CA adoption challenges in Zimbabwe. Kizito Mazvimavi
-
Upload
joanna-hicks -
Category
Education
-
view
660 -
download
2
description
Transcript of CA adoption challenges in Zimbabwe. Kizito Mazvimavi
Conservation Agriculture Adoption Challenges in Zimbabwe
Kizito Mazvimavi, Putso Nyathi and Conrad Murendo ICRISAT
Presentation to the WCCA ,26 September 2011
Conservation Agriculture in Zimbabwe
Basins technique
Largely introduced through relief programs NGOs provided inputs and technical support
Targeted the vulnerable
ICRISAT CA Panel Surveys, 2007 - 2011
Study Sample:• 15 Districts• 450 Households• Soil sample analysis
Maize Yield for CA and Non-CA in 2010/11 Cropping Season
Nya
nga
Chip
inge
Chiv
i
Mas
ving
o
Bing
a
Hw
ange
Nka
yi
Insi
za
Man
gwe
Chir
umha
nzu
Gok
we
Sout
h
Bind
ura
Mt D
arw
in
Mur
ehw
a
Seke
Zaka
Gur
uve
Hur
ungw
e
Mak
onde
Kado
ma
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000CA yield NON CA yield
Mai
ze Y
ield
in K
g/H
a
• CA remains a promising technology that enables smallholder farmers to get better yields improve food security
Components of CA techniques being Practiced, 2006 - 2011 (%)
2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11
Winter weeding 87 76 71 63 46 13.8
Application of Mulch 75 69 70 56 30 19.8
Digging Planting Basin 99 99 97 89 86 70.6
Application of manure 88 89 87 80 68 63.0
Application of basal fertilizer 75 74 66 38 42 41.3
Application of top dressing fertilizer
92 92 88 70 60 55.1
Timely weeding 98 99 96 85 54 55.4
Crop rotation 13 13 18 19 30 35.8
• Winter weeding – in 2010/11 enumerators made visual assessment of CA plots in May/June: Only 14% had weed free plots
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11
sq
. m
ete
rs
NR II NR III NR IV NR V
Changes in area under CA
End of most free seed and fertilizer support
Reason for not practicing CA
Labor intensive NGO left To rotate crops Plot not fenced Water logging High weed pressure
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
% o
f res
pond
ents
Influence of NGO support on CA plot area
2004/052005/06
2006/072007/08
2008/092009/10
2010/11
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000 No access Access to NGO support
CA P
lot
Are
a m
2
Labor Requirements for CA and Non-CA Plots (CT)(Mean Area; CA=0. 4ha, Non-CA=0. 3ha)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
CF Plot Non-CF Plot
Days
/Ha
Labor Requirements for CA and Non-CA Plots (CD Tillage)(Mean Area; CA=0. 4ha, Non-CA=0. 3ha)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
CF Plot Non-CF Plot
Days
/Ha
Mechanize (Rippers, Jab-planters)? Apply Herbicides
(Training and Costs?)
Targeting farmers in CA promotion
• Is CA the best option for women famers, the elderly and households affected by HIV/AIDS
• Can vulnerable farmers (Poorer and HIV/AIDS) maximize input and technology support provided to CA beneficiaries?– NGO targeting of vulnerable households impact
negatively on labor availability for CA practices– Need to include better resourced farmers as
technology innovators,• These are able to take a risk with new technology
Mulching Challenges:- Crop Residue Uses
- the need to meet multiple uses
01020304050
Left i
n field
for
lives
tock
Store
d for
liv
estoc
k fee
d
Kraa
l man
ure
Mulch
ing
Cons
tructi
on
Left i
n plot
Comp
ost
Othe
rs (e.
g. Th
atchin
g)
% of r
espon
dents
Dealing with Crop-Livestock Interactions
• Communal grazing by-laws commonly demand the use of crop residues as livestock feed,
• CA plots are usually unfenced
• Difficult for CA farmers to reserve residues for mulching purposes.
• Identification of fodder alternatives for livestock feed• Use of non-crop residue materials as mulching material• Ammend community by-laws to keep livestock away from fields
Harmonized Approaches to CA Promotion
• CA promoters have different approaches to entice potential technology adopters
• CA promotion need full participation of national extension agencies
Basin Size % Soil Cover
The role of markets
Rather than direct distribution of free seed and fertilizer to CA farmers, use market friendly mechanisms
• Promote platforms for farmers to sell their produce• Accumulate income to purchase inputs (Herbicides, mechanization implements)
Conclusion• Farmers still appreciate the benefits of CA
technology • There is potential to increase CA plot sizes (area)
through mechanization• Consistent extension support/training is critical for
farmers to continue with the CA practice. ―Close participation of AGRITEX, to ensure sustainability
• Address the issue of Mechanized CA Equipment Access (availability in market).
• The government to now play a more leading role in CA technology transfer