Dissemination and Adoption of Soil Fertility Technologies

DISSEMINATION AND ADOPTION OF SOIL FERTILITY TECHNOLOGIES IN KASUNGU

DISTRICT

MSc. Rural Development and ExtensionBunda College, University of Malawi

Hector Malaidza

1

Presentation Outline► Background►Objectives►Research Questions►Conceptual Framework►Research Design►Results►Conclusions►Recommendations

2

Background• Loss of soil fertility reduces land productivity

(Kanyama-Phiri e t a l. , 2010)

• According to Ngwira ( 2012) decline in soil fertility in Malawi is caused by:

⇒lo w a nd ina p p ro p ria te us e o f fe rtiliz e rs⇒c o ntinuo us m o no -c ro p p ing ⇒ina p p ro p ria te us e o f c ro p re s idue s⇒o ve rg ra z ing , a nd ⇒p o o r la nd m g t p ra c tic e s (Kanyama-Phiri e t a l. , 2010).

3

Soil Fertility Technologies (SFTs)Improves land productivity in Malawi

• Chemical fertilisers: – widely used in Malawi (Kanyama- Phiri et al., 2009)– high costs contribute to low crop yields (Winterbottom, 2013)

• Foliar fertilisers (Munthali et. al., 2013)– Sprayed to crops

• Twin N, Di-Gro

• Rock Phosphate-Tundulu – combined with legume crops (Phiri et. al., 2010)

4

Soil Fertility Technologies (SFTs)Agroforestry: reported 50 percent increase in maize yield in farms in Malawi (Winterbottom, 2013)

Conservation agriculture: more than 50 percent increase in maize yield in systems with crop rotation (Winterbottom, 2013)

ISFM- Combined use of judicious amounts of mineral fertilizers and compost manure, crop residues, leaf litter, lime, or phosphate rock

According to (Winterbottom, 2013) organic SFTs:•Increase soil organic matter •Improve soil structure •Reduce soil erosion •Increase water filtration •Increase efficiency of water use •Replenish soil nutrients •Increase the efficiency of nutrient uptake. 5

Problem Statement

Soil fertility depletion is a threat to agric. productivity in SSA (Henao, 2006). In Malawi, efforts have been made to promote SFTs but their adoption is still low. There is little understanding of factors (technological,

institutional, social e.t.c) affecting dissemination and adoption of the technologies.

6

Overall Objectives

To assess dissemination and adoption of soil fertility technologies (SFTs) among smallholder farmers in Kasungu district

7

Specific Objectives

• To assess technologies attributes that influence adoption of soil fertility technologies-SFTs (compost manure and pigeonpea) among farmers.

• To identify factors promoting and constraining dissemination of SFTs.

8

Research Questions• How did ‘technological attributes’

influence adoption of (c o m p o s t m a nure a nd

p ig e o np e a ) SFTs among smallholder farmers?

• What were the factors affecting dissemination of SFTs?

9

Methodology• Study site (purposively selected):

–Kasungu District (Nkanakhothi EPA)

• Study Units–9 Service providers (purposively selected)–10 Key informants (randomly selected)–64 farmers (randomly selected)

10

Objective Type of Data Data Sources & Collection

To assess technological attributes influencing adoption of SFTs.

• Types of compost manure and pigeon pea technologies

• Details of technology attributes: tria bility , o bs e rva bility , re la tive a dva nta g e , Re lia bility , Co m p a tibility & c o m p le x ity

• Amount of land (ha)

• Adaptations made by farmers

• Perceptions on adaptations made

• Personal characteristics: (e duc a tio n, kno wle dg e , p e rc e p tio ns , live s to c k o wne rs hip e . t. c )

• Service providers (Che cklis t)

• Key informants (Che cklis t)

• Farmers (Que s tio nna ire )

11

Objective Type of Data Data Sources & Collection

To identify factors promoting or constraining dissemination of SFTs

• Institutional factors: ► Markets► Policy► Collaboration & networking► Collection and use of feedback► Access to information► Knowledge levels

• Social factors: ► Local leadership► Sharing of info.► Perceptions on SF problems► Relationships among members► E.t.c

• Service providers (Checklist)

• Key informants (Checklist)

• Farmers (Questionnaire)

12

Conceptual Framework

13Adopted from Abebe (2007)

Results & Discussion

14

Technology Attributes influencing adoption of SFTs

1515

Adoption potential of various SFTs

16

Technology Strength Weakness

Compost manure

•Easy to access raw materials

•Farmers able to follow recommendations

•Required less space

•Easy to access raw materials

•Farmers able to make the recommended heap size

•Labor demanding

Pigeonpea

•Farmers able to follow recommendations

•Able use the technology without start-up training

•Faced challenges with plant spacing

•Challenged with insect pest infestation

Triability

17

Relative Advantage

18

Technology Strength Weakness

Compost manure

•Easy to access raw materials

•Farmers able to follow recommendations

•Required less space

•Easy to access raw materials

•Farmers able to make the recommended heap size

•Labor demanding

Pigeonpea

•Farmers able to follow recommendations

•Able use the technology without start-up training

•Faced challenges with plant spacing

•Challenged with insect pest infestation

Triability

19

Parameter

Compost manure Pigeon pea

Stability

(Over time)

• Uniform results over the years

• Medium duration varieties stable than long duration

Adaptability

(Across sites)

• Performed well in different fields.

• PP performed poorly in clay soils

• Well adapted to loam soils unlike clay (Makande)

Reliability

20

Conflicting Competing Complementing

Compost Manure

• Trashing lethal material in compost pits

• Competed on labour with other farm activities

• Complemented mineral fertilisers

• Supplemented agroforestry

• Absorbed livestock litter and kitchen wastes

Pigeon pea

• Perceived as a crop for the poor

• Livestock damage

• Wildlife browsed on tender leaves

• Competed on insecticides and fungicides with wetland (Dimba) cropping

• Easily integrated to legume –cereal cropping patterns

Compatibility

21

Compost manure

Pigeon pea

Farmers ability to learn through observation

YES YES

Observable benefits

• Increased crop yield •Harvested grain

• StalksFocal points •Widely seen,

compost heaps set on road sides

•Plots managed by fellow farmers scattered across the study area

Observability

22

Complexity/Challenge AdaptationCompost manure

• Rate of application not effective

• Labour demanding• Time consuming• Bulky (Difficult to

transport)• Lack of reliable water

supply

• Farmers applied more compost

• Done close to the fields

• Composting in inside a kho la

• Composting with soil from a collapsed

Pigeopea • High pest infestation• Not very popular• Perceived as a crop

for the poor

• Used te p hro s ia to control insect pests

• Farmers have learnt various uses of the crop

Experiences Farmers in Using SFTs

23

Compost manure Pigeon pea•Poor pod and tuber development

in groundnuts and cassava

•Poor taste and watery sweet potatoes

•Thobwa made from millet applied with compost manure gave a poor taste

•Strawberries and local mustard applied with compost manure gave a poor taste

•Tender leaves preferred by livestock and wildlife

•Leaves used for medicinal purposes

o Toothache, mouthwash, sore-gums, dysentery

Farmers Experiences in Using SFTs

24

Factors facilitating and limiting adoption of soil fertility technologies

25

Institutional Factors promoting dissemination of SFTs • Increased government commitment in

promoting soil fertility technologies (SAPP, ASWAP)

• Existence of formal & informal innovation platform/forums (s ta ke ho ld e r p a ne l, TWG e . t. c )

• Ability of service providers to collect and use of feedback

• Availability of multiple service providers • Availability of promising soil fertility

technologies

26

Institutional Factors constraining dissemination of SFTs

• Little understanding on problems affecting dissemination of SFTs•Unavailability of policies to guide promotion of SFTs•Understaffing of the public extension system•Poor logistical support to Government extension staff and Lead Farmers•Underutilisation of ICT and mass media in disseminating SFTs• Lack of reliable, localised input and output markets•Challenges experienced in collaboration and networking •Overloading lead farmers with tasks•Poor setting (lo c a tio n) of demonstrations plots• Low access to good quality seed among farmers

27

Social Factors promoting dissemination of SFTs

Positives• Involvement of local leaders • Sharing of information in traditional gatherings• Ability of farmers to make choices on existing

SFTs• Ability of farmers to share informationNegatives• Farmers’ inability to see loss of soil fertility

problem• Poor relationship between local leaders and

farmers• Sidelining farmers when selecting lead farmers

28

Conclusions• Most important attributes influencing adoption are:– Compost manure: Co m p a tib ility , r/a dva nta g e ,

o bs e rva bility– Pigeonpea: Co m p a tibility , c o m p le x ity , o bs e rva bility

• Dissemination of SFTs is facilitated by:• Increased government commitment (ASWAP, SAPP etc.)• Availability of technologies• Existence of multiple service providers• Ability of farmers to make choices and share information

29

Conclusions cont…• Dissemination of SFTs is impeded by:– La ck o f kno wle d g e o n SFTs a m o ng a nd d e ve lo p m e nt

a nd fa rm e rs– Una va ila bility o f p o lic ie s to g uid e im p le m e nta tio n o f SFTs– Unde rs ta ffing o f the g o ve rnm e nt e x te ns io n s y s te m– Po o r lo g is tic a l s up p o rt to the g o ve rnm e nt e x te ns io n

s y s te m– Unde r utilis a tio n o f ICT a nd m a s s m e d ia– La ck o f re lia ble inp ut a nd o utp ut m a rke ts– Po o r c o o rd ina tio n, c o lla bo ra tio n a nd ne two rking a m o ng

s e rv ic e p ro v id e rs– Ina bility o f fa rm e rs to p e rc e iv e lo s s o f s o il fe rtility a s a

p ro ble m– Po o r re la tio ns hip be twe e n lo c a l le a d e rs a nd fa rm e rs 30

Recommendations• There is a need to take advantage of– Po s itive a ttribute s influe nc ing a d o p tio n o f SFTs a s we ll a s– Fac to rs fa c ilita ting d is s e m ina tio n o f SFTs Whe n Promoting SFTs

• Understand farmers’ previous experience, modifications they have achieved and incorporate in promotion programs

– Be ing awa re o f fa rm e rs ’ e x p e rie nc e s a nd the ir re a c tio n

31

Recommendations cont…• Increase outreach and extension activities to

enhance increased uptake of SFT through:– Dire c t invo lve m e nt o f fa rm e rs (PTD, De m o s e tc . )– Fa c ilita ting fa rm e r to fa rm e r le a rning– Exp a nd ing a c c e s s to info rm a tio n (p ro v id e a lte rna tive s s o urc e s )

• Need to develop a policy that can guide promotion of SFTs– Se rvic e p ro vid e rs in p ro m o ting SFTs s ho uld ta ke p a rt in the

p o lic y fo rm ula tio n p ro c e s s– The Na tio na l Ag ricultura l Po lic y (NAP) s ho uld c o nta in

g uid e line s o n p ro m o tio n o f SFTs

32

Future Research

1. Assess the role of social networks in dissemination and adoption of soil fertility technologies.

2. Investigate the effectiveness of collective use of different extension methods in dissemination of soil fertility technologies.

33

34

Acknowledgements

• Dr D. Kambewa• Dr. C. Masangano• Dr. Kate Wellard• McKnight Foundation• Farmers in

Nkanakhothi (Kasungu district)

THANK YOU

35