluatedmaize–beanintercroppingpatternstoestablishtheoptimumpatterns.Theoptimumintercroppingpatternswerethenpromoted,targetingmainlyruralhouseholdswithsmalllandholdings.Inalltreatments,intercroppingdidnotaffectmaizeyield.Therewerenosignificantyielddifferencesbetweenmaizeplantedasasolecropcomparedtomaizeyieldinallmaize–beanintercroppingpatterns.However,thereweresignificantdifferencesinbeangrainyieldamongthedifferentintercroppingpatterns,leadingtosignificantdifferencesinthecombinedrevenuefrommaizeandbeans.Fromaneconomicpointofview,theoptimummaize–beanintercroppingpatternswereT1(twomaizerowswithonebeanrowin-between)andT3(onemaizerowwithonebeanrowwithinthemaizerow).Thesetwoprovidedamplespacingforthebeans,probablyleadingtobetterperformance.Maizeplantedasasolecropofferedtheleasteconomicreturns,indicatingthatforsmallholdersitisnotprofitabletogrowmaizeasasolecrop(Table19.3).
0
10
30
20
40
50
60
Abov
e-gr
ound
dry
mat
ter
yiel
d (t
/ha)
Cover crops
Naturalfallow
ICEAP00850
ICEAP00540
ICEAP00557
ICEAP00554
KAT 60/8
c
aab
bc
a
ab
SIMLESA364
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Intechnologyverificationmeetings,farmersoverwhelminglyconfirmedtheincreasedeconomicreturnsfromintercroppingmaizeandbeansasopposedtomonocropping(SIMLESA2014).DanielKato,thechairpersonofWantabyaEastFarmers’Group,Wabinyonyisubcounty,Nakasongola,explicitlystated,‘Intercroppingmaizewithbeanshasincreasedfarmoutputsasweareabletoharvestbothmaizeandbeansfromonefieldandinoneseason,moreoverusingthesamelabour’.Otherworkers(Ahmad&Rao1982;Grimesetal.1983;Kalra&Gangwar1980;Seran&Brintha2009)alsounderscoredtheeconomicbenefitsofintercroppingcompatiblecrops.
Table 19.3 Maize–bean intercropping patterns, their attributes, grain yield and accruing revenue
Maize–bean intercropping pattern
Attributes Maize grain yield (kg/ha)
Bean grain yield (kg/ha)
Combined revenue from maize and beans (US$/ha)
Comments
T1:2maizerows+1beanrowin-between
easytoestablish
5,942a 257a 1,700a Thespacingfromonebeanrowtoanotheris75 cm.Thisamplespacingcouldhavehelpedthebeancroptoperformwell.
T2:2maizerows+2beanrowsin-between
easytoestablish
5,703a 151b 1,552b Thespacingfromonebeanrowtoanotheris25 cm.Thislimitedspacingcouldhaveledtothepoorperformanceofthebeancrop.
T3:1maizerow+1beanrowwithinthemaizerow
easytoestablish
5,601a 277a 1,631ab Thispatternwith75 cminter-rowspacingalsoprovidesamplespacingleadingtogoodperformanceofthebeancrop.
T4:2maizerows+1beanrowwithinthemaizerow+1beanrowin-between
noteasytoestablish(needmorelabour)
5,486a 125b 1,476bc Thispatternleadstoovercrowding,whichcouldhaveaffectedtheperformanceofthebeancrop.
T5:Maizeonly(control)
easytoestablish
5,702a – 1,426c Thiscroppingsystemofferstheleasteconomicreturns.
Notes:Differentletterswithineachcolumnindicatestatisticaldifferencesamongtreatments,usingtheLSDmethod.Commodityprices(2017):US$0.25/kgmaize;US$0.83/kgbean.
365SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 19
Optimum seeding ratesAtbothNARL–KawandaandNgettaZARDI,therewerenoseason×seedingrateinteractions,indicatingthateffectsofseedingratesonyieldwereindependentofseasons.Inthatregard,yieldforeachseedingratewasaveragedacrossseasons.
However,atNARL–KawandaincentralUganda,thereweresignificantyielddifferences(P < 0.05)fromthedifferentmaizeseedingrates.Permanentplantingbasinsplantedwith3seeds/basin(57,144plants/ha)hadsignificantlylowergrainyieldthanbasinsplantedwith4seeds/basin(76,192plants/ha)and5seeds/basin(95,240plants/ha).However,thegrainyieldsrealisedfrombasinsplantedwith4seeds/basinand5seeds/basinwerenotsignificantlydifferent.Therewasa27%increaseingrainyieldfromthe3seeds/basintothe4seeds/basin.ThedifferentmaizeseedingratesperformedsimilarlyatNgettaZARDIinnorthernUganda,fortwoseasonsin2013(Table19.4).
Table 19.4 Maize seeding rates and grain yield, Ngetta ZARDI and NARL–Kawanda, average of two seasons (2013A and 2013B)
Station Seeds/basin Yield (t/ha)
NARL–Kawanda 3 4.43b
4 5.64a
5 6.39a
NgettaZARDI 3 2.40a
4 2.67a
5 2.89a
Note:Differentlettersonyielddataforeachstationindicatestatisticaldifferencesamongtreatments,usingtheLSDmethod.
TheNARL–Kawandasite,withheavytexturedsoilsandmediumorganicmatterwithinabimodalrainfallregime,isrepresentativeofareasbelowlatitude30°N.TheNgettaZARDIsite,withlighttexturedsoilsandloworganicmatterwithinaunimodalrainfallregime,isrepresentativeofareasabovelatitude30°N.Itcanthereforebetentativelyconcludedthat,inUganda,forareasbelowlatitude30°N,aseedrateof4maizeseeds/basin(76,192plants/ha)isoptimalwhileinareasabovelatitude30°Naseedrateof3maizeseeds/basin(57,144plants/ha)isoptimal.Thedifferenceinthebest-performingseedingratesbetweenthetwoagroecologies(KawandavsNgetta)couldbeattributedtothedifferencesinsoilmoistureregimes,soiltypesandfertility.WhilethesoilsatKawandaareheavyintextureandhaveahigherorganicmattercontent,thesoilsatNgettaZARDIarelightandhavealowerorganicmattercontent(GovernmentofUganda1960).
Bean plant population in permanent planting basins Atbothexperimentalsites,NARL–KawandaandNgettaZARDI,therewerenosignificantyielddifferencesamongthedifferentseedingrates(Table19.5).Astheseedingrateincreasedfrom6to10seeds/basin,itislikelythatcompetitionamongtheplantsfornumerousresources,especiallylight,alsoincreased.Severalworkers(Ghaffarzadeh,Garcia&Cruse1994,1997)haveobservedthatthepotentialforstresscouldbeincreasedwhencropscompeteamongthemselves.Theyfurtherarguedthatcompetitionforresourcesmightdevelopasaresultofrootgrowthpatternsand/ordifferentresourcedemands.Althoughtheyonlymentiontherootgrowthpatterns,observationsfromourstudyindicatethattheabove-groundplantarchitecturalarrangementalsoconfersseriouscompetitionamongtheplants,limitingtheirproductionpotential.
SIMLESA366
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Table 19.5 Bean seeding rates and grain yield, NARL–Kawanda and Ngetta ZARDI, average of two seasons (2013A and 2013B)
Station Seeds/basin Yield (t/ha)
NARL–Kawanda 6 0.556a
8 0.681a
10 0.664a
NgettaZARDI 6 2.58a
8 2.43a
10 2.75a
Note:Differentlettersonyielddataforeachstationindicatestatisticaldifferencesamongtreatments,usingtheLSDmethod.
Maize and bean seeding rate in rip linesRiplinesdidnothaveanyobservableimpactonyield,regardlessofseedingrates,crop(maizeandbeans)andseason(Table19.6).Sincetherewaslittledifferenceinyields,thecostsofinputs(seedandfertiliser)playedamoredirectroleindeterminingthepreferablemanagementstrategy.Thelowestplantpopulation(widestinter-rowspacing)requiredtheleastamountofinputsandthereforewouldbeconsideredoptimal.Inthatregard,the75 cminter-rowspacingofriplinesforbothmaizeandbeanswithintra-rowspacingof25and10 cm,respectively,werepromoted.
Table 19.6 Effect of varying maize and bean seeding rates using rip lines on maize and bean grain yield at Ngetta ZARDI, average of two seasons (2013A and 2013B)
Inter-row spacing (cm) Maize yield (t/ha) Bean yield (t/ha)
60 3.14a 1.63a
65 2.45a 1.58a
75 2.99a 1.57a
Note:Differentlettersonyielddataforeachstationindicatestatisticaldifferencesamongtreatments,usingtheLSDmethod.
Comparison of tillage methodsBeangrainyieldsincreasedfromaslowas300 kg/hato834 kg/hawithCASItechnologies(riplinesandpermanentplantingbasins)introducedbytheSIMLESAprogram,incombinationwithimprovedseedsandfertilisersand/ormanureandoptimumseedingrates(Table19.7).However,theseyieldswerestillwellbelowtheyieldpotentialofbeansinUgandaof2,000 kg/ha(Sebuwufuetal.2012).
Maizegrainyieldincreasedfromanaverageof3,000 kg/hato4,442 kg/ha(Table19.7).Thiswasalsowellbelowtheyieldpotentialforhybridmaizerangesof5,000–8,000 kg/ha(Semaana2010).
Acombinationofpermanentplantingbasinandrip-linetillagetogetherwithimprovedseedandfertiliserbroughtmaizeandbeangrainyieldswithintheexpectedproductivityrangeforbothcropsinUganda.
367SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 19
Table 19.7 Average bean and maize grain yields as a response to different tillage practices
Tillage practice Bean yield Maize yield
(kg/ha) SE (kg/ha) SE
Conventional 359c ±138 1,536b +879
Conventional+fertiliser 560abc ±138 2,481ab +879
Permanentplantingbasin 512abc ±138 3,328ab +918
Permanentplantingbasin+fertiliser 784ab ±138 4963a +918
Ripline 438bc ±148 2,086b +963
Ripline+fertiliser 884a ±148 3,921ab +963
Notes:YieldmeansforaparticularcropfollowedbythesameletterarenotsignificantlydifferentaccordingtoLSDatP=0.05.SE=standarderror. Source:Mubiruetal.2017
Business modelsThroughbusinessmodelling,itwasobservedthatprivateentrepreneurshiphadpotentialtocontributesignificantlytotheadoptionandscalingofresearchtechnologies.However,uptakewasseentobelimitedbythecapacityoftheprivatesectortoexpanditsbusinessatthelocallevel.Adoptionandscalingcouldbeenhancedbythebundlingofgoodsandservices,accessingfinance,offeringinformationonmarketsandinputsources,enhancingentrepreneurshipskills,promotingcollectiveactionandprovidingeffectivesupportserviceswithinanenvironmentthatisconducivetothedevelopmentofsmallruralenterprises.Public–privatecollaborationatthesubcountylevelwasbelievedmostlikelytobeaugmentedthroughestablishingmultistakeholderinnovationplatformsasamechanismforinformationsharing,providinglocalsupportservicesandlinkingtoupstreamvalue-chainstakeholders,amongothers.
What was the impact?
Duringthesurveyperiod,Ugandahadanestimated7.2 Mhaofarablelandundercropproduction,whichislessthan50%ofthearableland,estimatedat16.8 Mha(NationalEnvironmentManagementAuthority2007).Pessimisticforecastsindicatethattheavailablearablelandforagriculturewillrunoutinmostpartsofthecountrybyaround2022.Withsuchgrimstatistics,thecountrycannotaffordtoloseanyarableland.ItisthereforeimperativethatUgandaembracessustainablelandmanagementtoreversethistrendoflanddegradation.
TechnologyexposureandskillsdevelopmentthroughtheUgandaSIMLESAprogramledtoenterprise,household,communityandvalue-chainleveladjustments.Theseincludeshiftsinenterprisemanagementandperformance,costreduction,laboursavings,demandforrelevantagro-inputsandservices,andlivelihoodenhancementingeneral.Specifically,60%offarmersexhibitedknowledgeofCASIfarminganditsprinciples.OfthetechnologiesbeingpromotedbytheUgandaSIMLESAprogram,croprotation,useofherbicidesandpesticides,andintercroppingwerehighlyrecognisedashavingthelargestimpact.Aspectsoffoodsecurityandtheneedtoincreasefarmers’yieldsweredrivenbythesetechnologies,whiletheabilityoffarmerstousesmallpiecesoflandwithhigherreturnswasaproxyindicatorofimpact.
SIMLESA368
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
MechanisationservicesmarkedlycontributedtotheadoptionofpromotedCASItechnologiesandfacilitatedtheneedforfarminputssuchasimprovedseedsandchemicals(e.g.herbicidesandpesticides).Otherbenefitsrangingfrombiologicalresponsesintheformofyieldsandfooddiversityduetoweedsuppression,fertilityenhancementandmoistureretentionwereattained.Forinstance,maizegrainyieldsrosefromanaverageof2,000 kg/hato5,000 kg/haandpeanutfromanaverageof250 kg/hato875 kg/haperseason.Thisinturnhadapositivefinancialimpact.Forinstance,in2016thesellingpriceformaizewasUS$0.22/kgandtheincreaseingrossmarginwasnotedatUS$650/ha.Forpeanut,theincreaseingrossmarginwasnotedataroundUS$928/ha.Theincreasedaggregatemaizeproductionvolumeattractednewproducedealersinthearea.Theincreasedneedforquickshellingandincreasedstoragemadesomefarmersacquiremotorisedmaizeshellersanddoshellingasabusiness.Allthingsconsidered,itisimportanttonotethat,althoughproductivityincreasesweresignificant,theactualyieldsremainbelowthepotential.
Table19.8showsthebenefitsalongthecommodityvaluechains.Thelivelihoodbenefitstodirectandauxiliarybeneficiariesincludehigherincomes,betterhouseholdnutritionandhighercapacitytoaddresshouseholdwelfare,educationandhealthconcerns,andsocio-networks.
Table 19.8 Benefits from the Uganda SIMLESA program interventions along the commodity value chains
Pre-production Production Post-harvest Auxiliary
• reductionincostofopeningland
• expansioninsizeofenterprise
• timelyplantingafteronsetofrains
• useofimprovedcropvarieties
• productiveassets(e.g.land,oxen,ploughs)
• investmentinfarmpowersystems(e.g.oxen,ploughs,spraypumps)
• yieldenhancements
• profitability(grossmargins/acre)
• diversificationintovariedcropproduction(e.g.intercropping)
• crop–livestockintegration
• diversificationintolivestockproduction
• labour-useefficiency
• croppingsystems(intercroppingvsmonocropping)
• expansionofproducebuyers
• investmentandexpansionofprocessingcapacity(e.g.maizeshellers)
• producehandlingcapacity(e.g.cribs,collectivemarketing)
• storagepriceadvantage
• humancapitaldevelopment
• householdsubsistenceandschoolfeedingprograms
• domesticwellbeing(e.g.houseconstruction,solarpower,schoolfees)
• transportassets
• sociocapital
369SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 19
What should we do next?
ResearchAlthoughresearchhasdevelopedandevaluatedtechnologypackagesforintercropping,seedingratesandtillagemethods,thereisneedforsystematicquantification,contextualisationanddocumentationofcostsandbenefitsortrade-offsatthehouseholdlevel,inordertobetteridentifyopportunitiesandconstraintstoadoption.Value-chainstudiesthatextendbeyondthehouseholdcanalsoshedvaluableinsightintoconstraintsthatoperateatasystemiclevel,shapinghouseholdopportunitiesandrisks.
Undoubtedly,theUgandaSIMLESAprograminterventionsincreasedagriculturalproductivityamongsupportedfarmers;however,adoptionandscalingupisstilllow.Thisisattributabletoinadequateextensionservicesandsubstandardinfrastructure.Generally,thereispooraccessbysmallholderfarmerstoinformation,advisoryservicesandmodernagriculturalinputs.Tocircumventthis,theprojectintroducedtechnicalserviceunitsandagriculturalinnovationplatformsandproducedcommunicationmaterialssuchasbrochuresandaCASIimplementationguide.Movingforward,thereisaneedtogrowtheagriculturalinnovationplatformsandtechnicalserviceunitsthroughtechnicalandfinancialbackstoppingandalsoeffectivelydisseminatetheCASIfarminginformationgenerated.
Throughtheagriculturalinnovationplatforms,weexpectto:
• introduceinputcreditsystemsfrombigagro-inputcompaniestolocaldealers
• createlinkagesofpotentialagro-inputdealerstofinancialinstitutionsthatofferlong-termandfriendlyagriculturalloans
• createlinkagesandnetworkingbetweenindividualfarmers,farmergroupsandcooperatives/associationsasmajorproducersofrawmaterials
• strengthenfarmer,agro-inputdealer,traderandagro-processorlinkagestoengenderbettermarketopportunities
• introducetwo-wheeltractorsforfarmoperationsalongthecommodityvaluechain,forexamplepedestalsprayers,directseeders,small-scaleirrigation,shellingandmilling
• facilitateskillsdevelopment,especiallytargetingwomen(althoughwomenarenotthefinaldecision-makers,thetechnologiesandpracticespromotedhaveconsiderableimpactontheirwellbeing)
• promoteutilisationofinformationcommunicationtechnologies,especiallyamongtheyouth
• encourageverticaldiversificationintolivestocktoexploitthecrop–livestock–household–soil–weatherinteractions
• promotesustainablelandmanagementinterventionsatcatchmentlevel,includingsoilandwaterconservationmeasures,agroforestryandwoodlotsforclimatechangemitigation.
SIMLESA370
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Case study: Heeding the call to transform from subsistence to commercial agriculture
Before2012,MrMugisha,amemberoftheBiyinzikaFarmerGroupinKalongosubcounty,Nakasongoladistrict,wasstrugglingtoproducemaizeona7-acrepieceofland.Heusedtoget2–3 t/habyrudimentarymeans,suchasahandhoeandusinglocallysavedseedwithoutapplicationoffertilisers.Beinganastutebusinessman,hesupplementedhismeagrefarmoutputsbypurchasingmaizegrainfromhisneighbours.Thishebulkedandsold,buthisbusinesswasstillstruggling.
MrMugishasaysthatwhentheSIMLESAprogramwasintroducedinhisvillage,itwasagodsend.HisgroupreceiveddemonstrationsonCASIfarmingpractices.TheSIMLESAteamthatranthedemonstrationsalsointroducedimprovedanddrought-tolerantseedvarieties,forexamplewater-efficientmaize(UH5053,PH5052)andNABE15beanvarieties.Theyalsoencouragedgroupmemberstousefertilisers.
MostofthepracticesundertheCASIframework(e.g.killingweedsusingherbicides,preparationofplantingbasinduringthedryseason,plantingmorethantwoseedsinthebasins,andapplicationoffertiliseronbeans)werealienand,attimes,seemedbizarre.Forsomeoneusedtoplantinginaweedandtrash-freegarden,plantinginafreshlysprayedgardenwithweedsstillstandingwasmorethancrazy.Andtowatchtheseedsgerminatingwhiletheweedsweredyingoff,andthecropgrowingluxuriouslytophysiologicalmaturity,wasnotonlypeculiarbutborderedonwizardly.
MrMugishahasabandonedhisoldwaysofgrowingmaizeandbeans,andnowexclusivelyemploysherbicidestoburndowntheweeds.Thishasnotonlyhelpedhimincreasehisacreagebuthasfreedupmoretimetobuildhisproducetradebusiness.
Seeingthetransformationinproductionandproductivity,MrMugisha,withsupportfromSIMLESA,constructeda10-tonnemaizestoragecrib.Duringthe firstseasonof2017,usingtheCASImethodsofpreparingbasinsduringthedry season,heplantedhismaizeearlyandwasamongthefirsttoharvest.GiventhatUgandawashitbyaseveredroughtin2016and millionsofacresofmaizeweredecimatedbythefallarmyworm(Spodoptera frugiperda),thedemandformaizegrainwasveryhigh.Hewasabletosellatapremiumprice.Hebulked13tonnes ofmaizegrainandsoldeachtonneatUS$389,givinghimatotalofUS$5,056. Thiswasnotasmallachievement,especiallyinacountrywherethepercapitaincomeisUS$419and28%ofthepopulationlivesbelowthepovertyline(UgandaBureauofStatistics2015).
Thisfieldwassprayedwithherbicidesimmediatelyafterplanting.Beanseedsaregerminatingwhiletheweedsaredyingoff.
Afieldoffieldbeansplantedinpermanentplantingbasinsnearingphysiologicalmaturity.
371SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 19
ReferencesAhmad,S&Rao,MR1982,‘Performanceofmaize–soybeanintercropcombinationinthetropics:resultsofa
multilocationstudy’,Field Crops Research,vol.5,pp.147–161.
Andrew,DJ&Kassam,AH1976,‘Theimportanceofmultiplecroppinginincreasingworldfoodsupplies’,inRIPapendick,PASanchez&GBTriplett(eds),Multiple cropping,AmericanSocietyofAgronomy,Madison,WI,USA,pp.1–10.
Brady,NC&Weil,RR1996,The nature and properties of soils,PrenticeHallInc.,NewJersey,USA.
Calegari,A(ed.)2001,‘Covercropmanagement’,Proceedings of the 1st World Congress on Conservation Agriculture,Madrid,Spain,1–5October2001.
Calegari,A&Alexander,I1998,‘TheeffectsoftillageandcovercropsonsomechemicalpropertiesofoxisolsandsummercropyieldsinsouthwesternParana,Brazil’,Advances in GeoEcology,vol.31,pp.1239–1246.
Coyne,MS&Thompson,JA2006,Fundamental soil science,ThomsonDelmarLearning,NewYork,USA.
Craufard,PQ2000,‘Effectofplantdensityontheyieldofsorghum-cowpeaandpearlmillet-cowpeaintercropsinnorthernNigeria’,Experimental Agriculture,vol.36,no.3,pp.379−395.
Ghaffarzadeh,M,Garcia,F&Cruse,RM1994,‘Grainyieldresponseofcorn,soybean,andoatgrowninstripintercroppingsystem’,American Journal of Alternative Agriculture,vol.9,pp.171–177.
——1997,‘Tillageeffectonsoilwatercontentandcornyieldinastripintercroppingsystem’,Agronomy Journal,vol.89,pp.893–899.
Goettsch,LH,Lenssen,AW,Yost,RS,Luvaga,ES,Semalulu,O,Tenywa,M&Mazur,RE2016,‘Improvedproductionsystemsforcommonbeanonphaeozemsoilinsouth-centralUganda’,African Journal of Agricultural Science,vol.11,no.46,pp.4797–4809.
GovernmentofUganda2007,Climate change: Uganda national adaptation programmes of action,MinistryofWaterandEnvironment,Kampala,Uganda.
GovernmentofUganda2004,Increasing incomes through exports: a plan for zonal agricultural production, agro-processing and marketing for Uganda,MinistryofAgriculture,AnimalIndustryandFisheries,Entebbe,Uganda.
GovernmentofUganda1960,Uganda soil memoirs,NARO,Entebbe,Uganda.
Grimes,A,Quasem,AM,Uddin,MS,Jahiruddin,N&Mallik,RN1983,Performance of different cropping patterns in 1992–93 at the cropping system research site,Hathazari,Chittagong,RARS.
Hauggaard-Nieson,H,Ambus,P&Jensen,ES2001,‘Temporalandspatialdistributionofrootsandcompetitionfornitrogeninpea-barleyintercrops:afieldstudyemploying23Ptechniques’,Plant Soil, vol.236,pp.63–74.
Johnson,RR1980,‘Thecomponentsofhighyields:culturalpractices’,Crops Soils,vol.32,no.5,pp.10–13.
Kalra,GS&Gangwar,B1980,‘EconomicsofintercroppingofdifferentlegumeswithmaizeatdifferentlevelsofNunderrainfedconditions’,Indian Journal Agronomy,vol.25,pp.181–185.
Komutunga,ET&Musiitwa,F2001,‘Climate’,inJKMukiibi(ed.),Agriculture in Uganda,Volume1,GeneralInformation,FountainPublishers,Kampala,pp.21–32.
Li,L,Sun,JH,Zhang,FS,Li,XL,Yang,SC&Rengel,Z2006,‘Wheat/maizeorwheat/soybeanstripintercroppingI:yieldadvantageandinterspecificinteractionsonnutrients’,Field Crop Research,vol.71,pp.123−137.
Lithourgidis,AS,Vasilakoglou,IB,Dhima,KV,Dordas,CA&Yiakoulaki,MD2006,‘Forageyieldandqualityofcommonvetchmixtureswithoatandtriticaleintwoseedingratios’,Field Crop Research,vol.99,pp.106−113.
MAAIF(MinistryofAgriculture,AnimalIndustryandFisheries)2010,Agriculture for food and income security: Agricultural Sector Development Strategy and Investment Plan (DSIP), 2010/11–2014/15,MAAIF,Entebbe,Uganda.
Magunda,MK&Mubiru,DN2016,Biophysical and socio-economic assessments in Nakasongola District for improved sustainable land management,UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgram,Kampala,Uganda.
Marshal,B&Willy,RW1983,‘Radiationinterceptionandgrowthinanintercropofpearlmillet/groundnut’,Field Crops Research,vol.7,pp.141−160.
Mubiru,DN,Agona,A&Komutunga,E2009,‘Micro-levelanalysisofseasonaltrends,farmers’perceptionofclimatechangeandadaptationstrategiesineasternUganda’,International Conference on Seasonality,InstituteofDevelopmentStudies,UniversityofSussex,Brighton,UK,8–10July2009,availablefrom:http://www.event.future-agricultures.org.
SIMLESA372
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Mubiru,DN,Komutunga,E,Agona,A,Apok,A&Ngara,T2012,‘Characterisingagrometeorologicalclimaterisksanduncertainties:cropproductioninUganda’,South African Journal of Science,vol.108,no.3–4, pp.108–118,doi:10.4102/sajs.v108i3/4.470.
Mubiru,DN,Namakula,J,Lwasa,J,Otim,GA,Kashagama,J,Nakafeero,M,Nanyeenya,W&Coyne,MS2017,‘Conservationfarmingandchangingclimate:morebeneficialthanconventionalmethodsfordegradedUgandansoils’,Sustainability,vol.9,p.1084,doi: 10.3390/su9071084.
Mupangwa,W,Twomlow,S&Walker,S2007,‘ConservationtillageforsoilwatermanagementinthesemiaridsouthernZimbabwe’,8th WaterNet/WARFSA GWP-SA symposium: IWRM from concept to practice,Lusaka,Zambia,31Octoberto2November2007,viewed10December2014,http://www.cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle.
Namugwanya,M,Tenywa,JS,Etabbong,E,Mubiru,DN&Basamba,TA2014,‘Developmentofcommonbean(Phaseolus vulgarisL.)productionunderlowsoilphosphorusanddroughtinsubSaharanAfrica:areview’,Journal of Sustainable Development,vol.7,no.5,pp.128–139.
Nanyeenya,NW,Mubiru,DN,Mutyaba,C&Otim,G2013,Maize-legume constraint diagnosis and situation analysis report–Nakasongola and Lira districts,NationalAgriculturalResearchLaboratories—Kawanda,Kampala,Uganda.
NationalAgriculturalResearchOrganization2000,Annual report,Entebbe,Uganda.
NationalEnvironmentManagementAuthority2007,State of the environment report for Uganda 2006/2007,NEMA,Kampala,Uganda.
Odeny,DA2007,‘Thepotentialofpigeonpea(Cajanus cajan(L.)Millsp.)inAfrica’,Natural Resources Forum, vol.31,pp.297–305.
Okoboi,G,Muwanga,J&Mwebaze,T2012,‘UseofimprovedinputsanditseffectsonmaizeyieldandprofitinUganda’,African Journal of Food, Agricultural Nutrition & Development,vol.12,no.7,pp.6932–6944.
Omoding,JOY&Odogola,WR(eds)2005,‘Developmentofanimaltraction,conservationagricultureandruraltransportinthecontextofmodernizingagricultureinUganda:strategyandpolicy’,Proceedingsofaninternationalworkshoponmodernizingagriculture:visionsandtechnologiesforanimaltractionandconservationagriculture,Jinja,Uganda,19–15May2002,FAO,Rome,Italy,vol.2,pp.1–8.
Otunge,D,Muchiri,N,Wachoro,G,Anguzu,R&Wamboga-Mugirya,P2010,Enhancing maize productivity in Uganda through the WEMA Project: a policy brief 2010,NationalAgriculturalResearchOrganisationofUganda/AfricanAgriculturalTechnologyFoundation,Entebbe,Uganda.
Pachico,D1993,‘Thedemandforbeantechnology’,inGHenry(ed.),Trends in CIAT commodities,CIATworkingdocumentno.128,InternationalCentreforTropicalAgriculture,Cali,Colombia,pp.60–70.
Parvan,A2011,‘Agriculturaltechnologyadoption:issuesforconsiderationwhenscaling-up’,The Cornell Policy Review,vol.1,no.1,http://www.cornellpolicyreview.com.
Quayyum,MA,Ahmed,A&Chowdhury,AK1999,‘Cropweedcompetitioninmaize+blackgraminsoleandintercroppingsystem’,Bangladesh Journal of Agricultural Research,vol.24,no.2,pp.249–254.
RegionalAgriculturalExpansionSupport2003,Maize market assessment and baseline study for Uganda,RegionalAgriculturalExpansionSupportProgram,Nairobi,Kenya.
Salami,A,Kamara,AB&Brixiova,S2010,Smallholder agriculture in East Africa: trends, constraints, and opportunities,WorkingPaperSeriesNo.105,AfricanDevelopmentBank,Tunis,Tunisia.
Savonen,C2003,How long do garden seeds last?,OregonStateUniversityExtensionServices,viewedonline 19September2017.
Sebuwufu,G,Mazur,R,Westgate,M&Ugen,M2012,‘ImprovingtheyieldandqualityofcommonbeansinUganda’,viewed11January2017,www.soc.iastate.edu/staff/.../CRSP.
Semaana,HR2010,Crop production handbook for good quality cereals, pulses and tuber crops,MinistryofAgriculture,AnimalIndustryandFisheries/SasakawaAfricaAssociation,Entebbe,Uganda.
Seran,TH&Brintha,I2009,‘Studyondeterminingasuitablepatternofcapsicum(Capsicum annumL.)—vegetablecowpeas(Vigna unguiculataL.)intercropping’,Kamataka Journal of Agricultural Science,vol.22,pp.1153–1154.
Sibiko,KW,Ayuya,OI,Gido,O&Mwangi,JK2013,‘Ananalysisofeconomicefficiencyinbeanproduction:evidencefromeasternUganda’,Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development,vol.4,no.13, www.iiste.org.
SIMLESA2014,2010–2014 Report,CIMMYT,Harare,Zimbabwe.
373SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 19
Soniia,D&Sperling,L1999,‘Improvingtechnologydeliverymechanisms:lessonsfrombeanseedsystemsresearchineasternandcentralAfrica’,Agriculture and Human Values,vol.16,pp.381–388.
UgandaBureauofStatistics2015,Statistical abstracts,Kampala,Uganda.
Upadhyaya,HD,Reddy,LJ,Gowda,CLL,Reddy,KN&Singh,S2006,‘Developmentofaminicoresubsetforenhancedanddiversifiedutilizationofpigeonpeasgermplasmresources’,Crop Science Journal,vol.46,pp.2127–2132.
Valenzuela,HR&Smith,J2002,CTAHR sustainable agriculture green manure crop series: pigeon pea,UniversityofHawaiiCooperativeExtensionService,SA-GM-8.
WorldBank2008,Uganda sustainable land management public expenditure review,reportno.45781-UG,AFTARSustainableDevelopmentDepartment,Countrydepartment1,Uganda,Africaregion.
Wortmann,CS&Eledu,CA1999,Uganda’s agroecological zones: a guide for planners and policy makers,InternationalCentreforTropicalAgriculture,Cali,Colombia.
Wreford,A,Ignaciuk,A&Gruere,G2017,Overcoming barriers to adoption of climate-friendly practices in agriculture,ISSN:1815–6797(online),http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/18156797.
374
20 CASI: a vital component of integrated soil fertility management in RwandaPascal Nsengimana Rushemuka, Emile Pacifique Rushemuka, Teilhard Ndayiramya, Zahara Mukakalisa & Michel Kabiligi
Key points
• Conservationagriculturepluscropintensificationleadstoagricultureproductivityforthecurrentgenerationandsoilhealthforfuturegenerations.
• Theyielddifferencebetweentillageagricultureandconservation agriculture-basedsustainableintensification(CASI)wasinsignificantintheinitialcroppingseasons.
• YieldlevelsshowedvaryingresponsestoproductioninputsfortillageagricultureandCASIacrossagroecologicalzones.
• TheenvironmentalbenefitsofCASIcanbeachievedwithoutyieldpenalties.
• IntegratingagroforestryintheCASIpackagetocontrolerosionandboostavailabilityofbiomassformulchandanimalfeediskeyforadoptionofCASIpractices.
• Thelarge-scaleadoptionofCASIrequiresmuchon-farmdemonstration efforttocreateapositiveperceptionamongpolicymakers,scientists,techniciansandfarmers.
375SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 20
Introduction
InthehighlandsofRwanda,agriculturalproductionisunderminedbysoilwatererosion,mainlyinthenorthandwest.Intheeast,itisconstrainedbyhighriskofcropfailureduetoscarcerainfall.Erosionanddryspellsareaggravatedbytillageagricultureonsteepslopesandtheloworganicmattercontentofsoils.
Toproducesustainably,Rwanda’ssoilsneedanincreasedorganiccarbonstock.ManyofRwanda’ssoilsalsoneedefficientuseoffertilisersandatleast50%needtheapplicationoflime.Sofar,erosioncontrolandorganicmattersupplyremaintheprincipalconstraintsonproductioninRwanda(MinistryofFinanceandEconomicPlanning2017).Erosioncontrolmeasures,suchasbenchterraces,arequiteexpensive(800–1,200labourdays/ha)anddonotresolvetheneedfororganicmatter(Roose&Ndayizigiye1997).
Conservationagriculture-basedsustainableintensification(CASI)practicesemployminimumtillage,mulching,croprotationandfertiliseruse(Vanlauweetal.2014).Thesepracticeshaveadvantagesforcost-effectiveerosioncontrol,soilorganiccarbonstock(Rodriguezetal.2017)andimprovementofsoilhealthandpestanddiseasecontrol(Midegaetal.2018).InRwanda,beforeSIMLESA,nostudywasundertakentotestthetechnicalfeasibilityandadoptionofCASIpracticesbyfarmers.ThispublicationpresentsSIMLESA’sachievementsinestablishingthevalueofCASItechnologiesinRwanda.
Thestudyaddressesthefollowingspecificobjectives:
• todemonstratetheeffectofCASIpracticescomparedtotillageagricultureonmaizeandbeanyieldsinrotation
• tocomparetheeffectsofdifferentsoilfertilityinputtreatmentsonmaizeand beanyields
• toidentifyCASIadoptiondriversinthreeagroecologicalzones.
MethodologyProject sitesInRwanda,SIMLESAactivitieswereimplementedinthreesiteslocatedinthreeagroecologicalzones.ThecharacteristicsoftheseagroecologicalzonesaresummarisedinTable20.1.
Table 20.1 Characteristics of SIMLESA intervention sites
Site Agroecological zone
District Altitude (m)
Rainfall (mm/year)
Site topography
Soil fertility
Gashora semi-aridlandsofBugesera
Bugesera 1,000–1,400 900 flat verygood
Runda CentralPlateau Kamonyi 1,400–1,800 1,200 hilly good
Cyuve volcaniclandsofBirunga
Musanze >2,000 >2,000 flat excellent
SIMLESA376
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Experiment treatmentsAsplit-plotexperimentaldesignwasusedinfieldexperiments.ItconsistedofcomparingCASIandtillageagricultureblocksside-by-side(Table20.2)andrandomisedtreatmentsintheblocks.ThemainfactorswereCASIandtillageagriculturefarmingpractices.Eachfarmingpracticewassubdividedintothreetreatments:
• T1:manure
• T2:manureplusfertiliser
• T3:manureplusfertiliserplusbiofertiliser.
Thetrialplotwas5 m×5 m=25 m2.Atblocklevel,treatmentswererandomisedbutthesametreatmentwasalwaysside-by-side(split-plot)toeaseovertimegrowthcomparisonbytechniciansandfarmersthemselves.
Table 20.2 Split-plot experimental design
Tillage agriculture block CASI block
T2 T2
T1 T1
T3 T3
Note:CASI=conservationagriculture-basedsustainableintensification
Results and discussionFigure20.1presentsmaizeyields(cobs)underCASIandtillageagriculturefortwoconsecutivegrowingseasons(2017Aand2017B)atRunda.Inseason2017A,tillageagriculturewasstatisticallyhigherthanCASIacrossalltreatments.However,therewasnoobservabledifferencebetweenCASIandtillageagricultureinthefollowingseason.
ThesuperiorityoftillageagricultureoverCASIinthefirstseasoncouldbearesultofinefficientimplementationofCASItechnologiesorthefactthatthesoilwasstillpoorinsoilorganicmatterandnitrogen.
Duringthesecondgrowingseason,thedifferencebetweentillageagricultureandCASIwasreduced.MoreappropriateapplicationofthetechniquesbyfarmersandsubsequentimprovementofsoilpropertiesunderCASIcouldexplainthereducedperformancemarginforthepreviousseason.Duringthesecondseason,thedifferencebetweentreatmentswerenotsignificantwheremanurehadthesameeffectirrespectiveoftheadditionalamendments(manurecombinedwithfertilisersandmanurecombinedwithfertilisersandbiofertilisers).AnapparentsignificantdifferenceisalsoobservedinT3of2017BwhereyieldsundertillageagricultureweresignificantlyhigherthanthoseunderCASI.However,inalltreatmentsT3outperformedT2,andT2outperformedT1.
377SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 20
Figure 20.1 Maize yield (cobs) in Kamonyi, Runda, 2017A and 2017B
Notes:T1=manure;T2=manureandfertilisers;T3=manureandfertilisersandbiofertilisers;CASI=conservation agriculture-basedsustainableintensification.
Figure20.2presentsbeanyieldsunderCASIandtillageagriculturefortwoconsecutivegrowingseasons(2017Aand201B)atRunda.Ingeneral,therewasnosignificantdifferencebetweenCASIandtillageagriculture.Asignificantdifferencewasobservedbetweenseasonsandtreatments.ThebenefitofCASIovertillageagriculturebecameapparentinthesecondgrowingseason.ThiswasduetotheresidualeffectofthemulchingofthelastseasonandbecausethefarmerwasmorefamiliarwiththeCASItechniques(e.g.mulchingandtimelyweedcontrol)andapplieditwithmorerigour thaninthefirstgrowingseason.
0
0.5
1.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
3.0
Bean
yie
ld (t
/ha)
T1 T2 T3 T1 T3T2
2017A 2017B
CASI Tillage agriculture
0
2
6
4
8
10
16
Mai
ze y
ield
(t/h
a) 12
14
T1 T2 T3 T1 T3T2
2017A 2017B
CASI Tillage agriculture
Figure 20.2 Bean yield in Kamonyi, Runda, 2017A and 2017B
Notes:T1=manure;T2=manureandfertilisers;T3=manureandfertilisersandbiofertilisers;CASI=conservation agriculture-basedsustainableintensification.
SIMLESA378
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Figure20.3presentsmaizeyieldsunderCASIandtillageagricultureforonegrowingseason(2017B)inBugesera.ThefigureshowsthattherewasnosignificantdifferencebetweenCASIandtillageagriculture.AsignificantdifferencewasobservedbetweenT1andtherestoftreatments(T2andT3).ThissupportedtheideaofincludingfertiliseruseasafourthprincipleofCASI(Vanlauweetal.2014).ThesignificantimprovementofyieldswithfertiliserapplicationwasexplainedbythedepletedsoilsintheBugeserasite,whichrequiredamendmentsformaizeproduction.However,theeffectofbiofertiliserwasnotstaticallysignificant.Bugeseraproductionin2017AwasatotalfailureinbothCASIandtillageagricultureduetodrought.
Figure 20.3 Maize yield (cobs) in Bugesera, Gashora, 2017B
Notes:T1=manure;T2=manureandfertilisers;T3=manureandfertilisersandbiofertilisers;CASI=conservation agriculture-basedsustainableintensification.
Figure20.4presentsbeanyieldsunderCASIandtillageagriculturefortwogrowingseasons(2016Band2017B)inBugesera.ThefigureshowsthattherewasnosignificantdifferencebetweenCASIandtillageagriculture,orbetweentreatments.Beanproductionmighthavebeenlesssensitivetoinputsthanmaizebecausethecropwaslessnutrient-demanding(Roose&Ndayizigiye1997)andthesoilsofBugeseraweremorefertilecomparedtosoilsofRunda(Birasaetal.1990).
0
2
6
4
8
10
Mai
ze y
ield
(t/h
a)
12
14
T1 T2 T3
CASI Tillage agriculture
379SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 20
Figure 20.4 Bean yield in Bugesera, Gashora, 2016B and 2017B
Notes:T1=manure;T2=manureandfertilisers;T3=manureandfertilisersandbiofertilisers;CASI=conservation agriculture-basedsustainableintensification.
Figure20.5presentsmaizeyieldsunderCASIandtillageagricultureatCyuveforonegrowingseason(2017B).CASIwithmanurewasthebestoptioninCyuve.TherewasnosignificantdifferencebetweenCASIandtillageagriculture,orbetweentreatments.Therichvolcanicsoilsmayhaveprovidedadequatenutrientstosupportmaizeproduction.
0
2
6
4
8
10
Mai
ze y
ield
(t/h
a) 12
18
14
16
T1 T2 T3
CASI Tillage agriculture
0
0.5
1.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
3.5
Bean
yie
ld (t
/ha)
3.0
T1 T2 T3 T1 T3T2
2016B 2017B
CASI Tillage agriculture
Figure 20.5 Maize yield (cobs) in Musanze, Cyuve, 2017B
Notes:T1=manure;T2=manureandfertilisers;T3=manureandfertilisersandbiofertilisers;CASI=conservation agriculture-basedsustainableintensification.
SIMLESA380
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Figure20.6presentsmaizeyieldsunderCASIandtillageagriculturefortwogrowingseasons(2016Band2017B)atCyuve.In2016B,therewasasignificantdifferencebetweenCASIandtillageagriculture.MaizeyieldswerehigherundertillageagriculturecomparedtoCASI.OnepossibleexplanationisthatfarmerswerenotyetusedtoCASItechniques(mainlymulchingandweeding).Therewasnosignificantdifferencebetweentreatments.Thisisnormal,asthesoiloftheregionwasrichenoughtoprovideadequatenutrients tothecrop.ThisisconsistentwithRushemukaetal.(2014),whofoundthatfertilesoils inRwanda(pH >6.0)canproducegoodyieldwithmanureandwithoutanyfertiliser. Thebestoptionforthisseasonwastillageagriculturewithmanureonly.
Interestingly,theoutcomeswerereversedin2017B,whenthebestoptionwasCASIwithmanureonly.YieldswereconsistentlyhigherunderCASIcomparedtotillageagricultureacrossalltreatments,andthedifferencewassignificantinthemanuretreatment.ThisisconsistentwithpreviousstudiesthatfoundthatCASIbenefitsimproveovertimeassoilpropertiesimprove(Rodriguezetal.2017).Intillageagriculture,ontheotherhand,yieldsdeclinedovertimeasthesoilwasexposedtoadegradingtillage.However,fieldtrialsshowthatthebenefitsofmanurecouldbeminorwhenCASIispractisedandsoilorganiccarboncontentisgoodtosecureoptimumcropproduction.ThisisconsistentwithRushemuka,Bock&Mowo(2014),whoindicatedthatinRwanda2%ofsoilorganiccarbonisenoughforoptimumcropproduction,whenotherfactorsareprovided.
Figure 20.6 Bean yield in Musanze, Cyuve, 2016B and 2017B
Notes:T1=manure;T2=manureandfertilisers;T3=manureandfertilisersandbiofertilisers;CASI=conservation agriculture-basedsustainableintensification.
0
0.5
1.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
3.0
Bean
yie
ld (t
/ha)
3.5
4.0
T1 T2 T3 T1 T3T2
2016B 2017B
CASI Tillage agriculture
381SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 20
What was the impact?
Identified and addressed knowledge gapsThepracticeofCASItechniquesinRwandawasonlyintroducedatresearchstations(Kabirigietal.2017).TheSIMLESAon-farmexperimentsreportedinthispublicationareamongthefewknownexamplesofengagementwithsmallholderproducers.Evidencefromthisshort-termstudyshowthatCASIandtillageagriculturetendtoperformsimilarly.ThefactthatCASIrequireslesslabour,atleastinthelongrun,suggeststhatCASIcouldbemoreadvantageousforfarmers.Underfertilesoilconditions,yieldswerehigherundertillageagriculturecomparedtoCASIinthefirstseason;however,thesituationreversedthesecondseason.ThissuggeststhatthebenefitsofCASIoccurfasterinfertilesoilsthanininfertilesoils:CyuvewasmorefertilethanBugeseraandBugeserawasmorefertilethanRunda(Birasaetal.1990).
ThebenefitsofCASIalsodependonthemanagementofthefieldbythefarmer.Themoreengagedandinformedthefarmer,thebettertheresults.Ingeneral,withouttheuseofherbicides,thebenefitsofCASIbecameapparentinthethirdgrowingseason.Atthisstage,thefarmerswereproficientinCASItechniques,theeffectofmulchonsoilpropertieswassignificant,weedcontrolwasmanageableandthebenefitsoftillagecompletelydisappeared(Figure20.7).Beanswereplantedin2017B,aftermaizeharvestin2017A.Thisfieldwaspreparedtoreceiveseedswithouttillage,butwaterandadditionalmulchwereneeded.
Figure 20.7 A field under CASI after bean harvest at Cyuve
SIMLESA382
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
TheseencouragingresultscansupportscalinguptheadoptionofCASIproductionsystems.However,additionaleffortsarerequiredtopromoteadoption.OutreachandextensioncanhelpinformfarmersonCASIprinciples.FarmershadmanyquestionsandconcernswhentheywerefirstintroducedtoCASI,including:
• Isitpossibletogrowcropswithoutcultivation?
• Howarewegoingtomanagetheweeds?
• Wherearewegoingtofindmulch?
Itwasnotonlyfarmerswhowereanxious,butalsoextensionagents,policymakersandscientists.Ingeneral,therewaswidespreadscepticismaroundCASIintheabsenceofempiricalsupport,trainingandimplementation/demonstrations.
ThetwofirstprinciplesofCASIweremostchallenging:no-tillage/minimumsoildisturbanceandpermanentsoilcover.Theuncertaintyoverminimumsoildisturbancewasfundamentalindegradedlands,wherefarmershistoricallypractiseddeeptillage(30–50 cmdeep)touprootalltherootsofDigitaria abyssinica(Hochst.exA.Rich)Stapf(Urwiriinthelocallanguage),awidespreadweedinthemanydegradedsoilsofRwanda.InRwanda,mostweedingiseitherbyhoeorhand,soweedmanagementrequirescarefulconsiderationoflabouravailability,especiallyasthescaleofproductionincreases.
ThequestionaboutmulchingalsoneedstobeconsideredinthecontextofthesocioeconomicconditionsofRwanda.Insmalllandholdings,evencropresiduesareutilisedforothercompetitiveuseslikefodderandfuel.TheproblemofusingmulchforothercompetitivepurposesiscommoninthehighlypopulatedregionsofAfrica(Rodriguezetal.2017).
Community networks that support adoption of CASISIMLESARwandawasabletocreatethreecommunitynetworksfromwhichlarge-scaleextensioncanstart.ThenetworksweremadebyfarmerswhocollaboratedwithSIMLESAduringfieldstrialsandconvertedtheirlandsforlarge-scalepracticesofCASI.TheywereenthusiasticandactivelyencouragedtheirneighbourstoalsoadoptCASI.Neighbourinvolvementwasfacilitatedbyexposure,astheywereabletowatchCASIpracticesalongthegrowingseasonsinthefieldsoftheirneighbours.Theyweresurprisedtoseevigorouscropsunderconservationagriculture(Figures20.8and20.9)andconcludedthattheywereexpendingunnecessaryenergybypractisingtillageagriculture.
ItisinthisframeworkthatSIMLESAgeneratedinterestinCASIanddemandforCASIinputsinRunda,BugeseraandCyuve.Also,becauseSIMLESAtechnicianshaveexperiencedthebenefitsofconservationagriculture,theyagreedtoexperimentwithitsadoptioninGatsibo(easternRwanda),Huye,Nyanza,NyaruguruandNyamagabedistricts(southernRwanda).
383SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 20
Figure 20.8 A field of climbing beans grown under CASI (left) and tillage agriculture (right) plots, Cyuve, 2017B
Figure 20.9 A field of bush bean grown under CASI after a season of maize, Runda, 2017A
SIMLESA384
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
What should we do next?
Forthelarge-scalepromotionofCASIinRwanda,thenextprioritiescanbe:
1. mainstreamCASIinthelongandmidtermstrategicplanningdocumentsunderVision2050
2. developanddisseminateausermanualforCASI,adaptedforRwanda
3. developandimplementacapacity-buildingprogram
4. promoteCASI,withintegrationofagroforestryasaprinciplecomponent
5. promoteappropriateuseofotherinputs
6. etablisharesearchprogramorintegratedresearchthatseekstounderstandandprovidequantitativedataontheeffectofCASIonsoilnutrientdynamics,pestmanagementandcropyields.
Mainstreaming CASI in Vision 2050InRwanda,theagriculturedevelopmentofthenext30years,afterthe20yearsoftheMillenniumDevelopmentGoals,willbegovernedbyVision2050.ForanyprogramtostandachanceofbenefitingfromthepoliticalandfinancialsupportofthegovernmentofRwanda,itwillneedtobeincorporatedasanimportantprogramintothisstrategicdocument.Vision2050willbealignedtotheglobalpolicyframeworkoftheSustainableDevelopmentGoals.
Development of a detailed user manual for CASI, adapted for RwandaAswithanychange,themovefromtillageagriculturetoCASIcannottobetakenforgranted.Itneedstheoriesandpractice.Thismeansthatitneedstobesupportedbyatheoryofchange(Thorntonetal.2017).ThiswouldimplythatanysuccessfulintroductionofCASIshouldbecircumscribedinatheoryofintegratedsoilfertilitymanagementandbeaccompaniedbyadetaileduserguidemanualaboutCASIprinciplesandpractices,adaptedtoRwandanagroecologicalzones,soilsandsocioeconomiccontext.AnexampleisFarming for the future: a guide to conservation agriculture in Zimbabwe(edsHarford,LeBretonandOldrieve2009).
Development of an important and intensive capacity-building programFormanydecadesandduringmanygenerations,Rwanda’sscholarsandfarmershavebeenexposedtotillageagriculturediscourseandtillagepractice.Theyhavelearnedthisatschoolthroughmainstreamedcurriculum,inpractice,throughthemediaandinprofessionalcourses.Theentrenchednatureofthesepracticescanposechallengestotheadoptionofnewtechnologies.Thereisaneedtochangethismindsetatpolicy,academic,professionalandfarmerlevels.Atthepolicylevel,theprioritycanbetorunawareness-raisingconferencesadvocatingfortheCASImodel.Attheacademiclevel,theprioritycanbetomainstreamCASIintoacademiccurriculums.Attheprofessionallevel,thereisaneedforprofessionaltraining.Atthefarmerlevel,thereisaneedforfielddemonstrations.
385SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 20
Promotion of CASI through its integration with agroforestryThemainjustificationforcultivation/tillagepracticesisthecontrolandmanagementofweeds.OneentrypointforCASIadoptionisasaninnovativesolutionforweedcontrol.Theuseofherbicidesappearstobeasolution,atleastatthebeginning,tofulfiltheprincipleofminimumsoildisturbance.Itisexpectedthat,withtimeandimprovementofsoilproperties,fieldswillmovefromthehardweeds,characteristicofdegradedlands,tosofterandfewerweeds,characteristicoffertilesoilsandeasilyuprootedbyhand.Inthelongrun,thetrendwillbeforlessornouseofpesticidesandlessneedoftillagemechanisation.
Anotherentrypointistheavailabilityofacost-effectiveandpermanentsourceofmulchforpermanentsoilcover.Theuseofcropresiduesasmulchingmaterialsinconservationagriculture-basedfarmsfacesstrongcompetition,astheyarealsousedasfodderbycattlekeepers(Rodriguezetal.2017).Inthiscontext,theintegrationofCASIwithagroforestryappearstobeapriority(Figure20.10).Thesynergismbetweenagroforestry(e.g.apermanentsourceofmulch)andCASI(e.g.mulchandminimumsoildisturbance)isexpectedtocontinuallyenrichthesoilorganicmatterandimprovephysical,chemicalandbiologicalsoilproperties.Theimprovementofsoilpropertiescontributesefficientlytoenvironmentallyfriendlysoilerosioncontrolandreducestheneedfortillage.Theenrichmentofsoilsinorganicmatterincreasesthewateruseefficiencybycropsand,inthelongrun,increasessoilresiliencetodrought.Thisreducestheeffectofdroughtoncropsduringdryspells(Rockström2003).Soilorganicmatteralsoincreasesthesoilcationexchangecapacityandsuppliesadditionalnutrients,improvingcropnutrientuseefficiencyand,inthelongrun,reducingtheneedformineralfertilisers(Gill&Meelu1982).Byimprovingbiologicalsoilproperties,agroforestryandCASIempowercrophealth,reducingtheneedforpesticides.Forinstance,itwasrecentlyshownthatecologicalpracticessuchasintercroppingandCASIsignificantlyreducedthepopulationofthefallarmyworm(Spodoptera frugiperda(J.E.Smith))(Midegaetal.2018).
Figure 20.10 Agroforestry is potentially a permanent source of mulch for CASI systems
SIMLESA386
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Correct use of other inputs (varieties, fertilisers, lime and pesticide)Inadditiontotheconditionsdescribedabove,fertilisersandhigh-yieldingcropvarietiesmayconstituteimportantinputsforsustainableandproductiveagrosystems.However,theyneedtobeintroducedwithaclearunderstandingofthespecificbiophysicalenvironmentandsocioeconomiccontext(Rushemukaetal.2014).InthecontextofRwanda,themajorityofpotentialadopterswillalsopractiseagroforestryonnutrient-poorandacidicsoilsthatbenefitfromlimeandmanureamendments(Rushemuka&Bock2016).Whilethecountryhassufficientminesforlimestone,thelarge-scaleutilisationoflimeislimitedbythefactthattheminesarelocatedalongwayfromwherethelimeisneeded.Moreinvestmentintransportationisneeded.ItisexpectedthattheneedtosupplymanurewillbeovercomewiththeCASIsystem.
Ongoing research programsThemajorityofexistingagronomicresearchresultsthathavebeenwidelydisseminatedwereobtainedundertillageagriculturepractices.Conservationagriculture-relatedexperimentalresultsareinsufficient.Forinstance,theUnitedNations’FoodandAgricultureOrganizationrecognisesthatthereisalackofinformationontheimpactoftheintroductionofCASIonnutrientandwateruseefficiency,soilorganicmatterdynamics,controlofweedsandcropdiseaseandtheinteractionsbetweenthem.ResearchisneededtodevelopoptimalCASImanagementpracticesthatareadaptedtolocalneedsandconditions.Isotopictechniques(Nitrogen-15andCarbon-13)andothersoilsensorscanbeeffectivelyusedtotrackcarbon,waterandnutrientmovementandtheirdynamicsunderCASIindiverseagroecosystems.Likewise,CASIinRwandahasproducedmanybenefitsindifferentfieldsofsciencethatcouldconstituteinterestingfieldsofresearch.
Inflatareasofvolcanicregions,thereisnormallyaproblemofwaterlodging,whichnegativelyaffectscropgrowth.Usually,farmersmanagethisproblembyconstructingsoilridges.CASIhashadpositiveeffectsonsoildrainage/infiltration(Figure20.11).Theseeffectsonerosioncontrolandwateruseefficiencyneedtobequantifiedanddocumented.
Figure 20.11 Tillage agriculture and water lodging affected crop health (left); soil ridges for drainage (middle); CASI had a positive effect on soil drainage, water infiltration and plant vigour (right)
387SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 20
DuringSIMLESAfieldtrials,chickenswereobservedinCASIplots(Figure20.12)butwerenotobservedintillageagricultureplots.ThisisnottosuggestthatchickensshouldbeintegratedintoCASIsystems,butitisindicativethatCASIinducespositivedevelopmentofsoilinsects,earthwormsandmicro-organisms(bacteria,fungi,protozoa).Thissoilbiotaanditseffectsonvigourofcropsshouldalsobedocumented.
Figure 20.12 Chickens in maize plots are indicators of a good soil microbial activity under a soil conservation system at Runda (left) and Cyuve (right)
UnderCASI,crops(especiallymaize)showedexcellentvigourattheearlierstagebut, astheygrew,theyshowedsymptomsofnitrogenandphosphorus(Figure20.13)deficiencythatdidnotappearinsimilarplotsundertillageagriculture.ThissuggeststheneedforacarefulstudytounderstandthedynamicsofsoilnutrientsunderCASI.
Figure 20.13 Maize growth under CASI at Runda: very good maize growth at the beginning (left); nitrogen deficiency appearance at flowering (middle); phosphorus deficiency symptoms at maturity (right)
SIMLESA388
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Anotherimportantobservationofsustainabilityisthefactthatwhilemaizecropsintillageagriculturewereseverelyattackedbyfallarmyworm,theincidencewasminimalunderCASIplotsinthesamefields(Figure20.14).ThepositiveeffectsofCASIwereprobablyduetothepush–pulleffectofmulchanditsinteractionwithsoilmicro-organisms(Midegaetal.2018).ThisimpliesthatthereisroomfortestingCASIasanintegratedpestmanagementpractice.
Figure 20.14 Fall armyworms severely damaged maize under conventional agriculture (left); less damage from fall armyworm to maize under CASI (right)
389SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 20
ReferencesBirasa,EC,Bizimana,I,Boucaert,W,Deflandre,A,Chapelle,J,Gallez,A,Maesschalck,G&Vercruysse,J1990,
Carte Pedologique du Rwanda,MinistryofAgricultureandAnimalResources,Kigali,Rwanda.
Gill,HS&Meelu,OP1982,‘Studiesonthesubstitutionofinorganicfertilizerswithorganicmanureandtheireffectonsoilfertilityinrice—wheatrotation’,Fertilizer Research,vol.3,pp.303–314.
Harford,N,LeBreton,J&Oldrieve,B(eds)2009,Farming for the future—a guide to conservation agriculture in Zimbabwe,ZimbabweConservationAgricultureTaskForce.
Kabirigi,M,Ngetich,FK,Mwetu,KK,Rushemuka,P,Wasige,EJ,Ruganzu,VM&Nabahungu,NL2017,‘Implicationsoftillagepractices,managementofsoilsurfaceandfertilizerapplicationonsustainabledrylandagriculture:acasestudyofeasternRwanda’,African Journal of Agricultural Research,vol.12, no.31,pp.2524–2532.
MinistryofFinanceandEconomicPlanning2017,Vision 2050,MinistryofFinanceandEconomicPlanning,Kigali.
Rockström,J2003,‘Resiliencebuildingandwaterdemandmanagementfordroughtmitigation’,Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C,vol.28,no.20,pp.869–877.
Rodriguez,D,deVoil,P,Rufino,MC,Odendo,M&vanWijk,MT2017,‘Tomulchortomunch?Bigmodellingofbigdata’,Agricultural Systems,vol.153,pp.32–42.
Roose,E,Ndayizigiye,F1997,‘Agroforestry,waterandsoilfertilitymanagementtofighterosionintropicalmountainsofRwanda’, Soil Technology,vol.11,pp.109–119.
Rushemuka,NP&Bock,L2016,‘Tailoringsoilfertilitymanagementinputstospecificsoiltypes:casestudyofapotexperimentinRwanda’,Nature & Fauna Journal,vol.30,no.1.
Rushemuka,NP,Bizoza,RA,Mowo,JG&Bock,L2014,‘Farmers’soilknowledgeforeffectiveparticipatoryintegratedwatershedmanagementinRwanda:towardssoil-specificfertilitymanagementandfarmers’judgmentalfertilizeruse’,Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment,vol.183,pp.145–159.
Rushemuka,NP,Bock,L&Mowo,JG2014,‘SoilscienceandagriculturaldevelopmentinRwanda:exploringscientificfacts—a“review”’,Biotechnology, Agronomy, Society and Environment,vol.181,pp.142–154.
Thornton,PK,Schuetz,T,Förch,W,Cramer,L,Abreu,D,Vermeulen,S,Campbell,BM2017,‘Respondingtoglobalchange:atheoryofchangeapproachtomakingagriculturalresearchfordevelopment outcome-based’,Agricultural Systems,vol.152,pp.145–153.
Vanlauwe,B.Wendt,J.Gillerc,KE,Corbeels,M,Gerard,B&Nolte,C2014,‘Afourthprincipleisrequiredtodefineconservationagricultureinsub-SaharanAfrica:theappropriateuseoffertilizertoenhancecropproductivity’,Field Crops Research,vol.155,pp.10–13.
390
21 Lessons learned from country innovationsEric Craswell
Key points
• TheSIMLESAprojectengagedkeypolicymakersthroughaprogramsteeringcommitteethatsupportedthecountrycoordinatorsandprovidedpolicyadvice.
• Conservationagriculture-basedsustainableintensificationwasnurturedunderanenablingpolicyenvironment,particularlyinregardtothepriceofinputs.
• Interdisciplinarysystemapproachestoresearchprovidedthemosteffectiveapproach.
• Componenttechnologies,suchastheuseofherbicidestoreducetillage,fedintoinnovationplatformsthatprovidedafoundationforlarge-scaletransformationofagriculture.
• Oneofthekeystosuccesswasprivatesectorlinkagesthroughvaluechains,marketingofproduceandthesupplyofimprovedseeds.
• SIMLESAalsoprovidedvaluableinsightsintothesustainableintensificationofagricultureinnorthernAustraliabasedondiversifiedfarmingsystemsandsourcesofincomeinachangingclimate.
391SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 21
Introduction
FivecountriesineasternandsouthernAfrica,withthecooperationofAustraliaandseveralspilloverAfricancountries,collaboratedintheSIMLESAproject(Table21.1).LedbytheInternationalMaizeandWheatImprovementCenter(CIMMYT)andsupportedbyACIAR,organisationsineightcountriesofeasternandsouthernAfrica,andAustralia,collaboratedforeightyearsinresearchtodesign,testandscaleouttechnologiesforthesustainableintensificationofagriculture.SIMLESAactivitiesoccurredintwophases:2010–13and2014–18.
Table 21.1 Participating countries and institutions
Country Lead institution SIMLESA country coordinator
Ethiopia EthiopianInstituteofAgriculturalResearch
DrBedruAbdi
Kenya KenyaAgriculturalandLivestockResearchOrganization
CharlesNkonge
Tanzania DepartmentofResearchandDevelopment
DrJohnSariah
Malawi DepartmentofAgriculturalResearchServices
GraceTimanyechiMunthali
Mozambique InstitutodeInvestigaçãoAgráriadeMoçambique
DiasDomingos
Rwanda* RwandaAgricultureBoard DrPascalRushemuka
Uganda* NationalAgriculturalResearchOrganization
DrDrakeNMubiru
Botswana* DepartmentofAgriculturalResearch MrsMGRamokapane
Australia QueenslandAllianceforAgricultureandFoodInnovation
DrDRodriguez
*Spillovercountries
Theprinciplesofconservationagriculture-basedsustainableintensification(CASI)—retaincropresidues,minimisetillageandrotatecrops—underpinnedtheresearchanddevelopmentapproachesofalltheorganisations.ThestepwiseortransformationalnatureofsustainableintensificationtechnologyadoptionwasacentraltopicacrossallthecountriesintheSIMLESAprogram(Dimes,Rodriguez&Potgieter2015).TheCASIprinciplesprovidedtheframeworkforthestepwiseprojectactivities(Figure21.1).
ThischapterdrawsfromtherichtapestryofSIMLESAexperiencesinthepartnercountriesthathasbeencapturedinthepreviouschaptersinthisbook.Itwillhighlightthemainlessonslearnedfromtheproject.Additionalsourcematerialforthischapterincludesthematerialpresentedbycountryrepresentativesinthefinalreviewmeetingandoutcomesofannualdeliberationsoftheprogramsteeringcommittee,whichengagedresearchleadersfromtheparticipatingcountries,regionalorganisationsaswellasCIMMYTandACIARstaff.
SIMLESA392
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Figure 21.1 Stepwise SIMLESA activities to promote CASI technologies
Notes:CASI=conservationagriculture-basedsustainableintensification;IP=Innovationplatforms;CGS=CompetitiveGrantsScheme
What did we learn?
Themajorityofthelessonslearned,asdiscussedbelow,derivefromtheexperienceoftheAfricancountriesinvolvedinSIMLESA.However,theAustralianexperienceisalsonotedbasedontheimportanceofreturnsoninvestmentfrominternationalagriculturaldevelopmentinitiatives,forexample,theDoingWellbyDoingGoodapproachadvocatedbyACIAR(Blight,Craswell&Mullen2014).
Project designTheprojectdesigntreatedtheprogramsteeringcommitteeasadistinctentitywithuniquefunctions.Majorprojectachievementsemergedoutofoperationsbytheprogramsteeringcommittee.ThecommitteemembersattendingtheannualmeetingsshowedtheirownershipoftheprojectthroughoutcommitteedeliberationswheretheyprovidedstrategicandtechnicaladviceandrecommendationstoACIAR.Thishigh-levelsupportfromwithinthecountriesprovidedSIMLESAcountrycoordinatorswithbackingfortheiractivitiesaswellasadirectpipelinetopolicymakers.Aprogrammanagementcommitteeeffectivelyhandledthemoreroutinemanagementissues.
• Identification of CASI options relevant to target agro-ecologies in each country
• Establishmentofon-stationandon-farmexploratorytrials
• Initiation of innovation platforms and partnerships for scaling• Midtermreview• Realisationoftheneedforsmartsequencingoftechnologies
• Scalable options rolled out• IncreasedscalingoutthroughIPsandpartnerships• EndofPhase1• Increasedemphasisonsustainability
• Accelerated scaling through CGS partnerships• Reducedemphasisonconventionalresearch• Someeffortsoncrop–livestockintegrationandsoilqualitystudies
2010-12
2012
2013-14
2015-17
393SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 21
Research paradigmResearchersfromacrossalltheSIMLESAcountriesidentifiedthefollowingcommonlessons:
• ThequestionsofinteresttoSIMLESArequiredsystemicresearchbasedonanunderstandingofmultipledisciplinesandhowtheyrelate.
• Thekeydeterminantoftheperformanceandsuccessfuladoptionofconservationagriculture-basedsustainableintensification(CASI)wasthesuitabilityofthetechnologyforthebiophysicalenvironment(soilsandclimate).
• SIMLESAparticipantsfoundthatthemosteffectiveapproachtosustainableintensificationwastodelineatetheagroecologiesthatwouldbenefitfromCASIandidentifythepracticesthatwouldbestbenefitsmallholdersinthecountries.
• ThekeyentrypointforCASIunderSIMLESAwastheimprovementofsoilorganiccarbonanditseffectsonsoilphysicalandbiologicalproperties.
• Theapproachofpromotingmanytechnologiesallowedfarmerstoadoptabasketoftechnologiesthatwasmostsuitabletotheiruniqueenvironment,risklevelsandgoals.
• OngoingresearchanddataanalysisisnecessaryforidentifyingemergingissuesandpromotionofthemostpromisingCASItechnologies.
Component technologiesExploratoryon-stationandon-farmtrialsprovidedthefollowinglessonsthatfedintothedeliberationsofinnovationplatforms:
• Herbicideapplicationobviatedtheuseoftractorordraughtanimalsforweedcontrol,whichminimisedgreenhousegasemissions.
• Residueretentionincreasedsoilcarbon.
• SoilbulkdensitydecreasedwithCASI.
• SoilorganiccarbonmarginallyincreasedwithCASIintheshorttimeframeoftheSIMLESAprogramatarateofincreasethatwaslikelytoproducesignificantchangeoveralongertimeframe.
InputsSustainableintensificationrequiredexternalinputstoaccountfortheincreasedharvests:
• Investmentsininputs,includingseedsandagrochemicals,wasoftenprohibitivelycostlyandunprofitableforthelargeproportionoffarmerswithverylowlevelsofexpendableincomewhosoldproduceatlowprices(extremelylowmaizeprices=$US0.083/kg).
• Increaseddemandforimprovedseedswasassociatedwithfrequentshortagesofdesiredvarieties(e.g.Embean14).
• UseoffertiliserwasakeyelementinCASItoredresssoilfertilitydecline.
• ThegreatestbenefitsofCASIoccurredwhenfarmersappliedseveralinputs(lime,fertilisersandgood-qualityseeds)incombination.
• Opengrazingreducedthebenefitsofresidueretentionforsoilqualityoutcomes.
SIMLESA394
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Input and product markets• Farmersdidnothavereliablemarketstoselltheproductiongainsfromintensification.
• Spatialandtemporalvariabilityinsalesandadhocnegotiationsreducedthecertainlyofreturnsfromproductionwhilemarketingmodelsthatintegratedfarmersinvaluechainsincreasedcertainlyofreturnsfromproduction.
• UnreliablemarketsforinputslikenewseedvarietiesandbasicCASIequipmentandherbicidespromptedsomeSIMLESAfarmerstobecomeagrodealers.
• Thinmarketsandlowpricesweremostlikelyatharvesttime.
Innovation platformsContactwithstakeholderscanbeeffectivelyestablishedthroughinnovationplatforms(Table21.2):
• Agriculturalinnovationplatformscouldbesupportedthroughexchangevisitswithothersuccessfulplatforms.
• Agriculturalinnovationplatformsprovidedalinkforfarmerstofinancialinstitutions.
• Technicalserviceunitmodelsfacilitatedinnovationinagriculturalinnovationplatforms.
• Therewasaneedforinnovativeinstitutionalarrangementandpolicyalignmenttotransformagriculture.
• Agriculturalinnovationplatformswereagoodframeworktotackletheproblemsoftheagriculturesectorandforlarge-scaletransformationofagriculture.
• Mechanisationserviceproviders(spraying,rippingandshelling)workedeffectivelythroughinnovationplatforms.
Table 21.2 Agricultural innovation platforms established under SIMLESA
Country No. of sites
No. of agricultural innovation platforms
Levels of agricultural innovation platforms
Ethiopia 7 19 Woreda(District)/Community
Kenya 5 13 District/Community
Tanzania 5 10 District/Community
Malawi 6 6 District/Community
Mozambique 4 4 District/Community
Rwanda 4 4 Sector
Uganda 2 2 District
Total 33 58
395SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 21
Public–private partnershipsBoththepublicandtheprivatesectorenabledadoptionofCASItechnologies:
• Public–privatepartnershipsfacilitatedadoptionofCASItechnologies.
• Businessmodelanalysisrevealedthatprivateentrepreneurshiphadpotentialtocontributesignificantlytotheadoptionandscalingofresearchtechnologies.
Labour inputsIntensificationinvolvedenhancedlabourproductivity:
• Initiatives,suchasthoseoftheAgriculturalProductivityProgramforSouthernAfrica-Mechanization(APPSA-MEC),workedinparallelwithSIMLESAtoreducelabour-relatedchallenges.
• Resourceconservationincreasedaslabourcostsdeclined.
Constraints to productionProductionwaslimitedbyawiderangeoffactors:
• Uncertaindryspells,floodevents,diseasesandpestoutbreaksincreasedproductionrisks.
• Maizediseaseswerewidespread(e.g.maizelethalnecrosisdisease).
• Fallarmywormwasamajorpest.
• Strigaweedpresentedamajorchallengetomanyfarmers.
• Competingusesofcropresidue(e.g.firewoodforenergyandfeedforlivestock)acrossfarmingactivitieslimitedadoptionoftheCASIpracticeofprotectingthesoilsurfacewithcropresidues.
• Althoughayieldgapwasapparentformanyfarmers,constraintstobeanproductionwerenotidentified.
Extension/communicationsMultipleformsofmediawereusedtoachievewidespreadcommunicationofCASIbenefits:
• Thedisseminationmaterialsthatwereproducedincludedjournals,proceedingsandextensionmaterials.
• Theprojectintroducedtechnicalserviceunitsandagriculturalinnovationplatformstoengagedirectlywithendusers.
• Identifyingandimplementingaknowledgemanagementsystemthatsuitedalluserswasanongoingchallenge.
SIMLESA396
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Policy engagementAnenablingpolicyenvironmentatthenationalandregionallevelswasneededto supportCASI:
• PolicyreformswererequiredtounderpinandenhanceallaspectsofCASI.
• Communicatingresearchresultstopolicymakersinvolvedrecastingfindingsinapoliticalcontextthatwasinitiallyunfamiliartosomeresearchers.
• PolicyrecommendationsthatenhanceinputaccessweremadetopromoteCASI.
• PricereliefthroughliftingofsometaxesinagriculturalinputswasshowntoincreasetheaffordabilityofCASItechnologies.
• Thearrivalofgovernment-subsidisedfertiliserstoolateintheplantingseasonwasafrequentprobleminsomeareas.
• Regionalpoliciesforthebulkpurchaseoffertiliserreducedthepriceoffertiliserbyalmost40%.
MechanisationMechanisationwasneededtoovercometheshortageofpowerasagricultureintensified:
• Zeroorfurrowtillageresultedinhighersoilmoistureforcrops,whichwasespeciallybeneficialinlowrainfallareas.
• Nosingleformofmechanisationwasidentified(animaltraction,two-andfour-wheeltractors)thatwouldsuitallofthediverseproductionsettingsandfarmerconditions.
• TechnologiespromotedbySIMLESAwereincorporatedintoagriculturaldevelopmentframeworksandmainstreamedintonationalagendas(e.g.MtandaowaVikundivyaWakulimaTanzania,thenationalfarmersorganisationofTanzania).
Competitive grants schemeAprogramofcompetitivegrantsschemes(Table21.3)enhancedthescalingoutof CASItechnologies:
• Withoutscaling-outpartnersSIMLESAtookfourseasonstoreach78communitiesbutunderthecompetitivegrantsschemeittookthreepartnersoneseasontoreachalmostthesamenumberofcommunities(64).
• Constantengagement,hands-ontraining,exposuretotechnologies,andtoolsandimplementsalongthecommodityvaluechainsstrengthenedandmadefarmergroupsmorecoherent.
• Backstoppingscaling-outpartnerswasakeytosuccess.
397SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 21
Post-harvestThesaleofmarketablesurplusesreliedonpost-harvesttransportandstorageoperations:
• Limitedaccesstosuitableimplementsoftendelayedpeanutshelling.
• Maizestoragecribsreducedpost-harvestlossesandprovidedfarmerswithawidersellingwindowforhighersalesprices.
Capacity buildingCapacitybuildingoccurredacrossallcountriesatalllevelsoftheSIMLESAprogram:
• Atthefarmerlevel,SIMLESAtargetedmen,womenandyouth.
• Atthefieldextensionworkerlevel,SIMLESAtargetedbothmenandwomen.
• Atthescientiststafflevel,SIMLESAtargetedyoungscientists.
Australian lessons learned• Sustainableintensificationofagricultureshowedgreatpotentialforproductioninthe
semi-aridtropicsofQueensland.
• Sustainableintensificationofagriculturewasabletobridgeyieldgapsandincreaseproductionefficienciesindrylandcroppingsystems.
• Investmentintransformativechangestotheagriculturesector(e.g.infrastructure)showedgreatpotentialtogenerateopportunitiestodiversifyfarmers’incomeundertheclimatechangescenariospredictedforAustralia.
SIMLESA398
SECTION 3: Highlights from country initiatives
Tabl
e 21
.3
Sele
cted
par
tner
s in
eac
h co
untr
y
Coun
try
Farm
er a
ssoc
iati
onIn
form
atio
n an
d co
mm
unic
atio
ns
tech
nolo
gy
Non
-go
vern
men
t or
gani
sati
on
Med
iaSe
edU
nive
rsit
yCh
urch
or
gani
sati
onLe
vel
Kenya
Second
arypa
rtne
rsesp.A
IPSecond
arypa
rtne
rs:
QAA
FI,M
ediaeLtd
Med
iaeLtd
Freshco
Seed
Co.
Egerton
NCC
KCo
unty
Malaw
iNAS
FAM
Second
arypa
rtne
rs:
QAA
FI,FRT
Farm
Rad
io
Trust
Nationa
l
Mozam
biqu
eUCA
MA
ISPM
,QAA
FIAg
riMercODS
ISPM
Second
ary
partne
rsISPM
Nationa
l
Tanzan
iaMVIWAT
ASecond
arypa
rtne
rs:
QAA
FI,CAB
IRE
CODA
Second
ary
partne
rSA
TEC
Second
ary
partne
r:
Sokoine
University
Nationa
l
Ethiop
ia
Sevenscaling-ou
tpartners
(EastS
hewa,EastW
ollega,
Had
iya,Sidam
a,W
estA
rsi,West
Gojjamand
WestS
hewa)were
commission
edbecau
seofthe
ir
streng
thsinexten
sion
work.
Notes:FRT
=FarmRad
ioTrust;ISP
M-Institu
toSup
eriorPo
litécnicodeMan
ica;N
CCK=
Nationa
lCou
ncilofChu
rche
sKe
nya;ODS=Su
staina
blede
velopm
entg
oals;R
ECODA=Re
search,Com
mun
ityand
Organ
isationa
lDevelop
men
tOrgan
isation;QAA
FI=Que
enslan
dAllianceforAg
ricultu
reand
Foo
dInno
vatio
n;SAT
EC=Sub
aAg
roTrading
and
Eng
ineering
Co.Ltd.
399SIMLESASIMLESA
CHAPTER 21
ReferencesBlight,DG,Craswell,ET&Mullen,JD2013,Doing well by doing good: international agricultural research—how it
benefits Australia as well as developing countries,ReportoftheCrawfordFundDoingWellbyDoingGoodTaskForce,CrawfordFund.
Dimes,J,Rodriguez,D&Potgieter,A2015,‘Raisingproductivityofmaize-basedcroppingsystemsineasternandsouthernAfrica:step-wiseintensificationoptions’,inVOSadras,DFCalderini(eds),Crop physiology: applications for genetic improvement and agronomy,AcademicPress,Amsterdam,pp.93–110.
Top Related