Grain Legumes and Green Manures for Soil Fertility in ... - cimmyt

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 1. Maize and Grain Legumes Production Statistics ·-Results from the Chiota Pilot Pro·ect CROP 1998·1999 1999·2000 2000·2001 2001·2002 Area Yield Area Yield Area' Vield Area Yield (ha) (t/ha) (ha) (t/ha) (ha) (t/ha) (ha) (t/ha) MAIZE 8784 0.5 7125 1.8 6973 2 7733 0.2 GROUND NUT 546 0.5 439 0.6 399 0.8 420 0.1 SOYABEAN 5 0 12.8 0.6 9 0.8 28 0.1 EDIBLE BEAN 420 0.6 163 0.8 280 0.8 680 0.4 I Source ·[AREX· Fortnightly Crop and livestock Reports] farmers to the Best Bet soil fertility technologies in two years. Table 1 shows production statistics from the pilot area during 1998-2002. Data from Fortnightly Crop and Livestock Reports AREX (Division of Agriculture Research and Extension) indicate production levels of major cereals and legumes before the inception of the project in 1998 1999, during the project and after the project in 2001-2002. Methods Used Farmer participatory research Farmer participatory research methods were used. These methods call for a systematic dialogue between farmers, research and extension. In participatory research, scientists work with informants (farmers providing information) and experimenters (farmers who perform experiments and evaluations) (Bellon, 2001). The community usually identifies these farmers with the assistance of extension staff. The group extension method is one of the extension methods used. Farmer group members were selected based on the following criteria: - farmers' ability to grow a variety of crops - farmers' reputation and workmanship - Sex, age - Land holding. In 1998-1999, a Participatory Rural Appraisal was undertaken to find out about farmers' understanding of the soil fertility status in their areas. Research and extension facilitated the identification of suitable interventions from a list of existing technologies. During the project cycle, monitoring and evaluations were carried out through demonstrations, field days and farmer feedback sessions. Research, extension and farmers participated at all stages. Demonstrations and field days were also used as evaluation and promotion sessions. Demonstrations were research designed but farmer managed. Each host farmer served as a replicate of the experimental Figure 1. Layout of demonstration plots MAIZE/ MAIZE O.lha. MAIZE/LEGUME O.lha. unit. Each host farmer had a single plot measuring 0.2 ha (Figure 1). Demo-plots of maize after a grain legume and maize after a green manure were compared with the farmer practice of planting maize after maize. In some cases more than one grain legume was established. Twenty-three sites of cereal - grain legume rotations and 10 sites Qf green manures were established. Soya bean, groundnut, bambara nut and cowpea were established in rotation as sole crops. Velvet bean and sunnhemp were established as either intercrops or as sole crops. Maize yield from the demo plots was compared. Field days were held at all established sites. The field days served as sessions for the sharing and exchange of ideas between farmers, research and extension. In some cases, farmer feedback sessions were arranged. Results Farmer participation The farmers who used at least one of the technolo gies after a year were considered to be adopters. These farmers were both from within the groups and outside the groups. Field days played an im portant role in the promotion of the technologies. In some cases, farmers used more than one of the tech nologies on offer. Adoption of the technologies also depended on the socio-economic status of the farmer. More farmers adopted the cereal-legume rotations (57%) compared with 29% of farmers that adopted the green manure technology (29%). Demonstration plots Several shortcomings occurred during implementa tion at some sites. The results from these plots were discarded. For example, plots with different pre establishment treatments were compared (unlimed plots were compared with limed plots). This in creased the number of factors, thus complicating the demos from the farmers' point of view. Variability in the results occurred due to different management abilities of the farmers and the competency of the extension agent, even though pre-planting demon strations had been held. 212 Grain Legumes and Green Manures for Soil Fertility in Southern Africa
Table 2. Maize yields from the cereal· grain legume rotations, 2000-2001. Maize/ Maize/soya Maize Maize Maize/ maize (t/ha) /groundnut /bambara Cowpea (t/ha) (t/ha) (t/ha) (t/ha) Site 1 3.3 5_8 5.4 Site 3 2.6 4.2 4.1 Site 3 4.0 4.5 4.3 Site 4 4.3 4.6 4.5 Site 5 2.0 4.0 3.8 Site 6 1.5 3.0 2.7 Site 7 2.0 3.5 2.5 Site 8 1.6 3.0 Average 3.2 4.7 4.2 L-. Table 3. Maize yields from the green manure demonstration plots, 2000-2001. Maize/maize Maize/velvet Maize/ (t/ha) bean sunnhemp (t/ha) (t/ha) Site 1 2.1 3.7 Site 2 1.6 3.5 Site 3 1.5 3.5 Site 4 2.0 2.0 Site 5 2.5 3.0 Site 6 1.1 1.4 Site 7 0.9 1.0 Site 8 1.1 1.3 Site 9 2.0 2.0 Site 10 2.5 3.0 Average 1.5 1.6 1.4 Maize after a legume outperformed maize after maize at all sites (Table 2). With the green manure technology, farmers preferred sole cropping to in ter-cropping, mainly because of the constraints en countered during harvesting. The demonstrations were held for two years only and no arrangements were made for the third year because project fund ing had terminated. The data collected was from the sole cropping. The average grain yield of maize after maize was out-yielded by maize after a green manure (Table 3). Results from Table 3 indicate that the yield in crease over the two years did not compensate for the yield lost during the first year. Farmer feedback sessions Attendance at field days was overwhelming. Atten dance ranged from 50 to 160 people at some sites. At least 14% and up to 60% of the targeted farmers used annual legumes (such as velvet bean and soya bean) as soil fertility interventions. However, farm ers cited the following setbacks (AGRlTEX, 2000; 2001): Table 4. Participation of Chiota farmers in legume production, 2000 2001. LEGUME TOTAL NO. OF AOOPTERS WITHIN AOOPTERS PARTICIPATING THE GROUP OUTSIDE FARMERS THE GROUP No. % No. ROTATION 1433 818 57 381 GREEN MANURES 631 185 29.3 94 - Lack of planting material. - Lack of knowledge on the utilization of legumes for human consumption and stock-feed. - Lack of knowledge on either uses of velvet bean and sunnhemp. - Lack of knowledge on the residual nutrient levels because of the rotation and green manure. - The concept of input reduction costs was not properly demonstrated. . - Generally, management of the green manure was poor. "Adopters" were considered to be those farmers who used the technology. The table above shows the total number of adopters over two years. The number is expected to rise through farmer-to farmer contacts. There was need to repeat the demonstration in the second year, but this could not be carried out due to unfavourable weather conditions and other socio economic circumstances. However, the following issues in management of green manures are to be considered for future demonstrations: • Sowing and site selection - Plant populations were low due to plant destruction by wild a:nimals. This resulted in very low biomass. • Fertilizer use - without fertilizing it is not possible to achieve a closed green stand and biomass quantities obtained will be low. Farmers considered that it was not practicable to fertilize fallows. • Incorporation - rarely was the green manure incorporated at the best stage. The method of incorporation was also not ideal because the green manure was not fully covered and the environmental conditions were not always good. • Seed procurement - Seed was not readily available locally. The pilot project built a sense of awareness amongst the farmers. An impact assessment will reveal the best steps forward. Grain legumes and Green Manures for Soil Fertility in Southern Africa 213
Page 2 and 3:
Grain Legumes and Green Manures for
Page 4 and 5:
Acknowledgments • The Leopard Roc
Page 6 and 7:
Evall!ating mucuna green manure tec
Page 9:
INTRODUCTION AND CONFERENCE OBJECTI
Page 12 and 13:
Table 1. Paradigm shifts underlying
Page 14 and 15:
100 90 80 - - 0 - - Uptake by ihe m
Page 16 and 17:
- 6 ~ 9 8 7 0- 5 CḎ ns 4 0::: 3
Page 18 and 19:
Table 3. Millet grain and total dry
Page 20 and 21:
Dvorak KA 1996. Adoption potential
Page 23 and 24:
LEGUMES FOR SOIL FERTILITY IN SOUTH
Page 25 and 26:
to the system in such a way that th
Page 27:
Muetzelfeldt, R.1. 1995. A framewor
Page 30 and 31:
ing capacity. Legumes offer other b
Page 32 and 33:
people/km2), land holdings are smal
Page 34 and 35:
ments. It would help researchers to
Page 36 and 37:
Own livestock Gununo farmers for th
Page 39:
Questions and Answers ~ey Papers To
Page 42 and 43:
Historical Perspective on Soyabean
Page 44 and 45:
ganic amendment for resource-poor f
Page 46 and 47:
MPhil. Thesis. University of Zimbab
Page 48 and 49:
deal of research work has been bias
Page 50 and 51:
1600 '7 ns 1400 ~ 1200 Cl ~ 1000 "C
Page 52 and 53:
Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF)
Page 54 and 55:
Boswell EP, Koide RT, Shumway DL, A
Page 56 and 57:
Materials and Methods The trial was
Page 58 and 59:
0.9 0.8 ~ 0.7 Rec '-' 0.6 Vl ::9 0.
Page 60 and 61:
Series no 5. Soil Science SOciety o
Page 62 and 63:
Materials and Methods Persistence o
Page 64 and 65:
content resulted in increased rhizo
Page 66 and 67:
(Mugwiia and Murwira, 1997). Howeve
Page 68 and 69:
Table 2. Average maize yield estima
Page 70 and 71:
implied that most fanners prefer to
Page 73 and 74:
] Questions and Answers Rhizobium,
Page 75 and 76:
ADDING A NEW DIMENSION TO THE IMPRO
Page 77 and 78:
Materials and Methods The study use
Page 79 and 80:
a) Chikwaka b) Chinyika !21 C. absu
Page 81 and 82:
Table 3. N, P and Kconcentrations (
Page 83 and 84:
Abstract SCREENING OF SHORT DURATIO
Page 85 and 86:
Table 2. Characteristics of short d
Page 87 and 88:
RISK DIVERSIFICATION OPPORTUNITIES
Page 89 and 90:
management technologies with differ
Page 91 and 92:
Table 3. Expected annual returns (Z
Page 93:
Table 6. Risk diversification indic
Page 96 and 97:
een renewed interest in green manur
Page 98 and 99:
unfertilised maize crop of over 200
Page 101 and 102:
Questions and Answers Screening of
Page 103 and 104:
GREEN MANURE AND FOOD LEGUMES RESEA
Page 105 and 106:
7000 6000 ';' €.. 5000 .~MzSole :
Page 107 and 108:
Table 5. Maize grain yield (kg ha")
Page 109:
Phiri, A.D.K. 1999. Effects of Sesb
Page 112 and 113:
amount of roots with sl:nnhemp. It
Page 114 and 115:
It was proved that a mixed farming
Page 116 and 117:
Table 3. Above·ground biomass (t/h
Page 118 and 119:
and horticulture in Zimbabwe: Case
Page 121 and 122:
GRAIN LEGUMES AND GREEN MANURES IN
Page 123 and 124:
Results Table 1. Adaptation of gree
Page 125 and 126:
Four rates of fertilizer N were app
Page 127 and 128:
THE ROLE OF COWPEA (VIGNA UNGUICULA
Page 129 and 130:
Table 1. Non-legume cropping patter
Page 131 and 132:
Table 9. Common pests on cowpeas as
Page 133 and 134:
few of the farmers interviewed acqu
Page 135:
Murwira, H.K., M.J. Swift and P.G.H
Page 138 and 139:
Materials and Methods On farm exper
Page 140 and 141:
18000 1600) 14000 a) Zambia 12000 m
Page 143 and 144:
EFFECT OF DIFFERENT GREEN MANURE LE
Page 145 and 146:
.. ~ Table 2. The effect of time o
Page 147:
Chivinge, O.A., E. Kasembe, and I.K
Page 150 and 151:
times with regionally specific adap
Page 152 and 153:
ter content at 180 cm was still wel
Page 154 and 155:
to amount of biomass, quality of bi
Page 156 and 157:
with the natural fallow, which did
Page 158 and 159:
and K to maize as an equivalent amo
Page 160 and 161:
forts to understand the mechanisms
Page 162 and 163:
gen recovery rates in relation to p
Page 164 and 165:
The first steps to improve soil fer
Page 167 and 168:
Questions and Answers .Identificat
Page 169 and 170: MUCUNA - MAIZE ROTATIONS AND SHORT
Page 171: Table 3. Percent nitrogen (% N) con
Page 174 and 175: ~e decomposition of legume residues
Page 176 and 177: Table 3. Effect of forage legumes o
Page 178 and 179: available nutrients and vice versa,
Page 180 and 181: Conclusion and Recommendation Mucun
Page 182 and 183: Specific objectives were to: • Te
Page 184 and 185: '"~ v '" ~ ~ 1400000 1200000 100000
Page 187 and 188: EFFECT OF SURFACE APPLICATION AND I
Page 189: it 4 a···· · ... - :.!! e.....
Page 193 and 194: PERFORMANCE OF GREEN MANURES AND GR
Page 195: Mungwi soil, cowpea and soyabean pr
Page 198 and 199: Among BNF systems, symbiotic system
Page 200 and 201: 3500 .f"'3000 ca ,c2500 CI "" - 200
Page 202 and 203: above-ground biomass was not transl
Page 204 and 205: 3000 "0 ]i >. ,5 ~ C> 800 600 400 2
Page 206 and 207: Most interventions involving green
Page 208 and 209: ~ ~~----.-~r-~-------------r~~ Aoo
Page 210 and 211: stover N, followed by after pigeon
Page 212 and 213: tems in Malawi and Zimbabwe. Procee
Page 214 and 215: 1965). The tailings and AgLi were a
Page 216 and 217: The significant soybean yield could
Page 218 and 219: twice the yield is necessary. We ha
Page 222 and 223: Recommendations and Conclusion In v
Page 224 and 225: performance of private sector compa
Page 226 and 227: the investment costs incurred. The
Page 228 and 229: Results and Planning Workshop. Soil
Page 231 and 232: A SOCIO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF LEGUME
Page 233 and 234: Table 1. Gross margins from the dif
Page 235 and 236: Abstract LINKING TECHNOLOGY DEVELOP
Page 237 and 238: 3. If households are linked to prod
Page 239 and 240: Table 9. Average Table 8. Pigeonpea
Page 241 and 242: ance of sorghum-pigeonpea intercrop
Page 243: Mligo, J.K., 1995. Pigeonpea breedi
Page 246 and 247: To Charles Nhemachena, et al. Q: 1)
Page 248 and 249: • Assessment of the potential ben
Page 250 and 251: few studies characterized the house
Page 252 and 253: • Conduct more research to measur
Page 254: Socio-Economics, Policy and Technol
show all

Grain Legumes and Green Manures for Soil Fertility in ... - cimmyt

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?