|
Where
|
Karatu District, Tanzania
|
|
Who
|
Target group: Small farmers with focus on women farmers and vulnerable households; for example Mrs. Florence Pumpkins, a widow living with 3 daughter and three sons plus three grand children together and cultivating 1 acre of land.
|
|
Why
|
Objective of the study
- to determine if reduced tillage / conservation agriculture practices are labour saving (quantitative data analysis)
- to determine the circumstances under which CA is suitable for adoption and sustained use by vulnerable groups without exposing them to too many risks with regard to their own food security and the stability of their livelihoods (qualitative)
- to identify potential barriers which hinder the adoption of labour saving practices such as CA and means to overcome them. (qualitative)
|
|
What
|
Intervention:
- Introduction of the utilization of soil cover for suppressing weeds (to save labour in weeding) and for improving soil fertility plus protecting the soils against erosion. Cover crops in use were dolicos lab lab and mucuna. Indigenous knowledge on intercropping pumpkins with maize was available.
- Additionally a set of no-tillage equipment (hand jab planter, no-tillage DAP planter, knife roller) was introduced by the study.
- Additionally one round of herbicide was applied in some of the fields on the onset of the study.
- For the short rain season (beans) poor vulnerable farmers were selected to participate with seven individual conservation farming plots. Of the seven threee were poor FHH; two were medium male farmers and two were male rich farmers. In order to compare the conservation farming system with the traditional farming system ten farmers fields were selected for the traditional farming. Out of these ten five were FHH poor households; four were medium male farmers and one was a wealthy farmer.
- Quantitative labour data for land clearing, land preparation, planting and weeding was recorded (October - February 2003)
- A participatory qualitative assessment of the introduced technology was done in March/April 2003.
- Farmers continued to used the conservation farming approach with intercropping cover crops for the long season (maize) in 2003.
|
|
With whom
|
Ward extension office selected the FHH and poor households with researchers from the Selian Agricultural Research Institute (SARI), Arusha Tanzania. The study is receives major funding by the Subsaharan Africa Division of IFAD; and is supported by the global programme of direct seeding, mulch and conservation agriculture.
Partnerships: The African Conservation Tillage Network (ACT) and the German GTZ have been collaborating with SARI in introducing soil cover and cover crop management prior to the study.
|
|
How
|
Methodology:
- Study supplied beans sees, herbicide, no-till implement (hand jab planter)
- The first phase of the study (October 02 - February 03) focused on data collection to assess the labour requirements for conservation farming compared to traditional / conventional systems
- The second phase of the study (March/April 03) was assessing if conservation farming is suitable for the adoption and sustained use by vulnerable households without exposing them the too many risks with regard to their own food security and the stability of theirlivelihoods and to identify potential barriers which hinder the adoption of conservation farming.
|
|
How much
|
Benefits and Impact:
- The soil cover has reduced the labour amount for weeding
- The soil cover has also protected the soils against sun and wind. The soil humidity remained and contributed to a very good beans harvest
- Farmers were able to sell parts of their harvest and pay for school fees
- For thelong season they have started to convert other plots into conservation farming plots by leaving crop residues and stover in the field.
- The demand for cover crop seeds has risen (dolicos lab lab) as farmers have learned about its benefits. It has become a cash crop as middle men from Kenya are buying it. Hence the introduction of cover crops has resulted in an additional income generating activity.
|
|
Time line
|
Participatory design planning begun September 2002, quantitative survey on labour data was conducted during short rain season (October 2002 - February 2003). Qualitative assessment of technology was don in March/April 2003. Full study report should be available by July 2003.
|
|
|
|
Gaps in evidence
|
- The conservation farming plots need to be continued to monitored to assess real impact of soil cover and cover crops on yields and soil fertility.
- Labour requirement for inter cropping cover crops was not recorded as this is done now during long season (ongoing)
|
|
How is this different from standard interventions?
|
- The introduction of cover crops and soil cover implies that farmers accept that their fields look fairly 'untidy' or not nicely clean and weeded. This is contradictory to the standard extension messages. It might result in being singled out as 'lazy' or 'crazy'.
- Technical assistance by research and extension is required to facilitate the acknowledgement of the benefits of soil cover.
- Cover crop seeds multiplication can become an income generating activity for small farmers
- The cover crops tackle labour peaks plus soil erosion plus soil fertility
- Cover crop seeds are normally not part of standard input supply emergency projects but should be included together with technical assistance and training.
|
|
Enabling factors
|
- Even the mot highly vulnerable families can start leaving soil cover in the field to suppress weeds and protect the soil. In fact, planting directly in to the unprepared soil is a known coping mechanism for poor households with labour shortages. This coping strategy can be turned around into an 'innovative technololgy'.
- The tentatively better yields make farmers believing in soil cover
- The farmers who have experienced the benefits of soil cover do not want to switch back to the traditional hand hoe system.
|
|
Constraining factors
|
- Ignorant neighbours and livestock keepers might allow livestock to graze on the field with soil cover
|
|
Additional ideas or potential improvements
|
- Once the idea of soil cover and cover crops is understood the introduction of hand operated equipment (beyond the hand hoe) for planting through the soil cover should be introduced by extension and research.
- If draught animals are available animal driven no-tillage equipment could be introduced too.
- The interventions should be introduced through the farmer field school approach and go along with awareness campaigns on HIV/AIDS and other topics according to farmers' needs.
|
|
Scaling up / scaling out: implications
|
- Cover crop seeds multiplication and distribution should be arranged at big scale. The agro forestry approach of tree seedling multiplication could be used and cover crop nurseries could be established.
- Demonstration sites of cover crop utilization at district capitals close to market centres should be established by extension and research. Mini field days should be conducted.
- Statistics on evidence of labour reduction and yield increase should be published widely.
- Extension staff should be trained in conservation farming approaches and made aware of the benefits of soil cover and cover crops
|
