1 / 18

Jens B. Aune Department of International Environment and Development Studies, Noragric

Conservation agriculture in Zambia and Malawi - the opportunities and constraints to adoption. Jens B. Aune Department of International Environment and Development Studies, Noragric Norwegian University of Life Sciences. Noragric research on conservation agriculture (CA).

gerry
Download Presentation

Jens B. Aune Department of International Environment and Development Studies, Noragric

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Conservation agriculture in Zambia and Malawi - the opportunities and constraints to adoption Jens B. Aune Department of International Environment and Development Studies, Noragric Norwegian University of Life Sciences

  2. Noragric research on conservation agriculture (CA) • Malawi (Chidedze Research Station) • Zambia (Conservaton Farming Unit, GART, University of Zambia) • Ethiopia (Hawassa University) • Results presented today are based on our experiences in Zambia and Malawi

  3. Planting basins (CFU method in Zambia) • Planting basins 30 cm long , 15 cm wide and 15 cm deep • Chaka hoe Photo: B.B. Umar

  4. Planting basins Disadvantages • Advantages • Increased yields (more than 100%) • Good economic return • Works well under dry conditions. • More efficient utilisation of inputs • High labour demand- comparable to general hoe tillage • Women find it hard to use the chaka hoe • Waterlogging under flooding conditions • Basins alone do not improve soil organic matter Source: Umar et al. 2012

  5. Ripping Photo: B.B. Umar

  6. Ripping Advantage Disadvantage • Low labour demand • Lower traction demand than ploughing • Expanding faster in Zambia than planting basins • Farmers that plough turn to ripping • No yield benefit compared to ploughing • Farmers unwilling to use animals in the dry season Source: Aune et al. 2012, Umar et al. 2012

  7. Use of the planting stick (dibble stick) in Malawi • Low drudgery • Fast • Shallow tillage • Timely sowing • Mulching • Increased organic • matter • -N input needed Photo: Amos Ngwira

  8. Aune and Bationo 2008

  9. CA with mulch and trees Productivity Ripping Planting basins Traditional tillage Level of CA

  10. CA with mulch and trees Partial adoption Productivity Ripping Planting basins Traditional tillage In 2009/2010 season in Zambia the area under CA was 26% of the total cultivated area . Land area under CA for adopters in Malawi was 30% (Ngwira et al. 2014) Level of CA

  11. Why partial adoption of CA - It takes time to changetraditions • Reduce risk. CA maywork in dry years, traditional tillage in humid years • Spreadoflabour. CA reduces time for land preparation, butincreases time for weeding. Oppositeeffect in traditional tillage • Capital requirements. CA is more capitaldemanding. Fertiliser and herbicides more in use in CA. New equipement is needed. • Tacticalreasons in order to achievecontinued support from CA projects

  12. Increased yields and labour saving CA with mulch and trees Productivity Ripping Planting basins Traditional tillage Level of CA

  13. Labour and yield benefits of CA adoption Source: Umar, B:B. Aune, J.B., Johnsen, F.H. and Lungu, O. 2011

  14. Land preparation time Source: Umar, BB, Aune, JB, Johnsen FH, Lungu IO 2012

  15. Ecological benfits are connected to recycling of organic matter CA with mulch and trees Productivity Ripping Planting basins Traditional tillage Level of CA

  16. Ecological benefits of recycling of organic matter in CA • 31% more organic matter in CA plots as compared to convention plots in Zambia (Thierfelder et al. 2013) • 41% more water infiltrated in CA plots with mulch in Malawi (Ngwira et al. 2012) • 10 times more earthworms per m2 in Malawi (Ngwira et al. 2012) • 50% reduction weed infestion with mulch in Malawi (4 tons/ha) (Ngwira et al. 2014 in press) • Less yield variability in CA as compared to traditional tillage (Ngwira et al. 2014 in press)

  17. How to reap the ecological and economic benefits of CA • Increase production and produce more mulch- CA without fertilisers in not sustainable. • Recycle mulch and integrate trees • Integrate livestock in CA programs • - fodder production • - improved feeding • - grazing management

  18. Conclusions • Partial adoption observed • There can be good reasons for partial adoption • The ecological benefits of CA are connected to the recylcing of organic matter • CA should not be promoted under the low-input label as CA without fertiliser is not beneficial.

More Related