factors affecting adoption of conservation agriculture in malawi
DESCRIPTION
Thesis Report by James L. MlambaTRANSCRIPT
Factors Affecting Adoption of Conservation Agriculture in Malawi
(A Case Study of Salima District)
James Lewanika Mlamba (BSc., University of Malawi)
The thesis submitted to University College Dublin in partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Science (Agr) in Environmental
Resource Management
School of Agriculture, Food Science & Veterinary Medicine
Supervisor: Dr. John Fry
MSc. (Agr) Env. Res. Mgmt. November 2010
ii
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. John Fry whose
advice and support during the course and to all the members of staff for their
instruction and guidance throughout the whole period of study.
I would also like to thank the Director of Land Resources Conservation
Department for nominating and having trust in me to pursue this course. To Dr.
E.P. Ching’amba of Lilongwe Agricultural Development Division in Malawi for the
provision of transport during data collection and Mr Mkuntha of Salima District
Agricultural Office for giving me a helping hand when the farmer interviews were
being conducted.
I am also grateful to my mum, brothers, and sisters for their love, encouragement
and the endurance for the entire period of my study. To all my friends for always
being there when I need them most and the good times we shared throughout the
year. Thanks
iii
Dedication
I would like to dedicate this thesis to my wonderful and loving wife, Setrida. In
pursuing of this course I had to leave the responsibility of taking care of our
daughter on her own and without her emotional support, encouragement, and
understanding I would not have possible to complete this study.
iv
Declaration
I declare that this is entirely my own work and has not been previously submitted
for any other qualification. Where material from other sources has been used it
has been referenced in full in the text, and all quotations from other work are
presented as such.
Signed: ____________________ Date: ____________________
v
Abstract
The agriculture sector in Malawi is facing a number of environmental challenges,
which include soil erosion, low soil organic matter (SOM), nutrient deficiency and
water shortage caused by drought (Munthali et al 2008). To counteract these
problems different technologies are being promoted among which is
Conservation Agriculture (CA). Despite the efforts being employed and benefits
that CA has over conventional land management practices the adoption still
remains. This study therefore was carried out to determine factors
affecting/restricting adoption of conservation agriculture and also to identify
challenges farmers are facing in the application of conservation agriculture and
draw recommendations that may help in the upscaling of the technology.
The study was carried out in Salima District in Malawi and it was chosen because
it is one of the areas where the CA technology is being promoted owing to its low
rainfall and high temperature conditions. Primary data were collected from a
sample of selected farmers through administration of a semi-structured
questionnaire. The questionnaire comprised closed- and open-ended questions.
An open-ended questionnaire was also used to support interviews with as many
of the Agricultural Extension Development Officers working in the selected EPAs
as was possible. Secondary data were obtained from published and unpublished
documents
Gender of the household head, membership to a farmer group and farmer
trainings were found to have significant impact on adoption and continued use of
CA technology. Level of income and first CA inputs acquisition method were
found to have significant impact on the retention the CA practice as those who
had higher income and made personal investment in the initial inputs were more
likely to continue with the CA technology than their counterparts who solely
depended on grants. Weed management, access to farm inputs and crop residue
management were the main challenges farmers were facing in the
implementation of CA.
vi
Based on these results it is therefore recommended that farmers should be
encouraged to make personal contributions to acquisition of initial CA inputs. This
can achieved through encouraging farmers to make group savings for the
purchase of inputs or giving them inputs on loan as opposed to grants. Farmers
should be encouraged to belong to farmer groups as this makes it possible to
reach them with agriculture extension messages and it acts as a platform for
farmers to exchange ideas and experiences. Farmer trainings should also be
emphasized.
The current study mainly focused on Individual and household factors, but there
is an obvious need for further research to be done to determine other biophysical,
policy and institutional factors that might be affecting the adoption of CA. It may
also be of paramount importance to carry out research on soil physical and
chemical properties dynamics under CA systems as the current information
available for Malawi is not adequate.
vii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................... ii
Dedication ...................................................................................................... iii
Declaration ..................................................................................................... iv
Abstract .......................................................................................................... v
Table of Contents .......................................................................................... vii
List of Tables .................................................................................................. x
List of Figures ................................................................................................. xi
Abbreviations ................................................................................................. xii
Chapter One: Introduction ........................................................................... 1
1.1 Rationale of the Study .............................................................................. 3
1.2 Background to Malawi .............................................................................. 4
1.2.1 Malawi Soils .......................................................................................... 6
1.2.2 Malawi Population ................................................................................. 8
1.2.3 Distribution of land holding sizes ........................................................... 8
1.2.4 Soil erosion ............................................................................................ 9
1.2.5 Significance of Agriculture Sector to Malawi ........................................ 10
1.3 Objectives of the study ........................................................................... 11
Chapter Two: Literature Review ................................................................ 12
2.1. History of tillage and soil conservation in Malawi .................................. 12
2.1.1 Conventional Tillage in Malawi ............................................................ 14
2.2 Conservation Agriculture ........................................................................ 17
2.2.1 Principle of minimum soil disturbance ................................................. 18
viii
2.2.2 Principle of continuous soil cover ........................................................ 19
2.2.3 Principle of crop rotation ...................................................................... 21
Chapter Three: Research Site and Methodology ..................................... 22
3.1. Study area ............................................................................................. 22
3.2. Climate .................................................................................................. 23
3.3. Soil ........................................................................................................ 23
3.4. Data collection ....................................................................................... 24
3.5. Sampling Procedure for Survey ............................................................. 24
3.6. Data analysis and presentation ............................................................. 24
Chapter Four: Results and Discussion .................................................... 26
4.1. Demographic and Socio Economic Data ............................................... 26
4.1.1. Sex of the household head ................................................................. 26
4.1.2 Age ...................................................................................................... 27
4.1.3. Size of the Households....................................................................... 27
4.1.4 Education ............................................................................................ 28
4.1.5. Land Ownership and Size of the Gardens .......................................... 29
4.1.6. Level of Income .................................................................................. 30
4.2. Crops and Animal Production ................................................................ 32
4.2.1. Crops grown ....................................................................................... 32
4.2.2. Livestock ............................................................................................ 33
4.3. CA Message Dissemination .................................................................. 33
4.3.1. Farmer Groups ................................................................................... 33
4.3.2. Farmer contact with Extension Workers ............................................. 36
ix
4.3.3. Conservation Agriculture Awareness.................................................. 36
4.3.4. Farmer Training .................................................................................. 37
4.4. Input Acquisition Method ....................................................................... 39
4.5. Reasons for practicing CA ..................................................................... 40
4.7. Reasons for stopping practicing CA ...................................................... 42
4.8. Reasons for never adopting CA ............................................................ 43
4.9. Challenges being faced in implementation of CA .................................. 44
4.10. Reasons why CA is more rewarding ................................................... 46
4.11. CA promotion strategies ...................................................................... 47
Chapter Five: Conclusion and Recommendations .................................. 50
5.1 Conclusion .............................................................................................. 50
5.2 Recommendations ................................................................................. 52
References ................................................................................................... 55
Appendices................................................................................................... 63
x
List of Tables
Table 1: Distribution of suitable land by type of land-use by ADD and region ..... 10
Table 2: x2 analysis of sex of the household head and level of CA adoption ...... 27
Table 3: Age categories of the household head .................................................. 27
Table 4: Household size ..................................................................................... 28
Table 5: Level of education ................................................................................. 28
Table 6: Size of the Garden ................................................................................ 30
Table 7: Estimated level of Income of respondent farmers ................................. 31
Table 8: Crops grown by respondents in Salima District ..................................... 32
Table 9: Livestock Kept by Respondents ............................................................ 33
Table 10: Farmer Group Membership among Respondents ............................... 34
Table 11: X2 analysis of Farmer Group membership versus level of CA adoption
............................................................................................................................ 34
Table 12: Farmer Group Membership by Type ................................................... 35
Table 13: Reasons for not belonging to any Farmer Group ................................ 35
Table 14: Frequency of Extension Worker visits ................................................. 36
Table 15: Sources of awareness about CA ......................................................... 37
Table 16: Level of Farmer Training in CA ........................................................... 37
Table 17: Training topics in CA received ............................................................ 39
Table 18: Financial inputs for first inputs acquisition method (NB: number add up
to more than 100%) ............................................................................................ 40
Table 19: Reasons given for practicing CA ......................................................... 42
Table 20: Reasons given for stopping practicing CA .......................................... 43
Table 21: Reasons given for not adopting CA .................................................... 44
Table 22: Challenges being faced when implementing CA ................................. 45
Table 23: Reasons given as to why CA is more rewarding ................................. 47
Table 24: CA promotion strategies ...................................................................... 48
xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Map of Malawi Showing District and International boundaries ............... 5
Figure 2: Physiographic regions Map of Malawi.................................................... 6
Figure 3: Soil Unit Map of Malawi ......................................................................... 7
Figure 4: Young Conservation Agriculture maize crop plot mulched with crop
residues .............................................................................................................. 20
Figure 5: Map of Salima ADD showing Extension Planning Areas ..................... 22
Figure 6: Farmers engaged in CA crop residue management ............................ 38
xii
Abbreviations
ADD Agriculture Development Division (of the Ministry of Agriculture and
Food Security in Malawi) CA Conservation Agriculture CO2 Carbon dioxide CTIC US Conservation Technology Information Center EPA Extension Planning Area (of Ministry of Agriculture and Food
Security in Malawi) FAO Food and Agricultural Organization (of the United Nations) GDP Gross Domestic Product GoM Government of Malawi IMF International Monetary Fund MK Malawi Kwacha (currency) MoA Ministry of Agriculture (Malawi) MoAFS Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security (Malawi) NSO National Statistical Office (Malawi) SOM Soil Organic Matter SPSS Statistical Package for Social Scientists TLC Total LandCare (Malawi NGO) UN-REDD United Nations Collaborative Initiative on Reducing Emissions from
Deforestation and Forest Degradation WFP World Food Programme (of the UN)
1
Chapter One: Introduction
Agriculture is the single most important sector of Malawi’s economy as it employs
about 80% of the workforce, and contributes over 80% of foreign exchange
earnings. Most of all, it also contributes significantly to national and household
food security. However, agriculture in Malawi is characterised by low and
stagnant yields (IMF, 2007) and production of crops relies heavily on rainfall.
Crop production in Malawi is mainly dominated by maize and that is estimated to
cover 70% of the arable land. Maize is the main food crop, contributing to about
90% of the total area put to cereals (Sauer and Tchale 2006). Apart from maize,
Malawi also grows food crops such cassava, rice, millet, and sorghum, but on a
small scale. The country also grows some cash crops such as tobacco, tea,
coffee and sugarcane.
The agriculture sector in Malawi is facing some environmental challenges, which
include soil erosion, low soil organic matter (SOM), nutrient deficiency and water
shortage caused by drought (Munthali et al 2008). These challenges are
compounded by Malawi’s standard way of growing crops, which is associated
with making fresh ridges every season where the crops are planted. The
government has been advising farmers to make fresh ridges for a long time;
ridging is the method of land preparation whereby topsoil is scraped and
concentrated in a defined region to deliberately raise the seedbed above the
natural terrain. The process creates a loose and friable seedbed, and helps to
conserve soil and water (Materechera and Mloza-Banda 1997). Soil and water
conservation is achieved in two ways. Firstly the ridges act as barriers to surface
water movement and as such water is encouraged to accumulate along the
furrows thereby promoting infiltration. Secondly, loosening of the soil creates
more pore spaces that make it easy for water to move freely within the soil.
Despite having the mentioned advantages this method of land preparation has its
own challenges. The implement which is widely used in the construction of the
ridges is a hand hoe. With this implement land preparation can hardly go beyond
30 cm depth and, because the ridge making process is repeated each and every
2
season, a hard pan is created which impedes infiltration. Due to this, erosion is
encouraged as more water accumulates on the surface than the furrows can
contain. The other angle to the problem of erosion comes in because water
infiltration is high in the initial moments of precipitation, but with time the loosened
soil particles block the pore spaces, making it difficult for water to penetrate with
the result that surface runoff is encouraged. As runoff is moving it also carries
with it nutrients and this may result in reduced yields. The water that accumulates
in the furrows drains off nutrients from the ridges and as this water infiltrates the;
nutrients go down as well.
Continuous cultivation with little or no organic matter amendment is another
practice common in Malawi and other Sub-Saharan African countries. This
causes a reduction of organic matter in the soil and that is further compounded
by burning of biomass and crop residues (Makumba et al 2006). That has two
direct impacts on the soil. There is a loss of the organic matter which helps in the
formation of soil aggregates, improves soil structure and improves soil water
holding capacity. Secondly, the nutrients that were used in the production of the
biomass and crop residues are lost as well. The burning of crop residues is quite
surprising as most farmers in Malawi identify soil fertility constraints as their
primary challenge, because animal manure use is also limited as few farmers
own livestock (Snapp et al 2002). The long-term effect of reduced organic carbon
is on the cation exchange capacity of the soil and its ability to retain nutrients and
remain fertile (Makumba et al 2006).
It is against this background that alternative methods of crop production are being
promoted which enhance productivity while conserving soil and water. One such
technology is conservation agriculture (CA). CA which is defined as a system of
crop production based on the three principles of minimum soil disturbance,
continuous soil cover and crop rotation. The objectives of conservation farming
are to increase crop production, while at the same time protecting and enhancing
land resources on which production depends. It integrates ecological principles
with modern agricultural technologies (FAO, 2008).
3
Conservation agriculture also has economic benefits. Not incorporating the crop
residues and not tilling the soil for several years considerably increases the
organic matter content on the top layer. This provides a much greater
mobilisation of nutrients, permitting a significant reduction in fertilizer doses over
medium/ long term. It should be noted that fertilisation is one of the most
important crop inputs/expenses in the production situations and agrarian
systems. Studies have shown that more energy, time and money are saved in
conservation agriculture in comparison to the conventional techniques due to the
absence of tillage (García-Torres et al, 2002; Fowler and Rockstrom, 2001).
Despite having both economic and environmental benefits and the efforts being
put forward to promote it, adoption of conservation agriculture in Malawi still
remains low. This makes it imperative to investigate factors that are affecting
adoption of the technology.
1.1 Rationale of the Study
Malawi regularly experiences great difficulties feeding its population (Williams,
2008). The problem is compounded by high population growth rate which stands
at 2.8% per annum (NSO, 2008). That means more land is being put to
agriculture to feed the growing population with the result that cultivated land are
exceeds that of land suitable for rain-fed agriculture at traditional level of
management (GoM, 1996).
Malawi also faces a number of environmental challenges, among which soil
erosion ranks number one. It has been estimated that the rate of erosion exceeds
20t/ha/year (Bishop, 1992). Despite the benefits that are associated with CA
there is still a level of low adoption of the technology hence this study was
intended to find out the underlying reasons for this low adoption. This study
therefore looks determine the major factors influencing farmers’ adoption of
conservation agriculture. It also identifies challenges being faced in the
application of the technology, in order to put forward a set of recommendations
that would enhance adoption.
4
1.2 Background to Malawi
Malawi is a small landlocked country located in southeast Africa. It is bordered by
Zambia to the northwest, Tanzania to the northeast and Mozambique on the east,
south and west. It is separated from Tanzania and Mozambique by Lake Malawi
(Figure 1). It has a total area of 118, 000km2, of which 20% is water. It lies
between 090 25’ and 170 08’ latitudes south of the Equator and 330 40’ and 350
55’ longitude East (Chilimba, 2001). The climate is semi-arid in the Shire valley
and some parts of the lakeshore plain, semi-arid to sub-humid on the medium
altitude plateau, and humid on the plateau itself.
Malawi has four main physiographic regions: the Highlands, Plateaux, the Rift
Valley Escarpment, and the Rift Valley Plain (figure 2). Highlands consist of
isolated mountains between 1,600-3,000 meters above sea level (masl); the
Plateaux lie at 1000 to 1600 masl with extensive gently undulating tracts in the
northern and central regions of the country; the Rift Valley Escarpment at 600-
1000 masl is a highly dissected zone with precipitous slopes; and the Rift Valley
Plain at 33 to 600 masl formed in large part by the deposition of material and
characterized by subdued relief and gentle slopes (Mloza-Banda and
Nanthambwe, 2010)
5
Figure 1: Map of Malawi Showing District and International boundaries (Source: Chinsinga and O’Brien, 2008.)
6
Figure 2: Physiographic regions Map of Malawi (Source: Mloza-Banda and Nanthambwe, 2010)
1.2.1 Malawi Soils
In general, Malawi’s soils are predominated by three major soil types: the eutric
leptisols, the chromic levisols and the haplic lixisols of variable morphology with
localised areas of acrisols, cambisols, gleysols, phaezems, planosols and
vertisols. The eutric leptisols (Lpe) are commonly referred to as lithosols. They
are the most widespread of the lithosol group, and are the shallow stony soils
associated with steep slopes. These occur in all areas of broken relief covering
an estimated area of 2,243,390 ha. The chromic luvisols (LVx) are referred to as
latosols. They are red-yellow soils that include the ferruginous soils of Lilongwe
plain and some parts of the southern region, and are among the best agricultural
soils in the country. These soils are generally of good structure and are normally
deep and well drained, but they also include the weathered ferrallitic (plateau or
sandveld) soils (some with a high lateritic content), which are of low natural
fertility and easily exhausted. These cover large parts of the plains with a total
area of 2,233,153 ha. The ferralic cambisols have similar characteristics to some
7
chromic luvisols, but they mostly occur on the western border of the country. The
haplic lixisols (LXh) include the alluvial soils of the lacustrine and river-line plains;
the vertisols of the Lower Shire Valley and the Phalombe Plain, and the
mopanosols in the Liwonde and Balaka areas. They cover a total area of
1,671,495 ha (GoM, 2002b).
Figure 3: Soil Unit Map of Malawi (Source: MoA/UNDP/FAO, 1992)
8
1.2.2 Malawi Population
Malawi’s current population and population growth rate are estimated to be 13,06
million and 2.8% respectively, based on the 2008 census. It is the most densely
populated country in Sub-Saharan Africa with a density of 139 people per square
kilometre (NSO, 2008). Over 86% of the population live in rural areas and rely
predominantly on rain-fed agriculture, and about 10% of the population are
deemed at risk of food insecurity annually (WFP, 2008). The high and ever
increasing population density exerts enormous pressure on the land based
resources in meeting the demands for the ever increasing population for food,
fibre, income and other livelihood activities. Unfortunately these pressures have
actually reduced the ability of the land to produce or provide goods and services
(Mloza-Banda and Nanthambwe, 2010)
1.2.3 Distribution of land holding sizes
Malawi has three main categories of land tenure namely customary, public and
private land. Customary land forms the bulk of Malawi’s land and is estimated to
occupy 66% of the total area. Customary land law is quite variable in the country
with the most important difference being expressed between matrilineal and
patrilineal systems of inheritance. This land is subject to control by village chiefs
and family heads. The village head grants cultivation right to the family head,
rather than ownership right. However, land which is in use can be held
indefinitely, the right being granted to a woman in the matrilineal system while the
opposite is true for the patrilineal system. Public land (which is occupied or
acquired by government) is land that is not customary or held under freehold or
leasehold title. Public land consists mainly of forest and wildlife reserves, and
other public places. Private land is all land that is exclusively owned, held or
occupied under freehold tenure, allocated exclusively to a clearly defined
community, corporation, institution, clan, family or individual (GOM, 2002a).
There has been a continual decline in mean land holding size over the years
because of the ever-increasing population, since the land size is static. The
9
national mean land holding size decreased from 1.53 ha in 1968/69 to 0.8 ha in
2000. Corresponding to this decrease, there was an increase in smallholder
households from 885,000 to 2,090,690 during the same period. With this
decrease in land holding size, it is no longer possible for the majority of farmers
to practice some form of rotation or fallow. There has also been an increase in
land fragmentation from generation to generation; as such it is no longer unusual
for a smallholder farmer to cultivate three or more plots in different locations. The
overall effect of reducing smallholding sizes is that land is cultivated continuously
with a single crop and this has contributed to falling soil fertility levels (GOM,
2002b).
1.2.4 Soil erosion
Soil erosion is ranked as the most serious environmental problem in Malawi
(GoM, 1996); it poses the biggest threat to sustainable agricultural production
and also leads to contamination of water resources. Bishop (1992) estimated the
erosion levels for the country to be 20 tonnes/ha/year on average and this is
higher than the rate of soil formation that is 12tonnes/ha/year. Soil erosion has
on-site and off-site costs. The first include declining soil fertility and loss in crop
yield; the second refers to sedimentation and siltation of rivers and reservoirs.
Fertile low-lying areas may become unproductive due to the deposition of infertile
sand (GOM, 1996)
The high population growth rate is leading to increased demands for land. While
land available for agricultural production for rain-fed cultivation at traditional
management levels is limited to only 32% of the land area, as much as 48% was
found to be under cultivation by 1989/90. This means that 16% of cultivation was
taking place in marginal and unsuitable areas without appropriate conservation
measures (GOM, 2002b). Ajayi et al (2007) also noted that as land with high
potential for agriculture becomes less available and the rural human population
increases, farming is extending into more fragile lands, undermining the natural
resource capital base as well as undermining the Southern African region's
continued ability to produce food for its people. Table 1 shows the distribution of
10
suitable land by type of land-use by administrative Region and Agricultural
Development Division (ADD) in Malawi.
Table 1: Distribution of suitable land by type of land-use by ADD and region (Source: GOM, 2002b)
Region/ ADD
% suitable
% unsuitable
% cultivated
% suitable and
cultivated
% suitable but uncultivated
% unsuitable
but cultivated
% unsuitable and
uncultivated
Northern Region
50.1 49.9 16.3 26.1 73.9 6.5 67.0
Karonga 47.9 52.1 17.7 28.9 71.1 7.4 67.2
Mzuzu 51.1 48.9 15.7 25.0 75.0 6.1 67.0
Centre Region
61.2 38.8 38.0 52.8 47.2 14.6 36.0
Kasungu 66.2 33.8 31.9 42.6 57.4 11.0 50.3
Salima 50.1 49.9 37.0 53.2 46.8 20.8 32.9
Lilongwe 61.8 38.2 45.5 65.0 35.0 13.8 20.1
Southern Region
56.3 43.7 39.6 58.5 41.5 15.2 27.2
Machinga 58.0 42.0 50.0 66.9 33.1 26.6 15.4
Blantyre 58.0 42.0 50.0 66.9 33.1 26.6 15.4
Shire Valley
51.0 49.0 36.8 58.9 41.1 13.9 27.6
Malawi 56.5 43.5 32.5 48.1 51.9 12.2 40.8
1.2.5 Significance of Agriculture Sector to Malawi
The significance of agriculture in Malawi needs no emphasis; it is the backbone
of the economy; it employs about 80% of the workforce, accounts 80% of foreign
exchange, 40% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and contributes significantly to
the national and household food sovereignty and security (GOM, 2006).
Agriculture in Malawi is made up of two sub-sectors, namely the smallholder
farmers sector which contributes almost 70% to agricultural GDP, and the estate
sector, which contributes the remaining 30%. The smallholder farmers are mainly
involved in the cultivation of food crops such as maize, rice, cassava, and sweet
11
potato for subsistence food requirements. The estate sub-sector on the other
hand focuses on high value cash crops such as tobacco, tea, sugar and coffee
for export (Banda and Nanthambwe, 2010).
Maize is a major food and cash crop for smallholder farmers in Malawi and is
grown on about 85% of the cropped area every year. The Government
recommends planting maize on ridges, which are laid out across the slope on a
contour and spaced at 0.75 or 0.91m (Materechera and Mloza-Banda, 1997). The
high dependence on maize makes Malawi vulnerable, as any decrease in maize
production is synonymous with food insecurity (Chinsinga and O’Brien, 2008).
1.3 Objectives of the study
The study had the following objectives
1. To determine factors affecting/restricting adoption of conservation
agriculture
2. To investigate challenges farmers were facing in the application of
conservation agriculture and draw recommendations that may hep in the
implementation of the technology in the future.
12
Chapter Two: Literature Review
2.1. History of tillage and soil conservation in Malawi
The history of tillage dates back many millennia when humans changed from
hunting and gathering to more sedentary and settled agriculture. Tillage was
used to soften the soil and prepare a seedbed that allowed seed to be placed
easily at a suitable depth into soil moisture using seed drills or manual
equipment. This resulted in good, uniform seed germination. Wherever crops
grow, weeds also grow and compete for light, water and nutrients. By tilling their
fields farmers were able to shift the advantage from the weed to the crop and
allow the crop to grow with minimal competition early in its growth cycle. Tillage
also helped release soil nutrients needed for crop growth through mineralisation
and oxidation after exposure of soil organic matter to air (Hobbs et al, 2007).
Tillage practices designed with soil conservation in mind can be traced back in
Malawi to the colonial period (Williams, 2008). Before colonialism, slash-and-burn
shifting cultivation was the commonest system of agriculture (Chilimba, 2001). In
this system an area would be cleared of vegetation and the cleared organic
material burned. Following this, a crop would be planted and no fertiliser was
applied. When the cleared area started showing signs of fertility exhaustion
another area would be cleared leaving the previous one to regenerate (UN-
REDD, 2010). This system is still practiced in some districts of the Northern
Region of Malawi, mainly for production of millet on a small scale. Several other
traditional methods of seedbed preparation do exist, including flat cultivation,
mounds, and other forms of raised beds.
Tillage in the form of annual construction of contour planting ridges has evolved
as an integral part of subsistence farming and is a most dominant feature of
Malawi’s agriculture (Mloza-Banda and Nanthamwe, 2010). When the English
arrived in Malawi (which was then referred to Nyasaland) they brought the plough
and introduced ridging with the purpose of soil and water conservation (Williams,
2008). The ridge along a contour has long been used as a first line of defence
13
against soil erosion. If properly designed, contour ridging reduces runoff by
temporarily storing excess rainfall behind ridges and thus reducing soil erosion
and increasing moisture storage (Mloza-Banda and Nanthamwe, 2010).
However, the arrival of the Europeans may not be the sole reason that curtailed
slash-and-burn practice. Chilimba (2001) and FAO (2001) explain that high
population pressure already meant less land being available, fallow periods
becoming shorter and the cleared plots being cultivated for more years than
before.
In the early 18th century, English landlords amassed large pieces of land and
required those living within to pay rent with three months of labour. Cotton was
the crop the colonials had turned to for economic rents when no mineral deposits
of worth were found in Malawi. These landlords confidently used the trusted
European ridging method when planting the cotton crop (Williams, 2008).
Although concern for soil erosion in the country started as early as the 1890s, it
was not until the 1930s and 1940s that the colonial government started to enforce
soil and water conservation structures on private fields (Nanthambwe, S.J. and
N.J. Mulenga,. 1999). During this period government officials publicly declared
that soil erosion had become a serious problem and required urgent attention
(FAO, 2001). Previously the colonial government had attempted to control
agricultural practices by influencing the chiefs and village headmen. However,
officials then gave up on this and resorted to direct coercion of farmers, with the
result that any who did not follow the new ridging method of cultivation would get
heavy punishment in the form of fines and imprisonment.
Although labour intensive, ridging became so widespread that it is acknowledged
as 'conventional practice' and most often synonymous with land preparation for
crop production. It was rooted enough that, when Malawi received its
independence, the new government continued to enforce these agricultural
requirements and a number of programmes and campaigns have been launched
to promote its adoption. The laws were subsequently repealed, but Malawians
have been hesitant to change because it is the only technology that they know
and some do not even know that ridging is no longer compulsory. Ridging using a
14
plough requires the availability of a tractor or animal power, which cannot be
readily accessed by the majority of the smallholder farmers, most of whom rely
on a hand hoe (Williams, 2007).
2.1.1 Conventional Tillage in Malawi
Conventional' crop production in Malawi is therefore characterised contour
ridging. This is the method of land preparation whereby topsoil is scraped and
concentrated in a defined region to deliberately raise the seedbed above the
natural terrain - making fresh ridges every season where the crops are planted.
The process creates a loose and friable seedbed and, if carried out correctly,
helps to conserve soil and water (Materechera and Mloza-Banda, 1997.)
Ridging is a tedious assignment and smallholders who practice conventional
tillage often plant late because land preparation takes considerable length of
time. This has a direct impact on yield as it is estimated that farmers lose 1.3% of
their yield for each day of delay in planting after the first planting rains, and
farmers who plant their crops 18 days late, for example, lose 25% of their
production. This means that no matter how good the farmer is in the subsequent
husbandry practices, the loss cannot be compensated (Siacinji-Musiwa, 1999).
Lack of resources of cash, chemical inputs, farm power and motorised
equipment, and dependence on the hand hoe and family labour aggravate this
problem.
Ridging on steep slopes leads to excessive soil loss and it is estimated that up to
50 tonnes of topsoil can be lost from each hectare annually. On conventionally
tilled and exposed land, up to 50% of applied fertilisers are lost in storm flow. This
is the case because the surface layers of soils exposed to the energy of rain
drops are pulverised and soon become crusted and sealed. This affects crop
germination and further accelerates runoff and erosion. Hoeing and ridging every
year results in hard pans, which limit crop root volume and make plants more
susceptible to dry periods (Siacinji-Musiwa, 1999). Wiyo et al (2000) also noted
15
surface runoff loss and increased drainage loss out of the root zone under
conventional ridging as opposed to tied ridging.1
However, as previously noted, there are other cultivation techniques being used
in the country. Continuous cultivation with little no organic matter amendment is
another practice common in Malawi and other Sub-Saharan African countries
(Makumba et al 2006). Although this may bring short-term yield increases,
continuous cultivation results in increased mineralisation of soil organic matter
and soil life and soil structure are damaged in the long term. Deep tillage, which
is employed with crops such as tobacco, is detrimental to earthworms and other
soil life as it may destroy them outright, disrupt their burrows, reduce moisture
and affect the availability of their food (FAO, 2001).
Reduction of organic matter in the soil is further compounded by burning of
biomass and crop residues (Makumba et al 2006). Just like most of the tropical
regions, burning of most residual matter is widespread in Malawi as it is believed
to be a good way of killing weed seeds and keeping the fields clean. Burning of
biomass and crop residues has two direct negative impacts on the soil. The
organic matter, which helps in the formation of soil aggregates improves soil
structure and improves soil water holding capacity, is lost. Nutrients that were
used in the production of the biomass and crop residues are lost as well. Manure
use is also limited as few farmers own livestock (Snapp et al 2002). The long-
term effect of reduced organic carbon is on the cation exchange capacity of the
soil and its ability to retain nutrients and remain fertile (Makumba et al 2006).
Burning of residues also exposes the soil, and this can lead to surface sealing
because the soil is no longer protected from the direct impact of raindrops which
break up soil aggregates and redistribute them according to physical, chemical
and suction forces. This is the case because water infiltration is high in the initial
moments of precipitation, but with time the loosened soil particles block the pore
spaces making it difficult for water to penetrate and surface runoff is encouraged
1 In tied-ridging, ridge furrows are blocked with earth ties spaced a fixed distance apart to form a
series of micro-catchment basins in the field
16
as a result. The size and intensity of the raindrops have a significant effect on the
degree and rate of sealing that takes place.
Formation of a structural crust is another way the soil structure itself can limit
crop production. This is caused by physical compression of the soil - usually from
livestock, machinery or people putting weight on the soil. In the case of
conventional (ridged) tillage, a hardpan is often formed as a result of repetitious
hand tilling to the same soil depth every year, leading to an increase in soil bulk
density due to compaction. The formation of such a crust may hurt a plant in the
sense that it has to exert more energy for the roots to penetrate, and failure to do
this may force the plant to become stunted (Williams, 2008).
The majority of the smallholder farmers in Malawi lack of alternative livelihoods
and this, combined with the small size of plots, compels farmers to cultivate
maize on the same land year after year (Chinsinga and O’Brien, 2008). It is not
surprising therefore that mono-cropping is also dominant cropping system, with
maize being the most dominant crop (Snapp et al 2002). In case of drastic
changes in weather pattern, monocropping can lead to total crop failure and this
will have negative effects on food security at household and national level. A
continuous monocropping system of farming will be less resilient to pest and
disease attack, unlike a diversified and rotational system where some crops may
be unaffected or may host natural enemies of certain pests. Monocropping may
also lead to a decrease in the crop productivity over time because the crop takes
nutrients from the same soil depth, and it may also encourage the development
of resistance to pesticides and herbicides as compounds with the same chemistry
are relied upon year after year. This is not the case with a crop rotation system as
different crops are attacked by different pests and weeds, with the result that a
range of different chemicals are required in their management.
Due to the challenges and limitations associated with conventional tillage other
technologies that can reduce such impacts are being promoted and one of such
technologies is conservation agriculture.
17
2.2 Conservation Agriculture
Worldwide there are rising concerns about loss of soil productivity and the
broader environmental implications of conventional agricultural practices. The
concerns are coming mainly because of the aftermath of repeatedly tilling the
soil, either by the use of plough, disc harrow or hoe. This has impelled some
governments and farmers to search for alternative production methods that can
maintain soil structure and productivity. Conservation Agriculture (CA) is
becoming one of the obvious and increasingly popular alternatives due to the
principles that is based upon (Knowler and Bradshaw, 2007).
Conservation Agriculture is a system of crop production based on three
principles, namely minimum soil disturbance, continuous soil cover and crop
rotation. The objectives of conservation farming are to increase crop production
while at the same time protecting and enhancing the water and soil land
resources on which production depends. It is also referred to as conservation
tillage, minimum tillage, reduced tillage and zero tillage among other names in
different locations of the world. It is a resource-saving farming system that strives
to achieve acceptable profits together with high and sustained production levels,
while conserving the environment based on an integrated management of soil,
water and biological resources combined with external inputs (FAO, 2008). CTIC
(1999) defined conservation tillage as any tillage or planting system that covers at
least 30% of the surface with crop residues. The 30% threshold was based on
research which showed 80% reduction in soil erosion when the surface was
covered that much.
CA is achieved through direct seeding and this involves growing crops without
mechanical seedbed preparation and with minimal soil disturbance after the
harvest of the previous crop. CA land preparation for seeding or planting involves
slashing or rolling the weeds, previous crop residues or cover crops; or spraying
herbicides for weed control, and seeding directly through the mulch (FAO, 2008)
18
2.2.1 Principle of minimum soil disturbance
Agriculture impacts on the condition of the environment in many ways, including
impacts on global warming through the production of ‘greenhouse gases’ such as
CO2. In the USA it was estimated that agriculture contributed approximately 8%
of the US greenhouse gas emissions (Paustian et al, 2006). However, agriculture
also has a potential of acting as a CO2 sink by sequestering it from the
atmosphere in the form of soil carbon if proper practices are employed in
production. A study conducted in the USA conclude that intensive tillage using a
mouldboard plough results in major carbon loses immediately after tillage, and
also found that the rate of carbon oxidation was reduced when the extent,
frequency and magnitude of mechanical disturbance of the soil caused by tillage
was minimised (Baker et al, 2007).
Minimum soil disturbance also reduces soil erosion, since the soil is not loosened
as is the case with conventional tillage. The reduction in erosion has benefits to
the growing crop as well as the environment. In conventional tillage the soil is
continuously disturbed, making it easy to be carried by runoff. As the soil is being
eroded it also carries with it soil nutrients which are essential for crop growth. The
removal of nutrients impacts negatively on the crop as its growth is retarded and
a crop that is weak is more susceptible to pests and diseases. The combination
of pests, diseases and soil loss due to erosion leads to food insecurity as a result
of reduced yields. The reduced erosion brought by CA also benefits the
environment in the sense that it enhances water quality. A number of
experiments in semi-arid and dry sub-humid locations in East and Southern
Africa have demonstrated that minimum soil disturbance/minimum tillage
practices reduce the risk of crop failure as they increase water productivity and
crop yields. These positive results are attributed to the water harvesting effects of
minimum tillage practices (Hobbs et al 2007).
Increased infiltration means that streams are fed more by subsurface flow than by
surface runoff. This entails having cleaner water, which more closely resembles
groundwater in areas where CA is dominant than in areas where intensive tillage
19
and accompanying erosion and runoff predominate. Greater infiltration also has
an advantage of reducing flooding, by enhancing more soil water storage and
slow release to streams. It also recharges groundwater, thus increasing well
supplies and revitalising dried-up springs (FAO, 2008)
Tillage takes valuable time that could be used for other useful farming activities or
employment. Conservation agriculture reduces time for establishing a crop as
intensive tillage is eliminated. The time spent in tilling the land can also delay
timely planting of crops, and this can result in reductions in yield potential. By
reducing turnaround time to a minimum, zero-tillage can get crops planted on
time, and thus increase yields without greater input (Hobbs et al, 2007)
2.2.2 Principle of continuous soil cover
Surface soil cover intercepts raindrop energy and protects the surface soil from
soil aggregate destruction; it promotes infiltration of water, and reduces the loss
of soil by erosion. The surface crop residues shield the loose soil particles from
water and wind erosion. It minimises soil water losses by evaporation and also
helps moderate soil temperature. This enhances soil biological activity and
promotes nitrogen mineralisation. This is an important factor, especially in areas
where water is limited as most of it will be used by the growing crop (Hobbs et al,
2007). It also helps to suppress weed infestation as weed seeds are shielded
from sunlight, which is frequently required for germination and necessary for
subsequent growth. The soil cover improves soil fertility after decay and this
reduces the requirement for inorganic fertilisers in the future. The decayed soil
cover improves availability of soil organic matter (SOM) in the soil. SOM has a
characteristic of improving soil water holding capacity and this water is used by
the growing crops (Giller et al, 2009)
The soil organisms crush the mulch covering the surface, and incorporate and
mix it with the soil. When the mulch becomes humus after decomposition it
contributes to the physical stabilisation of the soil structure. Furthermore, the soil
organic matter provides a buffer function for water and nutrients (FAO, 2008).
20
Larger soil organisms, such as earthworms ingest soil and also digest dead plant
material, and their nutrient-rich wastes are deposited on the surface (as casts) or
within the soil profile. This process helps to improve the soil structure, as their
wastes are better soil aggregates. The improved soil structure is beneficial to
plants as it also means improved water-holding capacity. As earthworms are
moving within the soil they also form an intricate and extensive network of
burrows, which function as biopores and increase aeration and drainage and
these elements are also necessary for plant growth. Of all the soil micro-fauna,
earthworms are probably the most important group for improving soil quality, as
they ingest nearly ten times their own weight each day while burrowing through
the soil. Their burrows are mainly in the region where plant roots frequently
occur, and this helps to facilitate the exchange of nutrients (Dubbin, 2001).
Figure 4: Young Conservation Agriculture maize crop plot mulched with crop residues
(Source: TLC 2010)
Since many of the benefits of CA are directly related to mulching, limited
availability of crop residues is in many cases a constraint to their adoption. This
demand for crop residues as mulch greatly changes the flow of resources at the
farm level, especially where the residues have more than one use. Farmers face
21
the dilemma of whether to use residues as mulch or fodder, in which case
precedence is mostly given to livestock considering its cultural and economic
value. The challenge to retain crop residues as mulch is not only limited to those
areas with more livestock. In regions where farmers own few livestock, but rely
on hand hoe for tillage, crop residues are traditionally burned as a fast way to
clear agricultural fields in order to facilitate further land preparation and planting
(Giller et al, 2009), and this tradition will have to change if the full benefits of the
mulch are to be realised.
2.2.3 Principle of crop rotation
Crop rotation provides an opportunity for nutrient cycling as roots at different
depths are able to get nutrients from different soil layers. Nutrients that have
been lost from the upper layers through leaching and are no longer available to
short-rooted crops, can be brought back to the surface by using deep-rooted
ones in rotation. The diversity of crops in rotation enhances a diverse flora and
fauna such as fungi and bacteria, which are also necessary for transformation of
organic materials into available nutrients during decomposition. Other means of
improving soil fertility and nutrient cycling are being encouraged. Intercropping
cereals with legumes is encouraged because the legumes fix nitrogen (one of the
macro-nutrients) from the atmosphere to further improve soil fertility. Two legume
species often intercropped with maize in Malawi are pigeon peas (Cajanus cajan)
and Tephrosia vogelli (TLC, 2007).2 Crop rotation also plays a phytosanitary role
as it prevents the carryover of crop specific pests and diseases from one season
to another through residues. The diversity of crops achieved through crop rotation
is also important as a climate change adaptation strategy because it reduces the
susceptibility to unforeseen climatic events such as drought, floods and other
biophysical occurrences such as pest outbreaks that might lead to crop failure
(FAO, 2008). However, given their economic pressures, in the face of rapid
population increase and continued decrease in land holding sizes it is not always
possible to practice crop rotation. Malawian farmers cannot afford to include a
fallow phase as incorporated in older European crop rotation systems.
2 Also known as fish bean, the crushed leaves of T. vogelli are added to water to poison fish.
22
Chapter Three: Research Site and Methodology
3.1. Study area
The study was carried out in Salima District within the Salima ADD (Figure 4).
Administratively the district is located in Central Region of Malawi and it lies along
the lakeshore plain 100km to the east of Lilongwe City.
Figure 5: Map of Salima ADD showing Extension Planning Areas (Prepared for the current study by J K Chirwa, Salima ADD)
Study Area
23
This district covers a total area of 2196 km2 and is located in the Rift Valley Plain
physiographic region. It lies on latitude 13°45' north and longitude 34°35' east. It
is situated within the altitude range 33-600 metres above sea level. The land is
flat to gently undulating, with deep calcimorphic soils in the hollows formed in
large part by the deposition of material and is characterised by subdued relief and
gentle slopes. The district was chosen because it is one of the areas where
conservation agriculture is being intensified owing to its semi-arid conditions and
accessibility. For agriculture purposes the district is divided into 7 Extension
Planning Areas (EPAs) namely Chipoka, Katerera, Makande, Tembwe,
Chinguluwe, Matenje and Chiluwa. The study was conducted in Katerera,
Makande and Chinguluwe EPAs.
3.2. Climate
Salima district experiences a warm tropical climate characterised by unimodal
rainfall lasting approximately five months from the end of November to the end of
April, and dry weather during the remainder of the year. Annual rainfall varies
from around 800mm to about 1200mm, however most areas receive less than
1000 mm of rain. Despite receiving this amount of rainfall the area experiences
frequent dry spells which impact negatively on crop production within the crop
growing period. The mean temperature range along the lakeshore plain is 18-28°
Celsius, with mean maximum temperatures of 32-34° Celsius in October to
December.
3.3. Soil
Salima district soils are grouped into two main soil units namely Eutric gleysols,
and Ferric fluvisols (MoA/UNDP/FAO, 1992). Gleysols are soils showing
hydromorphic properties within 50 cm of the surface; having no diagnostic
horizons (unless buried by 50 cm or more new material) other than an A horizon,
an H horizon, a cambic B horizon, and a calcic or a gypsic horizon. Fluvisols on
the other hand refers to soils developed from recent alluvial deposits, having no
diagnostic horizons (unless buried by 50 cm or more new material) other than an
24
ochric or an umbric A horizon, an H horizon, or a sulphuric horizon (FAO, 1975).
Eutric gleysols and Ferric fluvisols cover a total 599.8 and 94253.2 (km2) in
Malawi, respectively (Chilimba, 2001).
3.4. Data collection
Primary data were collected from a sample of selected farmers through
administration of a semi-structured questionnaire. The questionnaire (Appendix
1) comprised closed- and open-ended questions. An open-ended questionnaire
(Appendix 2) was also used to support interviews with as many of the Agricultural
Extension Development Officers working in the selected EPAs as was possible.
Secondary data were obtained from published and unpublished documents.
3.5. Sampling Procedure for Survey
The study involved total of 60 farmers and involved comparisons between three
equal-sized sub-groups based on differences in their practices. The first group
comprised farmers who had been practicing conservation agriculture for a
minimum of three years, the second involved farmers who once practiced the
technology but were no longer doing it, while the last one comprised farmers who
had never tried the technology. The respondents were selected from three
randomly selected EPAs within Salima District, and the study villages were also
randomly selected within each EPA. After this farmers were selected from each
village on a semi-random basis, using lists supplied by the local Agricultural
Extension Development Officers. The lists indicated farmers who were
practicing, once practiced but stopped, and those who never practiced the
technology. The final selection of the farmers from each of these lists was also
random.
3.6. Data analysis and presentation
The data were coded and fed into the Statistical Package for Social Scientists
(SPSS) for statistical analysis and presentation. Descriptive statistics in the form
of frequencies and percentages were used when analysing, presenting and
25
interpreting the data because the data collected was mainly qualitative. In some
instances Chi-square was used to determine the significance of some variables
on CA adoption.
26
Chapter Four: Results and Discussion
Introduction
This chapter covers the results of the study carried out in Salima District. It looks
at factors affecting/restricting adoption of CA and the challenges the farmers are
facing in the implementation of the technology in Malawi. To do this demographic,
social and economic data were collected and analysed. CA message
dissemination mechanisms, farmer technology awareness, first input acquisition
method reasons for adopting, stopping practicing and never adopting the
technology information was also analysed.
4.1. Demographic and Socio Economic Data
4.1.1. Sex of the household head
The study involved a total of 60 households divided into 3 categories of 20
households each. The first group was composed of farmers who had been
practicing conservation agriculture for a minimum of three years, the second
group comprised farmers who once practiced CA but had stopped, and the last
category consisted of farmers who have never practiced CA. Seventy per cent of
the households interviewed were male headed while the remaining 30% were
women headed.
Table 2 provides Chi-square (x2)3 analysis of sex of the household head and
adoption of CA. The results support the idea that male-headed households were
more likely to adopt CA than those headed by females at 95% confidence interval
and 2 degrees of freedom (df). Mazvimavi and Twomlow (2009) found similar
results in a study carried out in Zimabmbwe.
3 3 Where O is observed frequency and E is expected frequency.
27
Table 2: x2 analysis of sex of the household head and level of CA adoption
Sex of the household head
Level of adoption
Total
df
Calculated
X2
Tabulated
X2
Practicing CA
Stopped practicing CA
Never Practiced CA
Male 18 10 14 42 2 7.619 3.84
Female 2 10 6 18
Total 20 20 20 60
4.1.2 Age
Thirty five per cent of the farmers who are practicing CAS and those who were no
longer doing it were in the age category of 26-35, as compared to 30% of those
who had never practiced CA (Table 3). No relationship was found between age of
the respondents and adoption of CA. Studies in the literature has come up with
conflicting results. Knowler and Bradshaw (2007) also found it difficult to link
adoption of CA and age of a farmer in their review and analysis of recent
research on farmer’s adoption of conservation agriculture. However, Mazvimavi
and Twomlow (2009) found positive correlation.
Table 3: Age categories of the household head
Age Category
Practicing CA
No longer Practicing CA
Never Practiced CA
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
18-25 2 10.0 0 0 3 15.0
26-35 7 35.0 7 35.0 6 30.0
36-45 4 20.0 4 20.0 4 20.0
46-55 3 15.0 3 15.0 2 10.0
>56 4 20.0 6 30.0 5 25.0
4.1.3. Size of the Households
More than 65% of the respondents involved had households of greater than 4.4,
which is the national average (Table 4). No statistical correlation was found
28
between household size and CA adoption, but those who had never practiced
CA, or had given it up were more likely to have larger families than those who did
practice it.
Table 4: Household size
Household Size
Practicing CA
No longer Practicing CA
Never Practiced CA
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
1-2 2 10.0 2 10.0 1 5.0
3-4 5 25.0 3 15.0 5 25.0
5-6 6 30.0 7 35.0 2 10.0
>6 7 35.0 8 40.0 12 60.0
Total 20 100 20 100 20 100
4.1.4 Education
It is assumed that the ability of the household head to understand technical
aspects of conservation agriculture would be dependent on their educational
level. A positive relationship was expected between educational level and
adoption as farmers with higher education are expected to have more access to
information on the dangers of not following recommended soil and water
conservation technologies. In the event, no overall correlation was found between
the adoption of CA and the household head's level of education - probably
because less than 20% of all respondents had actually attended school to
secondary level (Table 5).
Table 5: Level of education
Level of education
Practicing CA
No longer practicing
CA
Never Practiced CA
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
No formal education 3 15.0 4 20.0 2 10.0
Std 1 - Std 5 9 45.0 5 25.0 5 25.0
Std 6 - Std 8 4 20.0 8 40.0 11 55.0
Secondary education 4 20.0 3 15.0 2 10.0
Total 20 100 20 100 20 100
29
However, those who had attained that level were more likely to have tried CA
than those who had not (7/2).
4.1.5. Land Ownership and Size of the Gardens
Land is one of the important factors of production. It assists the farmer in
budgeting what and how much to produce. It also helps the farmer in deciding
the production system to follow. In this study it was assumed that farmers with
larger gardens would be able to adopt CA more easily because they can follow
all the principles of CA, including crop rotation.
All the households who participated in the study owned a piece of land ('garden'),
save for one respondent who was renting. Overall, 71.7% of the farmers were
farming on customary land while the remaining 28.3% were cultivating on public
land. All the farmers who were using customary land had obtained it through
inheritance, while those under public land obtained it from government under
settlement scheme programme. The settlement scheme programme was set up
with four main aims namely, reclamation and utilisation of underused land;
settlement of underemployed rural people to provide them with a decent income
and livelihood; promotion of cash-crop production for export purposes; and
settlement of Malawi Young Pioneers to provide opportunities for their gainful
employment (Nothale, 1982). The minimum land holding size in the study area
was 0.4 ha, while the maximum was 4.4 ha, and 35%, 30% and 20% of the
farmers who were practicing CA, who once practiced CA and those who had
never practiced CA, respectively, had pieces of land of greater than three
hectares. All the farmers from Chinguluwe Extension Planning Area had gardens
of greater than three hectares owing to the land settlement programme as each
settler was allocated eleven acres4. The study found no statistical correlation
between farm size and adoption of CA, but most who did not practice CA (60%)
owned less than 2ha, while most who did practice it (65%) owned more than 2 ha
(Table 6).
4 1 acre = 0.404686 ha
30
Table 6: Size of the Garden
Size of the Garden (Ha)
Practicing CA
No longer Practicing CA
Never Practiced CA
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
0.1-0.5 0 0 2 10 1 5.0
06-1.0 1 5.0 4 20.0 6 30.0
1.1-2.0 6 30.0 5 25.0 5 25.0
2.1-3.0 6 30.0 3 15 4 20
>3.0 7 35.0 6 30.0 4 20.0
Total 20 100.0 20 100.0 20 100.0
4.1.6. Level of Income
Household income is the aggregation of income both in cash and/or kind that
accrues from economic activities performed by household members on a regular
basis (NSO, 2005). The assumption in this study was that higher income would
have a positive influence on adoption of CA because the higher the level of
income the higher the chances that the farmer can invest in conservation
technologies. Data for income distribution among the three categories of farmers
(Table 7) indicate that the majority of respondents were poor. Going by the 2004-
2005 Malawi Integrated Household Survey (which puts MK16,165.005 per person
per year as a poverty line6 and 4.4 persons per household as national average) it
means that more than 70% of households in the study area live below the poverty
line. The results are not far from the NSO (2005) findings, which put 69.1% of
people in Salima District as living below the poverty line.
Additional information recovered during the survey revealed crop production
contributing over 80% of the total income from agriculture while the remainder
came from livestock.
5 $1=MK150
6 The poverty line is a subsistence minimum expressed in Malawi currency based on the cost-of-basic-needs
methodology. It is comprised of two parts: minimum food expenditure based on the food requirements of individual and critical non-food consumption
31
A further 20% of the respondents pointed to piecework contributing 21-40% per
cent of their total income. Piecework (locally known in Malawi as ganyu) is a term
that describes a variety of temporary rural relations. It corresponds to any off-
own-farm work done by rural people on casual basis, with remuneration being
made in cash or in kind (Le Danvic, 2009).
Table 7: Estimated level of Income of respondent farmers
Level of income (MK)
Practicing CA No longer Practicing CA
Never Practiced CA
Frequency % Frequency % Frequency %
0-10,000 0 0 1 5.0 1 5.0
11,000-25,000 3 15.0 8 40.0 5 25.0
26,000-40,000 4 20.0 7 35.0 7 35.0
41,000-60,000 2 10.0 3 15.0 1 5.0
61,000 and above
11 55.0 1 5.0 6 30.0
Total 20 100 20 100 20 100
Comparing income levels among the three categories of farmers it was found that
55% of those practicing CA, 5% of those no longer practicing CA and 30% of
those who had never practiced CA were earning greater than 61,000 Malawi
Kwacha (MK7) per annum (Table 7). No significant difference in levels of income
was found between farmers practicing the technology and those who had never
practiced it. Nevertheless, a significant difference was observed between
farmers still practicing CA and those who had stopped. The calculated X2
(12.624) was larger than the tabulated one (9.49) at 95% confidence interval. The
results support the hypothesis that farmers with higher income are likely to
continue with CA than the low income ones.
7 Malawian Currency
32
4.2. Crops and Animal Production
4.2.1. Crops grown
The main crops grown in the study area are maize, ground nuts, cotton and
tobacco (Table 8). All the households involved indicated that they had grown
maize in the previous season - this is not surprising since it is the main food crop
in Malawi and is grown on over 70% of the cultivated are every year. Groundnuts
are the other popular food crop in the area, and 95% of both those practicing and
those no longer practicing CA, and 85% of the farmers who had never practiced
CA indicated to have grown it in the 2009/2010 season. Cassava, soya, millet,
cowpeas and sweet potato are also grown as food crops.
Table 8: Crops grown by respondents in Salima District
Crops grown Practicing CA No longer practicing
CA Never Practiced CA
Frequency % Frequency % Frequency %
Maize 20 100 20 100 20 100
Groundnuts 19 95 19 95 17 85
Cowpeas 6 30 2 10 2 10
Sweet potato 0 0 0 0 2 10
Tobacco 2 10 4 20 2 15
Millet 0 0 0 0 1 5
Soya 0 0 1 5 0 0
Cassava 3 15 0 0 0 0
Cotton 14 70 12 60 9 45
Groundnuts are also grown for cash, but cotton is the main cash crop in the study
area with 70%, 60% and 45% of those practicing, stopped practicing and having
never practiced CA, respectively, mentioning that they had grown cotton in
2009/2010. Furthermore, 15% of the farmers also indicated that they had grown
tobacco for cash. Clearly, the method of cultivation had no significant impact
upon the choice of the major cop species. The fact that cassava was only grown
by those who practiced CA does not seem to relate directly to this practice, since
that crop is not known to benefit particularly from CA and the technique would not
have been applied to all parts of the CA respondents' gardens,
33
4.2.2. Livestock
The majority (>70%) of the farmers in the area own chickens and goat rearing is
also dominant in the area, with farmers who are no longer practicing CA reporting
the highest percentage (Table 9). These results agree with the findings of 2004-
2005 Integrated Household Survey report, which also showed chicken and goats
as dominant livestock in Malawi (NSO, 2005). There was a moderate level of pig
ownership in all three groups and some farmers also indicated to have been
keeping ducks and guinea fowl on a small scale. Only one respondent owned
cattle and only one owned donkeys, both being indications of a higher income,
but this did not correlate with practising CA. About 8% of the respondents
indicated not to have any type of livestock.
Table 9: Livestock Kept by Respondents
Livestock kept Practicing CA No longer Practicing
CA Never Practiced CA
Frequency % Frequency % Frequency %
Cattle 0 0 0 0 1 5.0
Goats 10 50.0 14 70.0 10 50.0
Donkeys 1 5.0 0 0 0 0
Chickens 15 75.0 16 80.0 14 70.0
Guinea fowl 1 5.0 0 0 0 0
None 2 10.0 0 0 3 15.0
Pigs 3 15.0 3 15.0 4 20.0
Ducks 1 5.0 2 10.0 1 5.0
None 2 10 0 0 3 15.0
4.3. CA Message Dissemination
4.3.1. Farmer Groups
Farmer Groups are encouraged because they enable Agricultural Extension
Development Officers to reach more farmers with agricultural messages with
ease, and also give a chance to farmers to learn from one another. It is assumed,
therefore, that farmers belonging to groups have higher chances of adopting a
new technology.
34
Table 10: Farmer Group Membership among Respondents
Response Practicing CA No longer Practicing CA Never Practiced CA
Frequency % Frequency % Frequency %
Yes 17 85.0 6 30.0 6 30.0
No 3 15.0 14 70.0 14 70.0
Total 20 100.0 20 100.0 20 100.0
Just under half the sample of farmers were members of a Farmer Group (Table
10). However, the greater majority (85%) of respondent farmers practicing CA
belonged to a Farmer Group, as opposed to 30% of those who either stopped
practicing or never participated in CA. There was strong correlation between CA
adoption and farmer membership to a group as calculated: X2 (16.15) was larger
than the tabulated one (5.99) at 95% confidence interval (Table 11). Farmers
belonging to a Farmer Group were indeed seen to be more likely to be practicing
CA than those not belonging to any group.
Table 11: X
2 analysis of Farmer Group membership versus level of CA adoption
Response Level of adoption of CA Total df Calculated
X2
Tabulated X
2 Practicing
CA Stopped
practicing Never
Practiced
Yes 17 6 6 29 2
16.151
3.84 No 3 14 14 31
Total 20 20 20 60
Most of the farmers practicing CA (85%) were in the soil and water conservation
(SWC) Farmer Group, as opposed to 5% and 10% for those no longer practicing
and never practiced, respectively. Some farmers were found to belong to multiple
groups covering irrigation, livestock, agroforestry, bee-keeping, grain and
legumes, credit and cotton (Table 12).
35
Table 12: Farmer Group Membership by Type
Type of Farmer Group
Practicing CA No longer Practicing CA Never Practiced CA
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Irrigation 4 20.0 1 5.0 2 10.0
Soil & Water Conservation
17 85.0 1 5.0 2 10.0
Livestock 2 10.0 0 0 0 0
Agroforestry 0 0 0 0 1 5.0
Bee-keeping 0 0 4 20.0 0 0
Grain & legumes association
0 0 0 0 1 5.0
Credit group 0 0 0 0 1 5.0
Cotton association
0 0 0 0 1 5.0
The remaining farmers (mainly those who had never practiced CA or had
stopped) were asked why they did not belong to a Farmer Group. Overall, 41.9%
of them indicated that they were not interested, while 35.5% gave lack of farmer
groups in their villages as the reason. However, the remaining 22.6% had once
been, but were no longer members - either due to disbandment of the group or
due to lost interest (Table 13).
Table 13: Reasons for not belonging to any Farmer Group
Reason Frequency Percentage
Not interested 13 41.9
There is no farmer group
11
35.5
The group disbanded
7
22.6
The main cause of lost interest seems to have resulted from unfair distribution of
free farm inputs on those occasions when the groups received inputs from
government and agriculture development stakeholders and others. Allegations
were also made against agricultural extension workers as not being transparent
in the distribution of such inputs, or in the identification of farmers to host
36
demonstration plots - with favour being shown to farmers with the more
accessible gardens along the road.
4.3.2. Farmer contact with Extension Workers
All the respondents indicated that an agricultural extension worker was available
in the area, and that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security (MoAFS) was
the main institution offering extension services in conservation agriculture. Asked
as to how often the extension worker visits per month, 95% of those practicing
CA responded that they were visited more than two times per month and all
received at least one per month. This is an encouraging result considering that
extension workers are advised to make a minimum of two visits to a farmer
group. The first visit is for training while the second one is for follow up. In
contrast, twice-monthly contacts with those no longer practicing or those who had
never practiced CA were only 55%, and 65%, respectively. No statistical
correlation was found within the sample between CA adoption and farmer
extension worker contacts, but a significant minority of those not involved in CA
had either never been visited or received only one visit a month.
Table 14: Frequency of Extension Worker visits
No of visits
Practicing CA
No longer practicing
Never practiced CA
Frequency % Frequency % Frequency %
Doesn't visit 0 0 6 30.0 3 15.0
Once a month 0 0 3 15.0 2 10.0
Twice a month 1 5.0 0 0 2 10.0
> Twice a month 19 95.0 11 55.0 13 65.0
Total 20 100 20 100 20 100
4.3.3. Conservation Agriculture Awareness
All the respondents save one said that they had heard of CA, and 100%, of those
practicing, 95% of those no longer practicing, and 75% of those who had never
practiced CA gave the extension workers from MoAFS as the source of that
awareness. The other sources of CA information mentioned by the interviewees
37
were fellow farmers, Non Governmental Organizations (NGO), the local
extension worker, radio and a private cotton company (Table 15).
Table 15: Sources of awareness about CA
Source Practicing CA No longer
practicing Never practiced CA
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Fellow farmer 0 0 0 0 3 15.0
MoAFS extension worker
20 100.0 19 95.0 15 75.0
NGO extension worker
1 5.0 0 0 0 0
Radio 1 5.0 7 35.0
Private company 0 0 1 5.0 0 0
4.3.4. Farmer Training
All the farmers practicing CA, 85% of those no longer practicing and 40% of
those who had never practiced indicated to have been trained in CA (Table 16).
Table 16: Level of Farmer Training in CA
Response Practicing CA No longer practicing Never practiced CA
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Attended CA training 20 100 17 85 8 40
Never Attended CA training 0 0 3 15 12 60
Total 20 100 20 100 20 100
A comparison was made between respondents practicing CA and those who had
never practiced CA using chi-square (X2) to test whether farmer trainings had any
bearing on CA adoption. The results showed significant different between the two
categories of respondents as the calculated X2 (20.80) was larger than the
tabulated one (3.84) at 95% confidence interval. No significant difference was
observed when X2 was used to test if training had any bearing on retention, when
farmers who were practicing CA and those who stopped were compared. This
suggests that, though farmer training is crucial in adoption of CA, other factors
38
come into play when a farmer is deciding whether to continue with the technology
in the subsequent years.
The training conducted mainly covered three areas, namely crop residue
management, weed management and nutrient management. In crop residue
management farmers were trained on how to lay the crop residues (Figure 6), the
benefits of retaining them in the field and the dangers of burning or removing crop
residues from the agricultural field. Weed management involved how light
weeding can be done so as to avoid excessive soil disturbance and it also
included weed control by using herbicides. Nutrient management encompassed
fertilizer application, organic manure making and application and planting of
nitrogen fixing agroforestry trees.
Figure 6: Farmers engaged in CA crop residue management
Ninety five percent of farmers practicing, and 75% and 35%, respectively, of
those no longer practicing and never practiced CA, mentioned that they had
received training in crop residue management. However, 55% of those practicing,
65% of those no longer practicing, and 15% of farmers who had never practiced
CA said they had been trained in weed management. The unexpectedly low
response from CA farmers may be due to the fact that they had to volunteer the
39
form of training rather than tick boxes. Nutrient management as a training topic in
CA was mentioned by 30% of the farmers practicing CA, while only 5% of no
longer practicing and never practicing CA mentioned it (Table 17). Only one
respondent indicated to have been trained in soil and water conservation, and
this involved the relatively new technique of digging trenches on contours
(commonly known as swales) for rainwater harvesting.
Table 17: Training topics in CA received
Topic Practicing CA No longer Practiced Never Practiced
Frequency % Frequency % Frequency %
Crop residue management
19 95.0 15 75.0 7 35.0
Weed management 11 55.0 13 65.0 3 15.0
Soil and water conservation
0 0 0 0 1 5.0
Nutrient management 6 30.0 1 5.0 1 5.0
4.4. Input Acquisition Method
Introducing a new technology in an area can sometimes be a challenging task as
it involves a change of mindset in the sense that farmers are encouraged to
abandon old ways of conducting their business. It also involves risk-taking
because farmers are asked to venture into an area they have no experience of.
Due the risks involved in switching from the old technology to a new one,
sometimes introduction of agriculture technologies comes with incentives in the
form of loans or grants. It was found out during the study that 50% of the
respondents in the category participating in CA got a grant, but among them were
those who managed to buy additional inputs out of their pockets, so that 75% of
respondents could claim to have acquired CA inputs using their own cash;. In
addition, 40% and 60% of those no longer practicing CA got their inputs through
their own cash and grants, respectively.
40
Table 18: Financial inputs for first inputs acquisition method (NB: number add up to more than 100%)
Method Practicing CA No longer Practicing CA
Frequency % Frequency %
I bought with my own cash 15 75.0 8 40.0
Loan 1 5.0 0 0
Grant 10 50.0 12 60.0
To test whether there was any relation between method of input acquisition and
the farmer’s likelihood to retain CA practices or not X2 was used. The results
showed strong correlation, since calculated X2 (10.41) was greater than the
tabulated one (3.84) at 95% confidence interval. This supports the suggestion
that farmers who buy their own inputs when starting a new technology are likely
to continue than those who solely depend on grants. The reason for this could be
that farmers with the greatest investment put more effort into the management of
the crop and reap more benefits knowing that any reduction in yield would mean
personal loss.
4.5. Reasons for practicing CA
The reasons why farmers continued with CA were investigated, with respondents
giving more than one answer (Table 19). Overall, 45% indicating that their
continued involvement in this technology was because it helped in the
conservation of soil and water. The mulch that is spread on the soil surface helps
to reduce rainfall impact, thereby minimising splash erosion. It also enhances
infiltration and reduces runoff. Water conservation is also achieved through
reduced surface water evaporation as the mulch acts as a shield to sunlight. The
water conservation is very crucial to agriculture as Salima district is one of the
areas that receive low rainfall and experience high temperatures. Similarly, 60%
of the farmers gave soil fertility improvement as a reason for practicing CA. The
farmers explained that the crop residues that are left on the surface in the field
turn into manure after decomposition, and the inclusion of nitrogen-fixing
agroforestry species as intercrops also helps to improve soil fertility. The
41
commonest agroforestry shrub species were pigeon peas (Cajanus cajan) and
the fish(-poison) bean (Tephrosia vogelli - Figure 7).
Figure 7: Harvested CA plot with Tephrosia vogelli intercrop (Source: TLC, 2010)
Forty five percent of the farmers also explained that they were involved in the CA
technology because it was resulting in higher yields if compared to the
conventional methods. Low labour demand was another reason that 75% of the
respondents gave for their involvement. This is because tilling is minimised
during land preparation and the reduced labour helps farmers save time and to
carry out other farm operations, such as planting on time.
CA’s ability in reducing labour demands has been debated in some quarters.
Giller et al (2009) argue that the reduced work load can only be achieved in
cases where herbicides are used. The basis for this thinking is that not tilling the
soil and planting directly into the mulch may indeed reduce labour requirement for
land preparation, but increases weed pressure if herbicides are not used. Thus
the increased amount of labour required for weeding with CA may outweigh the
labour gained by not ploughing. Based on this thinking it may therefore be said
that the reduced labour demand observed by the respondents may not necessary
be attributed to CA alone, but to the use of herbicides as well.
42
Table 19: Reasons given for practicing CA
Reason
Frequency
%
soil and water conservation 9 45.0
Soil fertility improvement 12 60.0
Low cost 1 5.0
Low labour demanding 15 75.0
High yielding 9 45.0
4.7. Reasons for stopping practicing CA
It was important to try and identify the reasons why farmers had stopped CA
practices (Table 20). In contrast to those still practicing CA, 10% considered it to
be more labour demanding, as crop residues necessary for mulching the surface
had to be fetched from outside their farms, because their own surface mulching
material is often destroyed by fire or livestock. However, the majority (65%) of
those who had stopped practicing CA did so because they found it to be
expensive. When asked to identify the most expensive component of CA, all the
farmers in this category singled out inputs (especially herbicides) as the main
limiting factor. The same was also identified by 65% of respondents who were
still practicing CA. It is true that some people equate CA to use of herbicides,
because almost all the partners (NGOs, private sector and government) involved
in the promotion of CA include herbicides as part of CA package. However, it
remains to be proven whether these herbicide inputs are strictly necessary.
However, the financial aspect is important as 35% mentioned the stoppage of
grants a reason for no longer participating in CA. Some proponents of CA
(MoAFS inclusive) regard grants as an incentive for farmers' participation -
especially in the first year, and it is assumed that the farmers will be able to
continue on their own having seen its benefits. This is not always the case, as
some farmers are only interested in the free inputs rather than the technology,
and others took the grants as a prerequisite for their participation in CA. Farmers
dropping out of soil and water conservation programmes is not a new
phenomenon in most of the countries in the southern African region. A closer look
at success stories in adoption of some conservation technologies shows a strong
43
relationship between success and donor-funded projects. The supposed adopters
of such technologies often get inputs for free or on loan, and when external
support stops farmers quickly revert to their former crop management practice
(Giller et al, 2009).
Table 20: Reasons given for stopping practicing CA
Reason
Frequency
Percent
Expensive 13 65
High labour demanding 2 10
Grants stopped 7 35
Input scarcity 1 5
4.8. Reasons for never adopting CA
Similarly, it was necessary to identify the reasons for not having adopted CA
(Table 21), and 30% of respondents who had never participated in CA indicated
the reason was that they had not been selected by the extension worker. Some
respondents recounted that farmers whose gardens were along the main roads
were favoured by the extension workers and that whenever an opportunity for
grants arose it was these farmers who were given priority. There were incidences
when inputs were given to farmers who had no interest in CA simply because
their gardens were along the roads. The arguments being put forward by the
extension workers from MOAFS was that such criteria were meant to promote
adoption, as it is easy for other farmers to see what is happening on a
demonstration plot when it is along a main road. However, they did admit that
poor selection of farmers hosting demonstration plots has at times had a negative
effect on adoption.
44
Table 21: Reasons given for not adopting CA
Reason
Frequency
%
I was not selected 6 30.0
Expensive 6 30.0
Not interested 3 15.0
I have not been trained 4 20.0
Never heard of it 1 5.0
I have just heard of it last cropping season 1 5.0
Another 30% of respondents indicated that they did not venture into CA because
they considered it to be expensive. This group again singled out herbicides as the
most expensive input. Lack of interest and lack of awareness were also given as
reasons for non participation in the technology, and 20% mentioned lack of
knowledge in CA as they had not been trained. Similar reasons were also found
by Williams (2008) in a study conducted in Nkhotakota district on adoption of CA.
4.9. Challenges being faced in implementation of CA
Over one third of farmers practicing and 50% of those no longer practicing CA
considered scarcity of inputs (especially herbicides and fertilizer) as one of the
factors impeding adoption of CA. Coupled with the scarcity of inputs is their
expensiveness, and this was mentioned by 40% and 20% of farmers practicing
and no longer practicing CA respectively (Table 22). Realising the challenges that
smallholder farmers are facing, since 2005 the Government of Malawi (GoM) has
been implementing an input subsidy programme in order to improve farmers’
access to inputs, but the programme does not cover everybody as it targets the
poorest of the poor.
45
Table 22: Challenges being faced when implementing CA
Challenge
Practicing CA
No longer Practicing CA
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Input scarcity 7 35.0 10 50.0
Inputs are expensive 8 40.0 4 20.0
Crop residue management 7 35.0 8 40.0
Being laughed at 2 10.0 1 5.0
Equipment not available 3 15.0 3 15.0
Transportation of manure 1 5.0 0 0.0
Weed management 2 10.0 3 15.0
Planting 3 15.0 2 10.0
Fertilizer application 1 5.0 1 5.0
Weed management, fertilizer application and planting were also mentioned as
activities that demanded more labour. However, Williams (2008) argues that if
one considers the amount of work that goes into traditional agriculture methods
and also walks through a field of CA a month after harvest, it becomes clear that
less work is done under CA as the weeds in CA plots are significantly reduced in
comparison with conventional agriculture. He also quantified the time a farmer
spent on farm operations in maize production if CA is used and this was
compared to conventional maize production method. It was found that the
conservation agriculture respondents on average spent 30 hours per acre in their
fields while their counterparts practicing traditional methods spent 47 hours per
acre in their field, and those who had been practicing CA for more than a year
spent even slightly less days.
Management of crop residues was singled out by 35% of farmers practicing and
40% of those no longer practicing CA as the most labour demanding activity as
the residues require to be evenly spread. The farmers also explained that they
are times when the crop residues have to be transported from outside the field
because the residues retained from the previous crop are deemed inadequate.
Burning of crop residues by mice hunters, removal of the residues by tobacco
46
farmers for nursery seed bed preparation,8 destruction of the residues by termites
and by livestock were mentioned as factors affecting crop residue management
Other challenges that CA if facing in the study area were mentioned, including
being laughed at by fellow farmers as the CA field does not look appealing to the
eye and also due to the general belief that the only way to prepare for planting is
to till the land. Expensiveness and absence of equipment such as sprayers for
application of herbicides and jab planters, and difficulties in transporting manure
to the field were also mentioned. High labour demand during weeding in the
event of farmer’s failure to access herbicides was also seen as an obstacle to
successful implementation of CA as the majority of the smallholder farmers in
Africa rely on hand weeding and that is estimated to consume 50-70% of the total
labour time (Gianessi, 2009).
4.10. Reasons why CA is more rewarding
Farmers are likely to embrace a new technology when they perceive it to be in
their best interest to do so. In most cases the decision to change is influenced by
economic reasons and it is not unusual for farmers to opt for a production system
which is both more efficient and less expensive9 (Nwankwo et al, 2009 and
Marsh, 2010). Over 90% of the respondents considered CA to be more rewarding
than conventional farming. A majority of each group of respondents gave low
labour demand as a reason why CA was superior to conventional method. 85%
of respondents practicing, 65% of those who stopped and 55% of the
respondents not practicing considered it to be high yielding (Table 23). The
results are line with the findings of Valencia and Nyirenda (2003) which found
maize grain yields for the conservation agriculture technologies to be two to three
fold over the traditional way of farming. In the same study it was also noted that
net income from CA plots was higher than from conventional system. The higher
net income from the conservation agriculture technology is a result of savings
8 It is a common practice in Malawi for tobacco farmers burn maize crop residues on a tobacco
seedbed before sowing in order to kill pests. 9 A system is less expensive if it requires less labour, fuel and equipment. It is more efficient if it
results in increased quantity or quality of output in relation to inputs.
47
accrued from labour for ridging and weeding. However, farmers can experience a
reduction in yields in the initial years of practicing the technology (Giller, 2009).
Table 23: Reasons given as to why CA is more rewarding
Reason Practicing CA No longer
Practicing CA Never Practiced
CA
Frequency % Frequency % Frequency %
Low labour demanding 20 100 15 75 11 55
High yielding 17 85 13 65 11 55
Soil and water conservation 2 10 2 10 1 5
Low production cost 1 5 0 0 1 5
Soil fertility improvement 13 65 11 55 12 60
Termite attack to crops is reduced
0 0 1 5 0 0
About 60% of the respondents in each of the three categories considered CA to
be better in terms of soil fertility improvement. Soil and water conservation, low
production cost and reduction in crop attack by termites were the other reasons
that the respondents gave in supporting CA over conventional method. Giller et al
(2009) write that, despite the general belief that reduced tillage leads to increased
SOM and soil fertility, the addition of organic matter through mulching in CA plays
a significant role in soil and water conservation and soil fertility improvement
rather than reduced tillage itself.
4.11. CA promotion strategies
Farmers' opinions were also sought on various CA promotion strategies, with
63.3 of respondents saying that making inputs particularly inorganic fertilizer and
herbicides available would help in the promotion of CA (Table 25). Provision of
inputs on loans, and deliberate efforts that would bring down the current price of
inputs were suggested as further ways that would boost CA adoption. Provision
of loans for CA inputs is not a new phenomenon, as the approach was used by
Sasakawa Grobal 2000 in a project which was designed to improve maize
productivity per unit area (Mloza-Banda and Nanthabwe, 2010). It is still being
used by Total Landcare (TLC), an NGO whose main mission is to improve the
48
livelihoods of smallholder farmers with a focus on 'community-based approaches
to increase agricultural production, food security and incomes within a context
that ensures sound management of their natural resources' (TLC, 2007).
Table 24: CA promotion strategies
Strategy Frequency %
Provide Loans 38 63.3
Train more farmers 36 60.0
Mount more on-farm demonstrations 7 11.7
Conduct more farmer exchange visits 4 6,7
Establish CA groups 19 31.7
Make CA inputs available 28 46.7
Hold more field days 5 8.3
Training more farmers in CA technology was mentioned by 60% of the
respondents, and this is further supported by the study results since all the
farmers practicing CA had been trained in CA, compared to 40% of respondents
who had never practiced received CA. Lewa et al (2010) note that farmer training
is crucial, as it increases the frequency of farmer contact with extension staff and
other farmers. Training may also enhance farmer-to-farmer information
exchange and encouragement through peer pressure.
The establishment of CA groups was positively cited by 31.7% of respondents.
Farmer Groups are the usual entry points of most agricultural programs by
government and NGOs in Malawi. The approach is promoted because the ratio
of agricultural extension workers to farmers is big and dissemination of
agricultural messages through groups makes it possible for a larger number of
farmers to be reached within a short period. Through the groups, the farming
community can also be empowered with the knowledge and skills to identify its
needs and problems, harness its resources to deal with this problem, and take
action collectively (Paras and Amongo, 2005)
49
Mounting of on-farm demonstrations was also brought up by 11.7% of the
respondents; these are crucial in technology transfer as they provide
opportunities for farmers to have hard evidence on the advantages and
disadvantages of the technology in question. They also give researchers a
chance to properly evaluate the technology being developed under the real
condition of the smallholder farmer for whom it is being developed, and this
provides an opportunity to understand the conditions under which the farmer is
operating
50
Chapter Five: Conclusion and Recommendations
This chapter gives a summary of factors and challenges affecting/restricting
adoption of conservation agriculture in Malawi and it proposes measures to be
undertaken in order to enhance the adoption of the technology.
5.1 Conclusion
This study found out that the greater majority of the respondents were aware of
conservation agriculture and its associated benefits. However, awareness in CA
alone was found not to be enough to enhance the adoption and continued use of
CA. Somewhat unexpectedly, age of the respondent, household size, level of
education, level of land control, and size of the garden were found not to show
significant relationships with the adoption of CA.
Judging from a review of relevant literature, positive correlations might have been
expected with level of education (Weir and Night, 2000), land ownership
(McCulloch, et al, 1998; Lastarria-Cornhiel, 2009), and size of the garden
(Onyenweaku et al, 2007), while negative correlations could have been expected
with age (Thangataa and Alavalapati, 2003; Uematsu and Mishra, 2010), and
household size (Adeoti, 2009). However, the data do provide suggestions of
non-significant relationships: between current CA practice and smaller families
(Section 4.1.3), between secondary education and having tried CA (Section
4.1.4), and between current CA and larger gardens (Section 4.1.5).
A male household head, membership of a Farmer Group, and having attended
farmer trainings were all found to have significant positive impacts on adoption
and continued use of CA technology. This is not strange as these results are in
line with the findings other researchers (Thangataa and Alavalapati, 2003;
Masuki et al, 2007; Adeoti, 2009; Mazvimavi and Twomlow, 2009).
51
The sample of female-headed households was too small to make really
meaningful interpretations, but the benefits to CA of a male head of household
could be explained by a cultural reluctance of women to be seen to be taking
radical decisions, or by the heavy existing workload of women who would then be
taking on additional 'male' roles. Respondents indicated that all those who had
got involved in CA did it as a result of some sort of practical example. Therefore,
membership of a Farmer Group and participation in training probably initiated
decisions to adopt CA, rather than the other way round.
As previously indicated, it was expected that land control/ownership might have
been a significant factor in getting involved CA, since land tenure has been an
established as a major factor in encouraging the investments needed for land
improvements (McCulloch, et al, 1998; Lastarria-Cornhiel, 2009). The
interpretation for this previous finding is that people are more inclined to put long-
term investment into enterprises that are secure. In the current study, it is likely
that the sample of respondents was too homogeneous to detect any influence of
land tenure. Furthermore, although no respondent had clear title to the land they
cultivated, all of them operated in a fairly secure situation that included de-facto
rights of inheritance.
Similarly, it might have been expected that level of income would positively
correlate with the uptake of CA since better-off farmers would be those most able
to get involved without assistance once they thought CA was a good idea. In the
event, there was no significant difference in income levels between farmers
practicing the technology and those who had never practiced it. However, the
study did reveal a positive correlation between income and long-term
commitment to CA, with those who abandoned the technology after taking it up
being less well off. Furthermore, there was a positive correlation between
maintaining CA and having made a personal financial outlay to acquire the initial
inputs.
There are two, probably inter-linked, explanations for these observations. First,
adoption of CA has associated costs that will be both better appreciated and
52
better absorbed by those making personal investments than by those who are
kick-started by grant-aided inputs. The second explanation parallels the
psychological explanation of the link between land tenure and willingness to
invest, in that those who have invested their own money have more incentive to
put in the additional effort necessary for a successful outcome.
5.2 Recommendations
Input acquisition is a challenge to smallholder farmers as the desired inputs are
sometimes not available or most farmers cannot afford to buy them at the current
market price. This is particular true of herbicides. The lack of purchasing power
can be attributed to the fact that the majority of farmers live below the poverty
line, and deliberate action therefore needs to be taken to enhance farmers’
access to inputs. This has previously been done by supplying materials as
grants, but this has encouraged farmers to apply who are only interested in the
inputs rather the CA technology being promoted. Such practices create a
dependency syndrome, which is counter-productive to the goal of building self-
sufficiency. Grants also bring discontent among the farming community as not
everybody is covered, and the criteria used in selection of beneficiaries are often
questionable. In some cases farmers who are left out of grants programmes shun
away from participating in other agriculture programmes. It also creates an
impression that any new technology cannot be implemented without external
assistance.
An alternative, practiced by the NGO TLC, is the provision of loans on a cost-
recovery (i.e. no-interest) basis to smallholder farmers who show interest in CA.
Previously the Malawian government issued agriculture inputs as loans
accessible through Farmer Groups, but with individual recipient farmers repaying
to the government through the Agricultural Extension Workers. This is no longer
the case, but government grants can still be given to a Farmer Group to set up a
revolving fund with repayment to the Group. Farmers who show interest in CA
should be asked to pay a deposit to the Farmer Group account as proof of their
commitment, and this would put off farmers who were only interested in the grant
rather than the technology. TLC (2007) recommends that loans to farmers and
53
small-scale enterprises must first involve a thorough assessment of capabilities to
undertake the intended practice, along with ability to repay the loan. To reduce
the risk of defaults, and to ensure that beneficiaries are committed to the
endeavour, a minimum down-payment should be demanded.
Mobilising farmers to find their own start-up inputs would enhance adoption, as
farmers who made personal investments were found to be more likely to retain
the CA practice. This can be achieved through encouraging Farmer Groups to set
up a savings fund from subscriptions and demonstration plot income etc.
Coming up with a deliberate policy that would result in reduction of the current
market price of herbicides may also increase CA adoption, and this can be
achieved through reducing the domestic tax on herbicides, which is currently at
21% (Tchale and Keyser, 2010). However, not all farmers could afford herbicides
even with the provision of loans or a reduction in price. Therefore, it is imperative
that it is demonstrated to farmers that CA is not synonymous with herbicide
application. This assumption had been established by the fact that almost none of
the proponents of CA in Malawi have done it without herbicides. However, there
is literature support for the idea that CA can be done without herbicides as long
as adequate soil cover is provided to suppress weeds (FAO, 2008). Doing this
would be more labour-intensive, but would enable farmers to fight the weed
problem more cheaply.
Farmer trainings in CA need to be given more emphasis since, as the study has
shown, farmers who have been trained stand a better chance of adopting a
technology. It is through training that a farmer can understand the dangers of the
current agricultural practices and realise that adopting a different approach might
be of great importance. This also gives an opportunity for an extension worker to
have more contacts with the farmer and have an understanding of the conditions
under which the farmer is operating. This may not happen overnight as it a
journey that both every farmer needs to go through for a sound decision to be
made. Trainings therefore need to be packaged in a way that gives farmers
hands-on experience in the implementation of the technology. This could be
54
achieved through mounting of on-farm demonstrations and encouraging farmer-
to-farmer exchange visits. However, as the study has shown, care needs to be
taken when selecting sites and individuals to host the demonstrations. In the area
of study almost all the demonstration plots were along the main roads, and in
most cases farmers whose gardens were away from those sites did not
participate. Site selection should be done in a participatory manner and should
take into consideration the views of the farmers as well as practical
considerations such as ease of access. Failure to do this may lead to continued
low participation, and this will result in low adoption of CA and other valuable
techniques.
Formation of Farmer Groups needs to be given more emphasis, as they were
found to be effective when conducting trainings and passing on other extension
messages. Farmer Groups also act as platforms for farmers to share experiences
and encourage each other. In addition, participating farmers have better access
to extension services and other services. Farmers who do not belong to any
group may be enticed to join if they become aware of the benefits and support
they can have which may bring positive contribution to their production.. There is
also a need to promote farmer-to-farmer extension in the dissemination of CA
messages so that farmers who have not tried the technology are encouraged.
The current study mainly focused on Individual and household factors, but there
is an obvious need for further research to be done to determine other biophysical,
policy and institutional factors that might be affecting the adoption of CA. It may
also be of paramount importance to carry out research on soil physical and
chemical properties dynamics under CA systems as the current information
available for Malawi is not adequate.
55
References
Adeoti, A.I.; 2009. Factors influencing irrigation technology adoption and its
impact on household poverty in Ghana. Journal of Agriculture and Rural
Development in the Tropics and Subtropics, 109, No. 1, 51–63
Ajayi, O.C.; F.K. Akinnifesi; G. Sileshi and S. Chakeredza, 2007. Adoption of
renewable soil fertility replenishment technologies in the southern African region:
Lessons learnt and way forward. Natural Resources Forum, 31, 306-317.
Baker, C.J.; K.E. Saxton,; W.R. Ritchie; W.C.T. Chamen; D. C. Reicosky; F.
Ribeiro; S.E. Justice and P. R. Hobbs, 2007. No-tillage seeding in conservation
agriculture. CABI Publishing: Oxon, UK.
Bishop, J., 1992. The cost of soil erosion in Malawi. Report prepared for the
World Bank Economics Mission on Environmental Policy, Malawi, July-Aug 1990.
World Bank: Washington, DC.
Chilimba, A.D.C., 2001. Vertisols management in Malawi. In: Syers, K.J.; W.T.
Frits; P. De Vries and P. Nyamudeza (eds.), The sustainable management of
vertisols. CAB International: Oxon, UK.
Chinsinga, B. and A. O’Brien, 2008. Planting ideas: How agricultural subsidies
are working in Malawi. Africa Research Institute: London.
CTIC, 1999. Conservation tillage. US Conservation Technology Information
Center: West Lafayette, USA. Available at:
http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/contillage.shtml.
Dubbin, W., 2001. Soils. Natural History Museum: London.
56
FAO, 1975. Natural resources and environment: Les unités pédologiques de la
FAO. Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN: Rome. Available at:
http://www.fao.org/nr/land/sols/les-unites-pedologiques-de-la-fao-1975/fr/
FAO, 2001. Conservation agriculture: Case studies in Latin America and Africa.
Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN: Rome. Available at:
(http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/Y1730E/y1730e00.)
FAO, 2008. Conservation agriculture. Food and Agricultural Organization of the
UN: Rome. Available at: http://www.fao.org/ag/ca/8.html
Fowler, R. and J. Rockstrom, 2001. Conservation tillage for sustainable
agriculture: An agrarian revolution gathers momentum in Africa. Soil and Tillage
Research, 61, 93-107
García-Torres, L.; A. Martínez-Vilela; A. Holgado-Cabrera and Emilio
Gónzalez-Sánchez, 2002. Conservation agriculture, Environmental and
Economic benefits. Summary of the Workshop on Soil Protection and
Sustainable Agriculture, Soria, Spain, 15-17 May 2002. Available at:
http://www.unapcaem.org/publication/ConservationAgri/CA1.pdf
Gianessi, L.; 2009. Solving Africa’s weed problem: Increasing crop production
and improving the lives of women. CropLife Foundation, Washington DC.
Available
at:http://www.whybiotech.com/resources/tps/Solving_Africas_Weed_Problem_Re
port.pdf
Giller, K.E.; E. Witter; M. Corbeels and P. Tittonell, 2009. Conservation
Agriculture and smallholder farming in Africa: The heretics’ view. Field Crops
Research, 114, 23-34.
GoM, 1996. The national environmental action plan. Government of Malawi,
Ministry of Mines, Natural Resources and Environment: Lilongwe, Malawi.
57
GoM, 2002a. Malawi national land policy. Government of Malawi, Ministry of
Lands, Physical Planning and Surveys: Lilongwe, Malawi.
GoM, 2002b. State of the environment report for 2002. Government of Malawi,
Ministry of Mines, Natural Resources and Environment: Lilongwe, Malawi.
Hobbs, P.R., K. Sayre and R. Gupta, 2007. The role of conservation agriculture
in sustainable agriculture. Philosophical Transactions of Royal Society, 363, 543-
555.
IMF, 2007. Malawi: Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper - Growth and Development
Strategy. International Monetary Fund: Washington DC.
Knowler, D. and B. Bradshaw, 2007. Farmers’ adoption of conservation
agriculture: A review and synthesis of recent research. Food Policy, 32, 25-48.
Lastarria-Cornhiel, S.; 2009. Women’s role in agriculture and in rural welfare:
Access to land and resources. United Nations, New York. Available at:
http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw
Le Danvic, A.S.; 2009. Analysis diagnosis of an agricultural region of Southern
Malawi. Unpublished, Inter-AIDE: Lilongwe, Malawi.
Lewa, K.K.; R.W. Muinga and D.M. Mwamachi, 2010. Enhancing technology
adoption through competitive learning Grants: Experiences of the Atiri in Coastal
Kenya, Mtwapa, Kenya. Available at:
http://www.kari.org/fileadmin/publications/10thproceedings/Poster/Ehancing_Tec
hAdopn_Comptv.pdf
Makumba, W.; F.K. Akinnifesi; B. Janssen and O. Oenema, 2006. Long-term
impact of gliricidia-maize interplanting system on carbon sequestration in
southern Malawi. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 118, 237-243.
58
Marsh, S.; 2010. Adopting innovations in agricultural industries. University of
Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia. Available at:
http://www.abare.gov.au/outlook/_download/pro_marsh.pdf
Masuki, K F G.; K D Mutabazi; S D Tumbo; F B Rwehumbiza and A Z Mattee,
2007., Determinants of farm-level adoption of water systems innovations in
dryland areas: The case of Makanya Watershed in Pangani River Basin,
Tanzania. Available at:
Materechera, S.A and H.R. Mloza-Banda, 1997. Soil penetration resistance,
root growth and yield of maize as influenced by tillage system on ridges in
Malawi. Soil Tillage Research 41, 13-24.
Mazvimavi, K. And S. Twomlow, 2009. Socioeconomic and institutional factors
influencing adoption of conservation farming by vulnerable households in
Zimbabwe. Agricultural Systems, 101, 20-29.
McCulloch, A.N.; R. Meinzen-Dick and P. Hazell, 1998. Property rights,
collective action and technologies for natural resource management: A
conceptual framework. SP-PRCA Working Paper No. 1. International Food Policy
Research Institute, Washington DC.
Mloza-Banda, H.R. and S.J. Nanthambwe, 2010. Conservation agriculture
projects in Malawi: Impacts and lessons. Unpublished, Land Resources
Conservation Department, Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security: Lilongwe,
Malawi
MoA/UNDP/FAO, 1992. Land resources appraisal of the Agricultural
Development Divisions. Department of Soil and Land Resources, Ministry of
Agriculture: Lilongwe, Malawi in conjunction with UNDP and FAO.
59
Munthali, W.M.; S.F.M. Kazombo and A.R. Saka, 2008. Socio economic factors
affecting the adoption of soil and water conservation technologies among
smallholder farmers in Malawi. In: Nhira, C.; A. Mapiki and P. Rankhumise (eds.),
Land and water management in southern Africa. The African Institute of South
Africa: Pretoria, South Africa.
Nanthambwe, S.J. and N.J. Mulenga,. 1999. An account of the history of soil
and water conservation related agricultural extension in Malawi. Land Resources
Conservation Department, Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security: Lilongwe,
Malawi
Nothale, D.W. 1982. Land tenure systems and agricultural production in Malawi.
University of Malawi, Lilongwe, Malawi. Available at:
http://www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/80604e/80604E0h.htm
NSO, 2005. Integrated household survey (2004-2005). National Statistical Office,
Zomba, Malawi
NSO, 2008. 2008 population and housing census. National Statistical Office:
Zomba, Malawi
Nwankwo, U.M.; K.J. Peters, and W. Bokelmann, 2010. The journal of
Agrobiotechnology Managemrnt and Economics, Volume 12 // Number 3 & 4 //
Article 18. Available at: http://www.agbioforum.org/v12n34/v12n34a18-
nwankwo.htm.
Onyenweaku, C.E.; B.C. Okoye And K.C. Okorie, 2007. Determinants of
fertilizer adoption by rice farmers in Bende Local Government Area of Abia State,
Nigeria. Munich Personal RePEc Archive papaer no. 26116, posted 22. October
2010 / 15:27. Available at: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/26116/
60
Paras, F.O. Jr., and R. M. C. Amongo, 2005. Technology transfer strategies for
small farm mechanisation technologies in the Philippines. University of
Philippines, Laguna, Philippines. Available at:
http://www.agnet.org/library/eb/570/
Paustian, K.; J.M. Antle; J. Sheehan and E.A. Paul, 2006. Agriculture’s role in
greenhouse gas mitigation. PEW Center on Global Climate Change: Arlington,
Virginia. Available at:
http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Agriculture's%20Role%20in%20GHG%20
Mitigation.pdf
Sauer, J. and H. Tchale, 2006. Alternative soil management options in Malawi -
an economic analysis. Paper presented at the International Association of
Agricultural Economists Conference, Gold Coast, Australia, August 12-18.
Siacinji-Musiwa, J.M. 1999. Conservation tillage in Zambia: Some technologies,
indigenous methods and environmental issues. in: Kaumbutho P G and
Simalenga T E (eds.), 1999. Conservation tillage with animal traction: A resource
book of the Animal Traction Network for Eastern and Southern Africa (ATNESA).
Harare, Zimbabwe.
Snapp, S.S.; D.D. Rohrbach; F. Simtowe and H.A. Freeman, 2002.
Sustainable soil management options for Malawi: can smallholder farmers grow
more legumes? Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 91, 159-174.
Tchale, H. and J. Keyser, 2010. Quantitative value chain analysis: An
application to Malawi. Policy Research Working Paper 5242. Wolrd Bank,
Agricultural and Rural Unit, Africa. Region. Available at:
Thangataa, P.H. and J.R.R. Alavalapati, 2003. Agroforestry adoption in
southern Malawi: The case of mixed intercropping of Gliricidia sepium and maize.
Agricultural Systems 78, 57–71
61
TLC, 2007. Chia watershed management project report. Unpublished, Total
Landcare: Lilongwe
Uematsu, H. and A.K. Mishra, 2010. Net effect of education on technology
adoption by U.S. farmers. Louisiana State University AgCenter, Los Angels.
Selected Paper prepared for presentation at the Southern Agricultural Economics
Association Annual Meeting, Orlando, FL, February 6-9, 2010
UN-REDD, 2010. Slash and burn farming. Collaborative initiative on Reducing
Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation. United Nations: Available
at:http://www.un-
redd.org/NewsCentre/Slash_and_Burn_Farming/tabid/3013/language/en-
US/Default.aspx
Valencia, J.A. and N. Nyirenda. 2003. The impact of conservation tillage
technology on conventional weeding and its effect on cost of production of maize
in Malawi. In: Mloza-Banda, H. R. and Salanje, G.F. (eds.) Proceedings of the
19th Biennial Weed Science Society Conference for Eastern Africa. Lilongwe,
Malawi.
Weir, S. and J. Knight, 2000. Adoption and Diffusion of Agricultural Innovations
in Ethiopia:The Role of Education. Centre for the Study of African Economies,
Oxford.
WFP, 2008. Malawi, 2008: Investments in Agriculture. World Food Programme of
the UN. Available at:
http://one.wfp.org/country_brief/africa/malawi/factsheets/Investments_in_Agricult
ure_Fact_Sheet_August_2008_DL.pdf
Williams, J., 2008. Adoption of conservation agriculture in Malawi. Unpublished,
MSc thesis, Duke University: Durham NC, USA
62
Wiyo, K.A.; Z.M. Kasomekera and J. Feyen, 2000. Effect of tied-ridging on soil
water status of a maize crop under Malawi conditions. Agricultural Water
Management 45, 101-125
63
Appendices
Appendix 1
Factors Affecting Adoption of Conservation Farming in Malawi
(Farmer Questionnaire)
Name of the farmer_______________________
ADD:______________________ District:________________________
EPA:______________________ Section:_______________________
Village:____________________
Socio economic information
1. Sex of the household head:
[1] Male [2] Female
2. Age:
[1] 18-25 [2] 26-35
[3] 36-45 [4] 46-55
[5] 56 and above
3. Level of education
[1] No any formal education [2] Std 1- Std 5
[3] Std 6- Std 8 [4] Some secondary education
[5] Some tertiary education
64
4. Household size
[1] 1-2 [2] 3-4
[3] 5-6 [4] >6
5. Size of the garden (Acres)
[1] 0.1-0.5 [2] 0.6-1.0
[3] 1.1-2.0 [4] 2.1-3.0
[5] >3.0
6a. Land ownership
[1] Own garden [2] Renting
[3] Borrowed [4] Others specify_______
6b. Type of land ownership
[1] Customary land [2] Private/Leasehold land
[3] Public land
7a. Estimate total income
[1] 0-10,000 [2] 11,000-25,000
[3] 26,000-40,000 [4] 41,000-60,000
[5] 61,000 and above
7b. Estimate % distribution of income
[1] Agriculture [2] Salary
[3] Piece works
65
7c. Estimate % of agriculture income
[1] Crop [2] Livestock
8. Crops grown:
[1] Maize [2] Ground nuts
[3] Cotton [4] Tobacco
[5] Soya [6] Rice
[7] Cassava [8] (Others (specify)_________
9. Livestock kept
[1] Cattle [2] Goats
[3] Sheep [4] Pigs
[5] Chicken [6] None
(Others (specify) _____________
CA Information Dissemination
10a. Do you belong to any farmer group?
[1] Yes [2] No
10b. If yes in question 10a, which group?
[1] Irrigation group [2] Livestock group
[3] Soil and water conservation group [4] Agroforestry group
[5] Others (Specify)______________
66
10c. If no in 10a, why don’t you belong to any farmer group?
[1] Not interested [2] There is no farmer group
[3] The group disbanded [4] Can’t afford membership fee
Others (specify) _______
11a. Do you have an extension worker in this area?
[1] Yes [2] No
11b. If yes to 11a, which organisation does the extension belong?
[1] Min of Agriculture [2] NGO
[3] Farmer group [4] Others (specify) __________
11c. How frequent does an extension worker visit you in a month?
[1] Doesn’t visit [2] Once a month
[3] Twice a month [4] More than twice a month
12a. Have you ever heard of conservation agriculture?
[1] Yes [2] No
12b. If yes to question 12a, where did you hear about conservation agriculture?
[1] MoAFS agriculture extension worker [2] Fellow farmer
[3] NGO extension worker [4] Farmer volunteer
[5] Attended field day [6] Others (specify) __________
67
13a. Have you ever been trained in conservation agriculture?
[1] Yes [2] No
13b. If yes to question 13 a, What were the topics covered?
[1] Crop residue management [2] Weed management
[3] Nutrient management [4] Others (specify)____________
14. Level of adoption
[1] Practicing CA [2] No longer practicing CA
[3] Never practiced conservation agriculture
15. For responses 1 and 2 in 14, how did get your initial inputs to start conservation farming? [1] I bought with my own cash [2] Loan
[3] Grant [4] Others (Specify) ___________
16a. For response 1 in 14, why are you practicing conservation agriculture?
[1]Soil conservation [2] Soil fertility improvement
[3] High yielding [4] Low cost
[5] Low labour demanding [6] Others (specify) ___________
16b. For response 2 in 14, Why did you stop conservation agriculture?
[1] Expensive [2] Labour demanding
[3] Low yielding [4] Grants stopped
[5] Did not pay back loan [6] Others (specify) ___________
68
17a. For responses 2 and 3 in question 15, would still be practicing conservation agriculture if input support stops? [1] Yes [2] No
17b. If no in question 17a, why would you not be practicing CA?
[1] Expensive [2] Labour intensive
[3] Low yielding [4] Others (Specify) ___________
18. What challenges are you/did you encountering/encountered in conservation farming? \ [1] Input scarcity [2] Equipment not available
[3] Destruction of residues by livestock [4] Burning of crop residues
[5] Others (Specify) ______________
19. Which component of conservation farming is more expensive?
[1] Land preparation [2] Weed management
[3] Inputs [4] Others (specify) ___________
20. Which farm operation is labour intensive?
[1] Laying of crop residues [2] Weed management
[3] Others (specify) ______
69
21a. Which would you say is more rewarding between CA and conventional farming? [1] CA [2] Conventional farming
21b. What are the reasons for your answer in question 21a?
[1] Low labour demanding [2] High yielding
[3] Soil and water conservation [4] Soil fertility improvement
Others (specify) ________
22. Why have you never adopted conservation agriculture?
[1] Never heard of it [1] I was not selected
[3] Not interested [4] Expensive
[5] High labour demanding [6] Others (specify) ___________
23. Should conservation agriculture be promoted?
[1] Yes [2] No
24. What do you think should happen in order to promote adoption of CA?
[1] Train more farmers [2] Establish CA groups
[3] Mount more on-farm demonstrations [4] Hold more field days
[5] Conduct more farmer exchange visits [5] Provide loans
[6] Make CA input available [7] Others (Specify) __________
70
Appendix 2
Factors Affecting Adoption of Conservation Farming in Malawi
(Field Staff Questionnaire)
Name _____________________
ADD:______________________ District:_____________________
EPA:______________________ Section:____________________
Name of Organisation_____________________
1. Have you ever be trained in conservation agriculture
[1] Yes [2] No
2a. Have you ever mounted any on-farm demonstration on CA?
[1] Yes [2] No
2b. If yes to question 2a, how many?
[1] 1-3 [2] 4-6
[3] 7-9 [4] >10
3. Do you have any criteria that you use when selecting farmers who host on farm demonstrations? [1] Yes [2] No
4. If yes to question 3, what criteria do you use when selecting framers who host demonstration plots for conservation agriculture? [1] ______________________________________________________________
[2] ______________________________________________________________
[3] ______________________________________________________________
[4] ______________________________________________________________
71
5. What is your assessment in terms of adoption of conservation agriculture?
[1] Adoption is increasing [2] Adoption is going down
[3] I don’t know Others (Specify) ________
6. What challenges are you facing in the course of implementing conservation agriculture? [1] ______________________________________________________________
[2] ______________________________________________________________
[3] ______________________________________________________________
[4] ______________________________________________________________
[5] ______________________________________________________________
7. Are there any incentives given to farmers who host the demonstrations?
[1] Yes [2] No
[3] Sometimes
8. If yes, what are they?
[1] ______________________________________________________________
[2] ______________________________________________________________
[3] ______________________________________________________________
[4] ______________________________________________________________
[5] ______________________________________________________________
9. What contribution do farmers who host the demonstration plots of CA make?
[1] Labour [2] Inputs
[3] Nothing [4] Others (Specify)______
10. Have you ever experienced some farmers dropping out of conservation programmes? [1] Yes [2] No
72
11a. Were any follow ups made to find out why the farmers decided to drop out?
[1] Yes [2] No
11b. If yes to question 11a, what was the result?
[2] The farmer did not revert to CA [1] The farmer restarted CA
[3] Others (specify) ______________
12. What were the reasons for the drop out?
[1] ______________________________________________________________
[2] ______________________________________________________________
[3] ______________________________________________________________
[4] ______________________________________________________________
[5] ______________________________________________________________
13. What opportunities do you see that can help to promote adoption of conservation agriculture in this area? [1] ______________________________________________________________
[2] ______________________________________________________________
[3] ______________________________________________________________
[4] ______________________________________________________________
[5] ______________________________________________________________
14. If conservation agriculture is to be enhanced what do you think should be added to the programme. [1] ______________________________________________________________
[2] ______________________________________________________________
[3] ______________________________________________________________
[4] ______________________________________________________________
[5] ______________________________________________________________