Jens B. Aune Department of International Environment and Development Studies, Noragric Norwegian University of Life Sciences Conservation agriculture in.

Jens B. AuneDepartment of International Environment and

Development Studies, NoragricNorwegian University of Life Sciences

Conservation agriculture in Zambia and Malawi - the opportunities and constraints to adoption

2

Noragric research on conservation agriculture (CA)

• Malawi (Chidedze Research Station)• Zambia (Conservaton Farming Unit, GART,

University of Zambia)• Ethiopia (Hawassa University)

Results presented today are based on our experiences in Zambia and Malawi

Planting basins (CFU method in Zambia)

• Planting basins 30 cm long , 15 cm wide and 15 cm deep • Chaka hoe

Photo: B.B. Umar

Planting basinsAdvantages• Increased yields (more

than 100%)• Good economic return• Works well under dry

conditions.• More efficient utilisation of

inputs

Disadvantages • High labour demand-

comparable to general hoe tillage

• Women find it hard to use the chaka hoe

• Waterlogging under flooding conditions

• Basins alone do not improve soil organic matter

Source: Umar et al. 2012

Ripping

Photo: B.B. Umar

Ripping

Advantage• Low labour demand• Lower traction

demand than ploughing

• Expanding faster in Zambia than planting basins

• Farmers that plough turn to ripping

Disadvantage• No yield benefit

compared to ploughing

• Farmers unwilling to use animals in the dry season

Source: Aune et al. 2012,Umar et al. 2012

Use of the planting stick (dibble stick) in Malawi-Low drudgery-Fast-Shallow tillage -Timely sowing-Mulching-Increased organic matter-N input needed

Photo: Amos Ngwira

Aune and Bationo2008

Traditional tillage

Planting basins

Ripping

CA with mulch and trees

Prod

uctiv

ity

Level of CA

Traditional tillage

Planting basins

Ripping

CA with mulch and trees

Prod

uctiv

ity

Level of CA

In 2009/2010 season in Zambia the area underCA was 26% of the total cultivated area . Land area under CA for adopters in Malawi was30% (Ngwira et al. 2014)

Partial adoption

Why partial adoption of CA

- It takes time to change traditions -Reduce risk. CA may work in dry years, traditional tillage in humid years-Spread of labour. CA reduces time for land preparation, but increases time for weeding. Opposite effect in traditional tillage-Capital requirements. CA is more capital demanding. Fertiliser and herbicides more in use in CA. New equipement is needed.-Tactical reasons in order to achieve continued support from CA projects

Traditional tillage

Planting basins

Ripping

CA with mulch and trees

Prod

uctiv

ity

Level of CA

Increased yieldsand labour saving

Labour and yield benefits of CA adoption

Tillage Yield kg/ha (GART experiment)

Yield Kg/ha (survey)

Hand hoe 4.0a 1.8a

Basins 6.3b 5.2b

Ripping 5.3b 2.3a

Ploughing 5.5b 3.8B

Source: Umar, B:B. Aune, J.B., Johnsen, F.H. and Lungu, O. 2011

Land preparation time

Tillage Person days/haBasins 24Hand hoeing 21Ripping 0.8Ploughing 3.8

Source: Umar, BB, Aune, JB, Johnsen FH, Lungu IO 2012

Traditional tillage

Planting basins

Ripping

CA with mulch and trees

Prod

uctiv

ity

Level of CA

Ecological benfits are connectedto recycling of organic matter

Ecological benefits of recycling of organic matter in CA

• 31% more organic matter in CA plots as compared to convention plots in Zambia (Thierfelder et al. 2013)

• 41% more water infiltrated in CA plots with mulch in Malawi (Ngwira et al. 2012)

• 10 times more earthworms per m2 in Malawi (Ngwira et al. 2012)

• 50% reduction weed infestion with mulch in Malawi (4 tons/ha) (Ngwira et al. 2014 in press)

• Less yield variability in CA as compared to traditional tillage (Ngwira et al. 2014 in press)

How to reap the ecological and economic benefits of CA

• Increase production and produce more mulch- CA without fertilisers in not sustainable.

• Recycle mulch and integrate trees• Integrate livestock in CA programs• - fodder production• - improved feeding• - grazing management

Conclusions

• Partial adoption observed• There can be good reasons for partial

adoption• The ecological benefits of CA are connected to

the recylcing of organic matter• CA should not be promoted under the low-

input label as CA without fertiliser is not beneficial.