CA adoption challenges in Zimbabwe. Kizito Mazvimavi

Conservation Agriculture Adoption Challenges in Zimbabwe

Kizito Mazvimavi, Putso Nyathi and Conrad Murendo ICRISAT

Presentation to the WCCA ,26 September 2011

Conservation Agriculture in Zimbabwe

Basins technique

Largely introduced through relief programs NGOs provided inputs and technical support

Targeted the vulnerable

ICRISAT CA Panel Surveys, 2007 - 2011

Study Sample:• 15 Districts• 450 Households• Soil sample analysis

Maize Yield for CA and Non-CA in 2010/11 Cropping Season

Nya

nga

Chip

inge

Chiv

i

Mas

ving

o

Bing

a

Hw

ange

Nka

yi

Insi

za

Man

gwe

Chir

umha

nzu

Gok

we

Sout

h

Bind

ura

Mt D

arw

in

Mur

ehw

a

Seke

Zaka

Gur

uve

Hur

ungw

e

Mak

onde

Kado

ma

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000CA yield NON CA yield

Mai

ze Y

ield

in K

g/H

a

• CA remains a promising technology that enables smallholder farmers to get better yields improve food security

Components of CA techniques being Practiced, 2006 - 2011 (%)

2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11

Winter weeding 87 76 71 63 46 13.8

Application of Mulch 75 69 70 56 30 19.8

Digging Planting Basin 99 99 97 89 86 70.6

Application of manure 88 89 87 80 68 63.0

Application of basal fertilizer 75 74 66 38 42 41.3

Application of top dressing fertilizer

92 92 88 70 60 55.1

Timely weeding 98 99 96 85 54 55.4

Crop rotation 13 13 18 19 30 35.8

• Winter weeding – in 2010/11 enumerators made visual assessment of CA plots in May/June: Only 14% had weed free plots

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11

sq

. m

ete

rs

NR II NR III NR IV NR V

Changes in area under CA

End of most free seed and fertilizer support

Reason for not practicing CA

Labor intensive NGO left To rotate crops Plot not fenced Water logging High weed pressure

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

% o

f res

pond

ents

Influence of NGO support on CA plot area

2004/052005/06

2006/072007/08

2008/092009/10

2010/11

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000 No access Access to NGO support

CA P

lot

Are

a m

2

Labor Requirements for CA and Non-CA Plots (CT)(Mean Area; CA=0. 4ha, Non-CA=0. 3ha)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

CF Plot Non-CF Plot

Days

/Ha

Labor Requirements for CA and Non-CA Plots (CD Tillage)(Mean Area; CA=0. 4ha, Non-CA=0. 3ha)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

CF Plot Non-CF Plot

Days

/Ha

Mechanize (Rippers, Jab-planters)? Apply Herbicides

(Training and Costs?)

Targeting farmers in CA promotion

• Is CA the best option for women famers, the elderly and households affected by HIV/AIDS

• Can vulnerable farmers (Poorer and HIV/AIDS) maximize input and technology support provided to CA beneficiaries?– NGO targeting of vulnerable households impact

negatively on labor availability for CA practices– Need to include better resourced farmers as

technology innovators,• These are able to take a risk with new technology

Mulching Challenges:- Crop Residue Uses

- the need to meet multiple uses

01020304050

Left i

n field

for

lives

tock

Store

d for

liv

estoc

k fee

d

Kraa

l man

ure

Mulch

ing

Cons

tructi

on

Left i

n plot

Comp

ost

Othe

rs (e.

g. Th

atchin

g)

% of r

espon

dents

Dealing with Crop-Livestock Interactions

• Communal grazing by-laws commonly demand the use of crop residues as livestock feed,

• CA plots are usually unfenced

• Difficult for CA farmers to reserve residues for mulching purposes.

• Identification of fodder alternatives for livestock feed• Use of non-crop residue materials as mulching material• Ammend community by-laws to keep livestock away from fields

Harmonized Approaches to CA Promotion

• CA promoters have different approaches to entice potential technology adopters

• CA promotion need full participation of national extension agencies

Basin Size % Soil Cover

The role of markets

Rather than direct distribution of free seed and fertilizer to CA farmers, use market friendly mechanisms

• Promote platforms for farmers to sell their produce• Accumulate income to purchase inputs (Herbicides, mechanization implements)

Conclusion• Farmers still appreciate the benefits of CA

technology • There is potential to increase CA plot sizes (area)

through mechanization• Consistent extension support/training is critical for

farmers to continue with the CA practice. ―Close participation of AGRITEX, to ensure sustainability

• Address the issue of Mechanized CA Equipment Access (availability in market).

• The government to now play a more leading role in CA technology transfer