MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, IRRIGATION AND WATER DEVELOPMENT

Transcription

1 MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, IRRIGATION AND WATER DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTING CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE IN MALAWI APRIL 2016

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF PLATES, FIGURES AND TABLES... II FOREWORD... V ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS... VI ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS... VII CITATION... VII PREAMBLE... VIII 1 CHALLENGES OF SMALLHOLDER AGRICULTURE IN MALAWI INTRODUCTION TO CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE EXPERIENCES ACROSS THE WORLD BACKGROUND ON CONVENTIONAL RIDGE TILLAGE (CRT) CA SYSTEM PROMOTED BY THE NCATF... 7 ILLUSTRATIVE PHOTOS ON CORE CA PRINCIPLES COMPLEMENTARY PRACTICES CHEMICAL FERTILIZER ORGANIC MANURES PLANTING BASINS VETIVER HEDGEROWS AGROFORESTRY SYSTEMS GREEN MANURE COVER CROPS FODDER CROPS AND INTEGRATION OF LIVESTOCK WINTER IRRIGATION STEP BY STEP GUIDELINES TO IMPLEMENT BEST CA PRACTICES EFFECTIVE EXTENSION APPROACHES FOR CA ENTRY POINTS FOR PROMOTING CA CRITICAL NEEDS FOR UPSCALING ADOPTION OF CA CALENDAR OF ACTIVITIES KEY NEEDS AND CHALLENGES EXTENSION SERVICES RESEARCH SERVICES MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF CA IN MALAWI IMPROVED ACCESS TO INPUT AND OUTPUT MARKETS REFERENCES ANNEX 1: EVIDENCE BASED RESULTS ON CA LONG TERM ASSESSMENTS OF CA VS. CONVENTIONAL RIDGE TILLAGE (CRT) YIELD IMPACTS OF FAIDHERBIA ALBIDA WITH CA ASSESSMENTS OF GROSS MARGINS AND LABOUR COSTS OF CA VS. CRT CA EFFECTS ON WATER INFILTRATION, SOIL EROSION AND CARBON IN SOUTHERN AFRICA PLANTING BASINS VS. DIRECT SEEDING EFFECTS OF GREEN MANURE COVER CROPS ON BIOMASS AND MAIZE YIELDS UNDER CA ANNEX 2: USES OF CROP RESIDUES AND MANURE PROS AND CONS OF RETAINING CROP RESIDUES VS. USE AS LIVESTOCK FEED PROS AND CONS OF RETAINING CROP RESIDUES ON THE LAND VS. USE AS MANURE ANNEX 3: ADOPTION OF CA AND RELATED CHALLENGES SURVEYS BY TOTAL LANDCARE SURVEYS BY FAO FOOD SECURITY AND SUSTAINABLE RURAL LIVELIHOOD PROJECT NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page i

3 LIST OF PLATES, FIGURES AND TABLES List of Photographic Plates Description Plate 1: Land preparation in Ukwe, Lilongwe commonly involves clearing or burning all organic material from the surface of the land, followed by making ridges by hand with hoes. Plate 2: Contrary to common belief, ridges on contour are vulnerable to erosion because they are formed with dry loose soil, which can be washed away with the crop during heavy rain especially when the crop is young with roots confined to the ridge. (photo taken in Ntchisi). Plate 3: Every year, old ridges are split to form new ridges in the position of the old furrow (Emanuel Banda at left in Dedza, and Jaleke Roland at right in Ukwe EPA, Lilongwe). Plate 4: TLC agricultural specialist and trainer Mlozi Macdonald Banda measuring the amount of soil moved when splitting ridges in Buli, Lilongwe. A standard size ridge involves moving 54 kg of soil for every meter of ridge. Plate 5: Burning crop residues and weeds is a common practice during land preparation in Malawi in order to clear the land for ridging and planting (Linga EPA, Nkhotakota). Plate 6: Avoid importing crop residues from surrounding fields as shown at left in Chikwatula EPA, Ntchisi; rather, leave the residues produced in a field as the lie as shown at right in Khombedza, Salima with no burning, tillage or ridging Plate 7: When starting, many farmers have no crop residues for various reasons, but they can start CA without building ridges to make small planting holes with a hoe (10 cm long x 15 cm wide x 10cm deep) on old ridges (left, Ulongwe, Balaka) or dibble stick as shown at right by Richard Rwafa. Use of crop residues can then begin in Year 2. Plate 8: Runoff and standing water in compacted furrows require tied ridges under CRT at left vs. good water infiltration with no runoff under CA at right - same farmer, land, date and time in Matenje EPA, Salima Plate 9: Weed-free maize planted on the flat with crop residues in Zidyana, Nkhotakota at left, and with Chiza Mkandawire in Bolero with young Faidherbia (msangu) trees at right Plate 10: Healthy relay crop of cowpeas after harvesting maize with Faidherbia trees under CA showing good ground cover and suppression of late season weeds, Golomoti, Dedza. Plate 11: Young crop of groundnuts in Mwansambo under conventional ridge tillage with poor ground cover at left vs CA at right after maize showing good soil cover and no run off Plate 12: Rotations reduce demands on the soil as well as pest and disease problems from monocropping (beans at left in Linga and groundnuts at right in Mwamsambo,Nkhotakota) Plate 13: Sunflowers under CA at left in Matenje, Salima; soya at right in Lilongwe 13 Plate 14: The concept of planting basins at left, as recommended by CFU, is often distorted to mean excavating deep pits as shown at right in a nearby field in Mkanda, Mchinji. The right photo shows Mike Mailloux of CFU standing in the pits which clearly DO NOT qualify as CA due to the heavy amount of labour involved and the large volume of soil moved - see heap of top soil next to pits Plate 15: Integration of vetiver hedges under CA with maize at left in Chipeni, Mvera and with groundnuts at right in Mwansambo, Nkhotakota to reduce water runoff and loss of top soil on steep land Plate 16: Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration (FMNR): Positive effects on maize with CA and Faidherbia (msangu) trees in Bolero, Rumphi during a dry spell due to improved soil and micro-environment (left) and with healthy maize crop (right). Page NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page ii

4 Plate 17: Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration with CA with groundnuts at left in Ukwe, Lilongwe and with maize at right in Chivala, Dowa. Plate 18: Tephrosia at 8 months in Zidyana, Nkhotakota free of weeds after the maize harvest with farmer Exlina Azele at left and the same Tephrosia at 15 months during the fallow cycle in year 2 at right with TLC management staff Richard Museka and Victoria Kambalame. Plate 19: CA with minimum till under irrigation at left in Linga, Nkhotakota and use of crop residues as surface mulch with CA under irrigation in Chioshya, Mchinji to reduce water use, evaporation and weeds. Plate 20: Safe and proper application of post-emergent herbicides such as glyphosate by Herbert Chipara at left to control weeds before planting, and Stellar Star which can be applied within 4-6 weeks of planting maize as seen at right (Matenje, Salima) List of Figures and Tables in Main Document Description Figure 1: Malawi s system of CA with complementary practices as available 9 Table 1: List of Common Natural Tree Species Retained on Farm Land) 18 Table 2: Recommended Species and Spacing of Green Manure Cover Crops 22 Table 3: Summary of Plant Spacing for Major Crops and Legume/ Cereal Intercrops 26 Table 4: Guidelines for Combining Chemical Fertilizers with CA 26 Table 5: M&E Template for Collecting Data on CA 35 Table 6: MoAIWD Reporting Template on Farmers and Area under CA Practices 36 List of Figures in Annexes Description Page Page Figure 1: Mean Maize Yields on Farmer Fields under CA vs. CRT from 2004/05 to 2013/ Figure 2: Mean Maize Yields on 54 Farmer Fields under CA vs. Conventional Ridge Tillage (CRT) in a year of Low Rainfall, 2011/ Figure 3: Mean Groundnut Yields on Farmer Fields (6 replicates per site) after CA and Conventional Ridge Tillage. 42 Figure 4: The relative advantage of conservation agriculture options over conventional tillage across sites and across seasons in southern Africa. 42 Figure 5: Maize yields under different CA systems and conventional ridge tillage in 3 lowland sites over 3 years. 43 Figure 6: Linear regressions of maize yields under different cropping systems against site and season means in Malawi lowland sites from 2010/11 to 2013/ Figure 7: Maize grain yield in one conventional ridge and furrow system and two CA systems in Malende, Monze District, Zambia, Figure 8: Maize Yields under conventional ploughing and CA riplines with continuous maize and maize-sunnhemp rotation, Henderson Research Station, Zimbabwe Figure 9: Maize grain yield in one conventional ridge and furrow system and two CA systems in Malende, Monze District, Zambia, Figure 10: Yield benefit of CA over CP (kg ha -1 ) in continuous maize and maizesunnhemp rotation, Henderson Research Station Zimbabwe, Figure 11: Farmer Maize Yields under Faidherbia with CA vs. CRT 2010/ Figure 12: Effects of Faidherbia on Maize Yields under CA vs CRT in a normal rainfall year 2013/14 and a dry rainfall year 2014/15 with 50 farmers per treatment. 47 Figure 13: Effects of Faidherbia on Maize Yields (kg/ha) with CA across different regions of Zambia over 4 Years. 48 NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page iii

5 Figure 14: Gross Margins and risks are much better with CA than the conventional ridge tillage, especially with a good legume intercrop. Figure 15: Effects of conventional ploughing and conservation agriculture techniques (direct seeding vs basins) on water infiltration in Zimbabwe. Figure 16: Effects of conventional ploughing and conservation agriculture techniques (direct seeding vs basins) on water infiltration in Zambia. Figure 17: Effects of conventional ploughing and direct seeding under conservation agriculture on water infiltration at Chitedze Agricultural Research Station, Malawi, 2010 Figure 18: Higher infiltration (time to pond) under CA techniques and crop combinations vs. conventional ploughing at Chitedze Malawi. Figure 19: Soil erosion over the period of 2005 to 2013 under conventional ploughing and conservation agriculture techniques at Henderson Research Station, Zimbabwe. Figure 20: Soil erosion over the period of 2005 to 2011 under conventional ploughing and conservation agriculture techniques at Henderson Research Station, Zimbabwe. Figure 21: Total carbon at 0-30 cm in one conventionally ploughed and two CA treatments in 2005, 2008 and 2010 at Monze Farmer Training Centre, Zambia. Figure 22: Maize yields after GMCC under CA in year two of a Maize / GMCC rotation, Chitedze Agricultural Research Station, 2013/14. Figure 23: Effect of previous crop (Maize and different GMCCs) and nitrogen fertilizer on maize grain yield at Chitedze Agricultural Research Station in 2008/09 season. Figure 24: Effects of different maize/cover crop rotations on cover crop biomass yield (kg ha -1 ), maize grain yield (kg ha -1 ) and maize biomass (stover) yield (kg ha -1 ) at University of Zimbabwe for all seasons. Figure 25: Effects of different maize/cover crop rotations on cover crop biomass yield (kg ha -1 ), maize grain yield (kg ha -1 ) and maize biomass (stover) yield (kg ha -1 ) at Domboshawa Training Centre (DTC) for all seasons. Figure 26: Effects of different maize/cover crop rotations on cover crop biomass yield (kg ha -1 ), maize grain yield (kg ha -1 ) and maize biomass (stover) yield (kg ha -1 ) at Henderson Research Station Clay for all seasons List of Tables in Annexes Description Page Table 1: Effect of Conventionally Ploughed and Conservation Agriculture on Maize Grain Yield (kg ha 1), Monze Farmer Training Centre (MFTC), Zambia, and 44 Henderson Research Station (HRS), Zimbabwe. Table 2: Changes in total soil carbon (Mg ha -1 ) in 2004 and 2008 (Chikato) and in 2005 and 2008 (Hereford) in two conservation agriculture and one conventional 44 treatments. Zimbabwe. Table 3: Labour Costs of 2 CA Systems vs. CRT from TLC-CIMMYT-MoAIWD Trials. 49 Table 4: Costs, Revenues and Gross Margins of CA vs. Conventional Ridge Tillage (CRT) - US$/ha. 50 Table 5: Labour costs for constructing ridges on common loamy clay soils in Malawi. 56 Table 6: Labour costs for levelling ridges before digging basins on common loamy clay soils in Malawi. 57 Table 7: Labour costs for digging basins on common loamy clays soils in Malawi. 57 Table 8: Biomass and grain yields of Green Manure Cover Crops (GMCCs) plus N and P concentrations in year one of a Maize / GMCC rotation under CA in 2012/13, 59 Chitedze Agricultural Research Station, Malawi. Table 9: Weed counts per meter square in maize grown after GMCC vs. maize after maize in Year two, Chitedze Agricultural Research Station, Malawi, 2013/ Table 10: Total biomass yield (kg ha -1 ) of fertilized GMCCs and maize grown at Chitedze Agricultural Research Station, Malawi in 2007/08 and 2008/09 seasons. 60 NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page iv

6 FOREWORD Conservation Agriculture (CA) has been implemented in the country for the past two decades by various stakeholders. CA offers opportunities for all farmers to mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate change, to improve the health and productivity of their soils, to reduce farm labour demands, improve cereals and livestock integrations, and minimise negative effects of agriculture on the environment. The agricultural sector intends to scale up and achieve wide scale adoption of this sustainable farming system. However, there have been technical challenges and differences in recommendations being disseminated by various stakeholders that are promoting CA. The different stakeholders have been using their own approaches in delivering CA messages to farmers. Further, there has been a notable lack of knowledge and skills among extension staff and farmers to implement CA in the proper manner. To resolve the challenges faced with promoting and scaling up CA, the National Conservation Agriculture Task Force in Malawi (NCATF) has developed national guidelines for implementing CA in Malawi, a process that involved extensive consultations with key members of the NCATF. These national guidelines have been developed 1) to promote the adoption of CA among smallholder farmers who have no access to animal draft or mechanization, and 2) to support extension workers, subject matter specialists, trainers and implementers to effectively scale out recommended CA practices throughout the country. In addition, the guidelines provide possible solutions to current challenges that are affecting adoption and proper implementation. The guidelines show the practicalities of implementing the various CA principles based on the knowledge and experiences of various practitioners. This is the first edition of the national CA guidelines for Malawi. It is expected that the guidelines will undergo periodic reviews to address emerging challenges and opportunities affecting the promotion and adoption of CA. These guidelines have taken on board reviews and contributions from all stakeholders ranging from NGOs and Projects to Government Departments in the Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Water Development. It should be emphasized that separate guidelines on CA will be developed for use with animal draft power and mechanization. I appeal to all our partners promoting conservation agriculture and farmers in the country to make effective use of these guidelines. Erica Maganga (Mrs) SECRETARY FOR THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, IRRIGATION AND WATER DEVELOPMENT NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page v

7 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ACE AF AHX AICC ATCC CA CFU CG CIMMYT COMESA CRT DAES DARS DFID DLRC EU FAO FISP FMNR FUM GMCC ICRAF IFAD IA LF MoAIWD NASFAM NCATF RNE RUMARK SAPP TLC USAID Agriculture Commodity Exchange for Africa Agroforestry Auction Holding Commodity Exchange African Institute for Corporate Citizenship Agricultural Technology Clearing Committee Conservation Agriculture Conservation Farming Unit (Zambia) Carbon gas International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa Conventional Ridge Tillage Department of Agricultural Extension Services Department of Agricultural Research Services Department for International Development Department of Land Resources Conservation European Union Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations Farm Input Subsidy Program. Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration Farmers Union of Malawi Green Manure Cover Crops International Centre for Research on Agroforestry International Fund for Agricultural Development Irish Aid Lead Farmer Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Water Development National Smallholder Farmers Association of Malawi National Conservation Agriculture Task Force Royal Norwegian Embassy Rural Market Development Trust Sustainable Agriculture Production Program Total LandCare United States Agency for International Development NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page vi

8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS These guidelines were produced by the National Conservation Agriculture Task Force (NCATF) with significant input from WT Bunderson, as the chief editor, and from Total LandCare (TLC) based on its extensive experience and evidence based results. The support of other organizations has also been critical: the Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Water Development in Malawi (MoAIWD) through the Department of Agricultural Extension Services, (DAES), Department of Agricultural Research Services (DARS) and Department of Land Resources Conservation (DLRC), as well as member organizations of the NCATF, including the National Smallholder Farmers Association of Malawi (NASFAM). Key donors that are supporting CA in Malawi include: the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Irish Aid (IA), the Royal Norwegian Embassy (RNE), the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), British Aid through the Department for International Development (DFID), the European Union (EU) and COMESA. The contents presented reflect collaboration with various NGOs and projects engaged in promoting CA. TLC, CIMMYT and the Conservation Farming Unit (CFU) of Zambia deserve a special word of recognition for their input and experience with CA. The NCATF and its members are responsible for the views expressed in these guidelines. CITATION Proper Citation: National Conservation Agriculture Task Force (2016). Guidelines for implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi. NCATF of Malawi, April PHOTOGRAPHIC CREDITS: W.T. Bunderson, Z.D. Jere, R.M. Museka, S.W.D. Ng oma, C.L. Thierfelder. CAPTION FOR PICTURE ON FRONT PAGE Chiza Mkandawire with maize and young Faidherbia trees (msangu) under CA in Bolero NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page vii

9 PREAMBLE The guidelines described herein are fully aligned with the system of conservation agriculture (CA) approved and released by the Agricultural Technology Clearing Committee (ATCC) of the Department of Agricultural Research Services (DARS) in the Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Water (MoAIWD) which is reflected in the Extension Circular by Ligowe et al., (2013). The guidelines are intended for use by smallholder farmers who have no access to animal draft power or mechanization for which separate guidelines will be developed. The information presented here is based on empirical evidence from over 10 years of evaluating and improving CA with farmers in different landscapes across Malawi. The purpose of these guidelines is two-fold: 1. To equip farmers, extension agents, implementing organizations, and policy-makers with practical evidence-based guidelines for implementing CA under different farm conditions and ecological zones. 2. To harmonize extension messages on CA and minimise confusion and controversy over the definition and practice of CA in Malawi. Areas and Crops Suitable for CA: A point to emphasize is that while CA has widespread application across most areas and agro-ecologies of Malawi, it is not suited to all types of soil, land forms and ecological niches, especially with certain crops grown in wetland or low lying areas susceptible to water logging or flooding. CA is best suited to well-drained soils such as sandy loams, loamy clays and alluvial soils with crops that are not susceptible to water logging or flooding (e.g., maize, cotton, tobacco and legumes). However, CA may be undertaken with rice and sugar cane under irrigation or in wet/flood conditions after using suitable herbicides to kill weeds. CA may also be used for growing bean crops under residual soil moisture on the flat following the harvest of wet-land rice after applying herbicides to kill weeds and tillers from rice stalks cut at ground level and left on the soil surface. Cassava and sweet potatoes may also be grown under CA on well drained soils. In areas subject to waterlogging or flooding, plant these crops on large semi-permanent ridges or mounds to reduce soil disturbance and labour by constructing them every three years instead of annually. Do the same for crops such as maize and tobacco grown in wetland or low-lying areas to avoid standing water in the root zone. It should be noted that recommendations for monitoring and evaluation (M&E) are not a focus of these guidelines, but a simple system needs to be developed for use by CA practitioners to provide consistent and reliable information on the up-take, adoption and area of CA over time in relation to the 3 principles without risk of double counting. Recommendations for a practical M&E system are included in these guidelines with key indicators to track the scale of adoption, area and impact of CA over time. It should also be stressed that the guidelines are not a policy document and do not explicitly deal with policy issues which fall under the MoAIWD. In this regard, it is expected that CA practices will be incorporated into the new agricultural policy of Malawi currently under development. NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page viii

10 1 CHALLENGES OF SMALLHOLDER AGRICULTURE IN MALAWI Malawi faces complex social, economic and environmental problems that threaten a steepening dependency on foreign aid. The heart of the crisis is the nation s high and growing population. Increasing pressure on agricultural land, the country s most important natural resource, is the major constraint to sustainable agriculture. Land holdings are shrinking, fallowing is almost non-existent and marginal areas have been brought under cultivation. Continuous cropping is now the norm with nutrient demanding crops, such as maize and tobacco. Although Malawi s farm input subsidy program has helped tremendously to improve maize yields, its sustainability and contribution to soil health are concerns in the long term. The challenge today is to find sustainable ways to increase agricultural growth at a rate faster than that of the population. Despite enormous efforts to promote production-increasing technologies among smallholder households, nearly 60% still live below the poverty line. Another 20% are only marginally better. Farmers across the region face similar challenges and have similar ambitions: They want to increase yields, ensure enough food to feed their families, reduce labour and input costs, make better use of their limited resources, minimise the risk of crop failure, live in better houses, and earn money to meet basic needs and more. But if you visit farmers anywhere in the region and ask if they have ever received any meaningful advice on farming, the majority will say no. Households lack basic needs such as adequate food, water, fuel, health, shelter, and education. In urban areas, wage earnings are frequently insufficient to purchase food. The graveness of Malawi's food crisis is evident from the high level of child malnutrition and mortality (UNDP Human Development Report 2011). The situation is aggravated by the lack of effective policies and incentives to support sound resource management practices among smallholder farmers. Strategies to increase food production are vital to national and household food security. This goal is becoming more elusive as farms shrink in size, soils become exhausted, and the ability to purchase inputs decreases. Planned cuts in the Malawi subsidy program will further impact productivity. Although recommended seed and fertilizers will increase returns to maize, the attendant costs are beyond the reach of many farmers without subsidies. The challenges demand a vision that goes beyond the focus on maize, particularly in areas unsuited to growing this crop. In recognizing this need, the Government has initiated programs to liberalize and diversify crop production in the smallholder sector with improved access to markets and inputs. 2 INTRODUCTION TO CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE 2.1 Experiences across the World Conservation Agriculture (CA) is gaining recognition as a technology that offers opportunities for all farmers to mitigate the impact of climate change on their farm productivity, to adapt more effectively to adverse weather conditions, to improve the health of their soils, to reduce farm labour demands, and to minimise negative effects of agriculture on the environment. While CA means different things to different people in different parts of the world, it shares two primary objectives: to conserve soil, water and labour and to increase and stabilize crop yields under variable weather patterns. Based on the widely accepted definition of FAO (2014), conservation agriculture is based on 3 fundamental principles: 1) minimal soil disturbance, 2) good soil cover (through retention of crop residues and other biomass), and diversification with crop rotations and/or intercrops. There is now increasing evidence around the world and in east and southern Africa documenting the many benefits of CA relative to conventional tillage systems. In many countries, a National Conservation Agriculture Task Force (NCATF) has been formed to coordinate and guide efforts in CA with multiple stakeholders and practitioners to increase adoption. A key objective is to harmonize the basic principles and practices of CA without suppressing innovation or making blanket recommendations that have limited application in different settings. The ultimate aim is to produce more effective and lasting results by minimising confusion created by conflicting extension approaches and messages. NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 1

11 Achieving the benefits of CA necessitates the adoption of practices that require a break in cultural norms such as ploughing, ridging, and keeping fields completely clean. This means that farmers must retain and distribute crop residues over the ground surface instead of burning or removing them, and eliminating the practice of ridging and weeding with hand hoes. Increased and more stable crop yields with reduced labour requirements of CA enable farmers to expand or diversify farming or to engage in other activities of higher value. The tangible benefits of CA should convince farmers to change their methods of farming (see box below). Key Benefits of Conservation Agriculture Better Yields: Produces higher and more stable yields under variable rainfall; impacts increase with improvements in the soil from the effects of CA. Labour Costs: Saves labour for demanding manual tasks, reducing labour shortages experienced by most households, especially the burden on women and children. Savings in labour allow for early planting to maximise yield potentials while offering opportunities to grow and tend to other crops, to expand cultivation, or to engage in alternative more productive activities. Widespread Application: Although CA requires breaking certain well-established cultural norms, CA is a simple practice to implement with significantly lower labour inputs suitable for any household, including the highly vulnerable (e.g., the elderly, women, HIV impacted families, and the very poor). Agroforestry: Agroforestry practices complement the multiple benefits of CA by improving soils, providing other products such as firewood and fodder, and breaking up hard pans to enhance production and sustainability at lower cost. The most widespread system is natural regeneration with Faidherbia albida (msangu) but other species are common. Intercropping and fallow systems include Cajanus cajan (nandolo), Gliricidia sepium (gliricidia), species of Tephrosia (mthutu, mtetezga), Crotalaria, Leucaena and Sesbania (jelejele, binu). Reduced Vulnerability: The multiple benefits of CA build local capacity for adaptation and resilience with more stable crop yields to reduce the impacts of climate change. Conservation: Maximises the capture of rainfall and water infiltration while protecting the soil against runoff & loss of soil nutrients and moisture. The results have tremendous potential for conserving Malawi s watersheds and for recharging ground-water supplies, which have far reaching effects downstream. Weeds, Pests and Diseases: Good ground cover with crop rotations and minimal tillage help to control weeds, diseases and pests, including termites (lodging) and Striga. Selective use of herbicides helps to reduce weeds, labour costs and competition for water and nutrients while avoiding soil disturbance from deep cultivation or secondary ridging (banking). Carbon Sequestration: CA sequesters carbon in soil and vegetation while reducing carbon gas (CG) emissions from oxidation caused by soil disturbance and from the common practice of burning crop residues and weeds. Impacts on Fertilizer Use and Soil Carbon: CA complements and improves the cost efficiency and effectiveness of inorganic fertilizers by reducing the leaching and volatilization of nutrients while lowering risks from dry spells and excessive rainfall. Over time (5+ years), CA will also increase soil carbon and reduce the quantity of fertilizers needed without compromising yields. CA provides opportunities to greatly complement the Malawi input subsidy program to reduce costs, improve effectiveness, and build a platform for sustainability with lower dependence on external inputs. NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 2

12 Long term on-farm trials by the MoAIWD, TLC and CIMMYT in Malawi have generated strong scientific evidence that CA is more profitable, viable, and gender sensitive with more lasting results than conventional ridge tillage systems (Thierfelder et al., 2015; Thierfelder et al., 2014; Thierfelder et al., 2012; Thierfelder et al., 2013a; Ngwira et al., 2014a; Ngwira et al., 2014b; Ngwira et al., 2013b; Ngwira et al., 2013a; Ngwira et al., 2012; Ngwira, 2011;Bunderson et al., 2014; Bunderson et al., in press). Ultimately, CA provides a compelling story to positively transform smallholder agriculture in southern Africa for the benefit of future generations. To better understand the value of CA in the context of Malawi, background information is presented below on the conventional practice of ridge tillage, which will be followed by a detailed description of the guidelines for implementing CA in Malawi. 2.2 Background on Conventional Ridge Tillage (CRT) The common method of land preparation among smallholders across most of Malawi involves clearing and burning weeds and crop residues, followed by manual construction of ridges 75 cm apart with hand hoes. Building ridges means that the whole surface of cultivated land shifts every year when old ridges are split in half to form new ridges in the position of the old furrows. Most of the valuable biomass from residues and weeds goes up in smoke from fires to clear the land. Making ridges by hand with a hoe also requires a huge amount of physical labour which averages person days per ha. The time and effort involved often means that the first planting rains are missed along with the nitrogen flush that comes with them. Late planting typically reduces the yield potential of the crop by 25-30%. Although incorporating crop residues and weeds is practiced by farmers in some parts of the region, leaving the biomass on the surface is regarded as a better practice to protect the soil from the elements and to absorb the impact of rainfall to minimise runoff and loss of top soil. Despite 50 years of promoting ridging in Malawi at enormous cost, water runoff and loss of top soil have steadily increased over the years. Contrary to its intended aim, ridging has contributed to runoff, erosion and general soil degradation. The evidence of this is clear from the increased levels of silt being deposited in streams, rivers, dams and lakes. Ridges cause rainfall to be channeled down the furrows washing top soil away. No clear scientific basis for ridging has ever been advanced. The following points highlight the key faults of ridging: Impact on Soil Carbon: Tilling the soil accelerates the oxidation of organic carbon which is the cement that binds the soil together. Reduced carbon in the soil makes it vulnerable to raindrop action and low infiltration rates, which result in the loss of top soil through water runoff. Tillage also disrupts natural aeration and the beneficial actions of soil micro-flora and fauna. Malawi soils are notoriously deficient in organic matter from continuous soil disturbance, which is aggravated by the burning or removal of crop residues. The resulting soils have low water holding capacities and low water infiltration rates, which limit their ability to capture rainfall. Hence they are prone to high runoff, carrying away large quantities of top soil which cannot be replaced. Increased Water Runoff and Loss of Top Soil: Vulnerability to runoff is greatly increased by the total absence of living or dead plant matter on the soil surface to intercept the impact of rain. When rain falls, it washes down the ridges into the compacted furrows which channel the water off the land carrying away valuable top soil. Studies of conventional farming on medium textured soils and moderate slopes in Malawi show that 30-40% of the rainfall in a season runs off the field, carrying over 30 tons/ha of top soil with it. On steep slopes, the loss of top soil can exceed 100 tons per ha. NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 3

13 Decreasing Productivity: Agricultural productivity has stagnated or decreased except where subsidized fertilizer has been supplied with substantial funding from the donor community. Although chemical fertilizers provide a quick fix to improve crop yields, in the long term, they are no substitute for sound land and water management. Unless the loss of organic matter is halted, soil fertility will continue to decline and the system will not be sustainable (Wolf & Snyder, 2003). Adding chemical fertilizers to the soil does not mean that the overall farming system has improved as they contribute no organic matter and only a few macro-nutrients. The physical and biological properties of the soil are equally essential but often ignored. Their deterioration through tillage leads to the breakdown of soil aggregates, compacted layers, reduced water infiltration and soil water-holding capacity, reduced root growth, and increased water run-off and soil erosion. All these factors affect the health and productivity of the soil which ultimately limit crop growth and development. Reluctance to Acknowledge the Value of CA: A key challenge in promoting CA includes criticisms from some influential sceptics and organizations. Given the time, effort and resources invested in conventional farming, it is difficult for these individuals and organizations to accept CA because it contradicts the practices they have been promoting for decades, in some cases, negating a lifetime of work. The loss of topsoil has enormous costs to Malawi s economy, agriculture and environment, representing 1 to 5% of GDP from current production alone (World Bank 1992). The risk of losing top soil is directly related to how the land is used, affecting soil structure, organic matter content, water holding capacity, and the activities of micro-fauna and flora. These factors affect the rooting depth of crops, which in turn affects yields, especially in drought years. Maximising the capture, use and conservation of water, while minimising the loss of top soil, are critical factors to assure for the long term productivity and sustainability of agriculture in Africa, particularly under the growing threat of climate change. Plate 1 Above: Land preparation in Ukwe, Lilongwe commonly involves clearing or burning all organic material from the surface of the land, followed by making ridges by hand with hoes. NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 4

14 Plate 2 Below: Contrary to common belief, ridges on contour are vulnerable to erosion because they are formed with dry loose soil, which can be washed away with the crop during heavy rain, especially when the crop is young with roots confined to the ridge. (Photo taken in Ntchisi). In contrast, crops under CA have roots anchored firmly in solid ground. Plate 3 Above: Every year, old ridges are split to form new ridges in the position of the old furrow (Emanuel Banda at left in Dedza, and Jaleke Roland at right in Ukwe EPA, Lilongwe). Splitting ridges involves a huge amount of physical labour. Many households face chronic shortages of labour to prepare ridges in time for the rains, which delays the time of planting with severe impacts on crop yields. The most vulnerable are the young, elderly, physically challenged, women and orphan headed households, and those affected by illness and HIV/AIDS. NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 5

15 Plate 4 Below: TLC agricultural specialist and trainer Mlozi Macdonald Banda measuring the amount of soil moved when splitting ridges in Buli, Lilongwe. A standard size ridge involves moving 54 kg of soil for every meter of ridge. The labour involved and quantity of soil moved annually across Malawi is explained in the text box below. Most of Malawi s 2.5 million farm households construct ridges by hand every year on about 2 million ha of land. With a recommended ridge spacing of 75 cm, this means constructing 13 km of ridges per ha by hand every year, equal to moving 700 tons of soil. Soil moved to build 1 m of ridge = 54 kg Across the country, this equates to constructing 26 million km of ridges every year, which entails moving 1,400 million tons of soil. Plate 5 Above: Burning crop residues and weeds is a common practice during land preparation in Malawi in order to clear the land for ridging and planting (Linga EPA, Nkhotakota) NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 6

16 Land Clearing, Burning and Ridging Imagine a bare piece of land, devoid of any live or dead plant material, that has been recently tilled with ridges of dry loose soil. Now imagine what happens when a heavy rain storm hits the ground. The impact of the rain washes most of the dry loose soil down the ridge into the compacted furrows and off the field, carrying the top soil with the water runoff into streams and rivers, ultimately reaching Lake Malawi. Under the common practice of burning and ridging, farmers expend a huge amount of labour which leads to the loss of valuable water and soil every year. These natural resources are vital for sustaining farm productivity, and once lost, cannot be replaced. Ultimately, maintaining the status quo of conventional tillage and ridging is not an option for Malawi and its farmers, or those of us entrusted with making positive changes for the future sustainability of agriculture in this region. 3 CA SYSTEM PROMOTED BY THE NCATF The system of CA promoted by the NCATF in Malawi is based on over 10 years of practical experience by the MoAIWD, TLC, CIMMYT and others with the aim to develop best practices for maximising its impacts and benefits with different crops under different farm circumstances. The core principles of the CA system include 1) minimum soil disturbance, 2) good soil cover and 3) crop rotations/associations, which are illustrated in Figure 1 along with other complementary practices. Keep the message on CA simple: Make small planting holes, retain crop residues and other biomass produced in situ, and diversify crops with rotations, intercrops and/or relay crops. Key features to attract adoption of CA (see also evidence-based results in Annex 1): Adaptability for farmers with different resources in different farm environments. Compatibility with common methods of planting and spacing for different crops. Effectiveness, simplicity and affordability without explicit needs for inputs and tools. Application across agro-ecological zones on well drained soils or land not susceptible to flooding or water logging. Complementary practices as needed and available depending on the local farm situation. Annex 2 discusses pros and cons of animal manure and using crop residues for feed vs. CA, as well as approaches to reduce conflicts with livestock. Annex 3 describes the application of CA in the context of drivers and barriers to adoption. A key point about the CA system recommended is that it offers some flexibility to start with minimum soil disturbance as the basis for building a robust CA system because few farmers can incorporate all 3 principles at the outset. However, it must be emphasized that retaining crop residues and other plant biomass on the ground surface is critical to maximise the capture of rainfall, to conserve soil and water for good crop establishment and growth, and to prevent the soil from developing a shallow hard pan. NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 7

17 MALAWI'S SYSTEM OF CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE Minimum Soil Disturbance is the focal starting point supported by the other 2 principles and complementary practices depending on the local farm situation Organic Manures (Compost, Animal & Green Manures) Chemical Fertilizers Agroforestry & Natural Regeneration Planting Methods & Tools (dibble sticks, jab planters, rippers) CORE CA PRINCIPLES Minimum Soil Disturbance Improved Seeds (high yielding crops resistant to disease, pests & drought) Herbicides (types with limited harmful effects to the evironment) Soil & Water Conservation Measures (vetiver, storm drains, raised footpaths) Fodder & Cover Crops (crop residues, cover crops, fodder trees, grasses & legumes) Figure 1: Malawi s system of CA with complementary practices as available. 1. Minimum soil disturbance: This is fundamental and non-negotiable (Aagaard, 2011): o o o No ploughing, ridging, tillage or heavy weeding by manual or mechanical means. Direct seed after good planting rains into small planting holes on the flat with a dibble stick, or on the tops of old ridges with a hoe. The latter mimics the age-old method of planting in Malawi before the introduction of ridging. (Rip lines with mechanized or animal drawn rippers may also be used which will be discussed in separate guidelines). For land with shallow hard pans, plant deep rooted crops (e.g., pigeon peas, cow peas, agroforestry species), or leave the land fallow. Retain the biomass on the soil surface. Note: When starting CA, make small planting holes 10 cm long x 15 cm wide x 10 cm deep on old ridges for good crop establishment. This is critical in areas prone to drought or when rainfall is predicted to be low. Every effort should be made to protect the ground surface with crop residues or other biomass to reduce runoff, to conserve soil moisture, and to increase soil organic matter to prevent the development of shallow hard pans. Old ridges flatten out within one or two seasons at which time a dibble stick may be used when there is good ground cover. NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 8

18 2. Good soil cover: The aim is to achieve good soil cover during both the growing season and the dry season, which often needs strong local by-laws to protect against burning and uncontrolled grazing. The benefits of good soil cover are as follows: To protect the soil from the elements. To maximise capture of rainfall while minimising evaporation, runoff and loss of top soil. To improve the structure and organic matter of the soil and its water holding capacity; this also prevents the soil from becoming hard and compact which can be a problem with some soils under minimum tillage without retention of crop residues. To help suppress weeds and related competition for water and nutrients. To increase beneficial activities of termites, earthworms and other organisms. To increase fertilizer efficiency and effectiveness by reducing nutrient losses from volatilization and leaching. Good soil cover during the growing season is best achieved by optimising plant spacing within and between rows for different crops to minimise bare ground. Spacing depends on the crop, soils, rainfall, and levels of chemical or organic fertilizers used, as well as intercrops (see recommended spacing in Tables 1 & 2 below). After the crop harvest, crop residues and other plant biomass should be distributed across the ground surface and protected against burning. Note: Biomass should NOT be imported from adjacent fields which exposes these areas to the elements and limits the area under CA across the farm. However, if this is not possible on the area targeted for CA, biomass may be used from other areas, if and only if, it was going to be burned or not used for any purpose. The challenge for many farmers is to retain crop residues on their land, which should begin in Year 1 if adequate biomass is available. Since this is not always possible, farmers should make every attempt to use and protect crop residues by Year 2 at the latest. This may entail working through the community leadership to establish by-laws to protect residues and other biomass from being burned or removed (e.g., by mice hunters, or others who want to sabotage the practice out of spite or jealousy). 3. Crop Associations - rotations, intercropping and relay cropping Crop associations (rotations, intercrops and relay crops) improve soil health, suppress weeds and control pests and diseases, including Striga. These practices also provide diversity to improve household diets and incomes. The crops selected depend on market demands as well as farmer interests and resources. Legumes are emphasized for the following reasons: To reduce the demands on the soil and the use of expensive fertilizers. To increase opportunities to improve the diet and nutrition of the farm family. To increase income from higher legume yields under CA by reducing the row spacing to optimise the plant spacing and density (which is not possible with ridges or basins). A key aim is to diversify farming to enhance resilience, to reduce risks of crop failure and to minimise impacts on the soil from continuous cultivation of nutrient/water demanding crops such as maize and tobacco. While balanced rotations are not presently feasible with farmers in some areas due to small land holdings and dependence on high yielding food crops, some level of rotation is possible to break the unhealthy cycle of monocultures. Although maize is the staple food in most areas of Malawi, other crops should be included in crop associations or because they may be better adapted to the agro-ecology. For example, sorghum should be included as a key food crop in the Shire Valley and dry areas of the Lakeshore plain, e.g., Mangochi District. Clearly, more research is needed to adapt CA practices to different crops and areas, but the point here is to increase diversification for healthier soils and crops. NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 9

19 Areas and Crops Suitable for CA: While CA has widespread application across most areas and agro-ecologies of Malawi, it is not suited to all types of soil, land forms and ecological niches, especially with certain crops grown in wetland or low lying areas susceptible to water logging or flooding. CA is best suited to well-drained soils such as sandy loams, loamy clays and alluvial soils with crops that are not susceptible to water logging or flooding (e.g., maize, cotton, tobacco and legumes). However, CA may be undertaken with rice and sugar cane under irrigation or in wet/flood conditions after using suitable herbicides to kill weeds. CA may also be used for growing bean crops on the flat under residual soil moisture following the harvest of wet-land rice after applying herbicides to kill weeds and tillers from rice stalks cut at ground level and left on the soil surface. Cassava and sweet potatoes may also be grown under CA on well drained soils. In areas subject to waterlogging or flooding, plant these crops on large semi-permanent ridges or mounds to reduce soil disturbance and labour by constructing them every three years instead of annually. Do the same for crops such as maize and tobacco grown in wetland or low-lying areas to avoid standing water in the root zone. Illustrative Photos on Core CA Principles Plate 6 Above: Avoid importing crop residues from surrounding fields as shown at left in Chikwatula EPA, Ntchisi; rather, leave the residues produced in a field as the lie as shown at right in Khombedza, Salima with no burning, tillage or ridging Plate 7 Above: When starting, many farmers have no crop residues for various reasons, but they can start CA without building ridges to make small planting holes with a hoe (10 cm long x 15 cm wide (hoe width) x 10 cm deep) on old ridges (left, Ulongwe, Balaka) or dibble stick as shown at right by Richard Rwafa. Use of crop residues can then begin in Year 2. NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 10

20 Plate 8 Above: Runoff and standing water in compacted furrows require tied ridges under CRT at left vs. good water infiltration with no runoff under CA at right - same farmer, land, date and time in Matenje EPA, Salima Plate 9 Below: Weed-free maize planted on the flat with crop residues in Zidyana, Nkhotakota at left, and with Chiza Mkandawire in Bolero with young Faidherbia (msangu) trees at right Plate 10 Below: Healthy relay crop of cowpeas after harvesting maize with Faidherbia trees under CA showing good ground cover and suppression of late season weeds, Golomoti, Dedza NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 11

21 Plate 11 Below: Young crop of groundnuts in Mwansambo under conventional ridge tillage with poor ground cover at left vs CA at right after maize showing good soil cover and no run off. Plate 12 Below: Rotations reduce demands on the soil as well as pest and disease problems from monocropping (beans at left in Linga and groundnuts at right in Mwamsambo,Nkhotakota) Plate 13 Below: Sunflowers under CA at left in Matenje, Salima; soya at right in Lilongwe NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 12

22 4 COMPLEMENTARY PRACTICES Implementing CA should include other good agricultural practices to increase productivity and effectiveness while enhancing self-sufficiency with reduced vulnerability to climate change. Options that complement CA include a) chemical and organic fertilizers, b) planting basins as a water harvesting practice in areas of low rainfall, c) vetiver hedgerows to help control runoff and erosion, d) natural regeneration and agroforestry to improve soil conservation and fertility and to reduce fertilizer costs, e) cover crops to increase soil cover, green manure and/or fodder for livestock, and f) selected herbicides to control weeds with less labour and soil disturbance. CA is also recommended for crops under irrigation in the dry/winter season to reduce water use, evaporation, weeds, and the harmful effects of tilling the soil. In addition, farmers are encouraged to plant trees in and around their homes and farms to further guard against the threats of climate change from the impacts of deforestation, and to save wood through the construction of low-cost fuel efficient stoves. Descriptions of key practices to complement the benefits of CA are presented below. 4.1 Chemical Fertilizer Use of fertilizers is encouraged to boost crop yields and related biomass of residues needed to protect the land from water runoff and erosion. Farmers of all categories will benefit from using chemical fertilizers because CA is a soil and water conservation practice rather than a soil fertility practice per se. In other words, CA is NOT intended to replace the use of chemical fertilizers or other soil fertility improving technologies. However, over time, CA allows a reduction in the amount and cost of fertilizers due to the buildup of organic matter and other positive physical and biological attributes that will increase the effectiveness of the fertilizers, which in turn will improve marginal rates of return. If resources allow, farmers can apply fertilizers to CA fields using their own resources on the open market or through the Malawi Farm Input Subsidy Program (FISP). Recommendations for applying fertilizers with cereals are provided in the detailed step by step guidelines below which include the standard recommendations from the MoAIWD as well as more economical rates in line with the amounts used by most farmers (see Table 3 below). 4.2 Organic Manures Animal and compost manures complement the effects of CA and chemical fertilizers by 1) contributing nutrients and lowering costs, 2) increasing the effectiveness of chemical fertilizers by reducing losses from leaching and volatilization, and 3) minimising negative effects of dry spells or excessive rainfall. If animal or compost manure is available, there are several options for their application. For farmers who have ripped their land with machinery or animal draft power, apply the manure directly inside the ripped lines and cover with soil before planting. For farmers who make small planting holes with a dibble stick or hoe, place the manure in shallow planting holes 10 cm deep and cover with soil. It is important to cover the animal or compost manure to reduce volatilization of nitrogen from exposure to the sun. Generally, the application rate of manure is 5-10 tons per ha, but this may be reduced by precise placement of well-preserved quality manure in or around the planting stations. It is important to follow best practices for making, protecting, storing and using animal and compost manure to maximise results. Agricultural guidelines are available for these practices. NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 13

23 4.3 Planting Basins Digging planting basins is not viewed as a CA practice because it involves significant soil disturbance and labour for digging the basins (see a detailed comparison of Planting Basins vs Direct Seeding in Annex 1). The main value of planting basins is to maximise the water use efficiency in areas prone to drought or where rainfall is low or predicted to be low. They should not be used in areas where there is any risk of waterlogging. Planting basins also enable precise placement of organic manures and fertilizers around planting stations for efficient nutrient uptake. The size, spacing and density of basins recommended by CFU in Zambia are as follows: Basin Size: 35 cm long x 15 cm wide x 20 cm deep Spacing of basins: 75 cm to 90 cm between rows and 70 cm within rows Density of basins per ha and Soil Moved based on kg soil per basin: Spacing of 75 cm x 70 cm = 19,047 basins/ha = 285 to 305 tons per ha Spacing of 90 cm x 70 cm = 15,873 basins/ha = 238 to 254 tons per ha Labour Requirements: The main drawback of CFU s planting basins is the high labour cost to dig them. Studies conducted by Bunderson et al., (2015) show that digging basins on typical loamy clays in Malawi requires person days/ha which is 4-5 times more labour than making ridges. A compromise is to use the size and shape of hole used in Zimbabwe (Oldrieve 1993, Lowe 2011), which is basically an inverted prism 15 cm long x 15 cm wide and 10 cm deep vs. CFU s much larger rectangle box. Depending on hole density, this equates to moving kg of soil per hole or tons/ha vs tons/ha for the CFU basins. Plate 14 Above: The concept of planting basins at left, as recommended by CFU, is often distorted to mean excavating deep pits as shown at right in a nearby field in Mkanda, Mchinji. The right photo shows Mike Mailloux of CFU standing in the pits which clearly DO NOT qualify as CA due to the heavy amount of labour involved and the large volume of soil moved - see heap of top soil next to pits NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 14

24 4.4 Vetiver Hedgerows Vetiver hedges planted on the flat at regular intervals along contour lines marked with a line level or A-frame offer a complementary practice with CA to help reduce water runoff and loss of top soil. Vetiver hedges are especially useful on steep slopes, but they may also be effective on gentle to medium slopes if these areas are vulnerable to runoff and erosion. Planting material is collected by digging up clumps of grass grown in nurseries, followed by splitting the clump into slips, each with 10 cm of roots and 15 cm of leaves. The method of planting is to space the slips on the flat 10 cm apart on the contour to establish a dense hedgerow. A hedgerow of 100 m requires 1000 slips. It is important to plant the slips within 3 days of collecting clumps of vetiver otherwise the grass will dry out and die. Keeping the grass wet and covered with hestian cloth will ensure it remains green and healthy until planted. The spacing between hedgerows depends on the slope and soil, but a general guide is to space hedgerows 5 m apart on steep terrain, 10 m apart on medium slopes and 15 m apart on gently undulating land. Detailed guidelines for establishing vetiver hedgerows are contained in the manual entitled LandCare Practices in Malawi by Bunderson et al., (2002). Plate 15 Above: Integration of vetiver hedges under CA with maize at left in Chipeni, Mvera and with groundnuts at right in Mwansambo, Nkhotakota to reduce water runoff and loss of top soil on steep land 4.5 Agroforestry Systems Benefits of Integrating Agroforestry Practices with CA: Agroforestry (AF) practices help to complement CA by enhancing crop yields and soil fertility, suppressing weeds, pests and diseases (including Striga), conserving soil and water, and reducing fertilizer costs. Many agroforestry species provide other uses such as fuelwood, fodder and building materials from the same piece of land. CA in turn helps to control weeds and burning to improve the survival and growth of tree seedlings. Several AF systems are summarized below, including farmer managed natural regeneration Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration The practice is ideally suited for integration with CA as it has many positive synergistic effects. On farm natural regeneration, now commonly known as Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration, is a popular practice which has traditional roots in many farm communities. It is probably the most widespread and successful agroforestry system in Africa. NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 15

25 The best known system involves Faidherbia albida which is valued by farmers across Africa for its beneficial effects on crops, soil fertility and the micro-environment to increase and stabilize yields, especially in years of drought or low rainfall (see illustrations in the photo section below). The tree s abundant production of nutritious pods also provides a valuable source of quality feed to livestock during the dry season when the supply of quality forage is very limited. Key factors that motivate farmers to adopt this practice with CA are highlighted below: Tree uses and needs Trees provide many products and uses essential to the lives and livelihoods of farm households: fuel for cooking and heating; building materials for houses, animal enclosures and other farm structures; wood for doors, windows, furniture and handles of farm tools; fodder and shade for animals, fruits, oils, resins, dyes, and a host of medicinal and cultural uses. But many smallholders lack the knowledge, land, labour and inputs to raise and plant trees on and around their homes and farms. FMNR circumvents these challenges for reasons explained below which makes it attractive to farmers. Low Cost and Easy to do The key advantages of FMNR is that it easy to do and requires no special technical training, knowledge or timely provision of costly inputs typical of tree planting programs. In other words, it avoids the huge expense and labour demanding tasks to produce, transport, out-plant, manage, and protect seedlings raised in nurseries. It simply requires selecting and protecting trees already present on the land through natural regeneration of root stock, coppiced stumps and seedlings. Adaptability Natural regenerating trees are healthy plants selected by nature with strong root systems that can withstand climate shocks. They are well adapted to the local ecology with inherent resistance to drought, fire, browsing, pests and diseases. Consequently, there is little or no risk of setbacks common with planted seedlings. Flexibility - Most work can be done in the dry season to minimise labour conflicts with farming whereas planting of seedlings is time sensitive and coincides with critical farm operations at the start of the rains. There is no prescribed number or density of trees to retain on farms. This depends on the species selected and interests of individual farmers. The critical issue is to allow adequate space and light for crops to grow normally. This can be assisted by managing the canopy of the trees and trimming branches which can be collected for a variety of uses. Multiple benefits and products FMNR helps to restore the biodiversity of the natural landscape and to protect the local environment against adverse climate conditions while providing multiple products and uses by communities and households firewood, building material, fodder, fruits, wood for farm tools, and many medicinal and cultural uses. This is not possible from single species plantations and agroforestry systems. Impact on soils and crops Many trees benefit soils and crops by replenishing nutrients, improving the cost effectiveness of fertilizers, maximising the capture of rainfall and water infiltration, minimising effects of dry spells by conserving moisture, and reducing water runoff and loss of top soil. Impacts on crop yields can be 3-5 years with fast growing species planted at moderate to high densities vs. 10 years with species like F. albida. Bottom line Protecting trees from fire and cutting by people ensures good tree survival and growth, which will provide farmers with a diverse range of products and uses at low cost. How to undertake FMNR with CA Trees have a natural propensity to regenerate on most farmland in Malawi. They just need management and protection which is simple to do on land where CA is targeted. Key steps to implement FMNR are outlined below. NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 16

26 During the dry season, farmers have the freedom to select and protect species at a density of their choice depending on the regenerating trees available on that site. Otherwise, there is no prescribed density or spatial arrangement although the size and type of trees are an important consideration depending on the interests of the farmer. Typically, densities range from 25/ha for large trees (Diameter at Breast Height or DBH of 120+ cm with a canopy radius of 10+m for an average inter-tree spacing of 20 m), to 200/ha for small trees (DBH below 15 cm and canopy radius under 2 m with an average inter-tree spacing of 7 m). The first task is to select the trees to retain on the land based on the interests of the farmer and desired uses of the trees. This means removing other trees to provide space and light for growing crops. As mentioned above, the density or spacing depends on the type and size of the trees present on the land. After selecting the trees to manage, thin the stems or shoots as needed to 1 or 2 dominant stems to promote vertical growth. This avoids the development of scrubby bush which reduces space for crop production. Scrubby growth also produces low quantities of wood of a size to meet the different needs of farmers. The best tool for pruning and trimming is a bow saw, but a sharp panga is adequate for small diameter stems and branches. Pruning and thinning should be done with an upward slanting cut to minimise damage to the tree. For example, a downward cut may cause the branch or stem to split or the bark may be torn downwards along the living branch or stem. Collect thinned shoots and trimmings for fuel or other uses. Other products may be collected as and when available such as fruits, fodder and various parts of trees for medicinal or other uses. Manage tree canopies before and during the cropping season as necessary by trimming branches to ensure adequate space and light for good crop growth. Although most natural trees are fire resistant, they need protection from fire in the dry season to minimise damage to young trees. This is best organized through by-laws with communities and their leaders. Common species on native trees retained on farm land are listed in Table 1. Table 1: List of Common Natural Tree Species Retained on Farm Land (with local names) Acacia polyacantha (mthete) Erythrina abyssinica (mbale) Pseudolachnostylis maprouneifolia (msolo) Albizia harveyi (bwalankanga) Erythrina lysetemon (chimutu) Psorospermum febrifugam (mtsiloti) Albizia versicolor (nsenjere) Faidherbia albida (msangu) Pterocarpus angolensis (mlombwa) Annona senegalensis (mposa) Ficus natalensis (kachere) Pterocarpus rotundifolius (khongozi) Azanza garkeana (mtowi) Flacourtia indica (ntudza) Securidaca longipedunculata (bwazi) Brachystegia boehmii (mombo) Kigelia africana (mvunguti) Senna singuena (mpatsachokolo) Brachystegia spiciformis (chumbe) Kirkia acuminata (ntunduwa) Senna abbreviata (mkawakwapu) Combretum molle (kakuguni) Lannea discolor (chiumbu) Strychnos spinosa (mteme) Combretum fragrans (kadale) Lonchocarpus capassa (mpakasa) Rauvolfia caffra (chiwimbi) Combretum zeyheri (kadale) Markhamia obtusifolia (mwanabewe) Sclerocarya caffra (mfula) Commiphora africana (khobo) Parinari curatellifolia (mbula) Terminalia sericea (napini) Cussonia arborea (m'bwabwa) Pericopsis angolensis (mwanga) Vangueria infausta (mzilu, mvilu) Diplorhyncus condylocarpon (thombozi) Piliostigma thonningii (chitimbe) Vitex mombassae (mpyimpya) NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 17

27 4.5.2 Planting Faidherbia albida (msangu) with CA In areas that have no natural stands of Faidherbia trees, direct sow pre-treated seed in a small ball of wet manure, or plant healthy air-pruned seedlings to avoid damaging the root system which is sensitive to root pruning (see TLC Booklet No. 1). Seed and seedlings should be planted at 10 m x 10 m. Reduced manual weeding under CA lowers the risk of accidentally weeding out small invisible seedlings that are difficult to see among the weeds and crops. Retention of crop residues also reduces or eliminates mortality of tree seedlings from burning in the dry season. Thin the trees as they grow in size and use the wood for fuel or building material. A rough guide is to start thinning at the age of years by removing every other tree along a row. This produces a spacing of 10 m x 20 m with a density of 50 trees/ha. Depending on the rate of growth, the trees can be thinned further when the canopies touch. Ultimately, at maturity, the trees should be spaced 20 m x 20 m for a density of 25 trees /ha. Plate 16 Above: Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration (FMNR): Positive effects on maize with CA and Faidherbia (msangu) trees in Bolero, Rumphi during a dry spell due to improved soil and micro-environment (left) and with healthy maize crop (right) Plate 17 Above: Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration with CA with groundnuts at left in Ukwe, Lilongwe and with maize at right in Chivala, Dowa NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 18

28 4.5.3 Mixed Tree Intercropping with Gliricidia sepium and Senna spectabilis ICRAF has promoted this practice with Gliricidia sepium (gliricidia) for 20 years in Malawi and Zambia. It can also be implemented with Senna spectabilis (keshya wa maluwa). Although this system has worked well under researcher managed conditions, adoption by farmers is very low. Extensive experience with this practice in Malawi indicates that the main challenges are labour demands for timely planting, pruning and applying the green manure. These labour demands are linked to the high density of trees interplanted with maize. At the recommended spacing of 1.8 m x 90 cm, farmers must raise and plant 6173 seedlings per ha which is 3 times the density of a woodlot. All trees must be pruned at least twice per year to minimise competition with the crop for light, water and nutrients at critical periods and to provide green manure for improving fertility and crop yields. This is especially critical at the start of the season. After 5 or more years, the trees develop a large base which takes up considerable space at the expense of the crop. TLC has found that the spacing between hedgerows can be widened to 3.6 m to 4.5 m to reduce labour costs and competition with the crop without unduly compromising biomass yields. This is strongly recommended for those who wish to promote this practice Interplanting with Tephrosia (mthuthu, mtetezga) This practice helps to restore crop productivity by improving the chemical, physical, and biological properties of the soil with Tephrosia candida or T. vogelii, which are fast growing nitrogen fixing shrubs. Good results depend on following recommendations for planting and management with protection from burning. Tephrosia will not regenerate if cut at ground level. The subspecies Tephrosia candida is larger and produces more biomass than the more common species of Tephrosia vogelii, but seed production is low in the first year. T. candida also has low concentrations of rotenoids, which are the active ingredients for controlling insect pests such as stalk borers, aphids, weevils, even ticks and fleas on livestock. Choice of species depends on the desired uses, but a combination allows for a greater range of uses. Key benefits of Tephrosia: Fast restoration of soil fertility and structure from high biomass yields. Deep roots help break through hardpans to improve water infiltration and root development in crops. Soil and water conservation from good vegetative cover and litter combined with suppression of weeds and Striga. Abundant small diameter fuelwood of over 10 tons/ha ideal for improved cook-stoves. Prolific seeding to meet growing demands for seed. Other Uses of Tephrosia: Fresh leaves from the common species T. vogelii (i.e., not T. candida) can be pounded and soaked in water overnight to form a solution for use as an effective eco-friendly pesticide to control stalk borers and aphids; the recipe is to soak 2 kg of pounded fresh leaves overnight in 1 pail of water, then collect the solution by removing the leaves with a sieve for spraying the crop, or drip the solution into the maize boot ; Fresh leaves of T. vogelii can also be liberally mixed with maize grain to control weevil infestation in granaries (nkhokwe). Time and Method of Sowing: Interplant Tephrosia between the rows of the crop by direct sowing 2 seeds per station 1 m apart at a depth of 1.5 cm. Plant at the same time as the crop to ensure good growth and survival. 2.5 kg of seed are enough to plant 1 ha, or 1 kg for 0.4 ha. NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 19

29 Plant Spacing: x x x x x x x x x x x x x maize (25 cm apart) 90 cm o o o o o o o Tephrosia (1 m apart) x x x x x x x x x x x x Replanting: Fill gaps within 2 weeks of the first planting. Weeding: Keep fields weed free to improve survival, growth and biomass yields. Seed Banks: Farmers should establish small seed banks in the form of hedges around their homestead or other plots to meet future seed needs, and possibly for sale to other parties. Another option is to maintain plants on the perimeter of their farms for seed production. Seed Supply and Cost: Tephrosia seed is short in supply, so wise use of it is critical. Seed may be obtained in Malawi from the Land Resource Centre at a cost of about $2.50/kg. Notes: Tephrosia does not compete with crops in year 1 due to slow initial growth. Failure to plant early severely limits growth and biomass. It needs protection from burning. Tephrosia is a host to root-knot nematodes, so do not use it with nematode-susceptible crops like tobacco. There are 2 options for managing Tephrosia after Year 1, depending upon land and labour: 1. Cut Tephrosia at ground level just before land preparation at the start of the next rains. Leave the biomass to dry for several days, then shake off the leaves but do not incorporate in the soil. Remove the stems for firewood. Since Tephrosia does not coppice, it needs to be replanted at the start of the next rains. This practice continues every year. 2. Leave Tephrosia as a fallow in Year 2. It needs no management due to its dense canopy which suppresses weed growth. Before the next rains, cut Tephrosia at ground level and follow the same instructions above for the leaves and stems. Due to residual effects, there is no need to replant Tephrosia in season 3, but repeat the cycle of interplanting in Year 4. Plate 18 Above: Tephrosia at 8 months in Zidyana, Nkhotakota free of weeds after the maize harvest with farmer Exlina Azele at left and the same Tephrosia at 15 months during the fallow cycle in year 2 at right with TLC management staff Richard Museka and Victoria Kambalame NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 20

30 4.6 Green Manure Cover Crops Green manure cover crops (GMCCs) can be grown as intercrops or in rotations to control weeds (including Striga) and to supplement nitrogen to increase crop yields and to reduce costs of fertilizer. The level of these benefits depends on the type of cover crop used and their suitability to the local environment and farming system. Potential species are listed in Table 2 which shows the recommended spacing and plant populations. Lower weed densities have been reported with fast growing species that cover the ground faster and more completely such as velvet bean, lablab, and cowpea vs. slower growing pigeon peas and common rattle-pod which do not cover the ground as well. However, the latter species have the advantage of higher biomass production and slower decomposition of residues to extend the period of ground cover. In terms of increasing yields, maize rotations with leguminous cover crops give significantly higher yields than cereal mono-cropping or maize rotations with non-leguminous cover crops. The ability to incorporate rotations depends on farmer specific circumstances, such as land holding size, productivity, and available markets for produce from cover crops. Some work has been done on green manure cover crops (GMCC) as intercrops or in rotation with cereals with CA in Malawi (see Annex 1). There is also a fair body of research from Zimbabwe that shows high potential for a variety of leguminous cover crops that can help to control weeds and to provide abundant quality green manure to improve soil fertility and crop yields (Mhlanga et al., 2015). The potential of these cover crops needs to be explored with farmers under CA in different agro-ecologies. Table 2: Recommended Species and Spacing of Green Manure Cover Crops Species Spacing between (cm) rows plant plants ha -1 ) seed (kg ha -1 ) Rattlepod (Crotalaria grahamiana) , Red Sunnhemp (Crotalaria ochroleuca) , Black or Indian Sunnhemp (Crotalaria juncea) , Lablab (Lablab purpureus) , Velvet bean (Mucuna pruriens) , Jack Bean (Canavalia ensiformis) , Fodder Radish (Raphanus sativus) , Cow Peas (Vigna unguiculata) , Pigeon Peas (Cajanus cajan) , Fodder Crops and Integration of Livestock Targeted population (# Approx. amount of Livestock are an important component to farming systems and they need quality feed throughout the year. While crop residues provide an important source of feed for livestock in the dry season, the nutritional value of most crop residues is low and cannot meet the maintenance requirements of livestock. In most farm cases, there should be adequate residues to share with livestock because a substantial proportion will remain on or in the soil due to natural decomposition, termite activity, trampling and mixing with the soil. In addition, medium to large stalks are generally left on the ground due to their low palatability. In terms of conflict, cattle pose the greatest threat to retain adequate residues on the ground because small ruminants consume very little due to their low nutritional value. In cases where heavy grazing by cattle compromises use of residues for CA, farmers should be encouraged to grow fodder crops in and around the farm to provide quality feed to supplement grazing during the dry season. Given the high value of animals in the farming system, this plan should be attractive to farmers who own livestock. NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 21

31 Most of the green manure species listed in Table 2 are also suitable as feed and may be grown as intercrops, rotations, fallows or on farm boundaries. Certain agroforestry species also provide valuable fodder such as Calliandra calothyrus, Gliricidia sepium, Leucaena leucocephala, L. diversifolia and Sesbania sesban. These species may be grown in pure stands as 1) fodder banks at a spacing of 90 x 90 cm, 2) on farm boundaries 90 cm apart, or 3) interplanted with crops as hedgerows spaced 3.6 m 4.6 m apart and 90 cm between stations. Note that Gliricidia is poisonous to pigs and feeding of Leucaena should not exceed 30% of the total feed intake by livestock due to mimosine toxicity. Other fodder species include herbaceous legumes (many listed in Table 2) and grasses such as Rhodes grass (Chloris gayana) and napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum). The pros and cons of using low quality crop residues for feed vs. their use under CA are discussed in Annex Winter Irrigation Low-cost systems of irrigation (see TLC Booklet No. 5) offer opportunities to increase food security, productivity, nutrition and incomes while reducing dependency on rainfed crops with high risks from variable rainfall and climate change. Clear benefits will result from introducing basic CA practices with irrigation during the winter/dry season to enhance productivity, soil and water conservation and cost efficiencies. The farmers targeted for irrigation are those with the interest, experience and resources to undertake irrigation successfully on small intensively managed plots in low-lying areas with rich soils close to perennial water supplies. Different types of irrigation are suitable for CA including treadle pumps, overhead sprinklers, drip and solar systems, and stream diversion with canals to irrigate crops by gravity. Incorporating basic CA and agroforestry practices on irrigated lands offer potential to increase crop productivity at lower costs by reducing water use, weeds, and input costs while adding protection against the risks of climate change. At the outset, some soil disturbance is needed when levelling the land and constructing basins to contain the water provided through irrigation. Basins are effectively permanent and need only minor maintenance. It is also recommended to mix the soil with organic or animal manures, planting on the flat within the basins without making ridges. Herbicides may be used to control weeds, especially for rice and sugar cane to avoid soil disturbance and removal of residues when replanting or when rotating rice with beans using residual soil moisture. Crop rotations and intercropping are critical to maintain soil health and to reduce pests and diseases. After the crop is harvested, the crop residues are retained within the basin to add organic matter and provide protective mulch which can reduce weeding and the amount of water and labour for irrigation by 30-50%. Agroforestry species and vetiver hedgerows may be planted at regular intervals to reduce water runoff and erosion, especially during the rainy season. Plate 19 Above: CA with minimum till under irrigation at left in Linga, Nkhotakota and use of crop residues as surface mulch with CA under irrigation in Chioshya, Mchinji to reduce water use, evaporation and weeds NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 22

32 4.9 Measures for Weed Control including Herbicides In Malawi, it is estimated that 2.5 million farm families spend 150 million days hand weeding crops each year. Much of this work is done by women and children. Most farm households face serious challenges for effective weed control because of the abundant growth of weeds which compete aggressively for water and nutrients with severe consequences on crop yields. Often, some fields are completely overwhelmed by weeds and the resources invested by farmers to establish their crops are wasted. Labour constrained households, including those affected by HIV/AIDs, are particularly vulnerable to the harsh impact of weeds. Weed control can be a little tricky with CA. Hoes can be used to scrap off the weeds on the surface with spot hand weeding to minimise labour costs and soil disturbance. Additional weed control may be achieved by retaining crop residues and other biomass on the surface, aided by legume intercrops, agroforestry and cover crops. In some cases, it may be desirable and more cost effective to use herbicides to complement the other measures of weed control, especially on larger land holdings or where labour for weeding is limited. Key benefits of herbicides include minimal soil disturbance and savings in labour, especially among women and children who are often responsible for the arduous task of weeding. Eliminating weed competition at critical stages of crop growth also allows the crop potential to be realized and enhances resilience to dry spells by reserving soil moisture and nutrients for the benefit of the crop. Herbicides recommended are those accepted in most countries as having minimal adverse effects on the environment. These include post-emergent herbicides such as glyphosate which contains glyphosate isopropylamine (IPA) and Stellar Star which contains a mixture of dicamba and topramezone. Most pre-emergent herbicides contain chloroacetamides and/or triazine which are discouraged by the NCATF as they are regarded as more persistent with harmful effects on the environment. Use of glyphosate and Stellar Star is described in section 5 below. The use of herbicides will reduce weed seeds in the soil over time, which will ultimately reduce the costs and need for herbicides. Plate 20 Below: Safe and proper application of post-emergent herbicides such as glyphosate by Herbert Chipara at left to control weeds before planting, and Stellar Star which can be applied within 4-6 weeks of planting maize as seen at right (Matenje, Salima) NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 23

33 5 STEP BY STEP GUIDELINES TO IMPLEMENT BEST CA PRACTICES Steps for implementing CA with different crops are provided below. Other details were presented in earlier sections that include complementary practices for inclusion with CA to enhance benefits. The message is simple: sow seed in small planting holes, retain residues where they are produced and diversify crops with rotations and/or associations. 5.1 Land Preparation and Management of Crop Residues and Weeds after Harvest o o o o o o o Encourage farmers NOT to burn or remove crop residues and weeds as they are critical for protecting the soil, capturing rainfall, conserving soil moisture and increasing soil organic matter. This will likely require concerted efforts by farmers to establish by-laws to control burning through the leadership structure of the community. Use residues and weeds produced on the area targeted for CA if available. It is best NOT to import residues or other biomass from surrounding fields as this is not a sustainable practice and it prevents farmers from expanding the area of CA due to concentrating all residues on a small area of the farm. Distribute crop residues and biomass on the surface parallel to the intended planting rows to facilitate direct sowing into prepared planting holes (see below). Cut or scrape off weeds from the soil surface with a hoe leaving the biomass as cover, except for weeds that re-root easily. This process does not involve deep cultivation. When starting CA, make small planting holes 10 cm deep on old ridges for good crop establishment. This is critical in dry areas or when rainfall is predicted to be low. If residues are NOT available, farmers may still undertake minimum tillage with maize and other crops, but every effort should be made to provide protective ground cover with crop residues or other biomass to reduce runoff, to conserve soil moisture, and to increase soil organic matter to prevent the development of shallow hard pans. Old ridges flatten out within one or two seasons at which time a dibble stick may be used as long as there is good ground cover. In cases with no residues, proceed to Step 2 below. If ridges are far off contour, it is advisable to flatten the ridges and plant on the contour. If feed for livestock is a priority, allow the animals to graze on the crop residues. In most cases, 30-50% of the residues will remain on the land or in the soil due to the effects of termites, trampling, decomposition, and mixing with the soil. With cereals, animals will generally leave behind medium and large stalks which are of low palatability and nutritional value unless collected, chopped up and mixed with a supplement. Note: Over time, increased yields will produce more biomass to provide a better balance between using the residues for soil cover and livestock feed. At the same time, livestock farmers should plant fodder crops and trees in and around their farms and homesteads to provide quality feed to their animals year round. This will reduce competition for low quality crop residues from cereals which can be used for soil cover. 5.2 Planting with Minimal Soil Disturbance o o o o Do NOT construct new ridges, basins or pits since this disturbs the soil excessively and incurs high labour costs. After ridges subside, pegs and string may be used to mark planting rows at the recommended spacing for the intended crop (see Table 2 below). On land with abundant crop residues and/or weeds, open the biomass along the intended lines of planting to facilitate direct sowing. Make planting holes with a hoe on tops of old ridges to a depth of 10 cm, or use a dibble stick on the flat. Plant crops at the correct depth and spacing (see details below). Sow the correct number of seeds direct into the small planting holes. NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 24

34 5.3 Spacing of Major Crops in Pure and Intercropped Stands Row spacing will initially follow the old ridges if present. After the ridges flatten out, use the row spacing shown in Table 3. The intra-row spacing below should be used whether planting on the old ridges or on the flat. Expected yields will vary with area, rainfall and fertilizer use (see also Guide to Agricultural Production in Malawi (2014). Table 3: Summary of Plant Spacing for Major Crops and Legume/Cereal Intercrops Long Maturing Varieties Spacing cm # Seeds Pop'tion Spacing cm # Seeds Pop'tion Pure Stand (Sole Crop) Rows Stations /Station Per ha Rows Stations /Station Per ha Maize , ,333 Sorghum , ,889 Groundnuts (with ridges) , ,333 Groundnuts (with CA) , ,667 Soya beans , ,667 Pigeon Peas , ,333 Cowpeas , ,333 Beans , ,111 Tobacco Burley ,152 Tobacco Flue/Dark Fired ,000 Cotton ,667 Cassava (for production) ,000 Cassava (for multiplication) ,000 Intercropping Legumes Spacing cm # Seeds/ Pop'tion Spacing cm # Seeds/ Pop'tion between rows of Cereals 2 Rows Stations Station Per ha Rows Stations Station Per ha Maize , ,333 Sorghum , ,556 Pigeon Peas , ,333 Cowpeas , ,333 Beans , ,333 Source: Guide to Agricultural Production (GAP) in Malawi (2014) 1 Recommendation on soya and groundnuts under CA was modified by ability to cut the inter-row spacing in half which is not possible with ridges. This virtually doubles the ground cover and population which doubles the yields while reducing runoff and erosion. It also reduces rosette disease. 2 The recommendation for intercropping under CA is to interplant between the rows of the cereals with variable spacing between stations depending on the crop and variety. 5.4 Application of Fertilizer for Cereals under CA Short Maturing Varieties Rates for applying fertilizer under CA depend on resources as shown in Table 4. Table 4: Guidelines for Combining Chemical Fertilizers with CA to Optimize Returns for the Cost Time of Application Basal: before or at Planting Top Dressing: 2-4 weeks after Planting Combined Total Type of Fertilizer NP S Urea (46 N) Recommended Rate # of 50 kg Bags / ha Kg/ha of Nutrients Medium Rate # of 50 kg Bags / ha Kg/ha of Nutrients # of 50 kg Bags / ha Kg/ha of Nutrients 23 N 23 N 23 N 2 21 P 2 O P 2 O P 2 O 5 4 S 4 S 4 S N 2 46 N Modest Rate 92 N 69 N 46 N 21 P 2 O P 2 O P 2 O 5 4 S 4 S 4 S 1 23 N NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 25

35 5.4 Types of Herbicides and their Application: Herbicides help to control weeds in a timely and cost effective manner. They also minimise soil disturbance. Their use relieves the heavy burden of manual weeding, especially among women and children. Only two herbicides widely used in the USA and Europe (Glyphosate and Stellar Star) are recommended based on their low persistence in the soil and minimal adverse effects on the environment (see Measures for Weed Control, page 23; see also Pest Management Plan of MoAIWD (2013). a) Application of Glyphosate (Post-Emergent Herbicide): Round-up is a post emergent herbicide suitable for all crops to kill weeds that have germinated BEFORE the crop emerges. The rate of application is 2.5 litres/ha which entails mixing 300 ml of round-up with water in a 16 litre knapsack sprayer. Eight filled knapsack sprayers will cover 1 ha of land. Spray 1 day after planting BEFORE crop emergence, and walk at a steady pace with the sprayer nozzle just above the weeds to ensure good application on the targeted weeds. Select a sunny period of the day with little or no wind for effective spraying to enhance absorption of the herbicide into the tissues of the weeds. Target actively growing weeds because dry or stressed plants will not absorb the chemical properly, thereby reducing effective control. Protect agroforestry seedlings by spraying away from them, or covering them with a plastic bag. b) Application of Stellar Star (Post-Emergent Herbicide): Stellar Star is a post-emergent herbicide for maize only and cannot be applied after planting legume or broad-leafed crops. The advantage of Stellar Star is that it can be applied up to 6 weeks after planting, without harming the maize crop, to kill a wide range of grasses and broad-leaf weeds, many of which germinate several weeks after planting. The application rate is litre per ha. It entails mixing ml of the herbicide with water in a 16 litre knapsack sprayer. Eight filled knapsack sprayers will cover 1 ha of land. Follow directions provided with the herbicide and the spraying practices outlined for roundup above. 5.6 Treatment of Legume Pests Many legumes such as cowpeas, beans and pigeon peas are attacked by various insects at the vegetative, flowering or pod development stage. Treatment with pesticides may be necessary when serious problems are encountered with the following insect pests, but an updated list of approved pesticides for Malawi should be consulted before procurement and use: Spray carbaryl or Sevin at 85 g in 14 litres of water to treat flower eaters, leaf eaters, grasshoppers, pod borers, and flower beetles. Sevin is not regarded as persistent and is widely used in the USA and many other countries but banned in some European countries. Its current status for use in Malawi should be checked. Follow directions as instructed in manuals. Spray Dimethoate EC at 25 g in 10 litres of water to treat aphids, pod sucking insects, foliage thrips and sucking bugs. Dimethoate is not persistent and is biodegradable but toxic to both invertebrates and vertebrates. Its current status for use in Malawi should be checked. Follow directions as instructed in manuals. NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 26

36 6 EFFECTIVE EXTENSION APPROACHES FOR CA 6.1 Entry Points for Promoting CA The greatest challenge facing adoption of a good practice like CA is effective extension and training with the correct technical message. Based on the experience gained over the last 12 years, the main barriers and drivers of adoption have been identified which is the first step to address the problem (see Annex 3). Malawi is now is a position to harmonize the basic approach for extending CA with sound guidance on the definition and understanding of CA principles and how to implement them in practice with positive results. As would be expected, there is considerable variation in the farming systems and crops grown by farmers across Malawi. These are determined by numerous factors including soil types, rainfall patterns, topography, population densities, cultural differences, market opportunities and access to resources and knowledge. Other factors impacting smallholder households and crop production are as follows: a. Excessively costly and destructive tillage practices that require continuous soil disturbance for establishing crops whether by hoe, draft animals or mechanization. b. High labour requirements for land preparation, ridging and weeding with overwhelming demands at critical periods during the farm calendar which can impact critical timing. c. Unnecessary burden on women and children to undertake menial and time consuming tasks of land preparation, ridging and weeding. d. Declining soil fertility from intrusive and extractive farming practices that increase the oxidation of organic carbon, nutrient depletion, water runoff and erosion. e. Disproportionate allocation of land for producing maize (usually the main staple) at the expense of other crops, in particular grain legumes and drought tolerant crops suited to low rainfall areas, due to beliefs that these crops cannot satisfy household food requirements. f. Inefficient utilization of on farm resources and purchased inputs. g. Stagnant productivity and inadequate returns to land, labour and capital. It is clear from the above that CA has potential to address challenges (a) and (b) because they are the drivers behind the negative outcomes of (c) to (g). Annex 1 shows evidence based results of research and on-farm trials from the region. Although there has been diverse interest and investment in promoting CA in Malawi, which has been reinforced by positive results with farmers in many parts of the country, adoption rates have been much lower than expected. This has raised concerns that there are problems with the extension delivery of CA on the ground. In response, the NCATF and others have made extensive efforts to investigate and publicize the true nature of the problem with the aim to galvanize collective action to address the challenges in a collaborative and systematic manner. The results are influencing the mind-set among major stakeholders and implementers in Malawi to change the focus and direction for promoting CA. There is now wide-scale agreement that effective extension services involve dynamic participatory approaches with community leaders, farmers, researchers and extension staff to jointly identify, plan and evaluate best interventions to address priority farmer needs and interests. This is similar to the innovation approaches described by Ekboir (2002) and Thierfelder and Wall (2011). The concept is simple: Adoption of a technology depends on farmers; therefore, active farmer participation in evaluating and adapting a technology to their specific needs and circumstances is critical to attract interest in adoption. NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 27

37 In this context, lead farmers and farmer field schools have a key role to play in the delivery of effective extension services. A critical starting point is to engage good farmers who have influence in the community and who are willing to experiment with new ideas and practices on their own farms. Agreed action plans at the village or group level include farmer-led training, demonstrations, field days and exchange visits to showcase best practices and their benefits for upscaling interventions. The premise for success is to ensure the approach is farmer driven supported by a robust interactive model of extension and research based on local experiences, knowledge and innovation. Exchanges of this nature facilitate sharing outcomes and challenges among farmers, researchers and extension agents on what works well, what doesn t and how to improve and adapt innovations to meet different needs and circumstances. This participatory approach runs against traditional linear extension models where technologies developed on research stations are passed on to extension service providers and then to farmers with the expectation of immediate adoption. Interactive participatory approaches with farmers in the forefront provide opportunities to understand and respond to the innovations, interests, needs and resources of farmers to create conditions favourable for adopting and upscaling a particular practice within the local context. 6.2 Critical Needs for Upscaling Adoption of CA To accelerate adoption of CA with more farmers on larger areas of their farms, there is a critical need to provide evidence of its performance and benefits relative to traditional practices with different crops and farmers in different agro-ecologies, to improve and harmonize extension messages with implementing organizations, (or at least to minimise conflicting messages), to strengthen the knowledge base of CA among farmers and staff, and to improve access to agricultural inputs and tools by farmers. Ultimately, the success of scaling up is that CA must be farmer-driven; it cannot be forced on them from outside. The challenge is to understand the context to make this a reality. Subsequent actions led by farmers can then be formulated to create the necessary preconditions to facilitate and accelerate faster adoption of CA at scale. Agreed actions underway for upscaling CA in Malawi: 1. Improve and intensify training of extension staff and farmers to reduce confusion created by conflicting extension messages which have affected adoption rates and up-scaling efforts. 2. Simplify CA principles and practices for widespread application with flexibility for farmers to adapt CA with different crops, agro-ecological zones and farmer-specific circumstances. 3. Conduct a stock-taking exercise of organizations promoting CA in Malawi to document approaches, successes, challenges, impacts, adoption rates, modifications to local conditions, publications, collaboration with others, and many other factors. The aim is to better understand how to up-scale CA with greater harmony and coordination. 4. Action MoAIWD to include CA in the new agriculture policy and resolve the conflict with contour ridging to minimise confusion and increase support for efforts at upscaling CA, not only on individual farms but on a landscape level to mitigate the effects of climate change. 5. Publicize the poor success of conventional linear extension models due to limited engagement of farmers which has perpetuated the poor understanding and interest in CA. 6. Increase collaboration among donors, Government Departments, research institutions, universities, NGOs, projects and the private sector to harmonize CA extension approaches and messages. A key aim is to dispel misconceptions about definition, benefits and implementation of CA, even in the absence of inputs and tools including information on the use of crop resides in-situ vs. importing them, and how to effectively manage weeds, pests, diseases, burning and livestock in an integrated manner. 7. Empower the NCATF to take a more pro-active role in coordinating extension efforts across implementers by sharing lessons and experiences through regular meetings, publications, workshops, field trips and symposia. NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 28

38 8. Facilitate the widespread diffusion of CA by fostering innovative farmer-based approaches that have shown clear evidence of sustained adoption. 9. Nomination of TLC by the NCATF to develop draft national guidelines for implementing CA in Malawi for review and revision by members of the NCATF (this document). 10. Action DARS and Lilongwe University to develop a curriculum for training extension staff based on farmer experiences and innovations on what has worked well where and why. 11. Action a qualified central body to produce and disseminate quality extension and training materials to implementing organizations and extension agents, and provide a list of reputable sources of inputs and tools. 12. Publicize the wealth of knowledge and results about the value and impact of CA in Malawi through a wide range of media to better inform and educate key stakeholders, including the MoAIWD, NGOs, donor agencies, projects, policy makers and the private sector. A major aim is to translate successful examples of farmer led out-scaling into streamlined activities by all agencies involved which will support more sustained adoption. The overall focus is to adapt CA to diverse farm conditions and agro-ecologies while avoiding conflicts from promoting distinctly different systems of CA that only add more confusion to extension staff and farmers. 6.3 Calendar of Activities Extension Activities Evaluate the potential of CA in terms of bio-physical and sociocultural factors; community interest and level of commitment Sensitize and mobilize communities on the benefits of CA and related practices Establish targets for CA by site/area based on interest from communities and resources available Identify and select Lead Farmers based on established criteria Procure and distribute needed inputs for Lead Farmers to provide training and demonstrations to Follower Farmers Procure and distribute needed inputs for Follower Farmers to implement CA based on agreed areas/farmer and modalities Facilitate club formation as needed per Lead Farmer Activities for Implementing CA Train & support lead farmers in CA and complementary practices (vetiver hedgerows, FMNR, agroforestry, herbicide use etc.) Train LFs on crop residue management Train LFs on raising and planting tree seedlings, with a special focus on soil improving species such as Faidherbia (msangu) Train LFs on methods of planting and weeding crops with minimal soil disturbance and application of herbicides Train LFs on safe and proper use of herbicides and pesticides Train LFs on planting and managing tree seedlings Facilitate distribution of CA packs where applicable Mount demonstrations with Lead Farmers on each practice Linkages with Markets and the Private Sector Facilitate farmer linkages with agro-dealers and input suppliers Facilitate linkages with service providers such as mechanized ripping as available and in demand Organise market linkages between farmers and traders/buyers Period April - July April - August May July June - August June - August June - August June - August Period May - December May July August October October December (depends on the rains) November - January October - April September - November September - August Period May October July - November April December NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 29

39 7 KEY NEEDS AND CHALLENGES 7.1 Extension Services The following are among the key challenges and needs in Malawi and other countries in the region to promote CA with smallholder farmers. Evaluate the reasons for adoption and non-adoption of CA with farmers in different areas. Increase communication and collaboration across all sectors by providing opportunities to share experiences and lessons and to harmonize approaches to reach more farmers. Increase awareness and knowledge about the basic principles and benefits of CA among practitioners, farmers and extension service providers to break norms of ridging, burning and clearing debris from farm lands. Train field staff and farmers with quality extension support. Produce and disseminate consistent and practical guidelines on implementing CA in different agro-ecological zones of Malawi to include: o o o o Technical guidelines for field staff and practitioners Extension leaflets and posters for farmers Approaches to enlist the participation of lead farmers in extension services Guidelines for establishing and managing farmer field schools Increase access to low interest loans for CA inputs among farmers. Encourage the establishment of by-laws in villages to control burning of crop residues for various reasons (e.g., mice hunters, jealousy) and to control livestock grazing if the priority is to use the crop residues for CA. Link CA guidelines with plans develop CSA guidelines as CA is an integral part of CSA. 7.2 Research Services The following are key research needs to fill gaps in our knowledge of CA. Evaluate application of CA with a broader range of crops, especially tobacco, cassava and sweet potatoes. Document the gross margins and labour costs of CA vs. conventional farming practices, including the impacts on reducing the burden on women and children for many farm tasks. Evaluate the gross margins/savings of using modest levels of chemical fertilizers. Evaluate the long term effects of CA on soil, pests and diseases in cereal dominated systems vs. 1) a balanced rotation with 2, 3 and 4 crops; 2) intercropping or relay cropping with various legumes, and 3) fodder or green manure cover crops. Evaluate the costs, benefits and effectiveness of constructing planting basins of different sizes with and without the addition of 1) fertilizers, 2) organic manures and 3) mulch/residues vs. planting on the flat or on the top of old ridges. NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 30

40 Provide GIS based references on research trials and on-farm demonstration plots. Extension efforts should also provide GIS reference points on farmers adopting CA. Document the biophysical conservation claims of CA across agro-ecological zones: o o o o o o Reduced runoff, water infiltration and loss of top soil Application with other crops, especially cassava, cotton, groundnuts, and tobacco Impacts on improving soil properties and reducing the amount of chemical fertilizers Carbon sequestration / reduced carbon gas (CG) emissions Reduced weed biomass and seed reservoirs Control of pests/disease with legumes Evaluate the costs and effectiveness of suitable herbicides at different rates with possibilities for reducing their use overtime. Evaluate the costs and benefits of sharing crop residues between livestock and CA with a focus on complementary interactions to minimize conflicts. Evaluate the impacts and benefits of specific agroforestry practices with a focus on: o o o FMNR with a variety of natural trees focusing on Faidherbia albida Interplanting seedlings of Faidherbia albida vs. direct sowing of pre-treated seed with a ball of wet manure. Planting leguminous trees or shrubs as green manure / fodder banks, intercrops or fallows depending on land size. Potential species include (see also Table 1 above): Cajanus cajan (pigeon peas) Calliandra calothyrsus (red calliandra) Canavalia ensiformis (jack bean) Crotalaria ochroleuca, C. juncea (sunnhemp species) Crotalaria grahamiana (rattlepod) Desmodium species (e.g., D. uncinatum) Gliricidia sepium Lablab purpureus (lablab) Leucaena leucocephala and L. diversifolia (Leucaena species) Mucuna pruriens (velvet beans) Sesbania sesban (Egyptian pea, river bean) Tephrosia vogelii and T. candida (fish bean) Vigna unguiculata (cowpeas - decumbent varieties) Evaluate intercropping maize with certain n-fixing legume species such as Desmodium spp. as an integrated pest management practice for fodder and green manure to reduce Striga (through allelopathic effects on the germination of seed) as well as to reduce stalk borers by growing nearby plots of napier grass to attract stalk borers away from maize. Quantify the benefits of including other conservation practices with CA on slopes or soils prone to erosion such as vetiver hedgerows. Evaluate the benefits and costs of using different tools such as jab planters and draft oxen with magoye or other suitable rippers for farmers who have oxen. Compare the value of using crop residues for feeding livestock in the dry season vs. leguminous fodder species that are grown in or around the farm and homestead. NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 31

41 7.3 Monitoring and Evaluation of CA in Malawi Monitoring is the systematic and routine collection of information from projects and programs with the following key aims: To improve practices and inform future implementation of similar activities based on field experiences and interactions with beneficiaries. To provide accountability of the resources used and the results obtained for both internal and external purposes. To help make informed decisions on the continued implementation of the project activities with modifications for improvement based on experiences and knowledge gained. To add a qualitative human element to the quantitative results through surveys, interviews, and documentation of success stories. To promote community responsibility and ownership of project activities by empowering beneficiaries to track their own results and providing regular feedback to communities and households on project results, challenges, weaknesses and strengths. This section is not intended to recommend a comprehensive system of M&E. Rather it is designed to provide a consistent set of indicators and tools for collecting basic information on the scale of CA adoption across Malawi in terms of area and number of farmers. Given that farmers are rarely able to implement all 3 principles of CA at the outset, the basic M&E tools provide the ability to collect data on different principles and combinations as well as the integration of complementary practices Oversight and Reviews Implementation oversight of the National Guidelines on CA in Malawi will be accomplished through regular meetings of the National Conservation Agriculture Task Force (NCATF) Monitoring and Knowledge Sharing Monitoring will be a continuous activity at the field level, with coordination through the Agricultural Extension Development Officer (AEDO) at the section level of the EPA to provide the focal point for using the monitoring toolkits. Section level data will be collected by the AEDO and/or project/ngo extension counterparts disaggregated by project. This information will be consolidated by the AEDC at the EPA level for submission to the District Agriculture Offices. While roll out and implementation of the guidelines will be coordinated through agriculture extension staff under the DAES, the NCATF will utilize the M&E Officers from the MoAIWD to coordinate and roll out the monitoring and reporting tool kits at all levels. The NCATF will be the primary vehicle for disseminating knowledge on best practices, experiences and lessons from implementing the guidelines Indicators and Reporting Schedule Data on a number of common indicators will be collected at an agreed time and interval using standardized reporting templates. The indicators to be reported are listed below: Number of households practicing min till (disaggregated by gender) Number of households practicing min till + crop residue retention (disaggregated by gender) Number of households practicing min till + crop rotations/associations (disaggregated by gender) NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 32

42 Number of households practicing all 3 principles of CA min till, good soil cover and crop rotations/associations (disaggregated by gender) Number of households practicing the above combinations of CA principles + fertilizer trees (disaggregated by gender) Number of households practicing the above combinations of CA principles + vetiver grass (disaggregated by gender) Number of households practicing the above combinations of CA principles + any other complementary practices (disaggregated by gender). Computer analyses can generate information on many different combinations of practices by any parameter such as location, project, gender etc. Area under CA for each of the different categories above Key Objectives of a Common M&E System: For effective monitoring and reporting of CA practices, a monitoring system is needed to achieve the following minimum objectives: 1. To document the scale and location of each CA practice (see above) 2. To avoid double counting of the same farmers and fields from one year to the next. 3. To consolidate achievements across different implementers based on common indicators. Basic information needs: Project Name Implementing Organization and Partners Site details (village, GVH, TA, EPA, District) Household/Farmer details name and location with geo references Area / Size of field under each CA practice (see above) Breakdown of principles followed where minimum soil disturbance is the minimum requirement Integration of complementary practices (fertilizers, organic manures, agroforestry, natural regeneration, vetiver grass, green manure cover crops, fodder banks) Crops grown under CA Number of years practicing CA M&E Data Tools and Templates Strategic tools of M&E include templates for collecting and reporting information on CA practices (see Tables 5 & 6 below). Development of a computerized farm household database is also recommended to collect data electronically using Malawi s satellite mobile network. This system involves equipping trained Extension Workers with hand-sets or smart phones programed with organized data fields to enter and transmit data on common indicators in real time without cumbersome hand-written data sheets. Basically, the best and most convenient and cost effective time for collecting field results on implementing different CA practices will be once per annum after the crops are mature, or at least well established, between March and May. NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 33

43 Implementing agency Table 5: M&E TEMPLATE FOR COLLECTING DATA ON CA PRACTICES District EPA Section Village Farmer Name Sex - M/F Sex of HH - M/F Name of AEDO/Field Tech Month Reported Year Reported Coordinates of CA Size of CA plot Easting Northing (m 2 ) Min Till Traditional Authority Group Village Head Name of AEDC Other complementary practices (tick) Principles Practiced (Tick) Good Crop soil Associat- cover Crops Grown ions (insert codes) No. of Years Codes for crops (1) Maize (2) Groundnuts (3) Soya beans (4) Beans (5) Pigeon peas (6) Cowpeas (7) Cassava (8) Sweet Pot (9) Tobacco (10) Sorghum/millet (11) Rice (12) Sugar cane (13) Other Codes for complementary practices 1. Organic Manure (compost, animal & green manure) (2) Chemical fertilizers (3) Improved seeds (4) Herbicides (5) Agroforestry & Natural Regeneration (6) Planting basins / tools (7) Fodder & cover crops (8) Soil & water conservation NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 34

44 Table 6: MoAIWD REPORTING TEMPLATE ON FARMERS AND AREA UNDER CA PRACTICES DISTRICT: TA: CA PRINCIPLES EPA: # SECTIONS: AEDC NAME: # IMPLEMENTING ORGS ANNUAL ACHIEVEMENTS Male Female Total # HH undertaking minimum tillage only # Ha under minimum tillage only # HH undertaking minimum tillage + good soil cover (crop residue retention) # Ha under minimum tillage + good soil cover (crop residue retention) # HH undertaking minimum tillage + crop rotations / associations # Ha under minimum tillage + crop rotations / associations # HH undertaking minimum tillage + crop residue retention + crop associations/rotations # Ha under minimum tillage + crop residue retention + crop associations/rotations Total HHs practicing any combination of CA Principles (with Min Till as the core) Total HA under any combination of CA Principles (with min till as the core) CA + KEY COMPLEMENTARY PRACTICES # HHs practicing CA + Agroforestry / Natural Regeneration (Fertilizer trees) # Ha under CA + Agroforestry / Natural Regeneration (Fertilizer trees) # HHs practicing CA + Other S&WC Practices (e.g., vetiver hedgerows) # Ha under CA + Other S&WC Practices (e.g., vetiver hedgerows) Total HHs practicing CA + Any Complementary Practice Total Ha under CA + Any Complementary Practice Male Female Total Note: Other complementary practices could also be documented as desired by the implementing organization. A further breakdown of gender by Youths could also be included. 7.4 Improved Access to Input and Output Markets Increased productivity and diversification from undertaking CA needs to include efforts to link farmers to input and output markets by improving access to microfinance and quality inputs and by forming groups to better market their produce with better prices at lower costs. To achieve this, the program will provide the following support: Market Knowledge Access to reliable information on a regular basis is critical for active participation in the market place. This can be achieved by strengthening linkages with organizations such as NASFAM (National Smallholder Farmers Association of Malawi), FUM (Farmers Union of Malawi), AICC (African Institute for Corporate Citizenship), and ACE (Agriculture Commodity Exchange for Africa) to play a role in providing these services. The key tasks may include the following: NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 35

45 Facilitate formation of clusters around identified value chains. This entails supporting producer groups to form clusters for specific commodities to encourage selling produce in groups to maximize economies of scale. Value-added processing such as grading and packaging may also be encouraged to enhance financial returns and reduce costs such as transporting produce and purchasing inputs. To support these efforts, cluster groups could be linked to key players such as ACE, AICC and the Auction Holding Commodity Exchange (AHX) which may include organizing meetings with buyers to set up contract agreements. Train committees of cluster groups in areas of governance, leadership, business administration and effective market negotiations with the aim to ensure that the groups effectively execute and coordinate their farm business plans. Trainings will help to enlighten farmer groups towards excellence and effective execution of day-to-day activities and build their capabilities to develop an informed business plan and constitution in order to gain a competitive advantage in the market with direct benefits to individual members. Facilitate market research of selected sub-sectors and linkages with cluster groups Private Sector Engagement Links to agro-dealers and suppliers of equipment and inputs are critical in providing services to improve agricultural productivity. Key actions may include: Assistance to support the establishment of a private sector supply chain with responsibility for all aspects of procurement, shipment, delivery of equipment and inputs down to district and community level, including provision of spares for maintaining equipment. Work with organizations such as Rural Market Development Trust (RUMARK) to build agrodealer capacity to stock and sell quality inputs to farmers. RUMARK is an NGO specializing in enterprise based agricultural development initiatives to facilitate market access, enhance agribusiness competitiveness, increase productivity and improve access to agro inputs, credit and financial services. Evaluate opportunities to establish agreements with Micro-Finance Institutions such as Opportunity Bank of Malawi and others to provide financial services to farmers who have the skills and ability to repay loans. The loan products should be tailored to farmers needs and the seasonality of the agricultural market. Loans are typically provided only where there is a healthy business case with access to an established value chain and market. NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 36

46 8 REFERENCES Aagaard, P. (2011). The practice of conventional and conservation agriculture in East and Southern Africa. Lusaka, Zambia: Conservation Farming Unit Zambia. Bunderson, W. T. Hayes, I. M. (1995). Agricultural and environmental sustainability in Malawi. Proceedings of the Atlas Conference on Agricultural Sustainability in Africa: Issues for Policy-Makers, Abidjan, Côte d Ivoire, African Academy of Sciences, Nairobi, Kenya. July, Bunderson, W. T., Jere, Z. D., Hayes, I. M. & Phombeya, H. S. K. (2002). Land Care Practices in Malawi. Malawi Agroforestry Extension Project Publication No. 42. Lilongwe, Malawi: Total LandCare. Bunderson, W. T., Thierfelder, C., Jere, Z. D., Gama, M., Museka, R. M., Ng oma, S. W. D., Paul, J. M., Mwale, B. M. & Chisui, J. L. (2014). Building resilience to climate change in Malawi: Trends in crop yields under conservation agriculture and factors affecting adoption. In Paper presented at the 1st African Congress of Conservation Agriculture Lusaka, Zambia: ACT. Bunderson, W. T., Jere, Z. D., Mwale, B. M., Museka, R. M., Mbale, B., N goma, S. W. D., Paul, J. M., Mkandawire, O., Sawasawa, H., Tembo, P., Banda, M. M.. Gompho, G. and Mlenga, G. P. (2015). Conservation Agriculture in East and Southern Africa: Evidence Based Results and Guidelines for Implementation. Total LandCare Booklet Publication No. 4, Revised June Bunderson, W. T., Jere, Z. D., Thierfelder, C., Gama, M., Mwale, B. M., N goma, S. W. D., Museka, R. M., Paul, J. M., Mbale, B., Mkandawire, O., Tembo, P. (in press). Implementing the Principles of Conservation Agriculture in Malawi: Crop Yields and Factors Affecting Adoption. Accepted as Chapter 8 in CAB International: Conservation Agriculture for Africa: Building Resilient Farming Systems in a Changing Climate. Bunderson, W. T., Jere, Z. D., Paul, J. M. and Museka, R. M. (In Prep). Maize yields under conservation agriculture and ridge tillage with and without Faidherbia albida trees. Carr, M. & Hartl, M. (2010). Lightening the load: Labour-saving technologies and practices for rural women. International Fund for Agricultural Development. Denning, G., Kabambe, P., Sanchez, P., Malik, A., Flor, R., Harawa, R., Nkhoma, P., Zamba, C., Banda, C. & Magombo, C. (2009). Input subsidies to improve small holder maize productivity in Malawi: Toward an African green revolution. PLoS biology 7(1): e Ekboir, J., (2002). CIMMYT world wheat overview and outlook: Developing no-till packages for small-scale farmers. CIMMYT, Mexico, DF.Ellis, F., Kutengule, M. & Nyasulu, A. (2003). Livelihoods and Rural Poverty Reduction in Malawi. World development 31: Godfray, H. C. J., Beddington, J. R., Crute, I. R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J. F., Pretty, J., Robinson, S., Thomas, S. M. & Toulmin, C. (2010). Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 327(5967): GoM (2007a). Economic Report. Ministry of Economic Planning and Development. Lilongwe, Malawi.: Government of Malawi. GoM (2007b). Malawi: Poverty and vulnerability assessment Investing in our future. Lilongwe, Malawi: GoM/World Bank. Haggblade, S. and Tembo, G. (2003). Conservation farming in Zambia: EPTD Discussion Paper No Washington D.C: IFPRI. Holden, S. & Lunduka, R. (2010). Impacts of the Fertilizer Subsidy Programme in Malawi: Targeting, household perceptions and preferences. Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås. Holden, S. T. & Lunduka, R. W. (2013).Who Benefit from Malawi's Targeted Farm Input Subsidy Program? In Forum for Development Studies, Vol. 40, 1-25: Taylor & Francis. Ito, M., Matsumoto, T. & Quinones, M. A. (2007). Conservation tillage practices in sub-saharan Africa: The experience of Sassaka Global Crop protection 26: Johansen, C., Haque, M., Bell, R., Thierfelder, C. & Esdaile, R. (2012). Conservation agriculture for small holder rainfed farming: Opportunities and constraints of new NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 37

47 mechanized seeding systems. Field crops research 132: Ligowe, I.S., Ngwira, A. R. & Kamalongo, D. (2013). Conservation agriculture (CA) - A way to sustainable agriculture. Extension Circular, Department of Agricultural Research Services, Malawi. Lowe, D. (2011). A practical guide to conservation agriculture. Foundations for Farming, Printworks, Harare, Zimbabwe. Lunduka, R., Ricker Gilbert, J. & Fisher, M. (2013). What are the farm level impacts of Malawi's farm input subsidy program? A critical review. Agricultural Economics 44(6): Mhlanga, B., Cheesman, S., Mupangwa, W. and Thierfelder, C. (2015). Contribution of cover crops to the productivity of maize-based conservation agriculture systems in Zimbabwe. Crop Science 55: Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security (2012). Guide to Agricultural Production and Natural Resources Management in Malawi. Malawi Government, Lilongwe, Malawi. Munyati, M. (1997). Conservation tillage for sustainable crop production systems: Results and experiences from on-station and on-farm research ( ). The Zimbabwe Science News 31(2): Mupangwa, W., Thierfelder C., and Ngwira A.(2015). Fertilizer application in smallholder farming of southern Africa: finding the best strategy in mixed cereal-legume conservation agriculture (CA) systems (manuscript under development). Mwale, B. M., Ng oma, S. W. D., Paul, J. M., Tembo, P., Sawasawa, H., Museka, R. M., Mbale, B., Mkandawire, O., Jere, Z. D. & Bunderson, W. T. (2014a). Survey results to assess the impacts of conservation agriculture on farm households in Malawi. DFID Project on Building Resilience to Climate Change. Lilongwe Malawi. (in prep.): Total LandCare. Mwale, B. M., Ng oma, S. W. D., Paul, J. M., Tembo, S., H., P.,, Museka, R. M., Mbale, B., Mkandawire, O., Jere, Z. D. & Bunderson, W. T. (2014b). Assessing the impacts of conservation agriculture on farm households in Malawi. CFU/COMESA Conservation Agriculture Regional Program. Lilongwe Malawi: Total LandCare. Mwale, B. M., Ng oma, S. W. D., Paul, J. M., Tembo, P., Sawasawa, H., Museka, R. M., Mbale, B., Mkandawire, O., Jere, Z. D. & Bunderson, W. T. (2013). Impacts of conservation agriculture on farm households in Malawi: Survey results of 4 projects implemented by Total LandCare. Lilongwe Malawi: Total LandCare. Mwale, B. M. and Gausi, J. (2011). Why is Adoption of Conservation Agriculture still low among smallholder farmers in Malawi? Report from the Enhancing Food Security and Developing Sustainable Rural Livelihoods Project. Lilongwe, Malawi. Ngwira, A. R. (2011).Evaluation of Options to Adapt the Principles of Conservation Agriculture to the Conditions of Small holder Farmers in Malawi. Ngwira, A. R., Aune, J. B. & Thierfelder, C. (2014a). On-farm evaluation of teh effect of the principles and components of conservation agriculture on maize yield and weed biomass in Malawi. Experimental Agriculture 50(04): Ngwira, A. R., Johnsen, F. H., Aune, J. B., Mekuria, M. & Thierfelder, C. (2014b). Adoption and extent of conservation agriculture practices among small holder farmers in Malawi. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 69(2): Ngwira, A. R., Thierfelder, C., Eash, N. & Lambert, D. (2013a). Risk and maize-based cropping systems for small holder Malawi farmers using conservation agriculture technologies. Experimental Agriculture 49(04): Ngwira, A. R., Aune, J. B. & Mkwinda, S. (2012). On-farm evaluation of yield and economic benefit of short term maize legume intercropping systems under conservation agriculture in Malawi. Field crops research 132: Ngwira, A. R., Thierfelder, C. & Lambert, D. M. (2013b). Conservation agriculture systems for Malawian small holder farmers: long-term effects on crop productivity, profitability and soil quality. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 28(04): Nyagumbo, I, Mkuhlani, S., Pisa, C., Kamalongo, D., Dias, D., Mekuria, M. (2015). Maize yield effects of conservation agriculture based maize-legume cropping systems in contrasting agro-ecologies of Malawi and Mozambique. Accepted by Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, Oldrieve, B. (1989).Conservation Tillage in Action. In Conservation Tillage: A handbook for NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 38

48 Commercial Farmers in Zimbabwe(Ed M. Vowles). Harare, Zimbabwe: Commercial Grain Producers Association. Oldrieve, B. (1993). Conservation Farming for communal, small scale, resettlement and cooperative farmers of Zimbabwe: A farm management handbook. Harare, Zimbabwe: Prestige Business Services (Pvt) Ltd. Takane, T. (2008). Labour use in small holder agriculture in Malawi: six village case studies. African Study Monographs 29(4): Tchale, H. (2009). The efficiency of small holder agriculture in Malawi. African Journal of Agriculture and Resource Economics 3(2): Thierfelder, C., Bunderson, W. T., Jere, Z. D., Mutenje, M., Ngwira, A. (in press). Development of Conservation Agriculture (CA) Systems in Malawi: Lessons learned from 2005 to Experimental Agriculture (in press). Thierfelder, C., Ngwira, A.R., Ligowe, I., Rocha, T., Sitali, M., Cheesman, S., Charakupa, T., Manda, G., Chipara, H. and Phiri, S. (2013). Results from the Regional Conservation Agriculture Long-term Trials in Southern Africa. Thierfelder, C., Cheesman, S. & Rusinamhodzi, L. (2012). Benefits and challenges of crop rotations in maize-based conservation agriculture (CA) cropping systems of southern Africa. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability: Thierfelder, C., Chisui, J. L., Gama, M., Cheesman, S., Jere, Z. D., Bunderson, W. T., Eash, N. S. & Rusinamhodzi, L. (2013a). Maize-based conservation agriculture systems in Malawi: Long-term trends in productivity. Field Crop Research 142: Thierfelder, C., Matemba-Mutasa, R. & Rusinamhodzi, L. (2015). Yield response of maize ( Zea mays L.) to conservation agriculture cropping system in Southern Africa. Soil and Tillage Research 146: Thierfelder, C., Mombeyarara, T., Mango, N. & Rusinamhodzi, L. (2013b). Integration of conservation agriculture in small holder farming systems of southern Africa: identification of key entry points. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 11(4): Thierfelder, C., Rusinamhodzi, L., Ngwira, A. R., Mupangwa, W., Nyagumbo, I., Kassie, G. T. & Cairns, J. E. (2014). Conservation agriculture in Southern Africa: Advances in knowledge. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems: Thierfelder, C. & Wall, P. C. (2009). Effects of conservation agriculture techniques on infiltration and soil water content in Zambia and Zimbabwe. Soil and Tillage Research 105(2): Thierfelder, C. & Wall, P. C. (2010a). Investigating Conservation Agriculture (CA) Systems in Zambia and Zimbabwe to Mitigate Future Effects of Climate Change. Journal of Crop Improvement 24(2): Thierfelder, C. & Wall, P. C. (2010b). Rotations in conservation agriculture systems of Zambia: Effects on soil quality and water relations. Experimental Agriculture 46(03): Thierfelder, C., Wall, P.C. (2011). Reducing the Risk of Crop Failure for Smallholder Farmers in Africa Through the Adoption of Conservation Agriculture, In: Bationo, A., Waswa, B., Okeyo, J.M.M., Maina, F., Kihara, J.M. (Eds.), Innovations as Key to the Green Revolution in Africa. Springer, Netherlands, pp Thierfelder, C. & Wall, P. C. (2012). Effects of conservation agriculture on soil quality and productivity in contrasting agro-ecological environments of Zimbabwe. Soil Use and Management 28(2): UNDP (2007). Human Development Report 2007/08: Fighting climate change in a divided world. United Nations Development Program. UNICEF (1993). Situation analysis of poverty in Malawi. Lilongwe, Malawi. World Bank (1995). Malawi Agricultural Sector Memorandum: Volumes I & II. Lilongwe, Malawi. Wall, P.C. (2007). Tailoring Conservation Agriculture to the needs of small farmers in developing countries: An analysis of issues. Journal of Crop Improvement 19, NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 39

49 ANNEX 1: EVIDENCE BASED RESULTS ON CA Note: Table and Figure numbers in the Annex are separate from the main narrative. Long Term Assessments of CA vs. Conventional Ridge Tillage (CRT) Assessments of Crop Yields Assessments of crop yields involved a joint program between TLC, CIMMYT and the Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Water Development (MoAIWD) to establish and evaluate CA with CRT under typical farm conditions. The results have been well documented in multiple publications which have received national and international recognition (Thierfelder et al., 2015, 2014, 2013a, 2012; Ngwira et al., 2014a; Ngwira et al., 2014a,b; Bunderson et al., 2015, 2014). The numbers of on-farm trials and sites increased with time and each was monitored annually from the date established. All trials were managed by farmers with technical support from TLC and MoAIWD. Each trial included three plots of 0.1 ha each as follows: 1) maize under CRT with removal of residues, 2) maize under CA with retention of residues, and 3) maize and a legume intercrop under CA with retention of residues. In later years, groundnuts were evaluated in rotation with maize by splitting the original plots in half. After the required land preparation for each practice, all plots were treated in the same manner in terms of planting time, crop variety, plant spacing and fertilizer application (type, rate and timing). Crops in all treatments were kept weed free. This involved traditional hoe weeding in the CRT plots, while herbicides and spot hand-weeding were used in the CA plots as follows: A contact systemic herbicide (glyphosate) was applied to the sole maize plot at the time of planting, followed initially by a selective herbicide for pre-emergence weed control (Bullet ) which was replaced later by an early season herbicide (Harness ). The CA maize-legume plot received glyphosate only as the initial measure for weed control. Results on yields show the superiority of CA relative to CRT (Figure 1). Maize yields under the two CA treatments were higher than the CRT, ranging from 11-70% for all sites. Yield increases under CA were more significant in years of low rainfall such as 2009/10 and 2011/12 (Figure 2). Planting a legume intercrop produced a second crop of high value from the same land with no negative effects on maize yields for little additional labour (see Table 3 below). Other benefits from the legume intercrop included increased soil cover, suppression of weeds, addition of nitrogen through N-fixation, income from sales of surplus produce and increased diet diversity. Farmers also realized significant benefits from growing groundnuts under CA in rotation with maize. The key advantage is the ability to halve the row spacing which is not possible with ridging or planting basins because there is no space to double the number of ridges or basins, not to mention the increased labour required. Figure 3 shows increased yields of groundnuts under CA after maize, ranging from 45-50% in 2011/12 to 93-99% in 2012/13 with a mean increase of 57-60% across the 3 years. Ground cover was also doubled which helps to reduce the risks of water runoff and rosette disease. Ultimately, cereal and legume crops grown under CA increased benefits to households in terms of increased productivity, food security, and income with prospects to improve nutrition by increasing groundnuts in the household diet. NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 40

50 Maize grain yield (kg ha -1 ) N=3 N=20 N=33 N=46 N=52 N=53 N=54 Conventional ridge tillage, maize Conservation agriculture, maize Conservation agriculture, maize/legume N=54 N=54 N=53 N= Mean 2015 Harvest year Figure 1: Mean Maize Yields on Farmer Fields under CA vs. CRT from 2004/05 to 2013/14 (p is significant between CA and CRT except in 2005/06). Source: TLC, Machinga ADD, CIMMYT On-Farm Trials with CA vs. Conventional Ridge Tillage. The error bars represent the Standard Error of the Difference (SED) of the means at p< Conventional ridge tillage, maize Conservation agriculture, maize Conservation agriculture, maize/legume Maize grain yield (kg ha -1 ) Chinguluwe Chipeni Herbert Lemu Linga Malula Matandika Mwansambo Zidyana Mean Harvest year 2011/2012 Figure 2: Mean Maize Yields on 54 Farmer Fields under CA vs. Conventional Ridge Tillage (CRT) in a year of Low Rainfall, 2011/12 (6 farmers per site). Source: TLC, Machinga ADD, CIMMYT On-Farm Trials with CA vs. Conventional Ridge Tillage. The error bars represent the Standard Error of the Difference (SED) of the means at p<0.05. NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 41

51 Groundnut grain yield (kg ha -1 ) Conventional ridge tillage, groundnut-maize Conservation agriculture, groundnut-maize Conservation agriculture, groundnut-maize/legume Mean Harvest year Figure 3: Mean Groundnut Yields on Farmer Fields (6 replicates per site) after CA and Conventional Ridge Tillage. Source: TLC, Machinga ADD, CIMMYT On-Farm Trials with CA vs. Conventional Ridge Tillage (CRT). The error bars represent the Standard Error of the Difference (SED) of the means at p< Conservation agriculture treatment yield (kg ha -1 ) Conventional tillage yield (kg ha -1 ) Planting basins, Mozambique Jab planter, Mozambique Direct seeding, Zimbabwe Ripper, Zimbabwe Direct seeding, Zambia Ripper, Zambia Direct seeding, Malawi Intercropping, Malawi Figure 4: The relative advantage of conservation agriculture options over conventional tillage across sites and across seasons in southern Africa. Data points on or below the 1:1 line do not show a relative advantage of conservation agriculture, and those on the 1:2 line show that CA yields were double those of conventional tillage. Source: Thierfelder & Wall 2009, 2010, NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 42

52 Cropping System maize yield (kg/ha) Maize grain yield (kg ha -1 ) Conventional ridge tillage, maize sole cropping Basins, maize/pigeonpea intercropping Dibble stick, maize/pigeonpea intercropping Dibble stick, maize sole cropping Dibble stick, maize-groundnut rotation Balaka Salima Ntcheu Balaka Salima Ntcheu Balaka Salima Ntcheu 2010/ / /2013 Figure 5: Maize yields under different CA systems and conventional ridge tillage in 3 lowland sites over 3 years. Source: Nyagumbo et al., The error bars represent the Standard Error of the Difference (SED) of the means at p< Farmer practice = 0.75x R² = *** a 2.CA basins mz-p.pea intcrop= 0.68x R² = **** a 3.CA dibble mz-p.pea intercrop = x R² = *** a 4.CA dibble mz sole = 1.11x R² = *** a 5.CA dibble mz/gnut rot = 1.384x R² = *** b Salima 2010/11 (570 mm) Salima 2013/14 (823mm) Salima 2011/12 (816 mm) Ntcheu 2012/13 (762mm) Ntcheu 2010/11 (582 mm) Ntcheu 2013/14(652 mm) Ntcheu 2011/12 (631 mm) Salima 2012/13 (492 mm) Balaka 2010/11 (473 mm) Balaka 2012/13 (848 mm) Balaka 2013/14 (558 mm) Balaka 2011/12 (595 mm) Linear (Farmer control plot) Linear (CA Basins Mz/ppea intercrop) Linear (CA Dibble Mz-p.pea intcrop) Linear (CA Dibble Maize sole) Linear (CA Dibble g/nut-mz rotation) 1000 Error bars = L.S.D ( 0.05 ) for comparing means within year and site Site and Season mean maize yield (kg/ha) Figure 6: Linear regressions of maize yields under different cropping systems against site and season means in Malawi lowland sites from 2010/11 to 2013/14. Source: Nyagumbo et al., 2015). N.B: Error bars denote LSD (0.05) to separate means from each site and season. Labels for each site show season and total rainfall in mm. Treatment regression equations followed by the same superscript letter are not significantly different at p<0.05. NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 43

53 Table 1: Effect of Conventionally Ploughed and Conservation Agriculture on Maize Grain Yield (kg ha 1), Monze Farmer Training Centre (MFTC), Zambia, and Henderson Research Station (HRS), Zimbabwe (Source: Thierfelder & Wall 2010 a) Cropping Season 2005/ / / /2009 Site Treatment Infiltration Rate mm h-1 HRS Conventional plowing 3254 a 4358 a 1192 a 1789 b Direct seeding 2456 a 5234 a 1151 a 2787 ab Rip line seeding 3250 a 4344 a 1442 a 3553 a MFTC Conventional plowing 3620 ab 4878 b 4084 b 3302 b Direct seeding 4894 a 5142 ab 4559 ab 3905 ab Direct-seeded rotation b 5985 a 4541 a Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at p < or = 0.05 MFTC=Monze Farmer Training Center, Zambia HRS=Henderson Research Station, Zimbabwe Table 2: Changes in total soil carbon (Mg ha -1 ) in 2004 and 2008 (Chikato) and in 2005 and 2008 (Hereford) in two conservation agriculture and one conventional treatments. Zimbabwe Depth Total Carbon Total Carbon Change compared to the initial site mean cm Mg ha -1 Mg ha -1 % Chikato Conventional ploughing a 6.9 b -6 Rip-line seeding a 9.5 ab 46 Direct seeding a 13.3 a 104 Mean LSD Hereford Conventional ploughing a 37.5 b 19 Rip-line seeding a 38.2 ab 21 Direct seeding a 43.3 a 38 Mean LSD Note: Means followed by the same letter in column are not significantly different at P 0.10 probability (LSD-test); Samples were all take in October of each respective year before the cropping season. Samples were corrected for bulk density and calculated to Mg ha -1. Source: Thierfelder & Wall (in press). NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 44

54 Figure 7: Maize grain yield in one conventional ridge and furrow system and two CA systems in Malende, Monze District, Zambia, The error bars represent the Standard Error of the Difference (SED) of the means in each particular year Source: Thierfelder & Wall Conventional ploughing, maize CA-Ripline seeding, continuous maize a 8000 CA-Ripline seeding, maize-sunnhemp rotation Maize grain yield (kg ha -1 ) NS NS NS NS b a a c b a c b b a a Harvest year Figure 8: Maize Yields under conventional ploughing and CA riplines with continuous maize and maize-sunnhemp rotation, Henderson Research Station, Zimbabwe The error bars represent the Standard Error of the Difference (SED) of the means. Source: Thierfelder & Wall 2009, 2010, 2011, (in prep). NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 45

55 10000 Conventional ploughing, maize (CPM) 9000 Ripline seeding, maize (RIM) Direct seeding, maize (DSM) a 8000 a a a a 7000 ab Maize grain yield (kg ha -1 ) NS NS NS b b b Harvest year Figure 9: Maize grain yield in one conventional ridge and furrow system and two CA systems in Malende, Monze District, Zambia, The error bars represent the Standard Error of the Difference (SED) of the means in each particular year. Source: Thierfelder & Wall 2009, 2010, 2011, (in prep) Yield benefit of CA over CP (kg ha -1 ) Yield benefit CA over CP continues maize (kg ha -1 ) Yield benefit CA over CP maize-sunnhemp rotation (kg ha -1 ) Regression continuous maize Regression maize-sunnhemp rotation Harvest years Figure 10: Yield benefit of CA over CP (kg ha -1 ) in continuous maize and maize-sunnhemp rotation, Henderson Research Station Zimbabwe, Source: Thierfelder & Wall 2009, 2010, 2011, (in press). NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 46

56 Yield Impacts of Faidherbia albida with CA A number of studies have been conducted in Malawi and Zambia to document the benefits of integrating Faidherbia albida with CA. The results are presented in Figures 11, 12 and 13 for Malawi and Zambia, which clearly show complementary effects of Faidherbia with CA. Maize Yield Kg/ha CA + Faidherbia 2799 Conventional Ag + Faidherbia Figure 11: Farmer Maize Yields under Faidherbia with CA vs. CRT 2010/11. Source: Bunderson et al., (in prep). 5,000 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1, NORMAL YEAR DRY YEAR d c b c a b a 2013/ /15 d CRT without Faidherbia (Control) CA without Faidherbia Figure 12: Effects of Faidherbia on Maize Yields under CA vs CRT in a normal rainfall year 2013/14 and a dry rainfall year 2014/15 with 50 farmers per treatment (different letters for each graph are significant at p < 0.001). Source: Bunderson et al., (in prep). NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 47

57 / / / /11 Mean Away from Canopy Under Canopy Figure 13: Effects of Faidherbia on Maize Yields (kg/ha) with CA across different regions of Zambia over 4 Years (colours are significantly different at p < 0.05). Source: Aagaard (2011). NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 48

58 Assessments of Gross Margins and Labour Costs of CA vs. CRT Tables 3 and 4 provide detailed comparisons of labour costs and gross margins for all farm operations under CA vs. CRT based on data collected from the on-farm trials managed by farmers combined with information from the MoAIWD on labour costs for common farm operations. The results show a labour savings of 47% and 33% for sole maize and intercropped maize respectively under CA vs. CRT which is significant considering that most of the labour saved is for the physically demanding tasks of manual ridging and weeding with hoes. The lower savings for intercropping is due to extra labour for planting and harvesting the legume crop, but this is offset by the yield of the legume. Table 3: Labour Costs of 2 CA Systems vs. CRT from TLC-CIMMYT-MoAIWD Trials Labour Costs (6 hour days) CRT Maize CA Maize CA Maize + Legume Land Prep/Clearing Ridging Distributing Crop Residues on the Ground Planting Maize Planting Legume Intercrop Basal Dressing st Weeding Top Dressing (CAN) Drawing Water (herbicide use) Roundup Application Harness Application nd Weeding/Banking Harvesting Maize (Stooking/Collecting Cobs) Harvesting Legume (Uprooting plants/collecting Pods) Total Labour Costs Labour Savings % 0% 47% 33% NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 49

59 Table 4: Costs, Revenues and Gross Margins of CA vs. Conventional Ridge Tillage (CRT) - US$/ha Crop Yields Across Sites and Years Crop CRT Maize CA Maize CA Mz+Leg Maize Leg Intercrop Based on average yields of cowpeas/p peas CRT Maize CA Maize CA Maize / C/Ppeas Unit US$/unit Qty Total US$ Qty Total US$ Qty Total US$ REVENUE Maize Kg , ,463 1,211 4,675 1,269 Cowpea / Pigeon Pea Intercrop (avg) Kg Total (includes weighted avg for legume) Kg , ,463 1,211 5,143 1,536 VARIABLE COSTS Material inputs Maize Seed Kg Cowpea / Pigeon Pea Seed (weighted avg) Kg :21:0:4 50kg bag UREA 50kg bag Roundup litre Harness litre Total Cost of Material Inputs Labor Costs (6 hr days/person) CRT Maize CA Maize CA Maize / C/Ppeas Land Clearing/Burning Weeds/Crop Residues Day Ridging Day Laying Stalks Day Planting Maize Day Planting Legume Intercrop Day Basal Dressing Day st Weeding Day Top Dressing Day Drawing Water (herbicide use) Day Roundup Application Day Harness Application Day nd Weeding/Banking Day Harvesting Maize Day Harvesting Legume Day Total Labor Costs Days Sprayer Costs (shared among 10 farmers) Depreciation (based on total days use) 500 days Maintenance (50% of depreciation) 500 days Total Sprayer Costs Total Cost Gross Margin per hectare ,034 Benefit / Cost Ratio Break-even maize current weighted avg price (kg/ha 1,701 1,493 1,686 Break-even current yield (US$/kg) Total labour required (days & US$) Gross Margin Return to Labour (US$/day) Gross Margin if maize yield or price drops by 30% Note: Data are based on TLC-CIMMYT-Machinga ADD on-farm trials from 2004/05 to 2013/14 Gross margins are based on valuing all labour costs whether labour was hired or family was used. Crop yields under the two CA systems and CRT were averaged over a period of ten years from 2004/05 to 2013/14 which involved up to 12 different sites across Malawi, each with six farmers per site. The results show gross margins of US$ 806 and US$ 1034 for sole and intercropped maize respectively under CA vs. US$ 468 under CRT. The intercropping system clearly shows higher returns to land, labour and capital. NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 50

60 Gross Margin / ha ($) Gross Margin if yield or price drops 30% ($) Break-even current price (kg/ha) CRT Maize CA Maize CA Mz + Leg Figure 14: Gross Margins and risks are much better with CA than the conventional ridge tillage, especially with a good legume intercrop. Note: Data are based on TLC-CIMMYT- Machinga ADD on-farm trials from 2004/05 to 2013/14 NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 51

61 CA Effects on Water Infiltration, Soil Erosion and Carbon in Southern Africa Infiltration (mm h -1 ) Direct seeding (DS) Basin planting (BA) Rip-line seeded + leg intercrop (RI+ leg) Rip-line seeded (RI) Conventional ploughing (CP) Time (min) Figure 15: Effects of conventional ploughing and conservation agriculture techniques (direct seeding vs basins) on water infiltration in Zimbabwe. Source: Thierfelder & Wall. (2009). Effects of conservation agriculture techniques on infiltration and soil water content in Zambia and Zimbabwe. Soil and Tillage Research 105(2): Infiltration (mm h -1 ) DS, maize-cotton sunnhemp (B1S) Direct seeding maize (DSM) Basin planting, maize (BAM) Conventional ploughing (CP) Time (min) Figure 16: Effects of conventional ploughing and conservation agriculture techniques (direct seeding vs basins) on water infiltration in Zambia Source: Thierfelder and Wall (2010b). NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 52

62 Infiltration (mm h -1 ) CA- Dibble stick, Maize-Cowpea CA- Dibble stick, Maize Conventional ploughing - Maize Time (min) Figure 17: Effects of conventional ploughing and direct seeding under conservation agriculture on water infiltration at Chitedze Agricultural Research Station, Malawi in Results show higher infiltration rates under the CA treatments than with conventional ploughing. Source: Thierfelder, Ligowe, and Ngwira (2010). 2009/10 annual report on conservation agriculture, Department of Agricultural Research, MoAIWD, Malawi. 9 8 a Time to pond (s) d c c bc b bc c 1 0 Figure 18: Higher infiltration (time to pond) under CA techniques and crop combinations vs. conventional ploughing at Chitedze Malawi. Source: Ligowe, Ngwira, and Thierfelder, (2011). In: 2010/11 Chitedze Agricultural Annual Report, Department of Agricultural Research, MoAIWD, Malawi. (CP-Conventional Ploughing, DS-Direct Seeding, Cp-Cow peas, Mp-Mucuna pruriens). NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 53

63 Soil erosion (in t ha -1 ) Rainfall Conventional ploughing (CP) Direct seeding (DS) Ripline seeding + legume intercrop (RSL) Rainfall (mm a -1 ) Year Figure 19: Soil erosion over the period of 2005 to 2013 under conventional ploughing and conservation agriculture techniques at Henderson Research Station, Zimbabwe. 60 Conventional ploughing Erosion in t/ha CA- Direct seeding, maize CA- Ripline seeding + leg intercrop / / / / / /2011 Date Figure 20: Soil erosion over the period of 2005 to 2011 under conventional ploughing and conservation agriculture techniques at Henderson Research Station, Zimbabwe. Results in Figures 19 & 20 show higher rates of soil loss under conventional ploughing vs. CA techniques. Source: Thierfelder, C., Ngwira, A.R., Ligowe, I., Rocha, T., Sitali, M., Cheesman, S., Charakupa, T., Manda, G., Chipara, H. and Phiri, S. (2013). Results from the Regional Conservation Agriculture Long-term Trials in Southern Africa. NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 54

64 Total carbon (Mg ha -1 ) a a a b a ab b a a Year Conventional ploughing, maize (CPM) Direct seeding, maize (DSM) Direct seeding, cotton-maize (DSMC) Figure 21: Total carbon at 0-30 cm in one conventionally ploughed and two CA treatments in 2005, 2008 and 2010 at Monze Farmer Training Centre, Zambia. The error bars represent the Standard Error of the Difference (SED) of the means where different letters are significantly different at P 0.05 probability level. Source: Thierfelder, C. & Wall, P. C. (2010b). Rotations in conservation agriculture systems of Zambia: Effects on soil quality and water relations. Experimental Agriculture 46(03): Planting Basins vs. Direct Seeding Some advocates in southern Africa promote planting basins dug by hand (Aagaard, 2011; Johansen et al., 2012). The concept originated from the Zimbabwean farmer Brian Oldrieve (Lowe, 2011; Oldrieve, 1993; Oldrieve, 1989) and later expanded massively by the Conservation Farming Unit (CFU) of Zambia with larger basins (Haggblade and Tembo, 2003). Construction of basins is a one off operation with the primary aim to conserve water by harvesting rainwater in areas prone to drought or when rain is predicted to be low. They also help to break shallow hard pans in areas where they have formed over time from years of cultivation with a hoe or plough. Crop yields may also be improved within the basins relative to conventional tillage systems due to increased efficiency of nutrient uptake from the concentration of chemical fertilizers, organic manures and/or lime within the basins (Aagaard, 2011). However, access to animal manure, compost and lime is limited in Malawi. For example, the average number of cattle per farm household is 0.5, but cattle are needed to secure sufficient manure from animal enclosures to apply 10 tons per ha, the amount generally needed for a cost-effective return on yield. Although lime is locally produced in Malawi, transport costs from the source to the field are prohibitive, and hence lime is rarely used. In Malawi where rainfall is generally more reliable than many parts of east and southern Africa, the added value of water conservation in basins has not been established against the high labour costs of digging basins. This is particularly relevant when compared with no-till with small planting holes and retention of crop residues which help to maximise the capture of rainfall and minimise runoff (see Figures 15 & 16 above). That said, there are certain niches with low rainfall in Malawi where the advantages of basins have applicability. NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 55

65 An assessment of the basin planting method reveals several drawbacks: a. Areas prone to water logging: Planting basins are not suitable in areas susceptible to any water logging or flooding. b. Labour costs: Results show that digging basins in Malawi to the specifications recommended by CFU (35 cm long x 15 cm wide x 20 cm deep) is five times more labour intensive and time consuming than conventional ridging. Even though digging basins is intended as a one-off operation, the high labour costs involved make it prohibitive to undertake, which is reflected by low adoption rates and the small areas under basins relative to no-till using a dibble stick or hoe. This is especially true with the CFU recommendation to flatten the ridges before digging basins (Aagaard, 2011). A better compromise would be to use a smaller basin 10 cm long x 15 cm wide (blade width of a hoe) and 10 cm deep (similar to the recommendations in Zimbabwe of Lowe, 2011 and Oldrieve 1993) to increase adoption while conserving moisture, especially in areas prone to drought or low rainfall. Tables 5-7 show estimated labour costs for constructing ridges, levelling ridges and digging basins based on the studies reported in this paper. The figures are based on the current recommended ridge spacing of 75 cm, which equates to 13,333 m of ridges per ha, and the CFU spacing for basins of 75 cm between rows and 70 cm within the row, which equates to 19,047 basins per ha. The recommendation to also flatten the ridge is more labour demanding than ridging because the soil from each ridge must be evenly distributed across the width of the furrow. This adds time and effort to dig the basins which need to be dug early in the dry season before spreading the crop residues to avoid interference with digging. It should be stressed that the labour costs for each task relate to the small plots used in this study. If the pace is maintained at 6 hours per day, the labour costs are 20 person days for ridging, 22 for levelling ridges, and 102 for digging basins. However, it is impossible to maintain this rate of work over an extended period of time. Consequently, actual labour costs/ha were estimated by doubling the figures recorded in the study to better reflect reality based on reported costs for ridging of about 40 person days/ha, which is roughly double the rate recorded for the task in this study. The above labour estimates are shown in Tables 5-7, but farmer interviews suggest they are conservative for digging basins. Table 5: Labour costs for constructing ridges on common loamy clay soils in Malawi Farmer Mins to Ridge 10 meters Mins to Ridge 1 meter Projected Labour Cost of Ridging per ha Labour Cost per Ha at Same Pace as Ridging 10 meters Estimated Actual Labour Cost per ha Labour Labour Hours /ha Days 6 hrs /day Cost $1/day Meters /Person /Day Hours /ha Days 6 hrs /day Cost / $1 /day Meters /Person /Day Owen Chikobudzo Lofat Jalek Average NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 56

66 Table 6: Labour costs for levelling ridges before digging basins on common loamy clay soils in Malawi Farmer Mins to Level 14 m of Ridge (20 basins) Mins to Level 1 m of Ridge Projected Labour Cost of Leveling Ridges per ha Labour Cost per Ha at Same Pace as 14 m of ridge or 20 basins Estimated Actual Labour Cost per ha Labour Labour Hours /ha Days 6 hrs /day Cost $1/day Meters /Person /Day Hours /ha Days 6 hrs /day Cost / $1 /day Meters /Person /Day Owen Chikobudzo Lofat Jalek Average Table 7: Labour costs for digging basins on common loamy clays soils in Malawi Farmer Mins to Dig 10 Basins Mins to Dig 1 Basin Projected Labour Cost for Digging Basins (without back-filling) per ha Labour Cost per ha at Same Pace as digging 10 Basins Estimated Actual Labour Cost per ha Labour Labour Hours /ha Days 6 hrs /day Cost $1/day Meters /Person /Day Hours /ha Days 6 hrs /day Cost / $1 /day Meters /Person /Day Lofat , Owen , Chikobudzo , Jalek , Average , c. Soil disturbance: For ridges spaced 75 cm apart, farmers build13.3 km of ridges per ha by hand every year. The soil moved equates to 720 tons/ha based on a measured average of 54 kg of soil per meter in a standard size ridge. In contrast, the amount of soil moved for digging basins is tons/ha based on the CFU recommended basin spacing of 70 cm x 75 cm and a basin size of 35 cm long x 15 cm wide x 20 cm deep which contains kg of soil. Adding in the 720 tons of soil moved for levelling the ridges, the total amount of soil moved for digging basins is over 1,000 tons/ha. The Zambian chaka hoe is recommended to ease the onerous task of digging in hard soil as it has a narrow heavier blade (Aagaard, 2011). However, the Malawi hoe is better suited for levelling ridges because its lighter and wider blade moves more soil with each stroke. In this study, all farmers preferred the local hoe for ridging and levelling ridges. Promoting the chaka hoe means adding another tool for 3 million farmers to buy for digging basins. c. Inconsistency in basin size, spacing and back-filling: Observations of basins constructed by hundreds of farmers across Malawi show tremendous variability in their size and spacing, which greatly compromises their purpose and function. It is rare to find basins constructed by farmers to the specified size and spacing recommended by CFU. Clearly, the problem lies with poor understanding and delivery of the extension message. This problem is often compounded by failure to return the soil to the basin. This means that crops are planted at the bottom of the basin, which can lead to other problems such as water-logging, fungal diseases and cut-worms. In many cases, the basins are actually pits 50 cm deep or more. The high levels of labour and soil disturbance involved in digging pits NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 57

67 of this size means that they do not qualify as Conservation Agriculture. The risk of distorting basin size adds another complication for getting the right message across to undertake basin planting properly. d. Risk of Missing the Planting Rains: The time and effort to flatten ridges and dig basins, even in soil softened by rain, creates the high risk of missing the first planting rains with serious implications on yields. e. Limited flexibility: The fixed position of basins at 75 cm x 70 cm is not compatible with the recommended spacing of different crops in Malawi such as tobacco, cassava, cotton and grain legumes. Use of basins also raises a question about its value for intercropping because the main crop is planted in basins while the intercrop is planted on the flat between basins as there is no possibility to dig more rows of basins. f. Uniform Plant Spacing: Concentrating several seeds in the confined space of basins compromises crop growth due to competition for light, moisture and nutrients between the plants from seeds in the same planting station vs. direct seeding with 1 seed per hole which ensures uniform plant spacing for optimal growth and yields with minimal intra-competition. In Malawi, the preferred and widely accepted method of planting by farmers is the no-till system of making small planting holes with a hoe or dibble stick, a practice that is aligned with and endorsed by the Agricultural Technology Clearing Committee (ATCC) under the Department of Agricultural Research Services (DARS) in the MoAIWD (see Ligowe et al., 2013). The true value of this system is that it mimics the age-old method of planting before the introduction of ridging during the colonial period. It has proved effective with different crops across a wide range of agro-ecological zones. A key attribute favoured by farmers is flexibility of no-till planting to accommodate the spatial requirements of many crops to optimise yields, minimise inter-plant competition and increase ground cover. Equally important is that it is fast and easy, which makes it well suited to a wide range of farmers and farm workers, from the young, women and elderly to those who are ill or physically challenged. The arguments above are supported by the results of long term trials under the Sustainable Intensification of Maize-Legume Systems in Eastern and Southern Africa (SIMLESA) project in the lowlands of Malawi where rainfall is generally lower than the rest of the country (Nyagumbo et al., 2015). These trials showed significant increases in maize yields under CA using a dibble stick vs. planting basins and conventional ridge tillage (see Figures 5 and 6 above). Note that both systems of CA retained crop residues. The message is that the payoff does not justify the labour costs of flattening ridges and digging basins. NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 58

68 Effects of Green Manure Cover Crops on Biomass and Maize Yields under CA Table 8: Biomass and grain yields of Green Manure Cover Crops (GMCCs) plus N and P concentrations in year one of a Maize / GMCC rotation under CA in 2012/13, Chitedze Agricultural Research Station, Malawi Biomass yield Grain yield GMCC (kg/ha) (kg/ha) N (%) P (%) Maize (Zea mays) 4,824 1, Rattlepod (Crotalaria grahamiana) 23, Red Sunnhemp (Crotalaria ochroleuca) 9,333 1, Black or Indian Sunnhemp (Crotalaria juncea) 12, Lablab (Lablab purpureus) 10, Velvet bean (Mucuna pruriens) 2,444 2, Jack Bean (Canavalia ensiformis) 4,346 2, Fodder Radish (Raphanus sativus) 1, Cow Peas (Vigna unguiculata) 8,469 2, Pigeon Peas (Cajanus cajan) 8, P (0.5) <0.001 < CV Source: Ligowe, I., Theirfelder, C. and Ngwira, A.R. (2013). In: Chitedze Agricultural Research Station Annual Report for 2012/13, Department of Agricultural Research Services, Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security, Malawi. Maize yield (kg/ha) Cajanus cajan (Pigeon pea) Canavalia ensiformis (Jackbean) Crotalaria grahamiana Crotalaria juncea (Sunnhemp) Crotalaria ochroleuca Lablab purpureus (Lablab) Maize Mucuna pruriens (Velvet bean) Raphanus sativus (Fodder radish Vigna unguiculata (Cow pea) Figure 22: Maize yields after GMCC under CA in year two of a Maize / GMCC rotation, Chitedze Agricultural Research Station, 2013/14. Source: Ligowe, I., Theirfelder, C. and Ngwira, A.R. (2014). In: Chitedze Agricultural Research Station Annual Report for 2013/14, Department of Agricultural Research Services, Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security, Malawi. NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 59

69 Table 9: Weed counts per meter square in maize grown after GMCC vs. maize after maize in Year two, Chitedze Agricultural Research Station, Malawi, 2013/14 No of Treatment weeds/m2 Maize after Jackbean 58 bc Maize after Rattlepod 82 abc Maize after Red Sunnhemp 49 c Maize after Black Sunnhemp 56 bc Maize after Lablab 77 abc Maize after Maize 112 a Maize after Velvet bean 70 bc Maize after Fodder radish 96 ab Maize after Cow peas 56 bc Maize after Pigeon peas 81 abc P value (0.05) <0.001 CV 22 Source: Ligowe, I., Theirfelder, C. and Ngwira, A.R. (2014). In: Chitedze Agricultural Research Station Annual Report for 2013/14, Department of Agricultural Research Services, Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security, Malawi. Table 10: Total biomass yield (kg ha -1 ) of fertilized GMCCs and maize grown at Chitedze Agricultural Research Station, Malawi in 2007/08 and 2008/09 seasons Season Fertilizer Maize Sunnhemp Mucuna Cowpea (kg/ha) 2007/ a 4389 b 4903 a 1003 b a 5315 ab 5750 a 1945 b a 6126 a 6878 a 3202 a Mean P-value CV (%) / b 3829 a 5131 a 4543 a a 3607 a 5662 a 6630 a a 3627 a 6948 a 6865 a Mean P-value CV (%) In each season, treatment means followed by the same letter in a given column are not significantly different using LSD at 5%. The results show variable significance of fertilizer on the total biomass of maize and green manure crops for the two seasons. In absolute terms, fertilizer generally increased the amount of biomass to some degree. Source: Chitedze Agricultural Research Station (2009). Annual report for 2008/09. Department of Agricultural Research Services, Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security, Malawi. NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 60

70 Figure 23: Effect of previous crop (Maize and different GMCCs) and nitrogen fertilizer on maize grain yield at Chitedze Agricultural Research Station in 2008/09 season. Means with same letter under each N fertilizer treatment are not significantly different using LSD (P<0.05). Vertical bars represent the standard error of means. All treatments show a very significant positive effect of each GMCC on maize yields but no significant difference between the different GMCCs. Source: Chitedze Agricultural Research Station (2009). Annual report for 2008/09. Department of Agricultural Research Services, Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security, Malawi. NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 61

71 Cover crop biomass yield (kg ha -1 ) Maize grain yield (kg ha -1 ) Season Season Maize biomass yield (kg ha -1 ) Maize after maize Maize/ black sunnhemp rotation Maize/ common rattle pod rotation Maize/ red sunnhemp rotation Maize/ velvet bean rotation Maize/ pigeon pea rotation Maize/ lab lab rotation Maize/ cowpea rotation Maize/ jackbean rotation Maize/ fodder radish rotation 3000 UZ Season Figure 24: Effects of different maize / cover crop rotations on cover crop biomass yield (kg ha -1 ), maize grain yield (kg ha -1 ) and maize biomass (stover) yield (kg ha -1 ) at University of Zimbabwe for all seasons. Source: Mhlanga, B., Cheesman, S., Mupangwa, W. and Thierfelder, C. (2015). Contribution of cover crops to the productivity of maize-based conservation agriculture systems in Zimbabwe. Crop Science 55: NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 62

72 Cover crop biomass yield (kg ha -1 ) Maize grain yield (kg ha -1 ) Maize biomass yield (kg ha -1 ) Season Season Maize after maize Maize/ black sunnhemp rotation Maize/ common rattle pod rotation Maize/ red sunnhemp rotation Maize/ velvet bean rotation Maize/ pigeon pea rotation Maize/ lab lab rotation Maize/ cowpea rotation Maize/ jack bean rotation Maize/ fodder radish rotation Season Figure 25: Effects of different maize / cover crop rotations on cover crop biomass yield (kg ha -1 ), maize grain yield (kg ha -1 ) and maize biomass (stover) yield (kg ha -1 ) at Domboshawa Training Centre (DTC) for all seasons. Source: Mhlanga, B., Cheesman, S., Mupangwa, W. and Thierfelder, C. (2015). Contribution of cover crops to the productivity of maize-based conservation agriculture systems in Zimbabwe. Crop Science 55: DTC NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 63

73 Cover crop biomass yield (kg ha -1 ) Maize grain yield (kg ha -1 ) Season Season Maize biomass yield (kg ha -1 ) Maize after maize Maize/ black sunnhemp rotation Maize/ common rattle pod rotation Maize/ red sunnhemp rotation Maize/ velvet bean rotation Maize/ pigeon pea rotation Maize/ lab lab rotation Maize/ cowpea rotation Maize/ jackbean rotation Maize/ fodder radish rotation Season HRS clay Figure 26: Effects of different maize / cover crop rotations on cover crop biomass yield (kg ha -1 ), maize grain yield (kg ha -1 ) and maize biomass (stover) yield (kg ha -1 ) at Henderson Research Station Clay for all seasons. Source: Mhlanga, B., Cheesman, S., Mupangwa, W. and Thierfelder, C. (2015). Contribution of cover crops to the productivity of maize-based conservation agriculture systems in Zimbabwe. Crop Science 55: NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 64

74 ANNEX 2: USES OF CROP RESIDUES AND MANURE Pros and Cons of Retaining Crop Residues vs. Use as Livestock Feed Arguments have been put forward to feed crop residues to livestock vs. returning them to the soil but there should be minimal conflict as livestock are an integral part of the farming system. The points below show the limited value of feeding low quality crop residues to livestock in Malawi: Feed Quality: Crop residues are definitely an important feed source in the dry season. This is dominated by cereals, but the protein and energy content of these residues are well below the minimum maintenance requirements of livestock. For example, the crude protein content of maize stover is only 2.5% vs. 4% to meet maintenance needs for non-breeding stock. The energy value is 16 MJ/kg vs. 20 MJ/kg for maintenance. This means that cattle must have access to better quality grazing or be fed high quality supplements to minimise loss of weight and condition to avoid impacts on productivity and reproduction. Total Feed Intake by Cattle: At 2.2 tons of feed per mature cow per annum, Malawi s cattle herd of 1.1 million requires about 2.42 million tons of feed per annum. Total Availability of Crop Residues: Malawi s cultivated land is about 3 million ha, 90% of which is under food crops. At an average of 3 tons/ha, the total amount of crop residues suitable for feed come to a total of about 8.1 million tons. Of this, 50% (4.05 million tons) is potentially available as feed for livestock due to losses from trampling, termites, mixing with soil, and the low quality / un-palatability of large stalks. Utilization % as Cattle Feed vs. Retention on Land: Based on the above statistics, the maximum consumption by Malawi s cattle herd of 1.1 million is 2.42 million tons or about 30% of the total annual production of crop residues. This means that 70% is available for retention on the land with significant benefits to the soil and crops: o o o o o The increase in soil organic matter will improve water holding capacity, infiltration rates, cation exchange capacity (CEC) and soil structure. It also improves the effectiveness of fertilizers and reduces nutrient losses from leaching and runoff, especially during critical periods of drought or excessive rainfall. Apart from adding OM and a broad range of nutrients to the soil (albeit at low levels), surface application of crop residues has other benefits: 1) it protects the soil from the elements, 2) it reduces the loss of soil moisture, and 3) it absorbs the impact of rainfall with good infiltration to minimise water runoff and loss of top soil. Once productivity is increased, there is scope to use some of the crop residues for animal feed leaving sufficient residues to protect and improve overall soil health. Ideally, farmers with livestock should be encouraged to grow fodder crops in and around the farm to provide quality feed to supplement grazing during the dry season. Given the high value of animals in the farming system, this plan should be attractive to farmers who own livestock. The interest of many farmers to protect crop residues on their fields needs to be supported by the creation of by-laws through the leadership structure to protect against uncontrolled grazing by livestock as well as from indiscriminate burning. NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 65

75 Pros and Cons of Retaining Crop Residues on the Land vs. Use as Manure Manure Quality and Rate/ha: Use of animal manure to improve crop yields is a good practice. However, the N content of cattle manure averages only 0.06%, or 6 kg of N per ton of manure. Of this, 50% is typically lost during storage and application through volatilization and leaching. This means that to achieve a reasonable crop yield, 10 tons/ha of manure must be applied to supply 30 kg of N, or 1/3 of the recommended fertilizer rate. Potential Area for Applying Manure: Malawi s cattle herd of 1.1 million produces about 2 million tons of manure/annum. Since most animals are free ranging, only 40% of the fecal output (800,000 tons) can be collected from animals when corralled at night. At 10 tons/ha, the manure produced from Malawi s cattle herd is sufficient for application on 80,000 ha. This represents only 2.6% of the estimated 3 million ha under cultivation, equivalent to a 20 x 13 m plot for each ha of land. Labour for Application: Moving and applying 10 tons of manure from the corral to the farm requires much labour and technical know-how to manage the manure to limit nutrient losses for maximising effectiveness, while minimising risks of polluting water supplies. Numbers of Cattle per Ha: Production of 10 tons of manure per ha requires 14 cattle and 30 tons of feed per annum. The available feed from crop residues on an average size farm of 1 ha is sufficient for only 68% of the annual intake of 1 mature cow, or 5% of the intake of 14 cattle. This means that 95% of the feed required must come from other sources around the farm. Clearly, the farm resources of the average smallholder are insufficient to support this number of cattle. Manure Needs for all Cultivated Land: To apply manure on 3 million ha of cultivated land would require 41 million cattle to produce 30 million tons of manure at 10 tons/ha, which is nearly 40 times the number of cattle in Malawi. This equates to cattle per household if the animals were distributed evenly across Malawi s 2.5 million farm households. The problem is that the total feed available in Malawi is estimated to support a maximum of 6.8 million cattle or 17% of the 41 million needed for applying manure on all cultivated land. Although cattle manure is a valuable low cost source of nutrients to improve soil fertility, the figures above show its limited availability to impact a large percentage of farmland in Malawi. While goat and chicken manure could help the situation, the story will not change dramatically. NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 66

76 ANNEX 3: ADOPTION OF CA AND RELATED CHALLENGES Despite excellent progress with developing good practices for CA and demonstrating its multiple benefits, adoption levels have been lower than expected for all implementers. This situation prompted surveys by different implementers and projects to identify the underlying drivers and barriers to adoption from the perspective of farmers. Surveys by Total LandCare TLC conducted three separate surveys across different parts of the country. The first involved 785 households across 3 TLC projects funded by different donors. The second survey involved 505 households in areas supported under the CFU/COMESA Conservation Agriculture Regional Project (CARP) and the third involved 855 households in areas supported by the DFID project for Building Resilience to Climate Change (BRCC). Summary results of all three surveys were consolidated for two groups of farmers as follows: 1) farmers who had never attempted CA (828 farmers) and 2) farmers who had practiced CA for two or more years (998 farmers). The results are presented in Table 1 of this annex which provides explanations of the drivers and barriers to adoption as highlighted below Drivers of Adoption The surveys identified four consistent drivers for adopting CA: 1. Increased food security from higher and more stable crop yields; 2. Significant savings in labour costs, with many farmers alluding to the time available to expand and diversify farming or to engage in other productive activities; 3. Reduced impacts of dry spells or low rainfall due to higher moisture levels in the soil; and 4. Increased incomes from reduced labour and input costs combined with sales of surplus production, especially from grain legumes, as sole crops and as relay or intercrops. Collectively, the factors driving adoption reflect higher returns to land, labour and capital which provide the basis for improving farm productivity and profitability with enhanced resilience to climate change. Barriers to Adoption a. Lack of information and poor understanding of CA: Many farmers have not been exposed to or received proper training on CA and how to implement it in practice. This lack of knowledge has been compounded by inconsistent and often conflicting extension messages on the principles and practices of CA. Several examples are noteworthy: i. The Agricultural Technical Clearing Committee (ATCC) of the MoAIWD has officially endorsed CA practices using dibble sticks, retention of crop residues in-situ, and crop associations, intercropping and/or rotations (see DARS Extension Circular by Ligowe et al., 2013). However, the MoAIWD has also maintained the antiquated policy of contour ridging which directly contradicts the basic premise of CA. ii. The messages conveyed to farmers by many extension staff often insist that all 3 principles of CA must be undertaken at the same time, but most farmers do not have the ability to do this. A common example is that crop residues and weeds are often burned by mice hunters to force mice into holes where they can be easily trapped and caught. The message here is that if all 3 principles cannot be undertaken, farmers can NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 67

77 iii. iv. begin CA with minimal tillage to be followed later with innovative ways to integrate the other 2 practices as soon as possible (see Figure 1 above). The basin system of planting recommended by the CFU in Zambia has added complications and confusion among farmers (as well as extension staff) over the best practice to adopt. This concept has been compromised further by distorting the message on basin size and spacing. The result has led to a wide range of basins from very shallow holes to deep pits that do not qualify as CA due to the heavy work involved and amount of soil disturbance. The labour intensive task of digging basins, levelling ridges and distributing the soil across the furrow has been an added barrier to adoption. For those who have used basins, the area has generally not expanded due to the high labour costs involved, and the fact that the fixed position of basins does not fit the recommended spacing of other crops (see points above on basins). The bottom line is that the basin system is not well accepted by Malawi farmers because of the high labour costs involved for little or no gain in yield relative to minimum tillage on the flat or old ridges. Another misguided perception, created mainly by field staff with limited knowledge of CA, is the need to secure or even import large quantities of crop residues or other biomass for distribution over the field. This is a common factor which has limited the rate of uptake and area coverage of CA on individual farms, not only because of the scarcity of biomass, but because of the high labour costs to collect, transport and distribute it on a different plot of land. v. In attempts to document success with CA, some organizations promote and report adoption if any one of the 3 principles is undertaken. For example, if farmers practice any form of rotation or intercropping, it is considered incorrectly to qualify as CA and is reported as such. If this were the case, almost every farmer in Malawi would qualify as practicing CA. The bottom line is that minimum tillage is the critical factor for a practice to be considered as CA. vi. The poor understanding of CA, and contradictions over what it means, reflects the absence of a standard training program on CA for extension officers and students of agriculture that has been certified and endorsed by qualified practitioners. b. Misconceptions about inputs and tools: Many farmers believe that CA cannot be undertaken without access to specific inputs and tools (including proximity to agro dealers, capital and credit to purchase them) because this is the message conveyed to them by extension staff (e.g. improved or hybrid seed, fertilizers, herbicides, knapsack sprayers, jab planters and even chaka hoes (the CFU tool used in Zambia for making planting basins). These beliefs have limited the uptake of CA and its scale on farms. While quality inputs and tools are important to maximise the benefits of CA, they are not a prerequisite and farmers have the flexibility to undertake the practice without them just as they would with conventional ridge tillage. For example, CA can be undertaken with local or composite varieties of maize with fertilizer the farmer would apply under conventional ridging. c. Resistance to change: Farmers are reluctant to break the deep-rooted culture of ridging and clean fields in favour of CA unless through experience and innovation, they find it to be a better practice with clear benefits that are compatible with their crops and system of farming system. The reluctance to try new practices is exacerbated by the fear of ridicule from the community for undertaking a radically different system of planting, which has led to acts of sabotage out of spite and jealousy. d. Access to markets and other concerns: Many farmers are concerned about increasing the production of various legume crops under CA without good markets and prices for the produce. Many are also concerned about the control of weeds, pests and diseases under CA. Another fear is that increased termite and earthworm activity is harmful when in fact it is beneficial to the soil and crops. NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 68

78 Table 1: Key Factors from TLC Surveys Driving and Impeding the Adoption of CA Factors Driving Adoption (survey of CA practitioners) 1 # of Responses % of Total Increased food security and crop yields % Reduced labour costs % Reduced effects of dry spells on crop yields (moisture conservation) % Soil Improvement % Increased incomes (from produce sales / reduced costs % Total # of Farmers Interviewed Practicing CA for 2+ years % Most Important Factor Impeding Adoption (survey of Non Adopters) 3 # of Responses % of Total Poor information / understanding of CA and/or conflicting messages & approaches, including promotion of ridges and basins % Limited access to inputs including residues/biomass and/or high labour costs for collecting biomass % Resistance to change (culture of ridging and clean fields) % Other - e.g. concerns about control of weeds, pests and diseases under CA; fear that increased termite and earthworm activity under CA is harmful 37 4% Total # of Non Adopters Interviewed % 1 Responses on drivers of adoption included multiple factors identified by each farmer. 2 Recent interviews with farmers separate from this survey revealed high interest in CA with legume crops because yields can be doubled simply by halving the row spacing which is not possible with ridges or fixed basins. Another common observation was the lower incidence of Striga under CA which had positive effects on yields. 3 Responses on barriers to adoption were limited to the most important factor identified by each farmer. Surveys by FAO Food Security and Sustainable Rural Livelihood Project CA was targeted as a key intervention to increase crop productivity for food security under the Enhancing Food Security and Sustainable Rural Livelihood Project funded by the Royal Norwegian Embassy with FAO and the MoAIWD. CA was promoted with smallholder farmers in Machinga ADD over 4 years from Farmers who practiced CA testified to improvements in soil structure and savings in time and labour. They also reported up to a 3 fold increase in maize yields from an average 1.5 MT/ha to an average of 4.5 MT/ha. However, reports of this nature raise questions about the conditions for achieving such massive increases in yields as they are certainly due to much higher levels of inputs and management, i.e., the increases are not the result of CA alone. However, despite the reported benefits by farmers, CA has spread relatively slowly in and around project impact sites. In the light of this situation, a survey was undertaken to identify and analyse the socio-economic and technical factors affecting the adoption of CA practices with the aim to overcome the challenges for upscaling the practice. Full details of the survey and its results are contained in a project report by Mwale and Gausi (2011). A total of 60 respondents were randomly selected from each of four project EPAs in Machinga ADD to answer the question: Why is CA practice spreading so slowly, despite its apparent advantages and what can be done to improve the situation? NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 69

79 Table 2: Results of Farmer Survey, FAO Food Security/Sustainable Livelihoods Project Results of the Survey 3 # of % of Responses Total # of Respondents practicing CA % # of Respondents adopting CA (practicing for 2 or more years) 26 11% # of Respondents with access to printed information on CA 7 3% # of Respondents with access to radio information on CA 24 10% # of Respondents lacking CA technical know-how / extension support % # of Respondents with limited access to capital or credit to buy the required inputs for CA % # of Respondents concerned about late access to or delivery of inputs 77 32% Small land holdings or insecure land tenure which affects ability or interest to undertake some CA principles e.g., rotations 24 10% Total # of Farmers Interviewed % Other Observations Most of these farmers started CA with initial support from the project. Results of the survey confirmed concerns that CA is spreading slowly even among communities exposed to the practice. This was also corroborated by the interviews of field staff in non-project areas where few farmers were practicing CA. In most cases, reports of farmers practicing CA in non-project areas involved use of herbicides, which obviously does not qualify as CA. Farmers renting land found it difficult to integrate all 3 principles of CA (e.g., crop rotations) since the land is not under their control and can be taken back by the owner at any time. Other governance issues - where farmers worked as a group, there were reports of discontent from poor group dynamics, poor leadership and mistrust among members. This was not a conducive environment to adopt CA, and some farmers dropped out as a result. Positive Prospects for Scaling Up Despite the constraints noted above, several positives were noted could help to scale up CA: Access to education: 87% of the respondents reported to be litreate. This means that improved production and dissemination of printed media such extension leaflets, guidelines and posters could help to promote CA on a wider scale. Low Cost options for CA and income generation: More farmers could be attracted to CA by exposing them to lower cost options such as use of cover crops and simple hand weeding methods that do not need expensive herbicides or heavy cultivation and banking. Improving farmer-extension contacts: Farmers appreciated the value of vibrant extension support which was generally inadequate. Improving the knowledge, capabilities and service delivery of extension staff is viewed as critical for wider adoption of CA Annual CA campaigns: Introducing annual CA campaigns through the MoAIWD and other stakeholders provides another platform to expose more farmers to the value of CA, especially to reduce the risks and impacts of dry spells and drought. Given the recent effects of rainfall last season, this could attract significant interest in adopting CA. Improving access to inputs and markets: CA adoption could be enhanced by improving linkages between farmers, agro-dealers/suppliers and markets for agricultural commodities. Promote CA with Other Initiatives: Increased exposure of CA could be achieved by adding banners and posters to other initiatives such as FSIP and the campaigns of private companies to showcase new technologies or improved seed. NCATF: Guidelines for Implementing Conservation Agriculture in Malawi Page 70

80 Maize under CA with vetiver hedgerows in Mwansambo, Nkhotakota to control runoff and loss of top soil from the British people NATIONAL CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE TASK FORCE Physical Address of the Secretariat P.O. Box 30291, Lilongwe, Malawi Tel: / 345; Fax: