soil fert net annual report for 2001 - …libcatalog.cimmyt.org/download/cim/447934.pdfally, we...

Prepared for the Rockefeller Foundation

February 2002

SOIL FERT NET ANNUAL REPORTFOR 2001

Stephen R Waddington and Mulugetta MekuriaNetwork Coordinators

Soil Fert Net is funded by a grantfrom the Rockefeller FoundationFood Security Programme

CIMMYT~

CIMMYT Maize and Economics Programmes

THE SOIL FERTILITY MANAGEMENT AND POLICYNETWORK FOR MAIZE-BASED FARMING SYSTEMS

IN SOUTHERN AFRICA

"Soil Fert Net"

Annual Report for 200 I

Prepared for the Rockefeller Foundation Food Security Program

by Stephen R Waddington and Mulugetta MekuriaSoil Fert Net Coordinators

CIMMYT Maize and Economics Programs, Zimbabwe

February 2002

*************************************************** ** *: Highlights of Soil Fert Net in 200 I :

* *: .. A new management structure for Soil Fert Net, with broader responsibilities for :* members was developed and implemented ** *: .. Four additional Soil Fertility Best Bets were identified for Southern Africa: :* 1. Anaerobically-composted cattle manure for Zimbabwe *: 2. Groundnut + pigeonpea intercrop rotation with maize for Malawi :* 3. Crota/aria grahamiana and C. ochro/euca green manures ** 4. Tithonia spp. leaf prunings ** ** ** .. Several Best Bet soil fertility technologies were officially released in Malawi ** ** ** .. A wider integration across disciplines, institutions and countries was achieved, ** including in an "East meets South" workshop and the development of integrated *: proposals (in Zambia and Zimbabwe) :

* ** .. Natural resource economics training was incorporated into our work ** ** ** .. Four major research projects began under our Economics and Policy Working *: Group, and seven new proposals were discussed :

* ** .. The Soil Fert Net web site, www.Soilfertnetsouthernafrica.org. was developed and *: became available online :

* ** .. Inventories of Soil Fert Net research and extension work are under development ** ** ** .. Soil Fert Net members from Malawi and Zimbabwe participated in Rockefeller *: Foundation Reviews of Soil Fertility Work and in a Sustainable Livelihoods :* Consultancy. ** ***************************************************

SOIL FERTILITY MANAGEMENT AND POLICY NETWORK Annual Report for 2001

Contents

Introduction 3

Developments with Soil Fert Net in 200 I 3

New Management Structure 3

Soils Research in East and Southern Africa: Strengthening Ties and Synergies 5

Rockefeller Foundation Soil Fertility Review 7

Sustainable Livelihoods Consultancy 8

Strategy for Integrated Soil Fertility Research in Zimbabwe 8

Soil Fert Net Activities for 2002 8

Network Research 8

Managing Soil Fertility Decline in Different Farming Systems of Zambia 9

Sulphur Nutrient Deficiency in Malawi Maize Production 10

Liming Equivalence of Organic Materials in Zimbabwe 12

The Response of N Use Efficient Maize to N Fertilizer in Zimbabwe 14

Factors Affecting the Adoption of Soil Fertility Technologies in Mhondoro, Zimbabwe 14

Determinants of Adoption of Manure Storage Practices in Murewa, Zimbabwe 17

Measuring Social Costs of Soil Erosion in Malawi 19

Factors Affecting Adoption of Organic Soil Fertility Technologies in Malawi 19

Economics of Growing Mucuna as a Green Manure in Malawi 20

Payoffs to Green Manuring in Maize Based Communal Areas 21

Promotion of Soil Fertility Technologies 22

"Official Release" of Organic Matter Technologies by Malawi 22

Additional Best Bet Technologies 22

Private Sector Input Dealer Participation in Promotion of Soil Fertility Technologies 22

Chihota Soil Fertility Extension Pilot Project 23

Networking and Information Exchange 24

Learning Workshop on Economics of Natural Resources, Soil Fertility and Cropping Systems 24

Understanding the Adoption and Impact of Soil Fertility Technologies Workshop 26

Integrated Soil Fertility Research Field Tour of Northern Zambia 29

Field Tour on Available Soil Fertility Practices in Central and Northern Malawi 31

New Soil Fert Net Website 33

Network Publications 33

External Conferences Attended by the Coordinators 34

Network-related Papers with a Contribution from the Coordinators 34

2 SOIL FERTILITY MANAGEMENT AND POLICY NETWORK Annual Report for 2001

Introduction

The work of the Soil Fertility Research Networkfor Smallholder Maize-Based Farming Systemsin Southern Africa (Soil Fert Net) strengthenedsignificantly during 2001. Our new strategy forthe period 2001-2003 (described in the 2000 Annual Report) was implemented. Funding fromthe Rockefeller Foundation increased to US$456600 for the period 1 December 2000 to 30November 2001. Support to various forms ofsocio-economic work increased substantially.The time allocation for the Coordination Unitagricultural economist rose to 50%. Additionally, we recruited an agricultural economics r~

search associate (Shephard Siziba). These pOSItions are based at CIMMYT-Zimbabwe.

This report outlines new developments in SoilFert Net during 2001, summarizes network research and technology promotion initiatives anddescribes a significantly expanded portfolio ofnetworking events. Some of the highlights of ourwork in 2001 appear on the previous page. Table1 gives a summary of the major Network eventsheld during the report period. We begin with adescription of our new management structure,developed and implemented in 2001.

Developments with Soil FertNet in 200 I

New Management Structure

Soil Fert Net is now a mature and expandednetwork. To date, the Soil Fert Net has relied on

Table 1. Main Soil Fert Net Events in 2001

direct contact between interested groups ofmembers and the coordinators to develop mostof our activities. This flexible and responsiveapproach has proved highly effective. However,as the Network has grown in geographic anddisciplinary coverage this mode of operating isunder strain.

Accordingly, early in 2001 Soil Fert Net decidedto put in place a simple and efficient management structure that will take us forward as aNetwork to address new challenges. Some 16key members of Soil Fert Net attended a Management Planning Meeting near to Harare on 67 February 2001 to develop the new management structure for Soil Fert Net (Table 2).

The aims of the structure is to better focus andmanage resources on priority thrusts, empowermembers by spreading points of initiative withinthe Network, and increase ownership and accountability to improve the regional sustainability of our Network.

Participants said the structure must be flexible,sustainable, functional and not costly to run.The structure shown in Figure 1 was agreed.The components are given below.

Regional Coordination Unit (RCU) :-: !his willcontinue to facilitate network actlvItles fromCIMMYT.

The RCU will:• Administer the network• Coordinate regional staff• Communication and strategy implementation• Develop the Network• Provide technical backstopping.

Type of Event

ManagementMeetings:

Field Tours:

Workshops:

Training Workshop:

Title Dates Location

Soil Fert Net Management Planning 6-7 February Lake Chivero, Harare,Zimbabwe

Zambia Planning and Project 3-4 October Lusaka, ZambiaDevelopment

Available Soil Fertility Practices 19-21 February Central Malawi

Integrated Soil Fertility Research 3-11 March Northern Zambia

East Meets South - Strengthening Ties 10-12 May Arusha, Tanzaniaand Synergies

Understanding the Adoption and Impact 3-6 December Juliasdale, Zimbabweof Soil Fertility Technologies

Learning Workshop on Economic 2-7 April Pretoria, South AfricaEvaluation of Natural Resources and SoilFertility

SOIL FERTILITY MANAGEMENT AND POLICY NETWORK Annual Report for 2001 3

Figure 1. New Soil Fert Net Management Structure, 2001-03

Table 2. Participants that attended the Soil Fert Net ManagementPlanning Meeting, Lake Chivero, Harare, Zimbabwe, 6·7 February 2001

Country groups and facilitators

The SAC will:.Monitor andevaluate projects• Provide leadershipin agriculturalresearch related tosoil fertility• Assist thematicleaders in reviewingproposals as theyarise, i.e. carry outthe final review ofsome proposals• Help set strategicresearch agenda onsoil fertility toencompass adaptiveand appliedresearch.

Regional ThemeLeaders (RTLs) These will be drawnfrom the thematic

areas of research tocoordinate and developregional work.

RTLs will:• Provide leadership withinthe theme group.Convene regionalmeetings on the theme• Review and screenproposals on the theme• Assist the RCV intechnical administrationrelated to the thematicareas• Form task forces withineach theme, e.g. onbiological N fixation,organic x inorganic mixes,soil fertility rehabilitationstrategies.

Affiliation

Bunda College, Univ. of Malawi, Lilongwe

Chitedze Research Station, DARTS, Lilongwe

Chitedze Research Station, DARTS, Lilongwe

Soil & Water Branch, DR&SS, MAFF, Lusaka

DR&SS, MAFF, Mansa, Zambia

Faculty of Agriculture, Univ. of Zimbabwe, Harare

Agronomy Institute, DR&SS, Harare

Chemistry and Soils, DR&SS, Marondera, Zim.

University of Zimbabwe, Harare

University of Zimbabwe, Harare

ICRAF, Harare

TSBF, Harare

The Rockefeller Foundation, Harare

ICRISAT, Matopos, Bulawayo

CIMMYT-Zimbabwe/Soil Fert Net, Harare

CIMMYT-Zimbabwe/Soil Fert Net, Harare

r·· --------------------- - -- - ~-- -.- ------,, ,

Regional Coordination Unit i(at CIMMYT) i

H 'Scientific Advisory

i Commltt..

Regional Theme Leaders i

Discipline

Agricultural Economics

Soil Science

Agronomy

Soil Science

Farming Systems

Agronomy

Agronomy

Soil Science


Soil Science


Soil Science


Agronomy/Soils


Agronomy

Regional TechnicalTask Force

Themes

Participant

M Alex Phiri

Allan Chilimba

Webster Sakala

Moses Mwale

Abraham Ngoliya

Ostin Chivinge

Danisile Hikwa

David Dhliwayo

Reneth Mano

Sheunesu Mpepereki

Elias Ayuk

Herbert Murwira

Akinwumi Adesina

Steve Twomlow

Mulugetta Mekuria

Stephen Waddington

Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) - TheSAC is to provide strategic leadership for SoilFert Net. It will be composed of eminentscientists that are active in research in theirown right. They will provide independent viewson projects. The composition of SAC will havepersons drawn to cover different thematic areasof the network. The choice of SAC members isto be done by the network. The RockefellerFoundation has a similar system with theForum.

Regional Technical Task Force (RTTF) - Thisis a "virtual" committee that is informal. It ismade up of the RCV, RTLs and the donorrepresentative.

The RTTF will:• Provide first-point-of-call peer review of

proposals• Develop methodology and general capacity

building in the various thematic areas• Monitor project trends and write information

briefs


• Share information across thematic areas.

The meeting developed the following guidelinesfor Regional Theme Leaders.

Criteria for nominating thematic leaders:• Active involvement in the network• Demonstrable capacity to conduct work on the

ground and coordinate activities on a theme• Publications in the thematic area• Willingness and ability to serve.

Selection of thematic leaders:• Ensure a regional balance in thematic

leadership• The RCV to work with various names and

come up with a balanced, but effectiveleadership for the themes.

Term of office:• The term of office is to be specific, i.e. 3 years• Any non-performers are to be relieved of duties

without necessarily waiting for end of theirterm.

National Facilitators - It was realized thatnational links within the Network would dependon country circumstances. Where possible,existing structures such as the Malawi MaizeProductivity Task Force should be strengthenedrather than new bodies set up. The meeting feltthat two National Facilitators (Liaison Persons)should be identified per country. One will coverthe biophysical sciences and the second one onsocio-economics and policy, and both will ensuredisciplinary interaction.

In-country meetings of members are to beconvened to decide on facilitators. It isimportant to ensure that there is enoughrepresentation from economics and biosciencesto attend the meeting. The RCV was asked tocontact Mozambique to formalize theirinvolvement.

Proposal review system -• This must be flexible. Individuals should

know that they could add value to theirproposals by subjecting them to peer reviewsand incorporating the suggestions. Thenetwork will provide peer reviewing for thosethat require it.

• The network should develop focussedguidelines on proposal write-up to helpnetwork members develop good proposals.

• The network encourages members to submitproposals to other donors as well as theRockefeller Foundation.

Followups - The coordinators solicited nominations from members for possible persons thatmay serve at RTLs and on the SAC. WebsterSakala of DARTS, Malawi agreed to serve as theRTL covering Integrated Cropping Systems, SoilNutrient and Water Management. IshmaelPompi of DR&SS, Zimbabwe was appointed theTechnology Dissemination and Promotion RTL.These positions became effective 1 September2001. One of the first tasks identified by theRTLs is a new database on research and dissemination activities being undertaken by members of Soil Fert Net. Interest was expressed byseveral persons nominated for the SAC. Implementation of the SAC will begin formally earlyin 2002.

Soils Research in East and Southern Africa:Strengthening Ties and Synergies Workshop

Many institutions conduct research on variousaspects of soil fertility and its management inEast and Southern Africa. Sometimes thisresearch could duplicate past or even currentefforts. There is a growing need to assure thatthese research efforts are complementary andnot competitive, that the sum of output of all thework provides a thorough understanding of theproblem and promotes adoptable solutions to theproblems of soil fertility and conservation.

Thus two of the main soil fertility networks inthe region, the TSBF African Network (AfNet)and SoilFertNet, hosted a two-day workshop tobring together key institutions involved in soilsresearch in East and Southern Africa. Forty-onekey participants attended the meeting held on11 and 12 May 2001 in Arusha, Tanzania. Theywere drawn largely from AfNet, with about tenmembers from SoilFertNet (Table 3). There wasstrong representation from government researchinstitutions and universities in Eastern andSouthern Africa, from several NGOs, fromIARCs and from the Rockefeller Foundation.Some colleagues from West Africa attended thefirst day. The purpose was to discuss currentsoils research and make plans for futurecollaborative efforts.

The objectives and outputs of the workshopand agenda were:

1) Revised lists of thematic research topics,including recommendations, gaps,dissemination and policy issues,

2) A set of research priorities identified withineach of the themes and mechanisms for


integration of the various institutions andindividuals working on the theme,

3) Identification of cross-cutting topics that linkthemes and regions, and

4) Agreement on mechanisms to improvecollaboration and the coherence of theresearch effort.

Those same group meetings then went on to lookin more detail at the requirements for furtherwork, with emphasis on those that lend themselves toward joint initiatives across southernand eastern Mrica.

Table 3. Participants that attended the "East Meets South" Workshopon the Integration of Soil Research Activities in Eastern and SouthernAfrica, held in Arusha, Tanzania, 10-11 May 2001

Tilahun Amede CIAT/AHI, Awassa, Ethiopia

Vincent Bado INERA, Bobo-Dioulasso, Burkina Faso

Andre Bationo TSBF AfNet Coordinator, Nairobi, Kenya

Stephen M. Nandwa NARL, KARl, Nairobi, Kenya

Dennis K. Friesen CIMMYT, Nairobi. Kenya

Charles K.K. Gachene University of Nairobi, Nairobi. Kenya

Stephen Kimani NARL, KARl, Nairobi, Kenya

Bashir Jama ICRAF, Nairobi, Kenya

John Lynam The Rockefeller Foundation, Nairobi, Kenya

Cheryl Palm TSBF, Nairobi, Kenya

John Ojiem KARl Regional Research Centre Kakamega, Kenya

Joseph Mureithi KARl, Nairobi, Kenya

Paul Seward SCODP, Nairobi, Kenya

Martins Odendo KARl Regional Research Centre Kakamega, Kenya

Daniel N. Mugendi Kenyatta University, Nairobi, Kenya

Mike Swift TSBF, Nairobi. Kenya

Bharati Patel The Rockefeller Foundation. Nairobi, Kenya

Bernard Vanlauwe TSBF, Nairobi. Kenya

Joshua Ramisch TSBF, Nairobi, Kenya

Webster SakalaSF Chitedze Research Station, DARTS. Lilongwe, Malawi

M. Alexander PhirisF Bunda College, University of Malawi, Lilongwe, Malawi

Ruben Puentes The Rockefeller Foundation, Mexico DF. Mexico

Jan Diels IITA, Ibadan. Nigeria

Johnson Semoka Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro. Tanzania

Frederick Baijukya ARDI. Maruku. Bukoba, Tanzania

Nuhu Hatibu Soil Water Management Res. Group, Morogoro, Tanzania

Susan T. Ikerra Dept. Soil Science. Sokoine Univ of Agriculture, Morogoro Tanzania

Chaboba Mkangwa Dept. Soil Science. Sokoine Univ of Agriculture, Morogoro Tanzania

Jeremias G. Mowo Directorate of Research & Development, Tanga, Tanzania

B.K. Tossah Institut National de Recherche Agronomique (ITRA). Lome, Togo

Mateete Bekunda Dept of Soil Science. Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda

Rob Delve TSBF-CIAT. Kampala. Uganda

Mary Rwakaikara-Silver Department of Soil Science. Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda

Moses MwalesF DRSS, MAFF, Mt. Makulu C.R. Station, Chilanga, Lusaka. Zambia

Paul MapfumosF Dept of Soil Science, University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe

Herbert H. Murwira TSBF, Harare, Zimbabwe

Obert JirisF DR&SS Agronomy Research Institute, Harare, Zimbabwe

Reneth ManoSF Dept. Agric Economics. University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe

Ken Giller Dept. of Soil Science. University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe

Mulugetta MekuriasF CIMMYT-Zimbabwe/Soil Fert Net. Harare, Zimbabwe

Stephen WaddingtonSF CIMMYT-Zimbabwe/Soil Fert Net. Harare, Zimbabwe

SF = Sponsored by Soil Fert Net

The meeting was structured around sevencommon researchthemes that served as apoint of reference forforming closer alliancesand achieving a coherent and complementaryresearch process thatbuilds on the comparative advantages of thedifferent players. Thethemes were as follows:• Legumes: types,

niches andmanagement

• Organic + inorganicnutrientcombinations

• Rock phosphate• Livestock and soil

fertility: manurequality andmanagement

• Nutrient budgets ofagroecosystems

• Socio-economics andpolicy research

• Technology testingand dissemination

To ini tia te thediscussions, leaders ofthematic groups hadbeen assigned the taskof compiling a firstdraft of research ineach theme includingcurrent understanding,research gaps,dissemination, andpolicy issues. Thesedraft inventories werepresented at theworkshop and wereupdated and amendedby the participants boththrough plenarysessions and throughthematic workinggroups.

Participant Affiliation


In addition to the thematic groups, there werediscussions on the integration of research anddissemination under the topics of integratednutrient management, the institutionalconsiderations of integrated research anddissemination, and the information services andflows needed to assure the integration ofresearch and dissemination.

A very positive and cooperative atmospherethroughout marked the meeting.

Thematic Presentations and WorkingGroups - Detailed thematic inventories, thatinclude the inputs from the working groupsessions, were developed. A wide variety ofdissemination techniques is being practiced inthe regions but it was felt that this expertisewas not represented at the meeting. There isneed in the region to share experiences on thestrengths and weakness of the differentdissemination methodologies and to provideguidance for the circumstances where they areapplicable.

Descriptions of the priority research topics andplans for follow up within each of the differentthemes were included in the inventories.Highlights for further joint work included:

• Development and distribution ofcomprehensive cross-regional reviews andsyntheses of a) phosphate rock and b) annuallegumes, by leading players in southern andeastern Africa.

• Systematic spatial integration of new andwell-researched legumes into agroecologicaland socio-economic farming systems insouthern and eastern Africa andquantification of their short term Ncontribution and longer term sustainabilitycontribution to the farming systems.

• Emphasis on the regional development anduse of decision support guides which includesboth biophysical and socio economic criteriaon a range of soil fertility inputs, includingorganic manures of various qualities(including green and animal manures) andphosphate rock.

• Integration of livestock research into theorganic-inorganic nutrient sources andlegume themes.

• Integration of socio-economic research intoall of the research themes.

• Although not universally endorsed, therewere sentiments that research work onphosphate rock and nutrient budgets shouldnow be scaled back, with future emphasis onthe use of the results.

Challenges and Follow-up - Final challenges tothe workshop were to produce the thematicsyntheses, develop a more system-orientatedapproach for the major agroecosystems in theregion, engage in modelling activities foragroecosystem analysis, focus on farmers, andfocus on developing appropriate disseminationmethodologies - less progress has been made inthis area and it is probably the most crucial.

AfNet and SoilFertNet agreed to continue to coordinate efforts between the two regions. Thenew structure of SoilFertNet with regionalthemes and leaders will serve as a useful framework for this regional effort. Written and Emailreports from the East Meets South meetingwere widely distributed and a colour booklet ofthe findings was produced. AfNet is working onthe development of the technology decisionguides. A joint book on legume technologies isunder development. SoilFertNet are developinga review of these technologies in southern Africaand plan a conference on annual legumes for2002.

Rockefeller Foundation Soil Fertility Research Review in Zimbabwe and Malawi

During 2001, the Rockefeller Foundation conducted a major review of its investments in SoilFertility Research in Africa. This review was developed to assist the Foundation to strategicallyevaluate the effectiveness of its soil fertilitygrants and to identify new areas for the targeting of future investments. Reviews were firstundertaken in Kenya and Uganda where theFoundation has also been supporting a greatdeal of soil fertility work.

Very successful stakeholder workshops wereconducted in Zimbabwe (29 October-2 November) and Malawi (5-7 November) as part of thisprocess. In each case, some 50 participants attended, drawn from a wide range of institutions.Many were Soil Fert Net members. This was anextremely important review process for ourmembers to show the value and relevance of amajor part of our lives and also to maintain anddevelop support to take this work further.

Grantees and their existing and potential partners presented and discussed their work. Participants were involved in a series of workinggroup sessions to develop strategies for the future. The sessions went well into the evening onseveral days.


Members of the external review panel, chairedby Prof. Erick Fernandes of Cornell University,and comprising Jo Anderson, Nteranya Sanginga, Dunstan Spencer, Eric Smaling and Marjatta Eilitta, attended the meetings, and werefinalising their recommendations, to be presented very early 2002.

Sustainable Livelihoods Consultancy

DflD supports most of the maize breeding workconducted by CIMMYT-Zimbabwe for southernand eastern Mrica. DflD were keen to see howwell the work they support at CIMMYT fits intothe sustainable livelihoods approach which isnow the framework for their development initiatives. They agreed to fund a consultancy to dothis. The parties were interested to add an extra case study to the consultancy and so SoilFert Net took advantage of the offer. Two consultants, Alistair Sutherland of NRI and RobertTripp of ODJ, visited the region in May 2001.

Many recommendations were given on how tobetter incorporate a poverty and sustainablelivelihoods focus into the soil fertility and natural resource management work of CIMMYTZimbabwe, which is done principally throughSoil Fert Net. Follow-up discussions in January2002 led to decisions that the EPWG will encourage members to more explicitly incorporatefarmer poverty grouping into their work. Additionally, we plan a Learning Workshop on Poverty Analysis for August 2002, using surveysand other results from Chihota, Zimbabwe as acase study. This will involve staff from NRIamong the resource persons. They will part selffund their participation.

Consultative Process to Develop a Strategyfor an Integrated Soil Fertility ResearchProgramme in Zimbabwe Beyond 2000

Following a comprehensive review in 2000,DR&SS Zimbabwe are developing a new proposal for integrated soil fertility work.

As part of the consultative process with interested parties, a workshop was held in Harare27-28 February to learn about related work andplan out content for a strategy document for anIntegrated Soil Fertility Research ProgrammeBeyond 2000. Some forty persons attended frommany organizations, reflecting the breadth of interest in the subject.

Soil Fert Net Activities for 2002

Table 4 provides an outline of the major eventsand activities for Soil Fert Net in 2002. Some ofthese will be modified and others added later asthe network evolves during the year.

Network Research

Four start-up or top-up grants were providedfrom the Soil Fert Net networking grant during2001 to members to support mutually agreedhigh priority network research (Table 5). FourSoil Fert Net Economics and Policy WorkingGroup research projects that were approved forthe 2001-2002 season were funded by the Rockefeller Foundation and are underway in Zimbabwe and Malawi. The researchers presentedtheir progress and initial findings from their research activities at the Regional Adoption andImpacts of Soil Fertility Technologies Workshopheld on 3-6 December 2001 at Juliasdale, Zimbabwe.

Table 4. Proposed Soil Fert Net Workshops and Field Tour, 2002

Topic

7th Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Maize Conference, andSymposium on Low-N and Drought Tolerance

Field Tour in Mozambique

Soil Fertility Workshop for Policy Makers

ICRAF Southern Africa Regional Agroforestry Conference

Learning Workshop on a Poverty Focus and Sustainable Livelihoods

Grain Legume and Green Manures Conference

Dissemination and Promotion Meeting

Venue Dates

Nairobi, Kenya 11-15 February

Tete and Manica Early AprilProvinces

Lilongwe, Malawi June

Pretoria, South Africa 20-24 May

Zimbabwe August

Zimbabwe 9-11 October

Lusaka Late 2002


Table 5. Soil Fert Net Start Up or Top Up Grants, 2001

Subject Country Institution Lead Person

Combating Soil Fertility Decline in Zambia Soil and Water Branch, Moses MwaleDifferent Farming Systems of Zambia DR&SS

Development of N response curves for Zimbabwe Agronomy Institute, Lucia MuzaNUE maize DR&SS

Liming equivalency of organic materials Zimbabwe Soil Productivity Research Nhamo Nhamofound in the smallholder sector Laboratory, DR&SS

Amendment of sulphur nutrient Malawi Soils Commodity Team, Allan Chilimbadeficiency in maize production DARTS

As in previous years, most of the research bymembers of Soil Fert Net was conducted usingfunds provided directly to grantee organizationsby the Rockefeller Foundation. An importantfunction of the Network remains to help members develop research proposals on priority topics, manage their review and upgrading, and insome cases their submission to the RockefellerFoundation to be considered for funding.

In this section we provide short progress reportson the start-up projects and on the EPWG projects.

Managing Soil Fertility Decline in DifferentFarming Systems of Zambia(Moses Mwale and Team)

The Department of Research and Specialist Services of Zambia received US$7000 from the SoilFert Net as start up funds in the year 2001.This money has been used to establish experiments which, hopefully, will be funded by theRockefeller Foundation when the proposal currently under consideration is approved. Theproposal seeks to formulate strategies through amultifaceted approach to cover a wide range ofsoil fertility related production problems.

Improved fallow and green manure experimentshave been set up in Northern, Central andSouthern Zambia. The green manure species include Velvet bean, Sunnhemp, Tithonia diversi·folia and Pigeonpea. Tithonia cuttings collectedfrom Isoka District have been used to establisha Tithonia biomass bank at Misamfu station,Kasama. This will be used later as a source ofmaterials for testing and establishing qualityparameters of Tithonia. Screening of Crotalariaspecies was done in Northern Zambia. Of thethree species used, C. ochreleuca, C. zanzibaricaand C. juncea, zanzibarica was found to be the

most suitable followed by C. ochreleuca for theacidic soils. Maize has been planted in the plotsthat had green manures in the last season.

Collection of seed material of the various multipurpose tree species to be used in the projectwas done. Seeds of Cajanus cajan, Tephrosiavogelii, Gliricidia sepium and Leucaena collinsiiwere collected. Seedlings of each species ofGliricidia sepium, Sesbania sesban, Tephrosiavogelii and Leucaena collinsii, were raised.Some of these were planted in experiments towards the end of 2001. Multipurpose tree experiments established in December 2000 are inthe I-year fallow phase. It was necessary to establish these trees because some measurementswill be made on them once the project begins.This will help cut on time.

Improvement in soil chemical and physical properties is being monitored. An effort was made toput these trials/demonstrations at farmer training centres (FTCs) to enable farmers to haveeasy access to them. A survey of the area whereFundikila and Chitemene systems are practicedwas conducted in March 2001.

Isolation and maintenance of rhizobium strainsin the laboratories at Misamfu and Mt. Makuluwas conducted. Rhizobium strains for Gliricidiasepium, Sesbania sesban, Glycine max andPhaseolus vulgaris were maintained. The otheractivity was the production of inoculants for theinoculation of trees that were raised in the nurseries.

Some on-farm soybean inoculation demonstrations were conducted in nine districts of Zambia.These were Kasama, Mungwi, Chinsali, Isoka,Nakonde, Mpongwe, Katete, Mkushi and Chipata. Some of the results from these demonstrations are as shown in Figure 2. The resultsshowed that the inoculated treatments were as


Figure 2. Influence of inoculum on soyabean yield in Northern Zambia

3500 -r------------------------.,

Some funds were also used in the preparatorywork for the Soil Fert Net tour, which was conducted in Northern Zambia in March 2001, andon meetings to write up the proposal that hasbeen submitted to the Rockefeller Foundationfor consideration.

ChisanliMalanjeE. Sinkala Mikowa Vii

SitesA. Sinkala

In recent years, atmospheric pollution by 802 insmoke has been much more strictly controlledthan previously. The amount of S available tocrop plants from the atmosphere has been reduced. The situation is aggravated because theconsumption of 8 containing fertilizers is decreasing, particularly the use of ammonium sulphate and superphosphate. The depletion of soilorganic matter through continuous cultivationwith little or no incorporation of organic materials into the soil has led to S mining from thesoil. 8 application to crops is thus becoming increasingly common. The total 8 requirement ofdifferent crops depends on plant material production and on the crop species. Crops with ahigh biomass production such as sugar cane,maize and Bermuda grass have a high demandfor 8, which is around 30 to 40 kg 8/ha/yr.

~ Inoculated-Kaleya~ Conlrol-Kaleya~ Plus N-KaleyaIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Inoculated-HernonIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Control-HernonIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Plus N-Hernon

Misamfuo

500

3000

2000

1000

C? 2500

~"0Q)'>' 1500c:.~

Cl

good as the fertilized treatments which were both better than the non inoculatedcontrol at most sites. Theseresults, obtained in farmer'sfields, are helping popularize the use of inoculum inthe country.

Twenty nine smallholderfarmers from Region I wererecruited to establish demonstrations of pit farming inthe 2000/2001 season.Farmers whose fields werenear to water points werepurposefully taken so thatthey could practice off season cropping. An excursion to a pit farming site was undertaken toexpose farmers to this type of farming. Thefarmers were shown the process and art of preparing pits. Among the participants were 10camp extension officers who later took over thesupervision of farmers in this farming practice.All the farmers selected, except two, had prepared the pits. Maize has been planted in thepits in the 200112002 season. Results will be reported later.

Sulphur Nutrient Deficiency in MalawiMaize Production (Allan D.C. Chilimba, WebsterD. Sakala and Vernon H. Kabambe)

Introduction - Maize remains the most important staple food crop for Malawi. Sulphur research as a soil nutrient for maize production inMalawi was masked by strong emphasis on Nfollowed by P as the most important nutrientsfor maize production. 8 is essential in plant protein synthesis because it is part of certain aminoacids. It also helps form enzymes, vitamins andis necessary for chlorophyll formation. 8 deficient plants show a pale green colour, generallyappearing first on younger leaves. Nand 8 deficiency symptoms look similar to many peopleand usually S deficiency symptoms are taken forN deficiency, hence in most cases, efforts aremade to address N deficiency instead of addressing 8 deficiency.

8 deficiencies show up most often on sandy soils,low in organic matter, in areas of moderate toheavy rainfall. A considerable quantity of 8 istied up in soil organic matter. 80il organic matter is the major source of soil 8 in most soils. 8occurs in the soil in inorganic and organic forms.In most soils organically bound 8 provides themajor 8 reservoir. The C:N:8 ratio in soil organic matter is approximately 125:10:1.2.

Although N is the most limiting nutrient in Malawi, more than 50 years ago, 8 deficiency wasobserved in tea plants in Malawi and the deficiency became known as "tea yellows". 8 deficiency in Malawi soils was also observed in 1964and it was noted that soils in the central andsouthern Malawi were low in total and availableS and that 8 application increased grain yield.The areas where crop response to 8 addition wasobserved are in the 80uth Rukuru Valley,Mzimba Hills, Kasungu Plain, Dzalanyama andDedza Hills. There are also reports of a frequent


Figure 3. Map of Malawi showing sulphur study areafor maize production

deficient in 8. The greenhouse studies haveshown several sites have a response to 8 application. The results show that 8 deficiency in Lilongwe ADD is second to N in limiting maizeproduction. The results also show variation insoil 8 status. There are localized areas where 8levels are adequate.

MALAWI

Study area

Key

II Study area

and significant yield response to 8 application in8hire Highlands, Mzimba, Dedza and LilongwePlain.

Although 23.21.0+48 fertilizer was introduced inMalawi for maize production in recognition of 8deficiency in Malawi soils, the current area specific fertilizer recommendation will only supply3, 6 and 8 kg 8 fha. The amount of 8 in the recommended fertilizer was not based on data generated from 8 research and the country does notknow the 8 status in soils, the optimum rate of 8application and the soil 8 critical level for amaize crop. If the rate of 8 applied is below thesoil critical level or optimum rate, 8 will limitmaize yields in the country. Even the soil database in the Department of Agricultural Research and Technical 8ervices does not providesoil 8 status in the country. Therefore, there is aneed to assess the soil 8 status in the country,determine the magnitude and location of 8 deficiency and determine optimum rate of 8 application for maize production.

Objectives and Methods - The preliminarystudy covered Lilongwe Agricultural Development Division (LADD) (Figure 3), to assess theincidences of 8 deficiency before the whole country is covered. The following were the objectives:1. Assay the 8 status of soils in Lilongwe ADD

and produce 80il 8 map for LADD2. Determine 8 responsive sites in LADD3. Determine provisional 8 critical level for

maize.

80il sampling was done to cover the whole ofLADD. Ten soil samples were collected fromeach section of the Extension Planning areas.Over 3000 samples are being analyzed for soilpH, organic matter and soil 8.

Table 6. Summary of soil sulphur status in Lilongwe ADD, MalawiFifteen-kilogram soil samples werecollected from each farmer forgreenhouse 8 response studies.The soil 8 levels and the relativeplant yield % will be used to determine provisional 8 critical leveLThe treatments for the greenhousestudy were: all plus 8 and all minus 8. "All" included (P, Ca, Mg,Zn, Cu, and N).

Results - The soil analytical data(Table 6) of the already analyzedsoil samples show that 66.9% ofthe sampled sites in LilongweWest and 52.5 % in Lilongwe EastRural Development Projects are

RDP EPA

LLIWEST Chilaza

Demela

Ming'ong'o

Thawaleka

Mlomba

RDP mean

LUEAST Chingonthi

Chiwenga

Mkwinda

Nyanja

RDP mean

Mean(S ug/g)

7.2

3.7

12.5

8

11.5

8.6

14.2

11.3

2.51

9.8

9.5

% deficiency

76.5

85

49.9

74

49.3

66.9

36.5

54.8

88

30.6

52.5

pH(water)

5.1

5.4

4.9

4.9

5.0

5.2

5.3

5.1

5.2

5.0

Organicmatter %

1.8

1.5

1.7

1.2

1.5

1.8

2.0

1.9

1.5


Table 7. Characteristics of solis from two sites in Murewa, Zimbabwe to adepth of 0.6 m, used to evaluate the liming equivalence of three organicmaterials

Liming Equivalence of Organic MaterialsUsed by Smallholder Farmers in Zimbabwe(Nhamo Nhamo)

The objective of this study is to determine thepotential of locally available organic materialsto reduce acidity. The liming equivalencies ofcattle manure, anthill soil and leaf litter was determined.

Use of mineral lime has been low among smallholder farmers. Some of the reasons for this arethe low appreciation of its importance, inaccessibility, high cost to transporting lime because ofits bulkiness and lack of a strong extension message on the use oflime.

pH K (mg/kg) Ca (mg/kg) Mg (mg/kg) %C

3.82 31 32 7 0.21

3.79 20 31 7 0.19

3.82 21 32 8 0.18

3.81 24 53 14 0.18

3.81 26 37 6 0.30

3.72 14 22 4 0.26

3.76 14 14 3 0.23

3.75 17 19 4 0.21

randomized complete block design with threereplicates was used in the experiment. Exceptfor the bases, N, P, K and the micronutrientswere blanket applied in all the plots. The yieldresponses were measured and the limingequivalencies of the organic materials calculated.

Results - The two sites where the experimentwas conducted had low pH (in CaCh solution)values of 3.82 and 3.81 (Table 7). The pH wasless than 3.9 at each of three sampling depths.The materials used had high base contents withcattle manures having higher total exchangeable bases than the other materials (Table 8).

The two sites were lime responsive. There wasan increase in yields with increasing lime rate.Organic materials also significantly increasedyields on both the sites. The yields at Fusirewere generally lower than those obtained atChikowore (Figure 4).

This first season of results showed a positivelime response and the measured liming equivalencies were also positive, ranging from 237 to555 kg of mineral lime per hectare (Table 8).There was a significant positive linear relationship between the total exchangeable bases andthe liming equivalencies of the materials used atboth sites (Figure 5).

Discussion - Organic materials cause chemical,physical and biological improvement to the soil.The yield increases following application of organic materials was a result of the combined effect of supplying nutrients, improving the soilphysical condition and the liming effects of theseorganic materials. This helps explain why farmers use organic materials to solve soil fertilityproblems. However the non-nutrient benefits ofthese organics have not been quantified.

Depth (em)

0-15

15-30

30-45

45-60

0-15

15-30

30-45

45-60

Chikowore

Site

Fusire

Introduction - Soil acidity has been identifiedas a major constraint to crop production onweakly buffered sandy soils in the Zimbabweansmallholder farming sector. On these granite derived soils, acidity reduces the nutrient use efficiencies and hence the overall crop yields. Lowsoil pH has been a result of continuous cultivation without addition of lime to check the buildup of acidity. The reduction of soil organic matter leads to lower CEC in the soil and eventualreduction of the bases, leaching also contributesto the pH reduction.

Farmers use locally available organic materialsas major fertility inputs for crop production. Inso doing, the organics supply nutrients and increase soil pH. The extent to which these materials can be used and the mechanism by whichthey reduce acidity on sandy soils are topics thatwarrant detailed study. There is high potentialto utilize locally available, acceptable and cheaporganics as effective alternative liming materials.

Materials and methods - Two sites which hadlow soil pH were selected on which maize wasgrown. In the first season(2000/2001) the experimentwas replicated at two sitesin Murewa, at Chikoworeand Fusire.

The liming equivalencieswere determined in an experiment that had treatments constituting a limeresponse curve (0, 300, 600,900, 1200 kg ha' l lime) andcattle manure, anthill soiland decomposed leaf litter,all applied at 10 t ha· l . A


Table 8. Chemical characteristics and the liming equivalencies of cattle manure,decomposed leaf litter and anthill soil calculated from lime response curve fromChlkowore and Fuslre sites In Murewa In the 2000/2001 season

0i14:w:re siE

lS)=1711 -- -

.......-

.......-

-

I Io

1(0)

%C %N P (g/kg) pH Lime equivalence(CaCI2) (kg mineral Iime/ha)

16.84 1.05 2.70 6.62 462

31.01 1.79 1.23 4.12 291

0.95 * * 6.33 448

29.30 1.20 1.44 6.05 555

25.39 0.99 1.23 5.85 379

0.71 * * 7.27 238

12.95

9.90

2.32

19.35

15.30

1.97

Total Exch.Bases (g/kg)

Leaf litter

Anthill

The results of the season of application oforganic materialsused showed positiveliming effects from allthe materials. Or-ganic amendments Chikowore

add bases to the soil Cattle manureand thus increase thesoil pH. Chemical Leaf littercharacteristics of the Anthillthree materials show Fusirethat they containedhigh values of total Cattle manurebases (Table 7). Therelationship betweenthe liming equivalence and the amount of bases was linear(Figure 5). This shows the importance of thebase content to the amelioration of acidity. Workdone by others has shown the increase in soil pHfollowing application of cattle manure to sandysoil. In some cases benefits of manure use havebeen attributed to added bases. Others reportedincreases in soil pH following the addition of different leaf litter and other organic materials,mainly as a result of the basic cations. In workdone on combinations of cattle manure and mineral fertilizers, part of the synergism of thispractice has been attributed to non-N effects, including the provision of bases to the soil by themanure. Similar benefits of acid amelioration bywood ash have been reported.

Anthill soil contains high levels of CaCOs whichdirectly reduce acidity. Studies in Zimbabwehave also shown that most termitaria soils havehigh clay and soil organic C contents. The soilfrom the mounds are of high pH; those used inthis study had a pH greater than 6.5. Acidityamelioration by organic materials could also bethrough the chelation of AI ions by organic acid

lS)=711

Figure 4. Maize yield responses to application of differentorganic materials as ameliorants to soil acidity

anions. The process of ammonification in the micro-sites has also been demonstrated to increasesoil pH and to some extent reduce overall soilacidity.25

•

5 10 15 2)

Taal Exch.bases (g'kg)

O+-----r--...,...-----r--...,...----io

00) ,------------------,

Ii 400 +---------,~__r_---___i

~~

Z' 200+-=----------~Clc'E::i

Figure 5. The relationship between the liming equivalenciesof cattle manure, leaf litter and anthill soil used in the

2000/2001 season

Conclusions - Addition of organic materials toacidic soils resulted in significant increase in


maize yield. The cattle manure treatment had 3.5

the highest yield responses compared to others. ZM421

The liming equivalencies of manure, anthill and 3.0 ZM521__ CML312

decomposed leaf litter were all positive, ranging ...... CML444..... SC501

from 237 to 555 kg mineral lime per hectare. 2.5

Cattle manure had the highest liming equiva- cvJ:. '''.lence in the first year of application. There was :."0 2.0

a linear relationship between the liming equiva- ]l>-

lencies and the total exchangeable bases in thec:.~

1.5 ISE(NxG)organic materials.0>Ql.~cv~ 1.0

Whilst the total bases explained most of thevariance in the measured liming equivalencies, Ithe chelation of AI by organic anions, and the 0.5

pH rise following the ammonification processes,remain other possible ways through which acid 0.0

amelioration is achieved. More work needs to be0 30 60 90

done on quantifying these effects.N fertilizer (kg ha·1

) applied

The Response of N Use Efficient Maize to NFertilizer in Zimbabwe(Lucia Muza and Stephen Waddington)

Southern Mrica Drought and Low Fertility(SADLF) project breeders have developed'nitrogen use efficient' (NUE) maize genotypes,bred under low soil nitrogen conditions. An experiment was conducted during the 2000-01 season to test the response of these genotypes toseveral rates of mineral N applied on farmers'fields. The aim was to determine whether thenew genotypes offer better returns to the smallamounts of expensive N fertilizer that farmersnow apply.

Four NUE genotypes (two hybrids and two openpollinated varieties (OPVs)) and a commerciallyavailable check hybrid (SC501) were evaluatedat 0, 15, 30, 60 and 90 kg ha· 1 of applied N. Theexperiment was conducted at six sites in subhumid and semi-arid zones of Zimbabwe.

Figure 6. Maize grain yield (t ha-1) of experimental N

use efficient maize genotypes across five N rates atDomboshava, Zimbabwe 2000-01

perimental OPVs and hybrids had higher NUEs(often above 50 kg grain per kg N applied) at the15 and 30 kg N ha-1 rates, but SC501 tended tohave the higher NUE at 60 to 90 kg N ha-1 atthe higher yield sites, and particularly in Chinyika.

These preliminary results suggest the experimental hybrids may provide improved returnswhen grown with little or no fertilizer, comparedwith genotypes already available. The newOPVs may provide similar returns to the newhybrids when grown with 15-60 kg N ha· 1, butwith less investment needed to buy seed. Moredata are required from infertile communal areasfields that are so widespread in Zimbabwe, andso the experiment was planted again in the2001·02 cropping season.

Despite considerable variability on farm, therewas preliminary evidence that some of theseelite NUE maize genotypes can provide moregrain with little or no N fertilizer (0-30 kg ha·1)

than can the commercially available hybridSC501. One of the experimental hybrids,CML395/CML312//CML440, out yielded theOPVs and the other hybrids without N fertilizerat all sites except the severely depleted Chihotasites, and almost doubled the yield at Domboshava station (Figure 6). The OPVs were veryresponsive to fertilizer N over the range to 60 kgN ha·1 and they equaled the grain yield of theexperimental and check hybrids at four sites.Compared with the check hybrid, SC501, the ex-

Factors Affecting the Adoption of Soil Fertility Technologies in Mhondoro, Zimbabwe(Reneth Mano and E Chawoneka)

Zimbabwe is benefiting from regional networkssuch as AFNET (funded by the Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility Program, TSBF), others byCIMMYT and ICRISAT, as well as Soil FertNet. These regional networks promoted the development of low-input soil fertility improvingtechnologies. The technologies include cattlemanure and lime application, and fertilizer conditional on rainfall. These technologies were disseminated to the farmers through farmer participatory methods and various communicationchannels by various initiatives in the regional

14 SOIL FERTILITY MANAGEMENT AND POLICY NElWORK Annual Report for 2001

0.998

0.997

1.000

0.996

0.998

1.000

1.000

1.000

Significancelevel

(at 0.05)

Regression Regressioncoefficient for coefficients forfarmers using farmers using> 203 kg/ha S203 kg/ha

-135.482 162.753

22.021 -22.021

2.214 2.214

42.977 -70.248

36.608 -36.608

3.069 -3.069

169.099 -196.369

-995.131 776.943

The values of Y the dependent variable are independent of one another.The probability distribution of the dependentvariable Y is normal.The standard deviation of the error term is constant regardless of the values of Xni

The residuals (predicted minus observed values)are distributed normally.

Farmers were divided into two groups; thosewho apply quantities below 203kg of fertilizer/total area and those applying quantities above203kg/total area. The 203kg demarcation represents the geometric mean fertilizer application.Geometric mean has the advantage that it takesinto account variations in the data set, thus outliers in the data do not seriously affect it. Thisdemarcation implies that farmers applying fertilizer below 203kg/total area are the low usersand those applying above 203kg are regarded ashigh users of fertilizer. Table 9 shows the results from the analysis of the factors affectingfertilizer adoption. Emphasis is placed on the direction of association between the dependentand the independent variable rather than thesignificance of regression coefficients. However,inclusion of data from other areas like Murehwaand Serima is likely to enable analysis of factorsaffecting other technologies.

Fertilizer - The explanatory variables accountfor 74.3% of the variability in the dependentvariable. Fertilizer adoption in both the low andhigh-level users is more pronounced in households with access to income for purchasing thetechnology. There is therefore need to reach acertain cash endowment threshold level beforetaking up the technology. This means access to

Per capita income

Farm size

Farmer organization

Education

Labor supply

Age

Constant

Sex

networks.

Taking into account the magnitude of soil fertility loss, the need to ensure household food security and the large investment made towards development of best-bet technologies, it is expectedthat farmers would show interest in the soil fertility technologies and subsequently adopt them.However, literature has shown that the adoption of these types of technology has been low,mixed, sporadic and slow. To understand thisbehaviour by farmers, our research has the following objectives.

Objectives -• Assess households' degree of awareness and

adoption of best-bet soil fertility technologiesin Mhondoro, Zimbabwe.

• Investigate the perceptions of households towards the best-bet soil fertility technologies.

• Investigate factors affecting the adoption ofsoil fertility technologies with particular reference to fertilizer adoption.

Factors affecting technology adoption Literature has identified several factors responsible for the behaviour exhibited byhouseholds in adoption of technologies. -----------------------These fall into five major classes, that Table 9. Logit model results of fertilizer adoption

R Square = 0.743is, perceived attributes of the technol-ogy, farm characteristics, farmer char- Variableacteristics, input/output market forcesand research-extension-farmer link-ages.

Results highlighted the type of householdsadopting each of the selected soil fertility technologies. This is important for targeting the development and improvement of soil fertilitytechnologies. In addition, various classes ofadopters can be identified with their varioustechnology needs. Perceptions by households towards the technologies will also be brought out,informing questions on why farmers exhibitmixed responses on the adoption of selected soilfertility technologies.

To ascertain the relative importance ofthe various factors affecting adoptionof selected soil fertility and other soilfertility technologies, a binary logisticmodel was employed. The model treatsadoption as a dichotomous yes/no dependent variable. The multivariatemodel used has the following assumptions:


Table 10. Total area under technology

used on its own. This may be explained becauselime is being substituted for termite mound.Farmers believe these two technologies performthe same function in soil fertility maintenance.

•

•

Percentage of farmsize covered by thesoil fertility technology

63.9

58.3

8.5

34.0

23.4

36.0

Technology

Fertiliser·

Cattle manure·

Lime·

Legume-cereal rotation·

Termite mound

"Green manure" ploughunder

• = Best-bet soil fertility technology

The major area of concern is the popularity oflime, which recorded less than 12% popularitywith the farmers. A lot of investment has beenput into the development and dissemination ofthe technology. One effective way to understandthe low popularity of liming is to follow theRogers innovation decision process. Rogers

Thus while some best-bet soil fertility technologies (fertilizer and cattle manure) cover considerable cropland relative to the traditional orother soil fertility technologies, some others(lime and legume cereal rotations) are rarelyused. While promotion efforts have been directed to fertilizer and cattle manure at the expense of lime and legume cereal rotations, it isalso likely that fertilizer and cattle manure aremore compatible and profitable to the farmer,thus the wide popularity.

These observations may thus explain the magnitude of percentages of cropland under technologies being studied. However, the degree of popularity of a particular technology has nothing todo with its intensity of use. The results of thecross tabulation are shown in Table 10.

Our findings are that fertilizer and cattle manure are more popular with the farmers(popularity of + 50%). Farmers use these twotechnologies in most of their technology combinations. Also, fertilizer and cattle manure havetraditionally been used by the farmers and initiatives such as the Soil Fertility Network hasadded to farmer exposure and interest in usingthese technologies. Farmers have over manyyears seen the benefits of these technologies because they increase yields.

Membership in a farmer organization had apositive influence on the adoption of the technology by those farmers in the high fertilizer usecategory. This is because farmers benefit fromnetworking and peer pressure aiding the adoption of the technology. However, farmers usingless than the geometric mean application rateseem not to be in farmer groups, thus the negative relationship between adoption and membership.

In general regression coefficients on education,membership in a farmer organization, farm size,age and cash endowments indicate that fertilizer use is more popular with market-orientedfarmers, who are also the high fertilizer users.These regression coefficients also show thatfarmers using less than the geometric mean application rates are young and just starting farming and have not yet joined farmer groups.

Households with large pieces of land are in thehigh level of fertilizer application group. This isso because the technology comes in a ready formand is more compatible with large pieces of land.In addition, fertilizer can be used in combinationwith other soil fertility technologies enablingcoverage of large areas. These reasons explainthe emerging contrast with the expectation thatsince the technology is cash demanding households may not be able to buy enough for largepieces of land. However, this result raises questions about the ability of farmers to adhere tostipulated application rates of the technology,especially if the high price of the technology isconsidered.

cash enables households to be interested inadopting fertilizer.

Popularity of the selected soil fertility technologies - We used the total cropland that is undera given technology as an assessment of its popularity. The general observation is that farmersuse various combinations of the best-bet package and they sometimes mix best-bet packageswith familiar traditional methods of maintaining soil fertility. A cross tabulation of householdtype and technology in use revealed commoncombinations such as fertilizer + cattle manure,fertilizer + termite mound + cattle manure, fertilizer + cattle manure + rotations, termitemound + green manure + compost, fertilizer +cattle manure + compost. Fertilizer is found incombination with best-bet components as wellas traditional methods of maintaining soil fertility status. In other cases, a household uses fertilizer as a single technology. Lime is more often


Table 11. Innovation decision stages

Farmers revealed that, though they appreciatethe contribution of lime in rectifying soil acidity,improvement to soil fertility and large contribution to yield increases, there are still major constraints to the effective use of lime. 50% of the

While most farmers are aware and willing or interested to use the given technologies, there is awide gap between willingness to adopt the technologies and actual adoption. The gap is morepronounced with lime use. Our study investigated this gap by probing farmers' reasons whythey are not using the technologies.

Cattle manure's popularity is because farmersobserve that it improves soil fertility. In percentage terms, 50% of the respondents identifiedcattle manure's contribution to soil fertility asthe major reason for its use, where 42.9% wasattributed to it improving yield of the crops. Therest of the farmers claimed that it is one of thecheapest technologies to implement.

farmers' said the technology was expensivewhilst the remainder lacked knowledge aboutthe technology. Lack of knowledge about limeneeds to be tackled by development planners.There is need for more investment in the promotion and dissemination of appropriate information about lime.

Introduction - Manure is used by most smallholder farmers in Zimbabwe as a low cost soil

Determinants of Adoption of Manure Storage Practices in Murewa, Zimbabwe (KilianMutiro. J. Mutihero, E. Chabayanzara and H. K. Murwira)

The legume cereal rotation is also of concern,since there is a large disparity between interestand use of that technology. Farmers identifiedtheir soil type as limiting the success of thistechnology. The claim is that their soil (shapa) issusceptible to waterlogging which forces them tostart planting in July so that by late November,the crops would have grown to levels where theycan resist the waterlogging. This farming system thus makes the growing of soybean competewith maize, which is the major crop. Despitethese drawbacks, farmers appreciate that legume-cereal rotations are important in soil fertility improvements and yield increase.

Termite mound is one technology that has beingaffected by labour problems. 64.7% of respondents identified termite mound as labour demanding, hence its low use by the farmers. It requires the farmer to dig the mound, transportand spread the technology in the field. Otherfarmers lamented that termite mounds have become scarce such that looking for them consumes so much time that most households donot use this technology. "Green manure" suffersfrom resource intensity and lack of space.

Percentage of Percentage of Percentage offarmers aware of farmers willing to farmers using thethe technology use the technology technology

98.6 97.3 95.6

98.6 100 82.1

73.6 80.6 6.5

70.8 100 39.4

90.3 55.9 16.1

61.1 100 48.5

Technology

stipulates that individuals follow a commonframework in theiradoption decisions,starting with awareness, interest and adoption. The study analyzed these stages andproduced the results inTable 11.

Fertiliser

Cattle manure

Lime

Cereal-Legume rotations

Generally, Mhondoro Termite moundfarmers are aware ofboth the best-bet soil "Green manure" plough

underfertility technologiesand traditional technologies. The channels thatwere used in information dissemination enabledmost farmers to appreciate the existence of thetechnologies. Fertilizer and cattle manure showa very high response along the innovation decision process where farmers are aware, willing toimplement the technologies and finally adoptthe technology. However further probing on thereason for such a trend for use of fertilizer revealed that 97% of the farmers use fertilizer because it increases yield and just 2.8% used it because it improves soil fertility. Therefore thepopularity and use of fertilizer is more dependent on the economic value that is placed byfarmers on the technology. There is still a challenge to ensure that farmers are informed aboutthe contribution of fertilizers to soil fertility improvement. The farmers have over the yearsseen a change to productivity variables such asyields and costs.


fertility management option. Manure contributes about 32% of the total nitrogen used bysmallholder farmers in managing soil fertilityand inorganic fertilizers contribute about 64%.The use and effectiveness of manure is limitedby the small quantities available and the poorquality of the manure. Numerous studies havehighlighted that communal area manure is oflow quality, containing less than 1 % N. Poorgrazing, storage, and handling contribute significantly in reducing the nitrogen content ofcommunal area manure. The traditional methodof curing manure on a heap for at least threemonths before application in the field has beenfound to result in losses of nitrogen of up to 40%.The quality of the manure is worsened by theavailability of too much sand with some manurehaving as much as 80% sand.

Improving manure management and storage isan important option for improving maize yieldsand returns to investment. A new manure storage method was developed for smallholder farmers in an effort to reduce losses and improve thequality of manure. The new technology involvescuring manure in a covered pit, through anaerobic decomposition. The conventional method ofstoring manure in the smallholder sector hasbeen to dig out the manure and heap it outsidethe kraal where it cures, through aerobic decomposition, for at least 3 months. Farmer participatory trials were implemented in Murewa from1996 to 1998 for farmers to test the technology.Some farmers have already adopted the technology and some are still verifying returns from investing in the technology. This research hasanalyzed the factors affecting the adoption ofthe new manure storage technology in Murewa.

Objectives of Study - The study aims at analyzing the factors affecting adoption of the pitstoring technology. We seek to characterizefarmers who have been adopting the technologyto derive lessons for better targeting of the technology and its effective dissemination to farmers.

Data Collection - A household survey was implemented in Murewa. One hundred householdswere randomly selected, 20 households fromeach of the five wards in Murewa. Structuredquestionnaires were used to collect informationfrom farmers. Information was collected onfarmer and household characteristics, soil fertility management practices, farm implement ownership, crop production and livestock holding.

Results and Discussion - Most factors were not

statistically significant in explaining adoption ofthe pit storage technology. Only age of household head, number of cattle owned and manureuse experience appeared important in explaining adoption of pit storage. Younger householdshave a higher probability of adopting pit storagetechnology compared to older farmers. Thiscould be because younger households are moreinnovative and have a lower aversion to risk.This could also be because younger farmers aremore able bodied and are able to cope with theadditional labour demands of pit storing manure.

Farmers with large cattle herds have a lowerprobability of adopting pit storage, perhaps because these farmers are able to compensate thepoor quality of their manure with higher rates ofapplication since they have large herds. Thosefarmers with small herds of cattle are not ableto produce large quantities of manure each yearand have to rely on producing better quality manure to improve productivity. Farmers with experience of manure use are in a better positionto accurately assess the risk and relative reoturns of pit storing manure compared with heapstorage and these are more likely to get higherreturns from pitting manure.

Labour availability, household income, extension contact and educational status of thefarmer, though not statistically significant, canhelp us understand the possible impact of thesefactors on adoption of pit storage technology.The relationship between adoption of pit storagetechnology and labour availability is negativeindicating that families with more labour arenot likely to adopt the technology. This is contrary to expectations and indications from farmers. In the survey, farmers were asked to identify important factors determining adoption ofmanure related technologies and most farmersidentified labour availability as an importantfactor. Income had a negative relationship withadoption of the technology indicating that families with higher income are not likely to adoptpit storing. This is explained by the fact thathigh-income families can afford mineral fertilizers compared to poor households. Poor households have to rely on technologies in which theysubstitute cash requirements with their labour.Pit storing offers that opportunity. Extension influence on the adoption of the technology isnegative and this implies that pit storing is notpart of the messages on soil fertility management being extended to farmers by extension.Farmers are not likely to get information on thepit storage technology from the extension ser-

•

•

•


vice in Murewa. Farmers with more years of formal education are likely to adopt the technologycompared with those with limited formal education.

Conclusion - There may be a need to redefinethe target group to effectively disseminate thetechnology to achieve the desired impact. Poorfarmers with smaller herds of cattle can be targeted for greater adoption and impact. Extension provides information to most farmers onnew technologies and linking up with extensionin Murewa could boost the adoption of the technology. The link up could come through a workshop where findings on the technology are presented.

Measuring the Social Costs of Soil Erosion:Effects on Productivity, Income and FoodSecurity in Malawi (Teddie 0 Nakhumwa)

Justification for this study - Soil erosion andnutrient mining pose a serious threat to thelong-term potential of agricultural production inMalawi. The National Environment Action Planhas singled out soil erosion as first among nineenvironmental issues in Malawi that require urgent attention.

Quantitative information on economic lossescaused by soil erosion and nutrient mining inMalawi is very limited. No information is available on dynamic land rents reflecting on qualityof land. Research in Malawi has so far concentrated on soil conservation practices and factorsthat usually influence adoption of such technologies. This study therefore is trying to measurethe dynamic economic costs of soil erosion andsoil mining in Malawi. It is envisaged that theresults of the study will provide a picture of thecountry's current consumption rate of its soilwealth, and the implications of that for futuregenerations. The study is attempting to establish a sustainable path of soil nutrient extraction. It is expected that results of this study willprovide useful information for adjusting the current system of national accounts for the depletion of soil resources. This will correct the current measures of economic performance (basedlargely on GDP) and social welfare.

Objectives of the Study - The overall objectiveof the study is to measure the economic costs ofsoil erosion in Malawi. The specific objectivesare:• Quantify the effects of soil erosion and nutri

ent-mining on long-term soil and agricul-

tural productivity;• Compute dynamic resource rents for soil in

Malawi reflecting the scarcity value of depleting soil resource stocks over time;

• Assess whether the prevailing smallholdercropping systems maximize soil wealth;

• Build local capacity for economic and policyanalysis of soil fertility issues in Malawi andSouthern Mrica.

Research Progress - All fieldwork and part ofthe analysis has been completed. Field researchinvolved soil chemical and physical analyses intwo districts, Mangochi and Nkhata Bay. Asocio-economic survey was carried out in thesame districts. All this work and laboratoryanalysis on the chemical composition of the soilshas been completed. Descriptive analysis onsocio-economic characteristics of households inthe study areas has also been finalized.

SLEMSA erosion models for the entire countryhave been run using GIS. Maps have been developed for soil erosion, soil type, rainfall andsoil nutrients. These maps cover all the eightAgricultural Development Divisions (ADD).

Secondary data collection has also been concluded and involved information on all majorcrops and land allocated to each crop per ADD,fertilizer purchases, price data, rainfall time series data, soil nutrient levels for each ADD, focussing on all major nutrients. An economicanalysis on soil erosion and computation of nutrient balances remains to be done.

Factors Affecting Adoption of Organic SoilFertility Technologies in Malawi (HardwickTchale and Owen Chamdimba)

Problem Statement - Agriculture is the mainstay of Malawi's economy contributing to 40%GDP, 85-90% of foreign exchange earnings andemploys about 85% of the labour force. Thesmallholder sector produces 80% of total agriculture output. Maize is a staple and most important food crop in Malawi. Productivity of maizehas been affected by many factors including lowsoil fertility and land degradation. Recent policy measures and efforts taken by the government include the Starter-Pack Scheme-1998 andTargeted Input Program-2000. On the researchside, Malawian researchers in collaboration withSoil Fert Net partners have been looking for alternative sustainable cost-effective inorganicand organic technologies. The under-sowing ofTephrosia uogelii and rotation of Mucuna pru-


riens and maize are two best-bet technologiesthat are recommended and are being used byfarmers.

Objectives - This study investigates the socioeconomic factors affecting the smallholder farmers' adoption of under-sowing Tephrosia vogeliiin Lilongwe Agricultural Development Division(LADD), and rotation of Mucuna pruriens andmaize in Machinga and Blantyre AgriculturalDevelopment Divisions (BLADD). The other objective is to assess farmer's perceptions and traditional knowledge of these technologies andhow this can be used to influence adoption.

Methodology - Quantitative data has been collected from Ntcheu (120 households) and Zomba(134 households) RDPs. Qualitative data hasbeen collected from BLADD. Secondary datafrom the MPTF was used at Chitedze ResearchStation. Data analysis for the adoption of Mucuna is complete while the analysis for Tephrosia is in progress. A total of 240 smallholderfarmers were interviewed during the exerciseand eight focus group discussions were made.The focus group discussions were stratified according to gender.

Preliminary Impressions - The preliminaryfindings from the focus group discussions aregiven below.

Tephrosia study - Tephrosia is locally knownas a natural shrub to most of the farmers. Theleaves of Tephrosia are used as an insecticide invegetable gardens. The stems are used as firewood for cooking. Some farmers have sold seedto MAFE (Malawi Agroforestry Extension) atMKIO/ kg. This has also been an incentive tothose farmers who grew the crop. MAFE usesthe seed for redistribution purposes to newfarmers. MAFE has been in Ntcheu RDP since1991 but they limited their operations to a fewsections in Njolomole EPA.

Farmers reported that the major constraint toadoption of Tephrosia as a soil fertility enhancing technology is that it does not have a foodvalue. They also perceived that Tephrosia improves soil fertility but they are discouraged because it takes time to realize the benefits. It wasalso learnt that lack of seed, insufficient technical know how and land pressure still remain achallenge to the promotion of this technology asa soil fertility crop. However they also reportedthat they think sensitization of farmers to thebenefits of the crop, through awareness campaigns can help to improve its adoption.

Mucuna study - Farmers in the southern regions of Malawi have used Mucuna for a verylong time and they recycle seed from old stock asplanting material. Farmers realize that the croprestores soil fertility and they use the seed forfood. It is eaten as a snack or relish. Sometimesthe seed is kept after harvest as a food securitycrop for use when maize runs out. Mucuna wasalso reported to suppress witchweed. No formalmarkets exist for the crop but it is sold in localmarkets and by the roadside.

Farmers perceive that Mucuna improves soilfertility because the crop following Mucuna performs and yields better. However, the main reason for growing it is for food and sale. Commonpractice is to plant it in maize fields in furrows,usually after banking. The plants are spaced 23m apart. This has a direct bearing on the plantpopulation and consequently the amount of biomass and seed produced. The practice is becauseof land pressure. Some of the constraints thefarmers meet in using Mucuna include poor germination because of the recycling of seed, lodging of the main maize crop if you try to increasethe plant populations, disruption of other fieldoperations like weeding and harvesting.

There seems to be no adoption of Mucuna as arotation for soil fertility improvement. However,based on respondents' experience with the crop,there are several potential factors that can affect its adoption as a soil fertility technology.These include technology dissemination channels (e.g. extension, social institutions, leadership positions etc.), assets (e.g. radio, bicycle),gender of household head and land holding size(number of plots of land).

Economics of Growing Mucuna as a GreenManure in Malawi (Shephard Siziba, MulugettaMekuria and Webster Sakala)

An experiment to measure the maize yield effectof using Lab lab, Mucuna and Crotalaria as alternative legume-based soil fertility interventions was conducted by Chitedze researchers inCentral, Southern and Northern Malawi between 1997 and 2000. Findings from this experiment show that Mucuna had the highest maizeyield effect and it produced the highest amountof biomass (6.5 tlha). We conducted a financialanalysis of those data to assess the incentive forsmallholder farmers to adopt Mucuna as an alternative soil fertility intervention in Malawi.

Net present values (NPV) were calculated for


two green manure interventions and comparedto use of inorganic fertilizer (Table 12). For thegreen manure interventions, NPV compares thecost (forgone maize yields in the investmentyear) to the benefits (additional maize yield accruing in the subsequent two years after Mucuna incorporation).

The findings of this study show that the NPVsfor using Mucuna alone are positive in Southernand Central Regions of Malawi, while it is negative in the Northern Region. All the treatmentshad a negative NPV in the Northern Region ofMalawi. Combining Mucuna and inorganic fertilizer increased the NPV only for Central Malawi while in the Northern and Southern Regions NPV decreased. In all regions except inthe north, Mucuna alone was less profitablecompared with fertilizer alone.

A sensitivity analysis shows that the attractiveness of growing Mucuna as a green manure soilfertility intervention responds positively toslight increases in the maize yield effects, converting Mucuna seeds for consumption or sale,reducing interest rates and increasing the grainprice of maize. Rules of thumb for smallholderfarmers that can be derived from this study are:(1) if smallholder farmers do not have adequatecapital to buy inorganic fertilizers they are better off investing in Mucuna than not in Centraland Southern Regions. (2) if they have enoughcash, farmers in the Central Malawi alone cancombined Mucuna with fertilizer to get best returns, (3) farmers in the south get best returnsby using fertilizer alone.

The policy implications from this study are: (1)reducing inflation and interest rate will encourage investment in green manures and (2) increasing the grain price of maize will increaseprofitability of using Mucuna as a soil fertilitytechnology in Malawi.

Payoffs to Green Manuring in Maize BasedCommunal Areas of Zimbabwe(Tendai Gatsi, Mulugetta Mekuria and Shephard Siziba)

Green manures were recommended in Zimbabwe (then Rhodesia) in the 1950s to help supply the N needs of maize. Then inorganic fertilizers were not recommended. Increasing availability of cheap inorganic fertilizers after WorldWar II replaced the legume green manure practice. However, with the liberalization of economies in most less developed countries of SubSaharan Mrica (including Zimbabwe), agricul-

Table 12. Financial analysis of green manuringand Inorganic fertilizer use In Malawi

Technology Regions of Malawi NPV (at34% discount rate)

South Central North

Mucuna alone K 1,645 K 1,824 K -3,398

Mucuna + fertilizer K 997 K 4,664 K -4,367(35:10:0+25)

Fertilizer K 6,268 K 3,356 K -1,226(35:10:0:25) alone

tural input costs (seeds, fertilizers and others)have risen beyond the reach of most communalarea farmers. This has resulted in less fertilizerbeing used by the smallholder sector. In addition, few smallholder farmers have access to cattle manure due to the recurrent droughts inZimbabwe.

A study to assess the feasibility of differentgreen manuring technologies (velvet bean andsunnhemp) in combination with inorganic fertilizer was conducted during the 1996-98 seasonsin two communal areas (Chihota and Zvimba) ofZimbabwe. A financial analysis to identify profitable options of the different treatments is presented below.

The net present value is an absolute measure,and is a more appropriate measure for similarprojects and/or cost outlays. If funds are limiting, this measure is useful for comparing mutually exclusive projects. In addition, the benefitcost ratio is also calculated. The benefit-cost ratio is determined by dividing discounted benefitsby discounted costs. As a way of dealing withuncertainty, sensitivity analysis was conductedto observe how much the present values andbenefit cost ratios would change by changing interest rates.

Results of the financial analysis using a conser·vative discount rate of 30% show a positive return to investing in velvet bean in addition to45kg of N, with or without the addition of P(Table 13). Assuming a 2:1 return to investmentas an acceptable level for adoption of technologies by smallholders, we identified the top sixtechnologies/treatments. To determine the robustness of the treatments, a sensitivity analysis was conducted. Again, assuming a 2:1 returnto investment, the top four treatments showedfavourable returns to investment. Thereforegreen manuring, especially velvet bean, is worthinvesting in if the biomass is incorporated into


the soil rather than removing it.

Changes in maize grain and fertilizer prices anddiscount rate are important variables in determining the profitability of these soil fertilitytechnologies. This analysis focussed on thechanges in the discount rate, which indicatesthe price changes in the economy. When movingto a higher discount rate of 50%, the relativeranking of the treatments does not change(Table 13). However, as expected, the benefitcost ratios decreased. If the current unrealisticrates (more than 80% interest rate and an inflation rate of 112%) are considered, some of thetreatments will not be attractive options anymore. It therefore implies that in terms of policy, a stable macro-economic environment withlower interest rates is crucial in determining theprofitability of the technologies whose benefitsaccrue some years in the future.

included the use of three green manures in isolation or in combination with inorganic fertilizers. The green manure species and practices released are the use of Mucuna pruriens, Crotalaria juncea and Lablab purpureus (L.) Sweet.Plans are being developed to produce leaflets onCrotalaria juncea and Lablab purpureus (L.)Sweet in the near future.

Additional Best Bet TechnologiesThe network broadly endorsed four new "BestBet" technologies during 2001. These are:• Tithonia spp. leaf prunings• Groundnut + pigeonpea intercrop rotation with

maize for Malawi• Crotalaria grahamiana and C. ochroleuca

green manures• Anaerobically-composted cattle manure for

Zimbabwe.

50"10 discount rate

Treatment PV benefits PV costs NPV BIC ratio Rank

Viv bean (incorporated) + 100P2 +45N 8,992.15 2,995.95 5,996.20 3.00 3

Viv bean (incorporated) + OP2 +45N 10,452.55 2,366.26 8,086.30 4.42

V/v bean (incorporated) + OP2 + ON 6,662.27 2,099.34 4,562.92 3.17 2

Sunnhemp (incorporated) + 100P2 +45N 6,196.20 2,816.03 3,380.17 2.20 5

Sunnhemp (incorporated) + 100P2 + ON 5,025.33 2,585.49 2,439.83 1.94 6

Sunnhemp (biomass removed) + 100P2 +45N 5,845.21 2,361.91 3,483.30 2.47 4

Table 13. Financial analysis of green manuring under 30% and 500/0 discount rates

Private Sector Input Dealer Participation inPromotion of Soil Fertility Technologies

Some of the soilfertility tech·nologies testedby various projects funded bythe RockefellerFoundationwithin Soil FertNet, will be promoted in Zimbabwe smallholder farmingareas throughthis new project.

1

2

5

6

4

3

4.73

3.37

2.30

2.07

2.56

3.30

NPV

9,306.15

12,317.12

6,921.02

4,980.53

3,732.10

4,993.10

To encourage the participation of agro enterprises in the dissemination of best bet soil fertility technologies in the smallholder farming sector, a project entitled "Promotion of Soil FertilityTechnologies through the Private Sector" wasdeveloped in 2001 with guidance by Soil FertNet and has been funded by the RockefellerFoundation (Figure 7). This regional project involves Zimbabwe, Zambia and Malawi and is anextension of the Agri Business DevelopmentProgramme (ABDP) being jointly implementedby the African Centre for Fertiliser Development and Africa University with the collabora

tion of nationalinstitutions. Theproject will work

BIC ratio Rank closely withother membersof Soil Fert Net.4,054.52

3,302.43

2,918.18

3,821.39

3,486.89

3,197.47

13,360.67

15,619.55

9,839.21

8,801.92

7,219.00

8,190.58

PV benefits PV costs

30% discount rate

Treatment

Viv bean (incorporated) + 100P2 +45N

V/v bean (incorporated) + OP2 +45N

Viv bean (incorporated) + OP2 + ON

Sunnhemp (incorporated) + 100P2 +45N

Sunnhemp (incorporated) + 100P2 + ON

Sunnhemp (biomass removed) + 100P2 +45N

Promotion of Soil FertilityTechnologies

"Official Release" of Organic Matter Technologies by MalawiAfter a thorough review of the technologies bythe Agriculture Technology Clearing Committeein Malawi during a meeting held at ChitedzeAgricultural Research Station on August 15,2001, the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigationin Malawi (through the Department of Agricultural Research as its Secretariat) released threeorganic matter technologies that can be used toincrease soil fertility. The technologies released


Figure 7. Private sector promotion of soli fertility technologies

These include lime, gypsum, rhizobium inoculants, phospho compost, efficient use of organicand inorganic fertilizers and the cultivation oflegume green manure and rotation crops.

~!::==!!!!:==""='-=,;;-:;'-="""="'='=!!!!!!:===~====fi" farmers (who have participated..w.Jj'"'''', ' throughout the life of the project

and continue to use the0.,," technology) will receive aPROMOTION Of certificate in January 2002 (Figure

RTILITY TECHNOLOGIIS 8).THROUGH

I£IPATION :~~Od:~~;u~a;e~:e~ora:~:~e:t~~:~~ holders in the Chihota Soil Fertil-~ ity Project, mainly due to changes

.~==~~~~~~~~~~~~rtl~~;;;~~~~~~t in the Zimbabwe macro economic~. ~..$ environment. Nevertheless,

AGRITEX managed to implementmany demonstrations with farmer

groups participating in the project (Table 14).This season many of the demonstrations werelaid out better. Results were affected by poorrainfall distribution.

Trained agro dealers located in rural areas arethe best source of inputs, crop markets and provision of the technical and marketing information to the farming communities who are theirbusiness clients. This new initiative is expectedto make a significant contribution on the training and networking of rural agro dealers to enhance their capability and capacity in the transfer of soil fertility technologies within the smallholding farming areas of the region.

Certificate

This is to certify that

A preparatory workshop was held in Harare on9 August 2001 to launch the project, identifywhich technologies should be promoted andwhere, determine the role of agro-business inpromoting each technology, and identify areas ofcollaboration with related agencies. The highestpriority technologies were identified as lime formaize and other field crops, rhizobium inoculantfor soyabean, single superphosphate and gypsum for groundnut, and phosphocompost. Theproject will target agro dealers in 12 communaland resettlement areas in Natural Regions 2-5.The project began in Zimbabwe in 2001. Training will commence in January 2002.

National Registration Number6} - )55"!"') l> .• :".............................................

Participated in the Dissemination of "Besl Bel" SoilFertility Tecbnologies

Period; J998 - 2001

JJidd'.<f~sF;d~or

Figure 8. A Chihota Project farmer certificate

Chihota Soil Fertility Extension Pilot ProjectAfter three and a half years of work, theChihota Soil Fertility Technology ExtensionProject led by AGRITEX in Zimbabwe, closed atthe end of 2001.

The project exposed almost 4000 farmers to several soil fertility technologies and over 2300farmers have used one or more of thetechnologies on their own fields. Some 600

Table 14. List of 2000-01 demonstrationsconducted by the Chihota Soil FertilityExtension Project

Technology Number of Number ofSites Field Days

Established Held

Maize liming 29 15

Rotation 23 12

Green manure 9 4

Herbicide 19 2


Maize liming was the most popular technology,hence the highest number of field days held.Many outside stakeholders did not manage tovisit the demo sites. Because of this, AGRITEXcollected data on how the field days were heldand the outcome of the field days in the form ofcomments and questions from both the localAGRITEX officers and farmers.

During October, two weeks of feedback sessionsfrom farmer groups to extension and researchstaff were followed by a successful close downstakeholder meeting at Marondera. AGRITEXstaff and farmers attended, along with the SoilFert Net Coordinators and a representativefrom the Soil Productivity Research Laboratory.The meeting began with presentations on themain findings with the technologies and thenlooked at the way ahead.

All agreed that the last three years had beenextremely useful. Many farmers had picked upsome helpful soil fertility technology, extensionstaff felt they had been doing somethingworthwhile, we had all learned a lot aboutfarmer interest in the technologies and aboutthe strengths and weaknesses of theparticipatory extension methods used in theproject. A final project report is being compiledby AGRITEX and baseline survey and inputdealer survey reports are almost ready.

Although the project has officially closed,several follow-ups were developed for the 200102 season. Extension staff in the project will:l> continue to give backup advice to farmers and

obtain feedbacks on the technologies(especially liming which is popular withfarmers),

l> link with the new ACFD input dealer projectin the area to train local shopkeepers in thetechnologies,

l> plant maize for a second year after the greenmanure demonstrations and measure theyield (to help do some good economics on thegreen manures), and

l> implement farmer-led seed multiplicationgardens for some of the legumes in 2001-02.

Additionally, there was clear interest in doingsome follow-up with farmers to characterisethose that are using the technologies and to seehow they are using and modifying them on theirown fields. This attempt to look at the "realadoption" will involve several agriculturaleconomists with support from the SoilFertNetCoordination Unit agricultural economists. Weexpect modest funds to be available in 2002

from the Soil Fert Net grant to support seedmultiplication and the "adoption" assessments.

Networking and InformationExchange

Learning Workshop on the EconomicEvaluation of Natural Resources, Soil Fertility and Cropping Systems: Implications forSustainability and Food Security

The purpose of Soil Fert Net is to facilitateinteraction, communication and collaborationbetween the various disciplines involved in soilfertility research, to foster integratedmultidisciplinary work on this important issue.Often, researchers from the different disciplinesof agricultural sciences have limited knowledgeand exposure to the methods and tools used byother fields of specialty. This is especially truebetween the socio-economic and naturalsciences, where a wide gulf exists. Lack offamiliarity with other disciplines in agriculturalresearch hinders the effective integration of thevarious essential components of a complexfarming system.

A realization of this gap by members of the SoilFert Net Economics and Policy Working Group(EPWG) led to the design of this workshop. Theworkshop was planned to expose agronomistsand soil scientists to methods and tools appliedby socio-economic disciplines and vice versa.

Participants - A total of 30 agronomists, soilscientists, economists and policy analysts fromSoil Fert Net Member Institutions in Malawi,Zimbabwe and Zambia participated, withsupport from the Network. (Table 15). Inaddition, four scientists from the EthiopianAgricultural Research Organization attended,with their own funding.

Objectives - The Natural Resource EconomicsLearning Workshop had the following majorobjectives:

• Enhance collaborative research activitiesbetween biophysical scientists, economistsand policy analysts.

• Review relevant tools and methods in naturalresource and environmental economics,spatial analysis-GIS, and crop modelling.

• Share experiences and draw lessons in theapplications of the tools mentioned above.

• Have an update of EPWG research activities.


Table 15. Participants that attended the Learning Workshop onEconomic Evaluation of Natural Resources and Soil Fertility,Pretoria, South Africa 2·7 April 2001

Name DisciplineReneth Mano Agricultural Economics

Resource Persons and PresentationsPresentations by resource persons, discussion ofresults of findings, practical computer exerciseson GIS using ARCView software, groupdiscussions and panel discussion were all

employed in this workshop.

Rashid Hassan of theUniversity of Pretoria and DeanFairbanks of the University ofCape Town were the resourcepersons for the NaturalResource and EnvironmentalEconomics and GIS-SpatialAnalysis topics, respectively.Akin Adesina, RockefellerFoundation's ResidentRepresentative for SouthernMrica, gave a very stimulatingkeynote address on the "MricanGreen Revolution: Challengesand Issues for NRM Research".

The SFN Coordinators, Steve Waddington and

Akin Adesina gave acomparative analysis of theAsian Green Revolution and thedesired African GreenRevolution. The germplasm-IedAsian Green Revolution of the1970s was made possiblethrough efficient research,extension and input deliverysystems. The homogenousenvironment and access toinfrastructure that smallfarmers had were the addedadvantages. The complex anddiverse Mrican agro-ecologiesand production systems requirea different type of "greenrevolution". Simplistic policyinstruments to get prices righthave not brought the expectedsupply response in Mricanagriculture. Getting theinfrastructure right, havingequitable markets, developinggermplasm that could workunder low input and harshconditions, generatingtechnologies that deal withcritical soil fertility problems,consider labour and genderaspects of the rural householdsand having appropriate policysupport to improve smallholderagriculture are suggested vitalcomponents of the African

Green Revolution. These would shape thedirections of the technology growth path asdiscussed by the speaker.

Soil Science

Soil Science

Soil Science

Soil Science

Soil Science

AffiliationDept. of Agric. Economics andExtension, University of Zimbabwe,Harare

Agricultural Economics Tropical Soil Biology and FertilityProgramme (TSBF), Harare,Zimbabwe

Agricultural Economics Dept. of Agric. Economics andExtension, University of Zimbabwe,HarareSoil Productivity Research Lab.DR&SS, Marondera, Zimbabwe

Agricultural Economics Agronomy Institute, DR&SS, Harare

Soil Science Soil Science Dept., University ofZimbabweSoil Science Dept., University ofZimbabwe

Agricultural Economics University of Pretoria, South Africa

GIS University of Cape Town, SouthAfricaSoil Science Dept., University ofZimbabwe

Agricultural Economics Mochipapa Research Station,Choma, ZambiaMochipapa Research Station,Choma, ZambiaMt. Makulu Research Station,Chilanga, Zambia

Agricultural Economics Misamfu Research Station, Kasama,zambiaMt. Makulu Research Station,Chilanga, ZambiaMt. Makulu Research Station,Chilanga, Zambia

Agricultural Economics Ethiopian Agricultural ResearchOrganization (EARO)

Forest Policyl Sociology National Tree Seed Project, Ethiopia

Agricultural Economics EARO

Agricultural Economics EARO

Agricultural Economics Bunda College of Agriculture,Lilongwe, Malawi

Agricultural Economics Bunda College of Agriculture,Lilongwe, MalawiChitedze Agricultural Res. Ministry ofAgriculture, Malawi






Agricultural Economics Bunda College of Agriculture,Lilongwe, MalawiCIMMYT-Soil Fert Net

CIMMYT-Soil Fert Net


Agronomy

Soil Science

Agronomy

Agronomy


Killian Mutiro

Webster Sakala

AJex Phiri

Hardwick Tchale

Blessings Botha

Teddie Nakhumwa

Petan Hamazakaza

Crispen Kapunda

Arnon Kabuli

Owen Chamdimba

Godfrey Sakala

Fredrick Msiska

Ephraim Chawoneka

David Dhliwayo

Tendai Gatsi

Rebecca Zengeni

Fred Makonese

Johannes Karigwindi

Stephen Waddington

Mulugetta Mekuria

Paul Mapfumo

Rashid Hassan

Dean Fairbank

Moses Mwale

Tesfaye Zegeye

Yonas Yemishaw

Legesse Dadi

YusufAssen

Mariam Mapila

Ronald Msoni

Evans Kapekele


Mulugetta Mekuria, provided backgroundinformation on SFN and EPWG, the workshopobjectives and expectations. Scientists from theAgricultural Research Council Institute of Soil,Climate and Water of South Mrica gave abriefing on their activities and implications forsmallholder agriculture. Zondai Shamudzariraof the CIMMYT Risk Project and WebsterSakala of DARTS Malawi presented findings ofcrop modelling research activities. Grantees ofEPWG projects also updated us on the status oftheir research activities. Very usefulinterventions and suggestions were made byparticipants to improve the quality of the ongoing research activities.

The following issues were identified fordiscussion by three working groups:What have we learnt and the implications forSFN projects?

• How do we incorporate Natural ResourceEconomics, GIS, Spatial and Modelling toolsin our research projects? For what?Examples.

• Measuring short and long term benefits andcosts of SFN technologies:

What tools/methods are especially useful? Datarequirements?

• What work should be developed on this?• Priorities? Give country specific criteria• Who will do what?• Disciplinary links? Current situation,

problems and ways to improve linkagesIncorporation of NRE into existing and new

projects• Farmer participation and assessment in

NRM technology generation and transfer:how and at what level?

• Policy: does it matter? Country specific vs.regional policy

Q How can these tools help with policy?Q What policy instruments are needed or

are missing to support the wide use ofNRM technologies by smallholders?

Q Mechanisms for linking and informingresearch and policy.

The three groups presented their feedbackreports to the plenary. Incorporation of newtools discussed at the learning workshop wasconsidered potentially useful. Because GISprovides pictorial illustration and integratesdifferent data sets, it is a powerful tool andcould be useful to prepare policy briefs. Existingprojects need to ensure that they measure shortand long-term costs and benefits and micro andmacro impacts (including those on theenvironment). It was also suggested that a new

generation of SFN-EPWG projects shouldintegrate socio-economic and bio physicalmodelling and apply the new tools of GIS andNR accounting to assess policy issues.

Given the very limited capacity in the region,the need for targeted training on GIS-Spatialanalysis was identified as critical. In somemember countries there is limited capacity (GIS)and on going projects. NR accounting projects inSADC could be used to organize in-countrytraining. Linkages with regional fora such asFANRPAN and MASIP could assist to create thenecessary dialogue with policy makers.

The current regional networking and theproposed new management structure for SoilFert Net have been rated as excellentmechanisms. Country-level coordination ofmulti-disciplinary activities has to organizereview meetings, workshops and field trips.These networking activities require resourcecommitments (including communication tools)and should be budgeted in the respective projectproposals submitted to donors. Assigningspecific roles among members of a multidisciplinary team in a project is very critical toenhance effective collaboration. Strengtheninglinks across relevant stakeholders andinstitutions, hosting field trials anddemonstrations of SFN best bet technologies inselected districts will contribute to scaling up.

Understanding the Adoption and Impact ofSoil Fertility Technologies Workshop

This Soil Fert Net EPWG Regional Workshop,held at Juliasdale, Zimbabwe on 3-6 December,2001, brought together as many as 45 researchers and development personnel, representingfive countries and many institutions and disciplines (Table 16).

Zimbabwe had 17 participants from DR&E(DR&SS and AGRITEX) and the University ofZimbabwe, while Malawi had a delegation of 13from DARTS, Extension, Care International andBunda College of Agriculture. Five participantscame from DRSS-Zambia, three from ICRAFZambia and World Vision International-Zambia.We were very pleased to welcome two participants from Mozambique's INIA-National Research Institute. Two scientists from ICRAFZimbabwe, three from CIMMYT-Zimbabwe andone from CIMMYT-Kenya also participated inthe regional workshop.


Table 16. Participants that attended the Workshop on Understanding the Adoption and Impact ofSoil Fertility Technologies, Juliasdale, Zimbabwe 3-6 December 2001

NameAggrey Agumya

Manuel AmaneDiu AjayiEphraim ChabayanzaraTendai GatsiWellington ChadukaOwen ChamdimbaEphraim ChawonekaDavison ChikazungaReneth ManoDorothy ChilimaHugo De GrooteDavid DhliwayoDanisile HikwaRita JeraVernon KabambeBernard KamangaCrispen KapundaEvans KapekeleHelen KasaluEllias KuntashulaJames MachikichoEdmore MangotiWezi Grace MhangoMargaret MkandawireClayton MoyoSheunesu MpeperekiBenjamin MtikaJohn MutiheroJohannes KarigwindiStephen WaddingtonMulugetta MekuriaKillian MutiroDorah MwenyeAndrew Bosco MvulaTeddie NakhumwaSella NgulubeMichael NyirendaAlexander PhiriDonald PhiriIshmael PompiLovemore RugubeWebster SakalaHoward SigweleFranklin SimtoweShephard SizibaSesele SokotelaHardwick TchaleAlberto TembeMbuso Nhlope

DisciplineGeographical InformationSystem (GIS)Soil ScienceAgricultural EconomicsAgricultural EconomicsAgricultural EconomicsAgricultural EconomicsAgricultural EconomicsAgricultural EconomicsAgricultural EconomicsAgricultural EconomicsNutritionAgricultural EconomicsSoil ScienceAgronomyOn Farm ResearchAgronomyOn Farm ResearchAgricultural EconomicsAgricultural EconomicsAgronomyAgricultural EconomicsSoil ScienceAgricultural EconomicsAgronomyExtensionExtensionSoil ScienceExtensionAgricultural economicsAgronomyAgronomyAgricultural economics

Agricultural EconomicsExtensionSoil ScienceAgricultural EconomicsAgricultural EconomicsAgricultural EconomicsAgricultural EconomicsExtensionAgronomyAgricultural EconomicsAgronomyAgricultural EconomicsAgricultural EconomicsAgricultural EconomicsSoil ScienceAgricultural EconomicsSoil ScienceAgronomy

AffiliationICRAF Southern Africa, Harare, Zimbabwe

Instituto Nacional De Investigacao Agronomia, Maputo, MozambiqueICRAF, Chipata, ZambiaDept. of Agric. Econ., University of ZimbabweAgronomy Institute, DR&SS, Harare, ZimbabweDept. of Agric. Econ., University of ZimbabweBunda College of Agriculture, Lilongwe, MalawiDept. of Agric. Econ., University of ZimbabweSoil Productivity Research Lab. DR&SS, Marondera, ZimbabweAgric. Economics Dept., University of ZimbabweBunda College of Agriculture, Lilongwe, MalawiCIMMYT-KenyaSoil Productivity Research Lab. DR&SS, Marondera, ZimbabweAgronomy Institute, DR&SS, Harare, ZimbabweICRAF Southern Africa, Harare, ZimbabweChitedze Agric. Res. Stn. Ministry of Agriculture, Lilongwe, MalawiCIMMYT-MalawiMinistry of Agric., Choma, ZambiaMinistry of Agric. Kasama, ZambiaMisamfu Regional Res. Centre, Kasama, ZambiaICRAF, Agroforestry Project, Chipata, zambiaDept. of Soil Science, University of ZimbabweDept. of Agric. Econ., University of ZimbabweBunda College of Agriculture, Lilongwe, MalawiCare International, Lilongwe, MalawiAGRITEX, HarareDept. of Soil Science, University of ZimbabweKaronga Add, Ministry of Agriculture, Karonga, MalawiDept. of Agric. Econ., University of ZimbabweCIMMYT-Soil Fert NetCIMMYT-Soil Fert NetCIMMYT-Soil Fert NetTropical Soil Biology and Fertility Programme, Harare, ZimbabweAgritexlDR&E, Marondera, ZimbabweMinistry of Agric., Misamfu Regional Res. Centre, Kasama, ZambiaBunda College of Agriculture, Lilongwe, MalawiICRISAT, Lilongwe, MalawiBunda College of Agriculture, Lilongwe, MalawiBunda College of Agriculture, Lilongwe, MalawiWorld Vision Zambia, Agroforestry Project, Chipata, ZambiaDept. of Research & Extension, Harare, ZimbabweDept. of Agric. Econ. University of ZimbabweMinistry of Agric. Chitedze Agric. Research, Lilongwe, MalawiFANRPAN/SADC, Harare, ZimbabweBunda College of Agriculture, Lilongwe, MalawiCIMMYT-ZimbabweDR&SS, Mt. Makulu Res. Centre, Chilanga, zambiaBunda College of Agriculture, Lilongwe, MalawiInstituto Nacional De Investigacao Agronomia, Maputo, MozambiqueMalkerns Res. Centre, Ministry of Agriculture, Swaziland

The objectives of this workshop were to:[> Acquire an understanding on adoption and

impact potentials of soil fertility technologies in the network region.

[> Review empirical findings of adoption stud-

ies undertaken by EPWG grantees andother partner institutions,

[> Revisit methodologies and approaches usedin adoption studies.


Howard K. Sigwele, Coordinator of FANRPANISADC gave the Keynote address on Policy Constraints Affecting Technology Adoption in BADC..FANRPAN's Potential Roles in Linking and Informing Research and Policy Institutions.

A total of 28 papers were presented during fourmain sessions of the workshop. Some very goodand detailed discussions were held on the mainpoints arising from the presentations. In a fifthSpecial Session, seven new proposals for 2002were presented and very useful suggestionswere made by participants on the relevance ofthe proposals and how the individual proposalsshould be improved. Two new additional proposals from the University of Zimbabwe were submitted straight after the workshop and were discussed at the CIMMYT-Zimbabwe offices by theNetwork Coordinators, EPWG Conveners andRegional SFN Theme Leaders.

The sessions covered:• Setting the Scene: Adoption and Potential Im

pacts of SFM Technologies• Promotion and Dissemination of SFM Tech

nologies: Experiences and Lessons• Empirical Findings on Adoption of SFM Tech

nologies• Revisiting the Methods for Adoption and Im

pact Studies.

Reviewing EPWG proposals for 2002 - Existing projects and new proposals were discussedand participants raised questions on their relevance to the priorities of SoilFertNet, methodological issues, the capacity to undertake the proposed research, and in some cases concerns onthe multidisciplinary nature of the studies. Mostof the studies covered the different sets of bestbet technologies that are being developed andthe extent of their use by farmers. Extensionand NGO presentations highlighted the need forbetter interaction between stakeholders in thetechnology development and transfer continuum. Farmers' resource base, household characteristics, socio economic variables and other institutional and policy factors inhibiting adoptionwere reported. Alternative and relevant methods being used were discussed at length.

The following new proposals were presented anddiscussed:

1. A Socio-Economic Analysis of SmallholderUtilization of Phospho-Compost and LimingTechnologies for Soil Fertility Management,by D. Chikazunga

2. Assessment of Pit Farming as a Potential

Technology in Sustainable agriculture, by C.Kapunda, Sokotela and others

3. The Socio-Economics of Some Soil FertilityManagement Options and their Effects onMaize Production and Productivity in Southern, Northern and Eastern Provinces ofZambia, by C. Kapunda, Sokotela, Hazakazaand others

4. The Role of Technology Attributes, Knowledge and Perceptions in Smallholder FarmerChoice of Sustainable Soil ManagementPractices in Selected Rural DevelopmentProject Areas in Malawi, by M. Nyirendaand others

5. Soil Improving Legumes and their Role inHuman and Animal Nutrition, by D.M.Chilima, M.A.R. Phiri, W.D. Sakala and A.Safalaoh

6. Promoting Efficiency on Investments in SoilFertility Among Maize Farmers in Malawi:A Case of Organic and Inorganic Fertilizers,by F. Simtowe

7. Economic Potential and Promotion of theUse of Lime in Northern Zambia, by E.Kapekele, C. Kapunda, Sokotela, Hazakazaand others

(because of its relevance and expressed interest, participants from Zimbabwe andMalawi have agreed to join and further develop it as a regional project)

8. Enhancing the Dissemination of Soil Fertility Technologies in Smallholder Agriculture,by Hanyani-Mlambo and others

9. A Socio-Economic Analysis of Erosion andSiltation in the Save Catchment Area ofSoutheast Zimbabwe, by C. Gwata and I.Nyagumbo.

Several participants mentioned concerns aboutstandardized methodologies. Given that onethird of the participants were student researchers being supported by EPWG and Forum thediscussions and recommendations were considered very useful to SoilFertNet's regional capacity building effort.

Recommendations and suggestions were madeon the proposals. The EPWG conveners are responsible to facilitate the feed back and subsequent submission of the proposals for the Network.


Cross Cutting Issues Discussed -l> The Workshop participants reiterated that

socio economic analysis of SFM technologiesis very critical for the further refinement offarmer recommendations and timely feedback of such findings is essential.

l> The collaborative research approach beingadopted between socio economists, policy analysts, agronomists and soil scientists shouldclearly articulate the value added componentof each participating researcher/discipline andthe resource requirements.

l> The poor link and dialogue between researchand policy needs to be looked at and there isan urgent need to develop empirical work toidentify critical policy constraints to the adoption of SFM technologies.

l> Some of the adoption and impact studies reported used different methods and focused onthe description of adoption patterns or incidences. Not many of the studies measured theintensity of adoption and quantified the relative effects and contributions of adoption determinants. New tools and soft wares have tobe employed to achieve the latter.

l> Given the constant depletion and attrition ofresearch personnel at NARS, participantshave appealed to the Network coordination office that such workshops dealing with methods and tools need to be scheduled regularlybecause they will contribute to capacity building and efficient execution of research activities.

l> Most agronomy and soil science proposalsneed to incorporate specific budget lines tocover impact assessment studies of the envisaged research project.

Integrated Soil Fertility Research FieldTour of Northern ZambiaWe continued with two field tours in 2001. Thefirst tour, organized principally by WebsterSakala of DARTS Malawi, concentrated onextension and promotion aspects of soil fertilitytechnologies in central and northern Malawi.Most participants were from extension or NGOs.The second field tour visited northern Zambia tolook at the special soil fertility problemsencountered there and to map out a researchstrategy to help address them.

The tour to northern Zambia took place from 3to 11 March 2001. Twenty eight persons attended from Zambia, Malawi and Zimbabwe(Table 17). On Monday 5 March, the participants gathered in the conference hall atMisamfu Research Centre, Kasama, for briefings from the CARO-Region III, CARO-SWM

and the Soil Fertility Network coordinators.This covered the welcome address, the objectivesand the mandate of the Soils Team in Zambia.There then followed a presentation on the soilsfound in Northern Zambia, by Sam Phiri. To finish off the morning, the participants were takenthrough the soils and seed services laboratories.The afternoon was devoted to visiting the trialsbeing conducted at the station. Trials rangedfrom soil P, N, liming, soyabean inoculation, toquantification of N fixed by beans and soya. Thetour of trials continued on Tuesday. Farmingsystems demonstrations on sweet potatoes,small grains and groundnut breeding trials,green manuring, agroforestry managed fallowsand maize breeding trials were visited. In theafternoon a farm was visited where sunnhemp(Grotolaria ochroleuca) was being widely used asa green manure.

On Wednesday the participants were taken toMungwi District. Demonstrations on inoculationof soyabean and use of green manures wereshown near the DACO's offices. Later two farmers were visited, both hosting the soyabean demonstrations on inoculation use. In the afternoona smallholder coffee out-growers scheme wasvisited. On Thursday, the tour went furthernorth to Mbala District where green manuringusing sunnhemp, and the traditional Chitemeneand Fundikila systems were shown to the participants. The participants later visited theKalambo Falls and the Motomoto museum.

On Friday, during a visit to Kateshi Coffee Estates, the use of sunnhemp and Arachis pintoson coffee was demonstrated. The tour came toan end with a seminar presentation from SamPhiri, followed by a wrap-up session.

Issues that came up during the tour:=> Soyabean demonstrations on the benefits of

inoculation were important for spreading themessage, more-so with the additional information on the utilization of the grain from thelegume. The soil fertility benefit from thistechnology were however not being emphasized. There is need to develop simple instructions in vernacular and illustrations on theuse of inoculant. Storage conditions for the inoculant also need to be highlighted.

=> The effectiveness of the residual P on the legume compared with the direct application of Pand other nutrients on the N fixing potentialof the legume.

=> Use of cowpea as a green manure. How feasible is it given that there are other uses to thecrop, i.e. use of the grain, leaves for relish and


Name Discipline AffiliationRegis Chikowo Soil science Soil Science Dept, University of Zimbabwe

Table 17. Participants that attended the Field Tour on Integrated SoilFertility Research in Northern Zambia, 3-11 March 2001

Agricultural economics CIMMYT-Soil Fert Net

Soil science! agronomy DR&SS, Misamfu, Kasama, Zambia

SPRL, Chemistry and Soil ResearchInstitute, DR&SS, Marondera, ZimbabweSPRL, Chemistry and Soil ResearchInstitute, DR&SS, Marondera, ZimbabweAGRITEX, Shurugwi, Zimbabwe

DR&SS, Mount Makulu, Chilanga, Zambia



DR&SS, Mount Makulu, Chilanga, zambia

DR&SS, Mount Makulu, Chilanga, zambia

Farming Systems, DR&SS, MAFF, Mansa,ZambiaDR&SS, Misamfu, Kasama, Zambia

DR&SS, Misamfu, Kasama, Zambia

DR&SS, Misamfu, Kasama, Zambia

CARO Region 3, DR&SS, Misamfu,Kasama, zambiaDR&SS, Misamfu, Kasama, zambia

School of Agriculture, Univ. of Zambia,Lusaka, ZambiaSchool of Agriculture, Univ. of zambia,Lusaka, ZambiaBunda College of Agriculture, Univ. ofMalawi, LilongweLilongwe ADD, Lilongwe, Malawi

Director of Crops, Ministry of Agriculture,Lilongwe, MalawiMaize Team, DARTS, Chitedze ResearchStation, Lilongwe, MalawiBunda College of Agriculture, Univ. ofMalawi, LilongweTSBF, ACFD, Harare, Zimbabwe



umes grown on the soil ridges by farmers.=> Farmer perceptions of soil fertility and the

new technologies aimed at improving soil fertility.

=> Research-Extension-Farmer linkages in technology testing and transfer.

Issues and Observations During the Wrap UpMeeting-• Residue P utilisation by legumes in fields

previously cropped by maize. This optionrequires promotion with farmers if they apply

Soil science

Soil science

Soil science

Extension

Soil science

Farming Systems

Soil science

Soil science

Soil science

Soil science

Soil science

Soil science

Soil science

Agricultural economics DR&SS, Misamfu, Kasama, zambia

Agronomy

Soil science

Soil science

Farming Systems

Agronomy

Extension

Soil science

Extension

Samuel Phiri

roots for preparation of adrink.

=> Use of sunnhemp as agreen manure. Howpractical is it to producethe large amount of bio- Walter Mupangwamass required to in-crease fertility on a de- Nhamo Nhamo

pleted soil? On fertile Dominika Shumbasoils it could be used ef-fectively for maintaining Moses Mwale

the fertility. What is the Masauso K Sakalalabour requirement andthe economics of using it Prospard Gondwe

on other crops? The tech- Mlotha Damaseke

nology has low adoption,Ronald Msoniwhy?

=> Weeding and manage- Abraham Ngoliya

ment of sunnhemp green Shadreck Bwembya Soil sciencemanure. Early plantingof green manure might Andrew B. Mvula

not be a priority for Costah Malamasmallholder farmers.

=> Improvement of bean Evans Kapekele

yield and its N fixing po- Helen Kasala

tential. Beans are an im-portant part of the diet A. Bunyola

in Northern Zambia.=> Use of bambara ground-

Obed Lungunut as a legume in thecereal + legume rotations Kenneth Munyinda

given that it is a goodfixer of N. Spider Mughogho

=> Fertilization of coffee in G. Nyandule-Phiri

Northern Zambia; in-Kempton Chavula

cluding the use of inor-ganic fertilizers and Webster Sakala

cover crops on coffee.=> Tithonia use in ameliora- Wezi Mhango

tion of acidity and recy- Herbert Murwira

cling of nutrients. HowJohannes Karigwindi Agronomy

can it be used togetherwith other external Stephen Waddington Agronomy

sources of nutrients? Mulugetta MekuriaWhat happens to thequality and quantity ofbiomass with consecutive pruning? It is important to consider the labour and the potential biomass production as well as how sustainable the technology is.

=> Use of agroforestry species directly for soilfertility amelioration and through fodder.

=> Use of improved fallows. Consider direct seeding of legume species into natural grass fallows to improve biomass from these systems.

=> Lime work; follow up with surveys and appropriate demonstrations.

=> Plant spacing for maize, beans, and other leg-


fertilizers to maize.• Generally beans are poor N fIxers. Scientists

should endeavour to fInd the reasons why thisis so and see how fIxation could be improved,say by breeding.

• Cowpeas are dual purpose for food and as agreen manure. We should do more on soilfertility improvement using cowpeas.

• Tithonia does not add N to the soil whichmeans it is dependant on existing fertility.More work needs to be done, especially oncombinations with other organic materialsand inorganic sources of nutrients.

• Lime use could benefIt a lot of growers, butthere is a lack of awareness of its use andbenefIts. More demonstrations should becarried out especially on farmer's fIelds.

• Direct seeding of legumes as a way toestablish improved fallows for soil fertilityimprovement should receive more attention tocut down the expenses of raising a nursery.

• Green manures prove effective whensubstantial amounts of biomass are producedand incorporated. With sunnhemp, timelymanagement such as early planting should beobserved. Otherwise the little biomass willnot help the subsequent crop.

• Management practices for green manuresneed further research.

• Linkages among Research-Extension-Farmerneeds to be strengthened for easy technologytransfer.

• Stakeholder (farmer) training is needed toimprove their perception of soil fertilityproblems and management.

• There is a need to target legumes suitable forthe environment instead of handling manyspecies which may not yield the desiredresults.

• Beans are very important as a food legumecrop for the high rainfall regions but it doesnot seem to be a research priority.

• Socio economic studies are required to gaugethe impact of technologies extended.

• There is a need to monitor the soil fertilitystatus of farmer's fIelds.

• Some station demonstrations and trials weredoing poorly compared with those on farmers'fIelds. Thus the management of stationactivities requires improvement.

• Multipurpose green manures should beencouraged to solve animal, human and soilfertility needs at one go.

• Soil fertility monitoring may be veryexpensive, but the use of simple fIeld kits isrecommended.

• Collaboration between research and otherinstitutions like UNZA must be strengthened

to take advantage of all available humanresources.

• Farming systems team needs to be moreactive in carrying out on-farmdemonstrations.

• Soil nutrient recapitalization should also lookat P, not just N.

• Research agendas should be prioritised.Researchers should not spread themselves toothinly. Concentrate on a few areas and dothem well.

• The Theme Coordinators of Soil Fert Net inthe proposed new structure should encouragecollaboration (individual, national andregional) to take advantage of similar workelsewhere.

• Use of lime is hampered by cost. The EPWGof the Network should lobby governments andexploit ways to make it affordable.

• Need a strategic plan on lime requirements;what should be done and where. Maybe aTask Force should be set-up to look at limeissues in general.

Field Tour on Available Soil Fertility Practices in Central and Northern Malawi

The Soil Fertility Tour for Malawi took placefrom 19 to 21 February, 2001. The tour coveredsites in Lilongwe, Kasungu and MzuzuAgricultural Development Divisions (ADD's).The tour objective was to view current andavailable practices and technologies on soilfertility management in maize-based croppingsystems. It also allowed researchers theopportunity to interact with and obtain feedbackfrom farmers and extension workers on thetechnologies that are being promoted.

The 27 participants (Table 18) on the tour weredrawn from the Department of AgriculturalResearch and Technical Services, Department ofCrop Production, all the AgriculturalDevelopment Divisions (Crops Officers),University of Malawi (Bunda College ofAgriculture), Malawi Agroforestry Extension(MAFE), Concern Universal, Sasakawa Global2000, and the Risk Project representedCIMMYT.

Practices and technologies that were visited andobserved during the tour included:• Use of green manures for increasing soil

fertility in maize-based cropping systems.• Residue management in a long term maize

pigeonpea intercropping and rotation trial.• Screening top cross hybrid maize and legumes

for Striga control.


Table 18. Participants that attended the Field Tour on Available Soil Fertility Practices in Central and Northern Malawi, 1921 February 2001

Affiliation

Ministry of Agriculture, Lilongwe

Lilongwe ADD, Lilongwe

Lilongwe ADD, Lilongwe

Blantyre ADD, Blantyre

Sasakawa SG2000, Lilongwe

Sasakawa SG2000, Lilongwe

Sasakawa SG2000, Liwonde

Kasungu ADD, Kasungu

Mzuzu ADD, Mzuzu

Karonga ADD, Karonga

Ngabu ADD, Ngabu

Maize Team, DARTS, Chitedze AgricResearch Station, LilongweSoils Team, DARTS, Chitedze AgricResearch Station, LilongweDARTS, Chitedze Agric ResearchStation, LilongweDARTS, Chitedze Agric ResearchStation, LilongweDARTS, Chitedze Agric ResearchStation, LilongweDARTS, Lilongwe

DARTS, Lilongwe 3

Bunda College of Agriculture, Univ.of Malawi, LilongweBunda College of Agriculture, Univ.of Malawi, LilongweBunda College of Agriculture, Univ.of Malawi, LilongweBunda College of Agriculture, Univ.of Malawi, LilongweBunda College of Agriculture, Univ.of Malawi, LilongweBunda College of Agriculture, Univ.of Malawi, LilongweBunda College of Agriculture, Univ.of Malawi, LilongweCIMMYT Risk Project, Chitedze AgricResearch Station, Lilongwe

Discipline

Extension

Extension

Promotion

Extensionl pro- Concern Universal, DedzamotionPromotion

Extension

Extension

Extension

Extension

Extension

Agronomy

Participatoryagronomy

Soil survey

Soil science

Ag economics

Name

B.D. ManyukaBandaM.H.L. Sande

Ben Mtika

Bernard Kamanga

H. Nkhuzenje

Atusaye Mwalwanda

Owen Chamdimba

Amon Kabuli

Spider Mughogho

Participants observed thattechnologies such as mucunamaize rotation, groundnut-maizerotation, intercropping of maizewith pigeon pea and Tephrosiaand the Sasakawa technologieshave positive results. As a result,a good number of farmers haveadopted these technologies.

• On-farm maize varietydemonstrations by Seed Co.

• Effect of Tephrosia undersownwith maize on the followingmaize crop (improved fallow).

• Effects of maize legumeS

. .I.P. Mapembasystems on tnga emergenceand maize growth (rotation). Noel E. Nyirenda

• Risk Management mother-babytrials. Maria Andreassen Promotion

• Rehabilitation of abandoned M.F.J. Chisalefarms through natural fallow,mucuna/maize rotations and K.M. Chavula

use of inorganic fertiliser. G. Nyandule-Phiri Extension• Sasakawa demonstrations with

emphasis on improvement of B.S.K. Nebamaize production through:::> Increase in plant population:::>Timing of fertiliser

application A P M.. oyo:::> Use of hybrid maize

varieties:::>Management of maize field. N.J. Kausi

• Effect of phosphorus andsulphur on grain legumes and Webster D. Sakala Agronomy

legume green manure crops, Allan D.C. Chilimba Soil scienceand their residual effects onthe subsequent maize crop. A.M. ChiremboGrain legumes used weresoybean, groundnut and D. Kayirabambara nut whilst the legume

I.M. Ligowegreen manure crops wereMucuna, Tephrosia and pigeon M.W. Lowolepea.

• Effect of cattle kraal rotations I. Phirion maize yield compared with Wezi Mhangoconventional livestock manureapplications (heap and pits) for Mariam A.T.J. Mapilaimproved maize yield.

However, participants felt that:a) Some Sasakawa technologies are labour

demanding, for example farmers have to plantand apply fertiliser at the same time.

b) Uncertainty about the availability of mucunaseed since farmers are told to incorporate thecrop before seeding.

c) There was minimal involvement of farmers in

explaining the technologies and practicesthroughout the tour.

Gaps-• Sasakawa should consider supporting

intercropping. Relay cropping of beans maywork for some areas in the Southern Region.


• Improved fallows: There is need to widen therange of legumes by including prolific cowpeain green manure programs.

• There is need for work on utilisation ofmucuna.

• A summary of soil fertility technologiesshould be made available to stakeholders.

• Experimental designs should always includefarmer practice.

• The economics of Sasakawa technologiesshould be evaluated.

Way Forward -• Collaboration among soil fertility activities

needs to be strengthened.• Mucuna seed should be multiplied and Maize

Productivity Task Force Group One hasstarted multiplying the seed through theADD's.

• In future, more farmers should be involved inthe tour.

Overall, the participants indicated that the tourwas well organized and offered a range ofalternative technologies for soil fertility forfarmers with varying ranges of resources. Wethank Webster Sakala of DARTS for organizingsuch a worthwhile tour.

New Soil Fert Net Website

Our website was developed during mid 2001 andbecame available online in October.The website domain is:www.SoilFertNetSouthernAfrica.org

The following types of information are on thesite:

~ Objectives and structure of Soil Fert Net~ Research and dissemination activities~ Contact information for key members of Soil

Fert Net, and their organizations~ Our products and outputs, including informa

tion on Best Bet soil fertility technologies andnetwork publications

~ What's New in Soil Fert Net.

Some of our publications are downloadable fromthe site. The site will be updated periodicallyand is available for members to post informationabout their work.

Network PublicationsA summary of new publications from Soil FertNet is in Table 19.

Workshop proceedings -Integration of Soil Research Activities in Easternand Southern Africa (eds. C. Palm, A. Bationoand S. Waddington), TSBF and Soil Fert Net.Nairobi and Harare, 48p. These proceedingswere developed from the "East Meets South"workshop held in Arusha, Tanzania in May2001.

Best Bet brochures - We have continued to distribute Best Bet soil fertility technology brochures produced in 1999 and 2000. They remainvery useful descriptions of Best Bets for farmeradvisors. We are developing plans to producesome new brochures in 2002-03.

Network working paper series - Two WorkingPapers were produced and distributed this year.

Table 19. Publications Produced by the Soil Fertility Network for Maize-Based Farming Systemsin 2001

Series and Number

Newsletters:

Working Papers:Research ResultsWorking Paper 7

Methods WorkingPaper 5

Workshop Report:

Annual Report:

Title

Target (Issues 25 to 28)

The potential of green manures toincrease soil fertility and maizeyields in Malawi

Experiences with farmerparticipatory mother-baby trials andwatershed management improve tosoil fertility options in Malawi

Integration of Soil ResearchActivities in Eastem and SouthernAfrica

Soil Fert Net annual report for 2000

Author(s)

Compiled by Soil Fert NetCoordinator. Open tocontributions from all

Webster Sakala. JohnKumwenda, Alex Saka andVernon Kabambe

Bernard Kamanga, GeorgeKanyama-Phiri and SieglindeSnapp

Cheryl Palm, Andre Bationoand Stephen Waddington(Eds).

Soil Fert Net coordinators

Date Produced

January, April, Julyand October 2001

May 2001

February 2001

October 2001

November 2000


Methods Working Paper 5 on Experiences withFarmer Participatory Mother-Baby Trials andWatershed Management to Improve Soil FertilityOptions in Malawi by Kamanga, BCG, GY Kanyama-Phiri and S Snapp, was distributed inFebruary and March. It documents experiencewith farmer participatory methods used to assess soil fertility technologies in Malawi. Ashort-term "Mother-Baby" trial approach to testing soil fertility options with farmer groups forincorporation onto their fields is contrasted witha medium term "Watershed level" strategy todeploying and testing soil fertility technologiesin spatial niches on a community of farms.

This methodology has been adapted for the participatory evaluation of drought tolerant maizewithin the SADLF project and is now used inseveral Southern Africa countries.

Research Results Working Paper 7 on The Potential of Green Manures to Increase Soil Fertility and Maize Yields in Malawi, by Webster D.Sakala, John D.T. Kumwenda, Alex R. Saka andVernon H. Kabambe summarizes recent research on this topic in Malawi. The work is nowbeing conducted more widely by extension andresearch in central Malawi to better assessbenefits on farms. Around 300 copies have beenproduced and distributed, mainly in Malawi.

Participatory Research Methods for TechnologyEvaluation: A Manual for Scientists Workingwith Farmers, by Mauricio Bellon of CIMMYTMexico was produced in 2001. This publicationuses experiences from the Chihota Soil FertilityExtension Project in Zimbabwe as one of itsprime examples. Limited copies have been distributed.

Powerpoint slide sets - The Coordinators developed Powerpoint slide sets on Soil Fert Net,on Best Bet Soil Fertility Technologies and onTechnology Promotion during 2001. These havebeen used for several presentations and areavailable to members.

Publication purchases for members - Ten copies of "Managing Soil Fertility in the Tropics: AResource Guide for Participatory Learning andAction Research" by Toon Defoer and ArnoudBudelman (eds) 2000. KIT, The Netherlands,were purchased by Soil Fert Net and distributedto members mid 2001. The Resource Guide includes a textbook, a collection of cases that explore field experiences with participatory learning and action research, a set of 'all-weather'Field Tools on laminated cards, a CD-ROM that

includes a software package to assist in analyzing data, and a manual with detailed versions ofthe Field Tools plus a User's Guide to the software.

Twenty copies of "Nitrogen Fixation in TropicalCropping Systems, 2nd edition", by Ken Gillerand published by CABI were purchased by SoilFert Net and distributed to members in October.

External Conferences and Workshops Attended by the CoordinatorsThese included:• CIMMYT Project Meetings, 19-28 March,

Texcoco, Mexico (SRW gave presentation onachievements in Regional Project 1).

• CGIAR Eastern and Southern Africa Integration Workshop, 18-21 September, ICRAF,Nairobi, Kenya (SRW).

• The CGIAR in SSA; CGIAR Mid-Term Meetings, 20-22 May, Durban, South Africa (SRWandMM).

• IMPALA Project, 18-19 June, Lake Chivero,Zimbabwe (SRW).

• MWIRNET 2 Project Development Stakeholder Meeting, 29-31 August, Gaborone, Botswana (MM and SRW).

• Workshop on "Integrated Natural ResourceManagement", 30 July-1 August, ICRISAT,Matopos, Zimbabwe (SRW).

• CIMMYT Regional Project 1 (Food and Sustainable Livelihoods for Sub-Saharan Africa)Review and Planning Meeting, 13-15 August,Harare, Zimbabwe (SRW and MM. SRW gavepresentation and written report on achievements in Regional Project 1).

• CIMMYT Global Project 9, "Conservation Agriculture", Planning Meeting, 18-20 October,CIMMYT, Texcoco, Mexico (SRW).

• Rockefeller Foundation Soil Fertility Research Reviews, 1. Zimbabwe 29 October-2November; 2. Malawi 5-7 November (SRWandMM).

Most of the above travel was funded outside ofSoil Fert Net.

Network-Related Papers with a Contribution from the Coordinators

Hassan, R., M. Mekuria and W. Mwangi (2001).Maize breeding research in eastern and southern Africa: Current status and impacts of pastinvestments made by the public and privatesectors, 1966-97. Mexico, D.F.:CIMMYT.

Mekuria, M. and S.R. Waddington (2002). Initia-

•~

•


tives to Encourage Farmer Adoption of SoilFertility Technologies for Maize-Based Cropping Systems in Southern Mrica. In: (C. Barrett, F. Place and A. Aboud eds.)."Understanding Adoption Processes for Natural Resources Management for SustainableAgricultural Production in Sub-Saharan Mrica", Wallingford, UK:CAB International.Forthcoming.

Mekuria, M., T. Gatsi and T. Pfumayaramba(2001). A preliminary assessment of the performance, adoption and economics of hybrid,open pollinated and recycled maize productionin Chihota and Zimuto districts of Zimbabwe.Harare, Zimbabwe:CIMMYT. Forthcoming.

Palm, C., A. Bationo and S. Waddington (2001).Integration of soil research activities in eastern and southern Mrica. TSBF, Nairobi,Kenya and SoilFertNet, Harare, Zimbabwe. 48p.

Waddington, S.R. and J. Karigwindi (2001). Productivity and profitability of maize + groundnut rotations compared with continuous maizeon smallholder farms in Zimbabwe. Experimental Agriculture 37:83-98.

Presentations -Friesen, D., S.R. Waddington and A.O. Diallo(2001). Breeding and Agronomic Approaches toManaging Abiotic Stresses in Maize. Given atthe Second Ethiopian National Maize Workshop, EARO, 12-16 November 2001, Nazret,Ethiopia.

Waddington, S.R. and D. Friesen (2001). Conservation Agriculture and Smallholder MaizeSystems in Eastern and Southern Mrica. Givenat CIMMYT Global Project 9, "Conservation Agriculture", Planning Meeting, 18·20 October,CIMMYT, Texcoco, Mexico.

Waddington, S.R. and M. Mekuria (2001). BestBet Soil Fertility Technologies For Maize-BasedSmallholder Farming Systems in Zimbabwe andMalawi. Given at the Rockefeller FoundationSoil Fertility Research Review, 29 October-2 November 2001, Harare, Zimbabwe.

Waddington, S.R. and M. Mekuria (2001). SoilFertility Management and Policy Network forMaize-Based Cropping Systems in Southern M·rica. Given at the Rockefeller Foundation SoilFertility Research Review, 29 October-2 Novem·ber 2001, Harare, Zimbabwe.

At the request of authors, the coordinators continued to review drafts of many publications byNetwork members, including conference papersand journal articles.

The following CIMMYT-Zimbabwe staff are supported under the Rockefeller Foundation SoilFertility Network grant:

Stephen R Waddington, Maize AgronomistMulugetta Mekuria, Agricultural Economist(50% time)Shephard Siziba, Economics Research AssociateJohannes Karigwindi, Research AssistantJohn Chifamba, Recorder/Field AssistantRudo Shongedza, Secretary (50% time)Nothando Moyo, Secretary (50% time)

Acknowledgement - The coordinators wouldlike to thank the many members of Soil FertNet that have contributed much of the information used in this report.

SRW and MM, Harare, 18 February 2002


Soil Fertility Management and Policy Network for Maize-BasedFarming Systems in Southern Africa

Soil Fertility Network CoordinatorsCIMMYT Maize Research StationP.O. Box MP 163Mount PleasantHarare, Zimbabwe

Phone: (263) 4 301807Fax/Phone: (263) 4301327

The University of Zimbabwe Farm12.5 km PegMazowe Road

E-Mail: [email protected]@cgiar.orgM [email protected]

soil fert net annual report for 2001 - …libcatalog.cimmyt.org/download/cim/447934.pdfally, we...

Documents