CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE IN AN INTEGRATED CROP AND LIVESTOCK FARMING SYSTEM: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR SWAZILAND

Animal Power in Conservation Agriculture: Swaziland challenges & opportunities 2010 ATNESA Conference in Arusha, Tanzania Mhazo et al. for integrating crops and livestock into CA

112

CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE IN AN INTEGRATED CROP AND LIVESTOCK FARMING SYSTEM:

CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR SWAZILAND.

N. Mhazo1, A.M. Manyatsi1, M.T. Masarirambi2 and M. L. Mhazo3 1 Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, University of Swaziland, Faculty of Agriculture

2Horticulture Department, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Swaziland. 3Mananga Centre for Regional Integration and Management Development

ABSTRACT

Erratic and poorly distributed rainfall, land degradation, deteriorating natural rangelands, low soil fertility, high costs of inputs, late planting, and increasing prevalence of HIV and AIDS, are some of the contributory factors that make it difficult to realise reasonable farming returns in the smallholder farming areas of Swaziland. The majority (77%) of Swazi people live in the rural areas, and practise rainfed mixed farming. Agricultural production in the country is on an alarmingly downward trend. Reduced yields and even total crop failure have been recorded in some parts of the country. The increasing numbers of livestock further compromise the sustainability of the already fragile environment. Soil erosion is quite evident in communally grazed areas. To alleviate the imminent food security crisis, the government of Swaziland introduced conservation agriculture in 2002 as an option to improve and sustain food security in the country. However, the adoption of CA by targeted farmers has been sluggish over the years. One of the likely contributors to this effect is the failure of CA extension packages to address the needs of crop and livestock enterprises in a mixed farming system. Unless mixed crop and livestock farming systems are managed in a coordinated manner, chances of improving agricultural productivity in the smallholder sector will remain remote. There is a need carefully to adopt CA techniques that promote mutual production of crops and livestock enterprises without putting the environment at risk. This paper is an attempt to analyse various components of the mixed farming system in Swaziland and suggest possible interventions in the context of CA. Technologies that conserve soil moisture and improve soil fertility and those that mobilise animal feed resources accessible to the farmers are considered. There are opportunities to reduce the workload on draught animals, increase crop diversity, improve existing management of grazing rangelands, utilise non-traditional animal feed resources and increase farmer income.

Key words: mixed farming, conservation agriculture, crop failure, land degradation, overgrazing, animal feed.

INTRODUCTION

Swaziland is the smallest country in southern Africa, and lies between latitudes 25°43′ and 27°19′ S and longitudes 30°47′ and 32°08′ E (Mushala et al. 1993) covering a surface area of 17,364 km2 (SEA 2002). The country borders the Republic of South Africa in the north, west, and south and Mozambique in the east. Only 11% of the land area is arable; 1% is covered by water and the remainder is permanent pasture, forest and woodland (Tevera & Matondo 2010). According to the 2007 national census, the population is estimated at 1,018,449 (CSO 2008) with an annual growth rate of 0.38% (Tevera & Matondo 2010). The economy of Swaziland is agro-based; the agricultural sector contributes 16.2% of gross domestic product (GDP) (CIA 2009). About 77% of the population live in the rural areas (Government of Swaziland, 1997) where they practise subsistence rainfed mixed farming. However, the country is rated among the middle income group of countries (Swaziland Environment Authority 2002, Government of Swaziland 2005).


113

Rural people in Swaziland live on Swazi Nation Land (SNL) which is communal land ownership held in trust for the nation by the King of Swaziland through the chiefs who allocate land to individual Swazi families. Agricultural activities on SNL largely depend on rainfed agriculture and natural resources. However, over the past 15 years, the country has been experiencing food shortages emanating from increased frequency of droughts, fluctuating rainfall patterns, floods, increased ambient temperatures and shifting of growing seasons (FAO/WFP 2007).

CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE (CA)

In response to the imminent food security crisis, the government of Swaziland advocated adoption of conservation agriculture (CA) to alleviate poverty and ensure food security among the less privileged farmers (Mlipha 2010).

Conservation agriculture was introduced in Swaziland, at the beginning of the millennium (2002), by the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) in collaboration with the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) and the Cooperation of the Development of Emerging Countries (COSPE). On-farm pilot demonstrations of CA components on minimum soil disturbance (ripping), permanent soil cover (cover crops/intercrops and crop residue retention), improvement of soil properties (use of organic fertilizers and crop rotations) were implemented in selected sites and later spread to other areas.

However, the adoption of CA in the country has been sluggish over the years. One of the likely causes of this is the failure of CA extension packages to address the needs of the local farmers. Smallholder farmers in Swaziland practise mixed crop and livestock farming and they need innovations that improve production levels of both components while concurrently conserving the environment that supports farming (Dumanski et. al. 2006, FAO 2008). It is the intention of this paper to analyze the status quo of the crop-livestock farming system practiced in Swaziland and identify CA components that may be applied to create some synergy between the two co-existing enterprises.

CROP PRODUCTION IN SWAZILAND

Maize is the most important field crop grown on SNL and is the staple cereal of the country. Over 90% of smallholder farmers on SNL devote an estimated 60,000 hectares to maize (FANRPAN 2003); however, the potential area for maize production is 80,000 hectares (NEPAD/FAO 2005). Table 1 shows the estimated area under maize for the past six years. The average landholdings at smallholder level are 1.7 hectares per household and yields vary between 1.5 and 2.5 tonnes per hectare and have been drastically declining over the past few years (FANRPAN 2003).

Table 1. Area planted under maize, 2002/03 - 2007/08 (hectares)

AGRO-ECOLOGICAL ZONE

2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08

Highveld 16 700 17 236 15 340 13 713 14 682 18 349

Middleveld 22 940 23 642 21 840 19 114 16 645 21 824

Lowveld 22 142 11 064 15 730 11 320 13 331 15 863

Lubombo Plateau 5 900 2 528 3 355 2 826 2 751 4 319

TOTAL 67 682 54 470 56 265 46 973 47 409 60 355

Source: FAO/WFP 2008.

While most farmers grow maize, other crops grown include cotton, beans, cowpeas, groundnuts, sorghum, bambara nuts (jugo beans), pumpkins and sweet potatoes. Maize is often intercropped with legumes and pumpkins to maximize use of land and increase crop diversity.


114

LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION IN SWAZILAND

Livestock are an important component of the agricultural industry in Swaziland (Rwelamira 2000). About 11,630 km2 (67%) of the total land area is used specifically for livestock grazing during the cropping season. In the dry winter months, arable lands (cultivated, fallow and filter grass strips) are made available for livestock grazing, giving an additional 2,509 km2 (14.4 %) of grazing area (Swaziland Environment Authority, 2002). A majority of farmers raise farm animals such as cattle, goats, sheep, poultry, pigs and equines (Dlamini 2000). Table 2 presents the distribution and composition of livestock in all the administrative regions of Swaziland. Different animals are raised for various reasons: consumption of end products such as milk, eggs, meat; social and cultural values; production of organic fertlisers and draught power (Dlamini 2000). More than 88% of draught animals on SNL are cattle, of which 20% are oxen mainly used for primary tillage (plowing), secondary tillage (cultivation), planting, weed control and transport (FAO/WFP 2007). The dominant cattle breed, the Nguni, has an important role in Swazi culture and social customs. Other animals (donkeys, mules and horses) provide draught power but are better suited for transport and lighter field operations such as planting and cultivation.

Table 2: Availability and distribution of livestock in Swaziland.

ANIMAL SPECIES

REGION TOTAL

ANIMAL OWNERS

ANIMALS PER

OWNER Manzini Shiselweni Lubombo Hhohho

Cattle 126 965 186 218 114 196 160 451 587 830 99 086 5.9

Horses 578 309 95 39 1 021 417 2.4

Donkeys 2 438 1 595 3 941 2 668 10 642 2 525 4.2

Mules 0 28 22 22 72 14 5.1

Goats 82 890 135 995 125 108 136 215 480 208 33 491 14.3

Sheep 3 809 5 082 6 876 3 003 18 770 2 107 8.9

Indigenous pigs

5 988 4 278 12 712 3 967 26 945 8 093 3.3

Exotic pigs 3 295 4 471 2 666 1 641 12 073 1 763 6.8

Indigenous poultry

179 820 219 849 211 552 145 577 756 798 48 334 15.7

Broilers 131 463 411 840 31 696 10 029 585 028 1 780 328.7

Layers 6 498 56 777 4 342 1 128 68 745 92 747.2

Dogs 19 859 29 433 26 167 17 113 92 572 33 472 2.8

Source: MOAC (2007)

As indicated in the statistics, Swazis are predominantly cattle-raisers. Ownership of cattle is a symbol of wealth particularly among the smallholder farmers. The farmers derive satisfaction from the numbers and cash value of the cattle that they own (Doran et al. 1979).

MIXED CROP AND LIVESTOCK FARMING SYSTEM

A combination of crop cultivation and livestock rearing on the same farm is typical of smallholder farmers in Swaziland. This mixed-farming system evolved over the years as a survival strategy to maximise returns from limited land and capital, minimise production risk, increase diversity of income sources, provide food security insurance and increase productivity. The success of mixed farming, in many places in the world, lies in the cyclic utilisation of by-products of one component in the production activities of the other (Van Keulen & Schiere 2004, IFAD 2009). For example, animals supply power for tillage and manure to enhance crop production while in return crop residues


115

are a useful source of supplementary feed for ruminant livestock in the dry seasons. A survey conducted in Swaziland in the late 1990s indicated that cattle mainly graze on natural rangelands between October and March and are allowed to graze in the arable fields for the rest of the year (Mkhabela & Ogwang 1990). Table 3 shows the grazing pattern of animals over a period of 8 months in the middleveld. The animals intensively graze on stover, weeds, fallow land and grass strips between May and July. They leave dung as they graze, partly replenishing soil fertility.

Table 3. Grazing pattern of cattle in the middleveld of Swaziland

MONTH MEAN GRAZING

TIME (HOURS/DAY)

MEAN CROP RESIDUE GRAZING TIME (HOURS/DAY)

% OF TIME SPENT GRAZING IN THE

FIELDS March 9.1 0 0 April 8.8 0.2 2 May 9.3 3.1 33 June 9.2 6.5 71 July 8.4 4.6 55 August 8.7 1.7 19 September 9.2 0.5 5 October 9.4 0 0

Source: Mkhabela & Ogwang (1990)

SMALLHOLDER FARMING CHALLENGES

Agricultural productivity on SNL faces numerous problems relating to crops and livestock production and has been declining steadily since the prolonged drought of the early 1990s. More frequent drought years have been experienced since then, and these have been exacerbated by inherent low soil fertility, crop pests and diseases, high costs of inputs, lack of draught power, delayed planting, soil degradation and loss of labour due to HIV and AIDS (Government of Swaziland 2005; Masuku 2006; Mabuza et al. 2008). Cereal production dropped to 60% in the 1990s and was estimated at 40% of the country’s potential in 2005 (Government of Swaziland 2005).

Agricultural production in Swaziland is very sensitive to climate change and climate variation, prices of inputs and changes in the commodity value chain. In the 2004/05 cropping season, much (90%) of the arable land in the lowveld was not cultivated because of shortage of draught power, delayed rains, high risk of making a loss from agriculture and shortage of seeds for alternative crops (IRIN 2007). Despite the availability of tractors for hire from the government and some private individuals, land preparation for cropping on SNL is mainly done by oxen. Slightly more than half (55%) of the households use cattle for draft power (Dlamini 2000). The government has a pool of about 257 tractor units that are available for service plowing (FAO/WFP 2008). However, the government tractor hire scheme faces a perennial shortage of operational tractors mainly due to shortages of spare parts and a poor standard of repair and maintenance (FAO/WFP, 2008). Farmers who rely on tractors for plowing always plant late, subsequently obtaining low yields. Use of tractors on small and fragmented pieces of land on SNL is uneconomic. It is now government policy strategy to evaluate the role and availability of draft animal power and assess its relevance and efficiency as an alternative source of power for SNL farmers (Government of Swaziland 2005).

However, on SNL the primary problem with draft oxen and the rest of the stock is overstocking that leads to shortage of feed particularly in the winter months. The stocking rate in the country was estimated at 2.6 hectares per livestock unit in the 1990s and this was believed to be among the highest in Africa (Osunade 1993, CSO 1999). As a result, natural rangelands, which smallholder livestock farmers heavily depend on, have deteriorated badly in both nutritional value and quantity, and they get poorer as the seasons progress into winter (Ocen and Dlamini 2002). There are evident signs of overgrazing, loss of natural biodiversity, prevalence of invasive plant species, poor management (Dlamini et al. 2000), severe erosion and bush encroachment (Swaziland Environment Authority 2002). The feed value of natural rangelands is low and declines to very poor levels in the dry winter months (Ocen and Dlamini 2002). Land degradation is most severe around watering points and dip tanks (Government of Swaziland 2005). It is therefore norm for farmers to graze cattle on crop


116

residues left in the fields after harvesting to supplement natural pastures. Nonetheless, the nutritive value and palatability to ruminants of crop residues, particularly stovers from cereal crops, is relatively low. Most crop residues contain high fibre, low levels of crude protein (Pearson and Smith 1994, Smith 2002, Ocen and Dlamini 2002), low metabolizable energy and low mineral nutrients (Jayasuriya 2002). Although it is possible to supplement mature working animals on maize stover alone without compromising draft output (Kossila 1984), the animals are expected to lose weight (Pearson and Smith 1994). Oxen are more often in poor physical condition at the beginning of the plowing season resulting in late planting (Rwelamira 2000). It has become highly risky to produce rainfed crops and maintain large numbers of livestock on SNL.

The concept of CA as promoted by the government of Swaziland seems to offer sustainable options for improving food security compared to the predominantly practiced conventional agricultural practices. There is, however, limited information on the best CA practices that can be applied in mixed crop and livestock production systems.

Grazing cattle on crop residues is one of the major conventional farming practices in smallholder mixed farming, but its extensive use is at variance with expressed CA principles. Conservation agriculture encourages retention of crop residues to form a permanent soil cover that conserves soil moisture, improves soil stability and suppresses weed seed emergence (Mutea et al. 1980, Maskina, et al. 1993) yet farmers need the same resource to feed animals. Radford, et al., (2008) reported that stubble grazing in wet soils had risk of compaction by animal hooves leading to higher draft requirements at planting and reduced yields of subsequent crop. Animals also export soil nutrients and organic matter from the arable land. In some cases, resource poor farmers collect the dung dropped in the field for composting, and this may further contribute to negative soil nutrient balance in the grazed field.

Unless CA technologies promoted in the country improve the cycling efficiency of resources between crop and livestock production, investing in smallholder farming will remain less economic and unattractive in the foreseeable future.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT

Despite the magnitude of the challenges alluded to, they are not insurmountable. There are opportunities to adopt crop and livestock production techniques that promote the mutual existence of each enterprise without putting the environment at risk of degradation. For Swaziland, appropriate technologies are those that (i) conserve soil moisture and improve crop performance and (ii) mobilise animal feed resources accessible to farmers. This, in essence, is the basis of CA. The potential points of intervention for the country are:

• improving existing management of grazing rangelands,

• mobilising non-traditional animal feed resources,

• improving management of manure,

• adopting reduced soil tillage techniques and

• increasing crop diversity.

IMPROVING MANAGEMENT OF GRAZING RANGELANDS

Dlamini et al. (2000) attributed the poor conditions of natural rangelands and subsequent low performance of livestock to poor management rather than drought and other vagaries of climate. The same authors suggested the adoption of rotational grazing as a strategy that could be applied to restore natural pastures and improve livestock performance in Swaziland. This system involves the periodical movement of animals from one grazing site to the other to allow vegetation to recover and regenerate. This may mean subdividing the grazing land into paddocks, providing watering points, monitoring grazing duration (Beetz 2004) and adjusting stocking rates to match carrying capacity (Dlamini et al. 2000, Beetz 2004). Once grazing is controlled, there is also the possibility of improving the quality of pastures by introducing forage tree and grass species, thus reducing demand for crop residues.


117

ADOPTING REDUCED TILLAGE TECHNIQUES

Reduced tillage – better known as zero-tillage, no-till or direct seeding– is a land preparation technique in which the soil is disturbed as little as possible essentially by not plowing the entire field. The minimum soil manipulation is only done to condition crop residues and prepare a planting hole or furrow for seed and fertilizer placement and coverage (Phillips et al. 1980).This technique can be more profitable because it saves labour, draft power, time and money for field preparation (Singh et al. 2005). It has also been reported that tilling the soil in the conventional way leads to conditions that are unfavourable to plant growth, such as soil compaction and the formation of plow pans, soil dehydration, reduced infiltration (Sullivan 2004), degradation of soil structure, soil erosion and redistribution of soil mineral constituents (Van Oost et al. 2000, Sullivan 2004), loss of soil carbon (Reicosky & Denmead 2003) putrification of organic matter and disruption of soil microbial activity (Sullivan 2004).

Lessons can be drawn from Zambia, where ripping and subsoiling animal-drawn implements have been developed and tested. These implements only break up and loosen the soil where seed will be placed. This requires a low draft force compared to conventional plowing, and the task is completed quickly, improving timeliness of subsequent operations. The ripped lines collect and concentrate runoff from the adjoining undisturbed soil, increasing the water available to the plants (Chelemu & Nindi 1999).

IMPROVING UTILISATION OF CROP RESIDUES

Crop residues available to farmers in Swaziland include maize stover, haulms of beans and groundnuts, sugar cane tops and sweet potato vines. Maize stover is the most abundant and more often the only animal feed resource available to smallholder farmers during the dry winter months. On-station research conducted in the late 1980s indicated average maize stover yields ranging from 4.7 to 11.8 t/ha depending on crop variety (Table 4). Most of the residues are left in the field after harvesting and animals are allowed to graze them in situ. However, as indicated earlier, stubble grazing is inefficient, and some scientists argue that substantial amounts of residue remain in the field since the animals actually consume less than 50 % of the available stover as high losses occur from animal trampling, soiling, and termite damage (Munthali et al. 1991).

Table 4: Stover yield of high-ranking maize varieties in Swaziland.

MAIZE VARIETY STOVER YIELD (T/HA)

LEAF YIELD (T/HA)

TOTAL RESIDUE YIELD (T/HA)

PNR 6549 7.1 2.9 10.0 PNR 6429 5.8 2.3 8.1 CG 4305 5.7 2.1 7.8 CG 4403 5.1 1.7 6.8 SNK 2147 7.7 3.1 10.8 RO 415 6.9 2.6 9.5 CG 4609 6.2 2.4 8.6 TX 379 10.1 4.2 14.3 PNR 473 6.7 2.7 9.4 A 323 W 6.5 2.9 9.4 AX 305W 4.7 2.1 6.8 SR 52 11.8 3.7 15.5 SSM 2039 6.3 2.6 8.9 S 201 5.9 1.2 7.1 SAM 83 TZRW 7.8 3.6 11.4 MEAN 7.0 2.7 9.6

Adapted from Mkhabela and Ogwang (1990)

Farmers in Swaziland can adopt the cut-and-carry system practised in other countries in the region (e.g. Zimbabwe), sometimes called ‘zero grazing’ if practised the whole year round. Crop residues are collected from the field and stored at homesteads. The feeding of animals is then controlled and at times done selectively, giving priority to draft animals, pregnant and lactating cows as well as those


118

that are sick. Providing supplements to draft oxen by means of restricted quantities of crop residues throughout the dry season has been reported to improve their work output and efficiency (Francis & Ndlovu 1993; Prasad et al. 1994).

Techniques to increase the intake, digestibility and feed value of the residues are well documented and need to be tailor-made to suit the needs, resource endowment and aspirations of the local farmers. Some of the options that can be applied in Swaziland include stover treatment with sodium hydroxide, ammonia and urea (Mkhabela & Ogwang 1990, Ocen 1992, 1995, Smith 2002), molasses (Mkhabela and Ogwang 1990, Ocen 1992, 1995), poultry manure (Ocen 1992, 1995, Ocen & Dlamini 2002), brewers grain, cotton seed cake (Ocen & Dlamini, 2002). Ammonia (Ammonium nitrate) and urea are readily available non-protein nitrogen sources and farmers are familiar with them as fertilisers (Smith 2002). Molasses is a by-product of sugar production processing. The average annual production of molasses in Swaziland is about 190 000 tonnes (Swaziland Sugar Association, 2010).

IMPROVING PRODUCTIVITY OF GRASS STRIPS

The concept of leaving grass ‘filter’ strips approximately 2-4 metres wide between plowed lands was introduced in the 1940s as a soil conservation strategy (Manyatsi 1998). About 113,780 km of grass strips were established between 1949 and 1960 (Osunade 1993) and this translates into about 34,134 hectares of grassland. Preservation of grass strips seems to have paid dividends, as there is minimum soil erosion occurring on arable land compared to unprotected grazing rangelands. Besides protecting the soil from erosion, the grass strips also serve as grazing sites for livestock in the dry winter months. However, the dominant grass species, on the strips, mainly Hyparrhennia species and Cynodon dactylon, are fibrous and devoid of proteins, energy, minerals, vitamins and are not palatable to livestock.

Planting leguminous fodder trees/shrubs and grasses in the grass strips can boost the forage feed quality and overcome livestock nutritional deficiencies in the winter months and still meet the original objective of preventing soil erosion. Farmers in Swaziland are already familiar with some of the potential fodder trees and shrubs such as Leucaena leucocephala, Acacia spp, Sesbania sesban and Cajanus cajan. A grass species like Pennisetum purpureum (elephant grass) is readily available in the country and can be a reliable forage bank for livestock (Elbasha et al. 1999). Fodder trees are important sources of protein for livestock, and unlike grasses, their protein content does not seem to change with the leaf age (Devendra 1997). Since the trees are perennial and deep rooted, they are unlikely to suffer from slight climate variations compared to grasses so that they can potentially supply fodder even in times of drought (Kulichi and Kalumba 1984). Studies have shown that fodder legumes enhance the digestibility of fibrous crop residues in ruminants (Masiiwa 1998). Besides ensuring provision of much needed livestock feed, selection of the fodder plants should also take into cognisance their contribution to soil fertility, prevention of soil erosion and compatibility with field crops.

PROMOTION OF MULTIPLE CROPPING SYSTEMS

Practising crop rotation and intercropping main crops with complementary minor crops is a known technique to reduce soil erosion by maintaining soil surface cover.

Rotation: Traditionally crop rotation practices are meant to conserve soil nutrients, control pests and diseases, control soil erosion and maintain yield. In fragile environments, such as Swaziland, control of soil erosion is of major importance. Lal (1985) found that two crops of maize grown on a 6% slope resulted in a soil loss of 7.2 t/ha, whereas a crop of maize followed by one crop of cowpeas, with no tillage, reduced soil loss to 0.2 t/ha. Including pasture grasses in rotation with cereal crops was observed to increase soil carbon over time (Tyson et al. 1990). Pasture grasses also improve soil structure, increase water infiltration and provide livestock feed. When well managed, crop rotation has potential to increase farm productivity without exposing soils to erosion (Morgan, 1995).

Intercropping: Intercropping cereal crops with pumpkins, sweet potatoes and legumes such as cowpeas, beans and bambara nuts (jugo beans) is a practice well known in Swaziland. Having a wide variety of crops in the field averts risk of loss and adds variety to the farmer’s diet. In addition,


119

legumes improve soil fertility and maintain crop yields with minimal application of inorganic fertilizers. The choice of crop combinations in intercropping is, however, more often based on direct human food needs, giving little attention to livestock. Mixed farming has the potential to broaden the scope of intercropping by integrating fodder crops with the cereal and other food crops for humans. Practical examples for Swaziland include intercropping forage legumes (lucerne, silver leaf), shrubs (Sesbania sesban and Cajanus cajan.), and tree legumes (Leucaena leucocephala, Acacia sp,) with cereal-based cropping systems. Such combinations can control soil erosion, improve soil water conservation, suppress weed growth, accelerate nutrient cycling, enhance soil productivity, and provide food, fodder, and wood (Nair et al. 1999, Tarawali et al. 2002) without compromising food crop yield. Dzowela (1987) reported research done in the 1970s that did not show significant maize yield reductions when maize was intercropped with forage legumes. The residue provided by a cereal-legume intercrop is also known to provide extra dry matter and crude protein essential for improved intake and digestibility by animals (Dzowela 1987).

UTILISATION OF SUGAR CANE TOPS AND MOLASSES

Sugar cane is widely grown by both smallholder farmers and large conglomerate estates in Swaziland. The major post-harvest and processing by-products of sugar cane are tops and molasses respectively. Sugar cane tops and molasses form important components of commercial livestock feed, although the cane tops, like any other cereal residue, are very low in essential nutrients for ruminant livestock (Ocen and Dlamini 2002). Molasses, on the other hand, is highly palatable, rich in energy and readily digested. Mixing molasses with fibrous residues such as maize stover and sugar cane tops thus improves the palatability of the whole diet (Mkhabela and Ogwang 1990). Molasses is also used to manufacture molasses/urea blocks which are an excellent combination of readily degradable protein and fermentable energy for large ruminants.

IMPROVING UTILISATION OF ANIMAL MANURE

Low soil fertility is one of the major constraints limiting crop production in Swaziland. This is partly due to the continued mining of crop nutrients through monocropping and inadequate application of fertilisers (Kimbi and Semoka 2004). It is difficult for smallholder farmers to buy adequate quantities of fertiliser due to prohibitive prices. There is dire need, therefore, to identify alternative plant nutrient sources that farmers can explore to replenish soil fertility. Use of animal manure is one familiar option that can be developed.

Animal manures are basically a mixture of partly decomposed animal bedding (grasses, straw), where used, and animal waste (dung/droppings and urine). Further mixed with garden and household wastes, such manures are also referred to as ‘compost’. Farmers can harvest grass from roadsides and strips between arable fields for use as animal bedding thus improving the quality of compost. Besides providing essential plant nutrients, manure application to the soil also modifies soil biological, chemical and physical properties (Shongwe 2010). It is now debatable whether it is best to refer to animal manure as a fertiliser rather than as a ‘soil amendment’.

Strategies to improve effectiveness of manure as a source of plant nutrients as well as a soil amendment need to be examined. The suggested cut-and-carry system for crop residue collection improves the quality of manure, as the left-over feed mixes with dung and absorbs animal urine, as does bedding. Inclusion of legumes in cropping systems and grazing rangelands is also likely to improve the quantity and quality of dung. Manure processing techniques, such as storing in pits to reduce nutrient leaching and promote anaerobic decomposition (Mugwira and Murwira 1997), and strategic application methods like banding or spot application, need to be promoted to enhance nutrient accessibility for plants.

CONCLUSIONS

Adoption of CA in Swaziland has been sporadic, mainly because of the failure of CA extension packages to satisfy the needs of crop and livestock components in a mixed farming system. The bone of contention is the use of crop residues to maintain a permanent soil surface cover vis-à-vis feeding livestock. The combination of crops and livestock in smallholder farming systems in the region is an


120

old tradition with strong customary linkages that cannot be easily broken. Unless researchers and extension agents develop CA management systems that strike a balance between crop and livestock components, chances of adoption will remain remote. Success lies in technologies that conserve soil moisture and improve crop performance and also broaden the animal feed resource base. There are opportunities to strengthen the systems in which

• nutrients are used and recycled between the crop and livestock components,

• improvements are made to the existing management of grazing rangelands,

• non-traditional animal feed resources are utilized,

• management of manure is improved,

• reduced soil tillage techniques are adopted,

• crop diversity is increased, particularly when legumes are included in the cropping pattern,

• soil quality is improved.

These are some of the possibilities that can be examined to maximize land productivity and minimize environmental degradation. Investing in agricultural research and development and implementation of policies that encourage production while protecting the environment will be essential for Swaziland. However, it must be noted that farmers adopt technologies that are economically viable and within their capacity to provide labour.

REFERENCES

[Queries about some of these not responded to by author in time for publication.]

Beetz. A.E. (2004). Rotational Grazing: Livestock systems guide. National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service, ATTRA, 47, IP086

Chelemu, K and P. Nindi (1999). Conservation tillage for soil and water conservation using draft animal power in Zambia, pp 112-117, In P. Starkey and P. Kaumbutho (eds), Meeting the challenges of animal traction. A resource book of the Animal Traction Network for Eastern and Southern Africa (ATNESA). Harare, Zimbabwe: Intermediate Technology Publications, London.

CIA. (2009). Swaziland economy overview. http://www.theodora.com/wfbcurrent/Swaziland. 20/09/09.

CSO (Central Statistical Office) (1999). Annual Statistical Bulletin, 1999. Mbabane.

CSO (Central Statistical Office) (2008). 2007 Swaziland population and housing census brochure. Mbabane, Swaziland: Ministry of Economic Planning and Development,

Devendra, C. (1997). Crop residues for feeding animals in Asia: Technology development and adoption in crop/livestock systems, pp 241-26, In C. Devendra and C, Renard (eds.): Crop residues in sustainable mixed crop/livestock farming systems. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI).

Dlamini, A.M. (2000). Welfare and use of livestock for draught in Swaziland, pp 269-273, In P. Starkey and T. Simalenga (eds), Animal power for weed control. Wageningen, the Netherlands: CTA. ISBN 92-9081-136-6..

Dlamini, B.J., G.Z. Khumalo and B.B. Xaba (2000). Cattle performance and nutritive value of pastures on Swazi Nation Land. UNISWA Res. J. Agric. Sci. & Tech. 3(2)38-44.

Doran, M.H., A.R.C. Low and R.L. Kemp (1979). Cattle as a store of wealth in Swaziland: Implications for livestock development and overgrazing in Eastern and Southern Africa. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 61(1): 41-47

Dumanski, J., R. Peiretti, J.R. Benites, D. McGarry and C. Pieri (2006). The paradigm of conservation tillage. Proc. World Assoc. Soil and Water Conserv. P1:58-64.


121

Dzowela, B.H. (1987). Maize stover improvement with legume forages. In:. J.A. Kategile, A.N. Said and B.H. Dzowela (eds). Animal feed resources for small-scale livestock producers. (Proceedings of the Second PANESA workshop, held in Nairobi, Kenya, 11-15 November, 1985).

Elbasha, E., P. Thornton and G. Tarawali (1999). An ex-post economic impact assessment of planted forages in West Africa. Nairobi, Kenya: International Livestock Research Institute

FANRPAN (Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network) (2003). Maize marketing policy strategy for Swaziland. (A report submitted to the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives). Harare, Zimbabwe: Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (2008). Conservation agriculture. http://www.fao.org/ag/ca/ 13/10/2009.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) /WFP (World Food Programme) (2007). Crop and food supply assessment mission to Swaziland. Special report. http://www.fao.org/giews/ . 18/06/2010.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) /WFP (World Food Programme) (2008). Crop and food supply assessment mission to Swaziland. Special report. http://www.fao.org/giews/ 27/06/2010.

Francis, J. and L.R. Ndlovu (1993). Improving work performance of Mashona oxen through strategic supplementation with locally produced feeds. Draught Animal News 19.

Government of Swaziland (1997). Report on the 1997 Swaziland Population and Housing Census. Mbabane, Swaziland: Central Statistics Office.

Government of Swaziland (2005). Natural food security policy for Swaziland. Mbabane, Swaziland.

IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development) (2009). Integrated crop-livestock farming systems. Rome, Italy: International Fund for Agricultural Development.

IRIN (2007). Humanitarian news and analysis. http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=73337 (02/08/07).

Jayasuriya, M.C.N. (2002). Principles of ration formulation for ruminants. Development and field evaluation of animal feed supplementation packages. Proceedings of the final review meeting of an IAEA Technical Co-operation Regional AFRA Project (organized by the Joint FAO/IAEA Division of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture and held in Cairo, Egypt, 25–29 November 2000). Austria: IAEA

Kimbi, G.G. and J.M.R. Semoka (2004). Effect of storage duration and grazing system on nutrient contents of cattle manure in three districts of Tanzania. UNISWA Res. J. Agric. Sci. & Tech. 7(1): 24-30.

Kossila, V.L. (1984). Location and potential feed use, pp 14-21 In F. Sundstol and E. Owen (eds). Straw and other fibrous by-products as feed. Development in Animal and veterinary Sciences, 14.

Kulichi, J. and E.M. Kalumba (1984). Pasture research and development in Zambia, pp 163-179 In J. Kategile (ed). Proceedings of the workshop on pasture improvement research in eastern and southern Africa. Harare, Zimbabwe: Zimbabwe International Development Research Centre.

Lal, R. (1985). Research achievement towards soil and water conservation in the tropics: potential and priorities. IVth International Conference of International Soil Conservation Organization (ISCO), Maracay, Venezuela.

Mabuza, M.L., M. Taeb and M. Endo (2008). Impact of food aid on smallholder agricultural development in Swaziland. African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development, June, 2008.


122

Manyatsi, A.M. (1998). Soil erosion and control training manual. University of Swaziland.

Masiiwa, M. (1998). The impact of livestock on household income in the smallholder farming systems of Zimbabwe. Wissenschaftverlag Vauk Kiel KG: 57-60.

Maskina, M.S., J.F. Power, J.W. Doran and W.W. Wilhelm (1993). Residual effects of no-till crop residues on corn yield and nitrogen uptake. Soil Sci. Soc. AM. J. 5: 1555-1560.

Masuku, M.B. (2006). The impact of HIV and AIDS on agriculture and food security in Swaziland. FANRPAN (Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network) (Working Document NAT SWA003).

Mkhabela, M.S. and B.H. Ogwang (1990). Research on maize stover as livestock feed on Swazi Nation Land., pp 345-356, In Proceedings of the first joint workshop on utilization of research results on forage and agricultural by-product materials as animal feed resources in Africa ( Lilongwe, Malawi, 5-9 December 1988). Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: PANESA/ARNAB (Pastures Network for Eastern and Southern Africa/African Research Network for Agricultural By-products).

Mlipha, M. (2010). The introduction and practice of conservation agriculture in Swazilan, pp 223-241, In: D. S. Tevera and J. I. Matondo (eds) Socio-economic development and the environment in Swaziland. Swaziland: Department of Geography, Environmental Science and Planning. University of Swaziland.

MOAC (Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives)(2007). Livestock statistics. Mbabane, Swaziland: Veterinary Epidemiology Unit.

Morgan, R.P.C. (1995). Soil erosion and conservation (2nd edn). New York. USA: John Wiley & Sons

Mugwira, L.M. and H.K.Murwira (1997). Use of cattle manure to improve soil fertility in Zimbabwe; past and current research and future research needs. (Soil Fertility Network for maize-based cropping systems in Malawi and Zimbabwe. Working Paper No 2).

Munthali, J.T.K., C.N. Jayasuriya and A.N. Bhattachrya (1991). Effects of urea treatment of maize stover and supplementation with maize bran or urea-molasses block on the performance of growing steers and heifers. The complimentarity of feed resources for animal production in Africa, pp 279-286, In Proceedings of the Joint Feed Resources Networks Workshop (Gaborone, Botswana, 4-8 March).

Mushala, H.M., P. Felix-Henningsen and T. Scholten (1993). Some preliminary investigations on soil erosion and saprolites in Swaziland. UNISWA Journal of Agriculture, 2: 20-28.

Mutea, J., S.O. Keya and A.M. Gurnah (1980). The effects of various types of mulches on the soil moisture in a coffee field at Kabete-Kenya, pp 129-144, In Organic recycling in Africa. Rome, Italy: FAO.

Nair, P.K.R., R.J. Buresh, D.N. Mugendi, and C.R. Latt (1999). Nutrient cycling in tropical agroforestry systems: myths and science, pp 1–31, In L.E. Buk, J.P. Lassoie and E.C.M. Fernandes (eds): Agroforestry in sustainable agricultural systems. Boca Raton, Florida, USA: CRC Press, Lewis Publ.

NEPAD/FAO, (2005). Community-based natural resources and land management. NEPAD–CAADP Implementation Bankable Investment Project Profile, volume IV of VI NEPAD Ref. 05/19 E.

Ocen, G.W. (1992). Performance of cattle given crop residues supplemented with high-quality forages and agro-industrial by-products. Livestock Research for Rural Development (e-journal Cali. Colombia) 4 (1): 64-73.

Ocen, G.W. (1995). The use of supplement combinations as a strategy for increasing intake and production in growing cattle fed crop residues. UNISWA Journal of Agriculture, 4: 50-59. Agric.


123

Ocen, G.W. and B.J. Dlamini (2002). Chemical composition and utilisation of crop residues, agro-industrial by-products and poultry wastes used as supplements to grazing cattle. UNISWA Res. J. Agric. Sci. & Tech. 6 (1): 57-64

Osunade, M.A.A. (1993). Some aspects of grass resource utilisation in Swaziland. UNISWA J. of Agric. 2: 37-44.

Pearson, R. A. and D.G. Smith (1994). The effects of work on food intake and ingestive behaviour of draught cattle and buffalo given barley straw. Anim. Prod. 58: 339-346

Phillips, R. E., R.L. Blevins, G.W. Thomas, W.W. Frye and S. H. Phillips (1980). No-till agriculture. Science 208: 1108-1113.

Prasad, V. L., C.T. Khombe and P. Nyathi (1994). Feeding crop residue for improved draft power, pp 164–166, In P. Starkey, E. Mwenya, and J. Stares (eds), Improving animal traction technology. (Proceedings of the first workshop of the Animal Traction Network for Eastern and Southern Africa (ATNESA) held 18-23 January 1992, Lusaka, Zambia). Wageningen, Netherlands: Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA), ISBN 92-9081-127-7

Radford, B.J., D.F. Yule, M. Braunack and C. Playford (2008). Effects of grazing sorghum stubble on soil physical properties and subsequent crop performance. Am. J. Agri. & Biol. Sci. 3 (4): 734-742.

Reicosky, D.C., and O.T. Denmead (2003). Tillage-induced soil properties and chamber effects on gas exchange, p. 971-976, In: Proceedings of the International Soil Tillage Research Organization (July 14-18, 2003, Brisbane, Australia).

Rwelamira, J.K. (2000). Weeding technologies and possibilities for improving animal-powered weeding in Swaziland. In P. Starkey and T. Simalenga (eds), Animal power for weed control. Wageningen, Netherlands: CTA. ISBN 92-9081-136-6.

Shongwe, G.N. (2010). Importance of soil structure in crop production. (Paper presented at a National Seminar on Soil Quality. Malkerns Research Station, Swaziland, 24 March 2010).

Singh, A., H.K. Virk and C. Kaur (2005). Evaluation of zero tillage technique in sugarcane under the different methods of weed control. Sugar Tech. 7(1): 91-92.

Smith, T. (2002). On-farm treatment of straws and stovers with urea. Development and field evaluation of animal feed supplementation packages. Proceedings of the final review meeting of an IAEA Technical Co-operation Regional AFRA Project organized by the Joint FAO/IAEA Division of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture and held in Cairo, Egypt, 25–29 November 2000. Austria: IAEA.

Sullivan, P. (2004). Sustainable soil management. (ATTRA Publication # IP027/133). Butte, MT, USA: National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service.

Swaziland Environment Authority (2002). National assessment report to the World Summit on Sustainable Development. Johannesburg, South Africa.

Swaziland Sugar Association (2010). Production statistics-molasses. www.ssa.co.sz/index. 16/06/10

Tarawali, G., B. Douthwaite, N.C. de Haan, and S.A. Tarawali. (2002). Farmers as co-developers and adopters of green manure cover crops in West and Central Africa, pp 65–76, In C.B. Barrett, F. Place and A.A. Aboud (eds): Natural resource management in African agriculture. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publ.

Tevera, D.S. and J.I. Matondo (2010). Socio-economic and environmental profile of Swaziland: An introduction, pp 1-8, In D. S. Tevera and J. I. Matondo (eds) Socio-economic development and the environment in Swaziland.Mbabane, Swaziland: Department of Geography, Environmental Science and Planning, University of Swaziland.


124

Tyson K.C., D.H. Roberts, C.R. Clement and E.A. Garwood (1990). Comparison of crop yields and soil conditions during 30 years under annual tillage or grazed pasture. J. Agric. Sci. Camb. 11: 29-40.

Van Keulen, H. and H. Schiere (2004). Crop-livestock systems: old wine in new bottles. Proceedings of the 4th International Crop Science Congress (26 Sep-1 Oct 2004, Brisbane, Australia).

Van Oost, K., G. Govers, W. Van Muysen and T.A. Quine (2000). Modeling translocation and dispersion of soil constituents by tillage on sloping land. Soil Science Society of America Journal 64:1733-1739


125


126


127


128


129


130


131


132


133


134


135


136


137

CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE IN AN INTEGRATED CROP AND LIVESTOCK FARMING SYSTEM: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR SWAZILAND

Documents