Developing Conservation Agriculture in Maize Legume Systems for Smallholder farmers in Zambia, Malawi and Mozambique A Beneficiary Perspective in Zambia Chisanga. K, Kafwamfwa. N, Hamazakaza. P, Mwila. M, Sinyangwe. J and Lungu. O Presentation Made at the Joint Pan-African Grain Legume and World Conference Livingstone, Zambia 29 th February 2016
Presentation Outline Introduction Objectives Methodology Data Collection Results and Discussion Preliminary Conclusions
Introduction Poor soil fertility and land degradation are major limitations to food security in sub-saharan Africa Rural poverty and the environment in developing countries have been linked as a downward spiral by many, with population growth, economic marginalization, and more recently climatic variability and change leading to environmental degradation The rural poor, who depend on agriculture for their livelihood and food security are particularly vulnerable to such a downward spiral as they have limited access to inputs to improve soil productivity
Introduction Conti... Although Conservation Agriculture was introduced to some of the Southern African countries a couple of decades ago, its adoption in smallholder agriculture in the region as a whole package has been low Mozambique, Malawi and Zambia are witnessing severe degradation to its farmlands Inclusion of a legume in crop rotation has been reported a major challenge in Malawi (Ngwira et al., 2014), in Mozambique insufficient ground cover, inappropriate weed control and drought have been major challenge (Thierfelder, 2012) while spreading of crop residues as soil surface mulch is a challenge in Zambia (Umar et al., 2011).
Introduction Conti... To change this situation, improved cereals and legume cropping systems design under better resource allocation and management conditions in Conservation Agriculture systems was tested across environments of Malawi, Mozambique and Zambia This was done through on-station experiments and participatory on-farm research aiming to identify best bet resource allocation strategies that can make cropping systems more attractive to poor resource farmers involved in Conservation Agriculture
Objectives To develop and validate best CA practices that will reduce risk in smallholder farming systems To build capacity of farmers, extension workers and other partners in implementing CA oriented technologies
Methodology Survey: The research started with data collection through a baseline survey in target provinces A standard questionnaire was prepared by the research team to be used in all the three countries The survey form was designed to cover 300 farmers within each country
Methodology Conti... Soil sampling: Soil samples were collected at all farmers experimental sites and analysed for physical, chemical and biological parameters Physical, chemical and biological analysis (sand, clay, ph, SOM, P and exchangeable bases) - To be done every year for the entire period of the research work
Methodology Conti... Field Experiments: 18 field experiments for maize intercropped or in rotation with, soybean, cowpea and pigeon pea and groundnuts was established across three provinces; southern, copperbelt and eastern Zambia. 6 sites were installed in each region Sites were characterized with a 0-20cm depth composite sample per block and analysed for sand, clay, ph, SOM, P and exchangeable bases Main reduced tillage options being tried: ripping
Methodology Conti... Main soil cover options: Maize stover Rotations/Intercropping; intercropping/rotating maize with adapted legumes for each proposed project location/site
Plot Monze Site Mpongwe Site Chipata Site T1 T2 T3 Pigeon pea + Maize +Recommended fertilizer (intercropped) Pigeon pea + Maize + D Compound fertilizer only (intercropped); Pigeon pea + Maize + Half rate recommended fertilizer (intercropped); T4 Cowpea + Maize + Recommended fertilizer (intercropped); T5 T6 Table 1: Treatment Combination across Trial Sites Cowpea + Maize + D Compound fertilizer only (intercropped); Cowpea + Maize + Half rate recommended fertilizer (intercropped); Pigeon pea + Maize +Recommended fertilizer (intercropped) Pigeon pea + Maize + D Compound fertilizer only (intercropped); Pigeon pea + Maize + Half rate recommended fertilizer (intercropped); Soybeans + Maize + Recommended fertilizer (intercropped); Soybeans + Maize + D Compound fertilizer only (intercropped); Soybeans + Maize + Half rate recommended fertilizer (intercropped); Pigeon pea + Maize +Recommended fertilizer (intercropped) Pigeon pea + Maize + D Compound fertilizer only (intercropped); Pigeon pea + Maize + Half rate recommended fertilizer (intercropped); Groundnuts + Maize + Recommended fertilizer (intercropped); Groundnuts + Maize + D Compound fertilizer only (intercropped); Groundnuts + Maize + Half rate recommended fertilizer (intercropped); T7 Maize/cowpea (rotation) Maize/Soybeans (rotation) Maize/Groundnuts (rotation) T8 Farmer practice Farmer practice Farmer practice Note: In Zambia fertilizer recommendation is 200kg/ha basal and 200kg/ha Top dressing
Data Collection and Analysis Maize Grain Yield Maize grain obtained from both on-farm and on-station trials in line with the research objectives/research questions Grain from net plots was weighed using a digital scale and moisture content measured immediately to correct the yield to 12.5% moisture
Data Collection and Analysis Conti... Economic analysis: Revenue per hectare from maize grown under conservation agriculture and conventional tillage (CT) systems was based on yield from on-farm trials conducted in the proposed communities The net return per hectare was estimated for each maize yield observation (kg ha -1 ) produced by each treatment, based on the domestic maize price series and the variable costs of each treatment
Results and Discussion
Table 2: Baseline Soil Analysis Results in the Trial Sites Site Number Chipata Site ph P-ppm % Org. C Ca-ppm Mg-ppm N-ppm K-ppm CEC % N Depth (cm) 1 0-20cm 5.3 66 0.90 870 20 99 35 5.54 0.07 2 0-20cm 5.2 11 0.82 930 110 74 190 6.88 0.07 3 0-20cm 5.4 55 0.60 720 100 67 190 5.71 0.05 4 0-20cm 5.4 23 1.20 790 <1 58 170 5.22 0.10 5 0-20cm 5.1 11 0.72 980 30 67 90 6.17 0.06 6 0-20cm 4.9 114 0.95 970 120 84 200 7.23 0.08 Mpongwe Site 1 0-20cm 4.6 58 0.55 490 100 50 66 4.17 0.04 2 0-20cm 5.7 5 1.23 980 160 46 973 9.43 0.10 3 0-20cm 6.2 38 0.60 980 10 38 41 5.75 0.05 4 0-20cm 5.0 17 1.10 520 30 42 47 3.65 0.09 5 0-20cm 5.5 8 0.80 960 100 50 91 6.58 0.06 6 0-20cm 5.5 5 0.82 850 150 42 230 6.77 0.07 Monze Site 1 0-20cm 4.6 6 0.60 870 110 52 80 6.20 0.05 2 0-20cm 4.8 5 0.51 980 90 52 135 6.72 0.04 3 0-20cm 5.1 6 0.53 950 30 58 75 5.94 0.04 4 0-20cm 4.6 11 0.23 960 100 65 63 6.58 0.02 5 0-20cm 3.8 28 0.34 930 75 46 75 6.96 0.03 Guide to soil test data interpretations N (%) < 0.1 very low P (%) < 10 very low K (%) < 15 very low Soil ph < 4.5 strongly acid
Rainfall Performance during the Trial Period across the Research sites Cummulative Rainfall From 1st July, 2014 to 31st December, 2015 # Kalabo Mongu # Senanga # Shang'ombo Mwinilunga Kaoma # Sesheke # # Kabwe Choma Gwembe # Kazungula Kalomo Chiengi Kaputa Mpulungu Nchelenge Mbala Nakonde # Mporokoso Kawambwa Mungwi # # # Isoka Mwense Luwingu Kasama # Mansa # Solwezi Chingola Lufwanyama Kitwe Ndola Chavuma Kabompo # # Masaiti Zambezi # Mpongwe Mufumbwe Kasempa Kapiri Mposhi Lukulu Samfya Milenge # Chilubi Serenje Mumbwa Chibombo Lusaka # Chongwe Itezhi-tezhi Kafue Luangwa Namwala Mazabuka Monze Siavonga Livingstone Sinazongwe # # Mpika Chinsali # Mambwe # Chipata Chama Lundazi Mkushi Katete # Chadiza Nyimba Petauke Rainfall in mm 0-200 200-300 300-400 >400 Fig 1: Monze and Mpongwe sites received cumulative rainfall ranging between 200-300mm by 31 st December 2014 while Chipata site received rainfall in the range of 0-200mm Fig 2: By 31 st January 2015 Monze had accumulated rainfall in the range of 0-400mm while Mpongwe and Chipata the rainfall received during the same period ranged from 400-500mm
Rainfall Performance during the Trial Period across the Research sites Conti Rainfall Departure Map From 1st July, 2014 to 10th March, 2015 Kalabo Mongu Senanga Shang'ombo Mwinilunga Kaoma Sesheke Choma Gwembe Kazungula Kalomo Sinazongwe Chiengi Kaputa Mpulungu Nchelenge Mbala Nakonde Kawambwa Mporokoso Mungwi Isoka Mwense Luwingu Kasama Mansa Solwezi Chililabombwe Chingola Lufwanyama Kitwe Ndola Chavuma Kabompo Masaiti Zambezi Mpongwe Mufumbwe Kasempa Kapiri Mposhi Lukulu Kabwe Chilubi Samfya Milenge Mumbwa Chibombo Lusaka Chongwe Itezhi-tezhi Kafue Luangwa Namwala Mazabuka Monze Siavonga Livingstone Serenje Mpika Chinsali Chama Lundazi Mambwe Chipata Mkushi Katete Chadiza Nyimba Petauke Below Normal Normal Cummulative Rainfall From 1st July, 2014 to 10th March, 2015 Kalabo Mongu Senanga Shang'ombo Mwinilunga Kaoma Sesheke Choma Gwembe Kazungula Kalomo Sinazongwe Chiengi Kaputa Mpulungu Nchelenge Mbala Nakonde Mporokoso Kawambwa Mungwi Isoka Mwense Luwingu Kasama Mansa Solwezi Chililabombwe Chingola Lufwanyama Kitwe Ndola Chavuma Kabompo Masaiti Zambezi Mpongwe Mufumbwe Kasempa Kapiri Mposhi Lukulu Kabwe Chilubi Samfya Milenge Mumbwa Chibombo Lusaka Chongwe Itezhi-tezhi Kafue Luangwa Namwala Mazabuka Monze Siavonga Livingstone Serenje Mpika Chinsali Chama Lundazi Mambwe Chipata Mkushi Katete Chadiza Nyimba Petauke Rainfall in mm 0-550 550-700 700-850 >850 Fig 3: First dekad of March 2015, Monze site received below normal rainfall Fig 4: Mpongwe and Chipata during the same period received normal rainfall. The cumulative rainfall in the period ranged from 700-850mm
Rainfall Performance during the Trial Period across the Research sites Conti Fig 5: By 31 st January 2015 Monze site had satisfactory moisture levels (50-90%) to support crop growth while Mpongwe and Chipata site recorded sufficient moisture levels (60-100%) Fig 6: By 10 th March 2015, soil water index for Monze and Chipata sites show that the trials were stressed with water levels being 10-50% in comparison to Mpongwe which had satisfactory moisture levels of 50-90%
TABLE 3: MONZE SITE YIELD RESULTS TREATMENTS MAIZE YIELD KG/HA STOVER YIELD CORE YIELD KG/HA KG/HA (T1) PP + M + FRF 4341 2586 855 (T2) PP + M + D 3665 2520 691 Comp (T3) PP + M + HRF 3480 2517 692 (T4) CP + M + FRF 4469 2863 872 (T5) CP + M + D 4518 2573 840 Comp (T6) CP + M + HRF 4478 2444 776 (T7) M/CP ROT 4264 2317 771 (T8) FP 4533 2565 828 MEAN 4219 2548 791 C.V 29.3 29.2 29.2 LSD (0.05) 814.9 490.3 152.5 Note: PP Pigeon pea; FRF Full rate fertilizer; M Maize; D Comp D Compound; HRF Half rate fertilizer; CP Cowpea; GN Groundnut; ROT Rotation, SB Soybeans
Fig 7: GRAPHICAL PRESENTATION OF MAIZE, STOVER AND CORE YIELD KG/HA IN MONZE 5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 Yield kg/ha 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 (T1) PP + M + FRF (T2) PP + M + D Comp (T3) PP + M + HRF (T4) CP + M + FRF (T5) CP + M + D Comp (T6) CP + M + HRF (T7) M/CP ROT Maize 4341 3665 3480 4469 4518 4478 4264 4533 Stover 2586 2520 2517 2863 2573 2444 2317 2565 Core 855 691 692 872 840 776 771 828 (T8) FP
TABLE 4: CHIPATA SITE YIELD RESULTS TREATMENTS MAIZE YIELD KG/HA STOVER YIELD CORE YIELD KG/HA KG/HA (T1) PP + M + FRF 2811 3753 724 (T2) PP + M + D 1605 2994 407 Comp (T3) PP + M + HRF 2219 2821 577 (T4) GN + M + FRF 3038 3309 801 (T5) GN + M + D 1643 3081 424 Comp (T6) GN + M + HRF 2102 3197 543 (T7) M/GN ROT 2721 4169 694 (T8) FP 3220 3934 831 MEAN 2420 3407 625 C.V 39.3 27.2 33.5 LSD (0.05) 688.5 670 151.7 Note: PP Pigeon pea; FRF Full rate fertilizer; M Maize; D Comp D Compound; HRF Half rate fertilizer; CP Cowpea; GN Groundnut; ROT Rotation, SB Soybeans
FIG 8: GRAPHICAL PRESENTATION OF MAIZE, STOVER AND CORE YIELD KG/HA IN CHIPATA 4500 4000 3500 3000 Yield Kg/ha 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 (T1) PP + M + FRF (T2) PP + M + D Comp (T3) PP + M + HRF (T4) GN + M + FRF (T5) GN + M + D Comp (T6) GN + M + HRF (T7) M/GN ROT Maize 2811 1605 2219 3038 1643 2102 2721 3220 Stover 3753 2994 2821 3309 3081 3197 4169 3934 Core 724 407 577 801 424 543 694 831 (T8) FP
TABLE 5: MPONGWE SITE YIELD RESULTS TREATMENTS MAIZE YIELD KG/HA STOVER YIELD KG/HA CORE YIELD KG/HA (T1) PP + M + FRF 3619 3254 456 (T2) PP + M + D 2700 2915 356 Comp (T3) PP + M + HRF 2577 2992 524 (T4) SB + M + FRF 3204 3803 501 (T5) SB + M + D 3191 3488 520 Comp (T6) SB + M + HRF 2399 2727 414 (T7) M/SB ROT 3829 3497 574 (T8) FP 2931 2928 367 MEAN 3056 3200 464 C.V 29.5 46.3 37.6 LSD (0.05) 806.2 1324.8 156.1 Note: PP Pigeon pea; FRF Full rate fertilizer; M Maize; D Comp D Compound; HRF Half rate fertilizer; CP Cowpea; GN Groundnut; ROT Rotation, SB Soybeans
4500 FIG 9: GRAPHICAL PRESENTATION OF MAIZE, STOVER AND CORE YIELD KG/HA IN MPONGWE 4000 3500 3000 Yield Kg/ha 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 (T1) PP + M + FRF (T2) PP + M + D Comp (T3) PP + M + HRF (T4) SB + M + FRF (T5) SB + M + D Comp (T6) SB + M + HRF (T7) M/SB ROT Maize 3619 2700 2577 3204 3191 2399 3829 2931 Stover 3254 2915 2992 3803 3488 2727 3497 2928 Core 456 356 524 501 520 414 574 367 (T8) FP
Table 6: Gross Margins Analysis for Monze Site Treatment Maize Grain Yield (kgha-1) Gross Benefits (USD) Fertilizer Cost (USD) Seed Cost (USD) Labour Cost (USD) Maize Net Income Maize grain yield response kg/kg fertilizer applied (T1) Pigeon pea + Maize +Recommended fertilizer (intercropped) (T2) Pigeon pea + Maize + D Compound fertilizer only (intercropped) (T3) Pigeon pea + Maize + Half rate recommended fertilizer (intercropped) (T4) Cowpea + Maize + Recommended fertilizer (intercropped) (T5) Cowpea + Maize + D Compound fertilizer only (intercropped) (T6) Cowpea + Maize + Half rate recommended fertilizer (intercropped) (T7) Maize/cowpea (rotation) 4343 565 162 53 166 184 10.86 3665 476 162 53 166 95 9.16 3480 452 162 53 166 71 8.70 4469 581 162 53 166 200 11.17 4518 587 162 53 166 206 11.30 4478 582 162 53 166 201 11.20 4264 554 162 53 166 173 10.66 (T8) practice Farmer 4533 589 162 53 166 208 11.33
Treatment (T1) Pigeon pea + Maize +Recommended fertilizer (intercropped) (T2) Pigeon pea + Maize + D Compound fertilizer only (intercropped) (T3) Pigeon pea + Maize + Half rate recommended fertilizer (intercropped) (T4) Soybeans + Maize + Recommended fertilizer (intercropped) (T5) Soybeans + Maize + D Compound fertilizer only (intercropped) (T6) Soybeans + Maize + Half rate recommended fertilizer (intercropped) (T7) Maize/Soybeans (rotation) Table: 7 Gross Margins Analysis for Mpongwe Site Maize Grain Yield (kgha-1) Gross Benefits (USD) Fertilizer Cost (USD) Seed Cost (USD) Labour Cost (USD) Maize Net Income 3619 470 162 67 166 75 9.05 2700 351 162 67 166-44 6.75 2577 335 162 67 166-60 6.44 3204 417 162 67 166 22 8.01 3191 415 162 67 166 20 7.98 2399 312 162 67 166-83 6.00 3829 498 162 67 166 103 9.57 Maize grain yield response kg/kg fertilizer applied (T8) practice Farmer 2931 381 162 67 166-14 7.33
Treatment Table: 8 Gross Margins Analysis for Chipata Site Maize Grain Yield (kgha-1) Gross Benefits (USD) Fertilizer Cost (USD) Seed Cost (USD) Labour Cost (USD) Maize Net Income Maize grain yield response kg/kg fertilizer applied (T1) Pigeon pea + Maize +Recommended fertilizer (intercropped) (T2) Pigeon pea + Maize + D Compound fertilizer only (intercropped) (T3) Pigeon pea + Maize + Half rate recommended fertilizer (intercropped) (T4) Groundnuts + Maize + Recommended fertilizer (intercropped) (T5) Groundnuts + Maize + D Compound fertilizer only (intercropped) (T6) Groundnuts + Maize + Half rate recommended fertilizer (intercropped) (T7) Maize/Groundnuts (rotation) (T8) practice Farmer 2811 365 162 65 166-28 7.03 1605 209 162 65 166-184 4.01 2219 288 162 65 166-105 5.55 3038 395 162 65 166 2 7.60 1643 214 162 65 166-179 4.11 2102 273 162 65 166-120 5.26 2721 354 162 65 166-39 6.80 3220 419 162 65 166 26 8.05
TABLE 9:COWPEA, SOYBEANS AND GROUNDNUTS YIELDS ACROSS RESEARCH SITES Treatments Cowpea yield kg/ha (Monze) Soybeans yield kg/ha (Mpongwe) Groundnut yield kg/ha (Chipata) (T4) CP + M + FRF 1125.3 (T5) CP + M + D 881.6 Comp (T6) CP + M + HRF 636.3 (T7) M/CP ROT 1198.1 (T4) SB + M + FRF 4512 (T5) SB + M + D 4638 Comp (T6) SB + M + HRF 4365 (T7) M/SB ROT 4665 (T4) GN + M + FRF 229 (T5) GN + M + D 285 Comp (T6) GN + M + HRF 355 (T7) M/GN ROT 733 MEAN 960 4545 400 C.V 15.91 23.4 63.7 LSD (0.05) 335.3 784.4 210
Gender and Youth/s Involvement In this research work, mainstreaming of gender/addressing women/men/youth specific issues is being done by ensuring that 30% of the participants are women as enshrined in the Zambia Gender Policy Document. E.g during the baseline survey this aspect was applied during sampling for household interviews In-terms of Gender concerns in the development and dissemination of the technology, this is being addressed by ensuring that some host farmers of the demonstrations or validation trials are lead by women In addition there is also promotion of the development of technologies aimed at reducing the workload of women and girls i.e promotion of appropriate technologies for on farm demonstrations This is hoped to spur interest from other women groups and get involved
Lessons Learnt Technical Learnings based on the experiences of beneficiaries which could be critical to policy development point to the fact that: Intercropping is beneficial especially where land pressure is an issue, reduces weed pressure, one can harvest two crops from the same piece of land Farmers also noted that they were not practicing intercropping as at one time they were only encouraged to grow pure stands of Maize by extension department implying that institutional collaboration is key amongst organizations promoting CA practices to ensure same message is received by the beneficiaries
Lessons Learnt Conti Intercropping can help replenish nutrients in the soil especially if legumes are rotated regularly Farmers want to understand the management of pigeon pea tree legume as they perceive that the shrub would interfere with the maize crop development Aspects of food security at small holder level is associated with availability of maize in Zambia, the staple food, thus introducing any technology which excludes maize may not be feasible
Conclusions: Key messages for research, development and Policy Preliminary results in this trial have revealed that intercropping of maize and cowpea with application of basal fertilizer @ 200kg/ha produced better maize yields (4.5t/ha) than with groundnuts and soybeans (1.6t/ha and 3.2t/ha respectively) We preliminary note that for CA oriented technologies to be taken up by farmers in Zambia there is need to strengthen the research, extension and farmer linkages through information sharing and involvement of partners throughout the research implementation
Conclusions: Key messages for research, development and Policy Conti In addition involvement of allied departments like Meteorology in weather information would be key for farmers to make informed decision as to when they would plant their crops based on accessed weather information Possibly the weather information could also be translated in local language for easy understanding and assimilation of the prevailing weather pattern
RESEARCH ACTIVITIES IN PICTURES
Research Staff discussing sites to host Trials
Monitoring of Trials in Monze Site Jan 2015
Discussing Trial Performance with host farmers during Monitoring Visits Monze Site Jan 2015
Stakeholder engagement in Monitoring Mpongwe Site February 2015
Collecting Harvest Data Chipata Site May 2015
Research staff and farmers organizing the Groundnuts harvest material Chipata Site May 2015
Farmers participate in harvesting May 2015
Harvested Samples of Maize and Legumes May 2015
THANK YOU!