Developing Conservation Agriculture in Maize - Legume Systems for Smallholder Farmers in Zambia

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Developing Conservation Agriculture in Maize - Legume Systems for Smallholder Farmers in Zambia"

Valentine Rose
5 years ago
Views:

1 Developing Conservation Agriculture in Maize - Legume Systems for Smallholder Farmers in Zambia By K. Chisanga, N. Kafwamfwa, P. Hamazakaza, M. Mulundu, J. Sinyangwe & O. Lungu Zambia Agriculture Research Institute (ZARI) Presentation Made at the 4 th Global Science Conference on Climate Smart Agriculture, Johannesburg RSA 28 th November 2017

2 Project Implementing Partners Zambia Agriculture Research Institute University of Zambia Department of Agriculture Partner organization's (Malawi/Mozambique) 2

3 Organization of the Talk Brief Introduction Overall Project Objective Specific Objectives Methodology Data Collection and Analysis Results and Discussion Lessons Learnt Conclusions: Key messages for Research, Development and Policy 3

4 Brief Introduction (1) Poor soil fertility and land degradation- major limitations to food security in sub-saharan Africa Rural poverty and the environment in developing countries linked as a downward spiral by many Population growth Economic marginalization Climatic variability and change leading to environmental degradation Rural poor - more vulnerable to such a downward spiral due to limited access to inputs to improve soil productivity

5 Brief Introduction (2) Although CA was introduced to Southern African countries a couple of decades ago; Adoption in smallholder agriculture in the region remains low Mozambique, Malawi and Zambia witnessing severe degradation to its farmlands E.g spreading of crop residues as soil surface mulch is a challenge in Zambia (Umar et al., 2011) Project targeted smallholder farmers (>500), operating in Monze, Mpongwe and Chipata districts in Zambia

6 Overall Goal of the Project To contribute to increased household food security of smallholder farmers in Zambia and enhance their livelihoods while conserving and improving the natural resource base dedicated to agriculture Specific Objectives 1) To document maize and legume production constraints and opportunities for introducing legumes in maize based systems in Malawi, Mozambique and Zambia 2) To develop and validate best CA practices that will reduce risk in smallholder farming systems 3) To quantify cost-benefit analysis of maize-legume based CA systems that reduce production risk 6 4) To build capacity of farmers, extension workers and other partners in implementing CA oriented technologies

7 Study Sites: Methodology (1) Mpongwe Chipata Monze Figure 1: Map of Zambia Figure 2: Map of Africa Showing Zambia Location (In Green)

8 Methodology (2) Survey: Research started with data collection through a baseline survey in target provinces Field Experiments: 18 field experiments for maize intercropped or in rotation with, soybean, cowpea and pigeon pea and groundnuts Established across three provinces; southern, Copperbelt and Eastern Zambia 6 sites were installed in each region Sites were characterized with a 0-20cm depth composite sample/block Analysed for initial soil status (N, P, K, ph, Org.C, Mg, Ca, CEC)

9 Methodology (3) Plot dimensions: 10m (length) x 7.5m (width) Plot Area: 75m 2 Block length: 67m Paths 1m in between the plots Total Area: 67m x 32m = 2144m 2 Tillage system: Ripping Spacing for maize per station 25cm Spacing for maize per row 75cm Cowpea & soybean row spacing 50cm, while groundnuts 60cm (Planted a week after maize crop) Pigeon pea row spacing 75cm Plant to plant spacing 20cm Design: RCBD (3reps) 8 Treatments

10 Plot Monze Site Mpongwe Site Chipata Site T1 T2 T3 Pigeon pea + Maize +Recommended fertilizer (intercropped) Pigeon pea + Maize + D Compound fertilizer only (intercropped); Pigeon pea + Maize + Half rate recommended fertilizer (intercropped); T4 Cowpea + Maize + Recommended fertilizer (intercropped); T5 T6 Table 1: Treatment Combination across Trial Sites Cowpea + Maize + D Compound fertilizer only (intercropped); Cowpea + Maize + Half rate recommended fertilizer (intercropped); Pigeon pea + Maize +Recommended fertilizer (intercropped) Pigeon pea + Maize + D Compound fertilizer only (intercropped); Pigeon pea + Maize + Half rate recommended fertilizer (intercropped); Soybeans + Maize + Recommended fertilizer (intercropped); Soybeans + Maize + D Compound fertilizer only (intercropped); Soybeans + Maize + Half rate recommended fertilizer (intercropped); Pigeon pea + Maize +Recommended fertilizer (intercropped) Pigeon pea + Maize + D Compound fertilizer only (intercropped); Pigeon pea + Maize + Half rate recommended fertilizer (intercropped); Groundnuts + Maize + Recommended fertilizer (intercropped); Groundnuts + Maize + D Compound fertilizer only (intercropped); Groundnuts + Maize + Half rate recommended fertilizer (intercropped); T7 Maize/cowpea (rotation) Maize/Soybeans (rotation) Maize/Groundnuts (rotation) T8 Farmer practice Farmer practice Farmer practice Note: In Zambia fertilizer recommendation is 200kg/ha basal and 200kg/ha Top dressing 10

11 Figure 3: Experimental Layout 7.5m 1m 10m T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 BLOCK I 1m T4 T5 T1 T3 T8 T7 T2 T6 BLOCK II T6 T2 T8 T1 T3 T5 T7 T4 BLOCK III 32m 67m 11

12 Data Collection & Analysis Maize Grain & Legumes Yield Grain from net plots was weighed using a digital scale and moisture content measured immediately to correct the yield to 12.5% and 9% moisture respectively GEN Stat 14 th edition applied for yield analysis Financial analysis Revenue per hectare Net return per hectare - based on the domestic maize price series and the variable costs of each treatment Computations using Excel carried out for Gross Margins Analysis

13 Table 2: Results and Discussion Baseline Soil Characteristics Site Depth ph P-ppm % Org. Ca-ppm Mg-ppm N-ppm K-ppm CEC % N Number (cm) C cm cm cm cm < cm cm Mpongwe Site cm cm cm cm cm cm Monze Site cm cm cm cm cm Guide to soil test data interpretations 13 N (%) < 0.1 very low; P (%) < 10 very low; K (%) < 15 very low; Soil ph < 4.5 strongly acid

Satellite Image Analysis of Rainfall Performance during the Trial Period across the Research sites 2014/15 Season Fig 4: By 31 st January 2015 Monze site had satisfactory moisture levels (50-90%) to

14 Satellite Image Analysis of Rainfall Performance during the Trial Period across the Research sites 2014/15 Season Fig 4: By 31 st January 2015 Monze site had satisfactory moisture levels (50-90%) to support crop growth while Mpongwe and Chipata site recorded sufficient moisture levels (60-100%) Fig 5: By 10 th March 2015, soil water index for Monze and Chipata sites show that the trials were stressed with water levels being 10-50% in comparison to Mpongwe which had satisfactory moisture levels of %

15 Satellite Image Analysis of Rainfall Performance during the Trial Period across the Research sites 2015/16 Season Zambia Soil Water Index for maize in 2015/16 as at 31st Jan 2016 Zambia Soil Water Index for maize in 2015/16 as at 31st March 2016 Fig 6: By 31 st January 2016 Monze and Chipata sites had satisfactory moisture levels (50-90%) to support crop growth while Mpongwe site recorded sufficient moisture levels (90-100%) Fig 7: By 31st March 2016, soil water index for Monze site show that the trials were stressed with water levels being 10-50% in comparison to Mpongwe and Chipata which had satisfactory moisture levels of 50-90% 15

16 Results and Discussions Table 3: Comparison of Yield Results in Monze Site for Two Seasons Treatments 2014/15 Season 2015/16 Season Monze Site Maize (kg/ha) Stover (kg/ha) Maize (kg/ha) Stover (kg/ha) (T1) PP + M + FRF (T2) PP + M + D Comp (T3) PP + M HRF (T4) CP + M FRF (T5) CP + M + D Comp (T6) CP + M HRF (T7) M/CP ROT (T8) FP Mean C.V LSD (0.05) Note: PP Pigeon pea; FRF Full rate fertilizer; M Maize; D Comp D Compound; HRF Half rate fertilizer; CP Cowpea; GN 16Groundnut; ROT Rotation, SB Soybeans

17 Table 4: Comparison of Yield Results in Mpongwe site for Two Seasons Treatments 2014/15 Season 2015/16 Season Mpongwe Site Maize (kg/ha) Stover (kg/ha) Maize (kg/ha) Stover (kg/ha) (T1) PP + M + FRF (T2) PP + M + D Comp (T3) PP + M HRF (T4) SB + M FRF (T5) SB + M + D Comp (T6) SB + M HRF (T7) M/SB ROT (T8) FP Mean C.V LSD (0.05)

18 Table 5: Comparison of Yield Results in Chipata Site for Two Seasons Treatments 2014/15 Season 2015/16 Season Chipata Site Maize (kg/ha) Stover (kg/ha) Maize (kg/ha) Stover (kg/ha) (T1) PP + M + FRF (T2) PP + M + D Comp (T3) PP + M + HRF (T4) GN + M + FRF (T5) GN + M + D Comp (T6) GN + M + HRF (T7) M/GN ROT (T8) FP Mean C.V LSD (0.05)

19 Table 6: Summary Results of Yield (kg/ha) across three sites for 2014/15 Season Treatments Chipata Monze Mpongwe (T1) PP + M + FRF (T2) PP + M + D Comp (T3) PP + M + HRF (T4) GN + M + FRF (T5) GN + M + D Comp (T6) GN + M + HRF (T7) M/GN ROT (T8) FP Mean C.V LSD (0.05) Fpr <

20 Table 7: Summary Results of Yield (kg/ha) across three sites for 2015/16 Season Treatments Chipata Monze Mpongwe (T1) PP + M + FRF (T2) PP + M + D Comp (T3) PP + M + HRF (T4) GN + M + FRF (T5) GN + M + D Comp (T6) GN + M + HRF (T7) M/GN ROT (T8) FP Mean C.V LSD (0.05) Fpr <

21 Figure 8: Graphical comparison of mean maize yield results across sites (kg/ha) for two seasons; 2014/15 and 2015/ Chipata Monze Mpongwe 2014/ /16 21

intercrops (Mead and Willey, 1980) LER = Harvested Maize Samples yi yield of ith component from area

22 Land Equivalent Ratio (LER) Indicator to measure efficacy of intercropping (Brintha and Seran, 2009) Standardized Index defined as relative area required by sole crops to produce the same yield as intercrops (Mead and Willey, 1980) LER = Harvested Maize Samples yi yield of ith component from area of intercrop yii yield of same grown as sole crop over same area yi/yii is the relative yield of component i 22

23 Table 8: LER of Crops grown alone and mixed with each other at different fertilizer rates Crop Stands With full rate fert (200kg/ha) With Basal Fert (200kg/ha) With Half rate Fert (100kg/ha) 2014/ / / / / /16 CP + M + FRF CP+M+ D Comp CP + M + HRF Sole Crops SB + M + FRF SB+M+ D Comp SB + M + HRF GN + M + FRF GN+M+ D Comp GN + M + HRF Mean Note: When LER < 1 no production advantage, LER=1 no additional production advantage for mixed culture, LER>1 there is advantage

24 Table 9: Gross Margins Analysis for Monze Site 2014/15 Season Treatment Maize Grain Yield (kgha-1) Gross Benefits (USD) Fertilizer Cost (USD) Seed Cost (USD) Labour Cost (USD) Maize Net Income Maize grain yield response kg/kg fertilizer applied (T1) Pigeon pea + Maize +Recommended fertilizer (intercropped) (T2) Pigeon pea + Maize + D Compound fertilizer only (intercropped) (T3) Pigeon pea + Maize + Half rate recommended fertilizer (intercropped) (T4) Cowpea + Maize + Recommended fertilizer (intercropped) (T5) Cowpea + Maize + D Compound fertilizer only (intercropped) (T6) Cowpea + Maize + Half rate recommended fertilizer (intercropped) (T7) Maize/cowpea (rotation) (T8) practice Farmer

25 Table: 10 Gross Margins Analysis for Mpongwe Site 2014/15 Season Treatment (T1) Pigeon pea + Maize +Recommended fertilizer (intercropped) (T2) Pigeon pea + Maize + D Compound fertilizer only (intercropped) (T3) Pigeon pea + Maize + Half rate recommended fertilizer (intercropped) (T4) Soybeans + Maize + Recommended fertilizer (intercropped) (T5) Soybeans + Maize + D Compound fertilizer only (intercropped) (T6) Soybeans + Maize + Half rate recommended fertilizer (intercropped) (T7) Maize/Soybeans (rotation) (T8) practice Farmer Maize Grain Yield (kgha-1) Gross Benefits (USD) Fertilizer Cost (USD) Seed Cost (USD) Labour Cost (USD) Maize Net Income Maize grain yield response kg/kg fertilizer applied

26 Treatment Table: 11 Gross Margins Analysis for Chipata Site 2014/15 Season Maize Grain Yield (kgha-1) Gross Benefits (USD) Fertilizer Cost (USD) Seed Cost (USD) Labour Cost (USD) Maize Net Income Maize grain yield response kg/kg fertilizer applied (T1) Pigeon pea + Maize +Recommended fertilizer (intercropped) (T2) Pigeon pea + Maize + D Compound fertilizer only (intercropped) (T3) Pigeon pea + Maize + Half rate recommended fertilizer (intercropped) (T4) Groundnuts + Maize + Recommended fertilizer (intercropped) (T5) Groundnuts + Maize + D Compound fertilizer only (intercropped) (T6) Groundnuts + Maize + Half rate recommended fertilizer (intercropped) (T7) Maize/Groundnuts (rotation) (T8) practice Farmer

27 Yield Response kg/kg fertilizer Figure 9: Maize Grain Response to Treatments 2014/15 Season (T1) PP + M + FRF (T2) PP + M + D Comp (T3) PP + M + HRF (T4) GN + M + FRF (T5) GN + M + D Comp (T6) GN + M + HRF 27 (T7) M/GN ROT (T8) FP Chipata Monze Mpongwe

28 TABLE 12:COWPEA, SOYBEANS AND GROUNDNUTS YIELDS ACROSS RESEARCH SITES 2014/15 Season Treatments Cowpea yield kg/ha (Monze) Soybeans yield kg/ha (Mpongwe) Groundnut yield kg/ha (Chipata) (T4) CP + M + FRF (T5) CP + M + D Comp (T6) CP + M + HRF (T7) M/CP ROT (T4) SB + M + FRF 4512 (T5) SB + M + D 4638 Comp (T6) SB + M + HRF 4365 (T7) M/SB ROT 4665 (T4) GN + M + FRF 229 (T5) GN + M + D 285 Comp (T6) GN + M + HRF 355 (T7) M/GN ROT 733 MEAN C.V LSD (0.05)

29 TABLE 13:COWPEA, SOYBEANS AND GROUNDNUTS YIELDS ACROSS RESEARCH SITES 2015/16 Season Treatments Cowpea yield kg/ha (Monze) Soybeans yield kg/ha (Mpongwe) Groundnut yield kg/ha (Chipata) (T4) CP + M + FRF 175 (T5) CP + M + D 243 Comp (T6) CP + M + HRF 281 (T7) M/CP ROT 902 (T4) SB + M + FRF 3098 (T5) SB + M + D 3465 Comp (T6) SB + M + HRF 3524 (T7) M/SB ROT 4000 (T4) GN + M + FRF 51.8 (T5) GN + M + D 72.6 Comp (T6) GN + M + HRF 73.0 (T7) M/GN ROT MEAN C.V LSD (0.05)

30 Lessons Learnt (1) Technical Learnings based on the experiences of beneficiaries which could be critical to policy development point to the following: Intercropping is beneficial especially where land pressure is an issue, one can harvest two crops from the same piece of land Farmers also noted that they were not practicing intercropping, as at one time they were only encouraged to grow pure stands of Maize by extension department. This implies that institutional collaboration is key for organizations promoting CA practices in order to ensure same message is received by the beneficiaries 30

31 Lessons Learnt (2) Farmers wanted to understand the management of pigeon pea tree legume as they perceived that the shrub would interfere with maize crop development Aspects of food security at small holder level is associated with availability of maize in Zambia, the staple food, thus introducing any technology which excludes maize may not be feasible 31

32 Conclusions: Key messages for research, development and Policy (1) Results in this trial revealed that intercropping of maize and cowpea with application of basal 200kg/ha produced better maize yields (4.5t/ha) than with groundnuts and soybeans (1.6t/ha and 3.2t/ha respectively) For CA oriented technologies to be taken up by farmers in Zambia, there is a need to strengthen the research, extension and farmer linkages through information sharing and involvement of partners throughout the research implementation Continuous professional development of extension staff on new agriculture technologies is key 32

33 Conclusions: Key messages for research, development and Policy (2) In addition involvement of allied departments like Meteorology in weather information would be key for farmers to make informed decision as to when they would plant their crops based on accessed weather information Possibly the weather information could also be translated in local language for easy understanding and assimilation of the prevailing weather pattern 33

host project with ditrict policy makers, Chipata, Nov 2014

34 Photo Focus of some Research Activities during Implementation; 2014/15 Season Discussing the sites to host project with ditrict policy makers, Chipata, Nov 2014 Farmers and Camp officer participate in site selection, Chipata, Nov 2014

35 Land Preps and Planting in Mpongwe site

36 Farmer with family (left) participate in planting CA trial in Monze site, Dec Right Co-PI talking to the host farmer and traditional leader after planting, Dec 2014 Planting Operations Engagement with Traditional Leaders is crucial for upscaling the CA Technology

37 Support Staff involved in Fertilizer Application of CA Trials, Monze District, Jan 2015

38 Treatment Effect! Monitoring of trials in Chipata site, Feb 2015

39 Monitoring of Trials in Monze site, Jan 2015

40 Monitoring of trials in Mpongwe Stakeholder Engagement in Monitoring is crucial Feb 2015

explaining objectives of the CA Baseline Survey, Chipata, Feb

41 Consensus Building Meetings with Farmers and Interviews, Chipata Feb 2015 Farmers listen to Camp Extension Officer explaining objectives of the CA Baseline Survey, Chipata, Feb 2015 Technical officer interviewing a farmer on CA practices, Chipata, Feb 2015

42 Acknowledgement Government of the Republic of Zambia The World Bank Other Stakeholders University of Zambia Department of Agriculture 42 Farmers

43 THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION! 43

44 Contact Kafula Chisanga or 44

Brief introduction. Intercropping pigeon pea and sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas L.) to achieve greater productivity. Plausible interventions

Brief introduction. Intercropping pigeon pea and sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas L.) to achieve greater productivity. Plausible interventions Brief introduction A result of a need to address the food security situation for; Refugees in small settlement camps with small farming plots Small - holder farmers in impoverished semi-arid areas Where