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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 2. Pigeonpea production and exports (t) in Tanzania, 1993·97 1993 1994 Production 38,000 34,000 1995 1996 42,000 '55,000 Exports 6934 17,633 3594 17,430 Source: TCFB for exports; FAD for production data Table 3. Pigeonpea production and exports, Malawi 1997 41,000 15,489 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Production 43,311 52,601 87,880 72.67218,400b 80,000b Whole 1209 13852 1506 7877 Processed 6394 7709 6552 9704 Total Whole 10343 24865 10866 21740 18400 b 19600 b Exports equivalent' • Whole equivalent calculated assuming arecovery yield of 70% for dhill b Only aggregate data available Sources: FEWS and FAD 1994·97: Bvumbwe Research Station; Patel, 1998 1998·1999: Malawi National Statistical Office ning in 1999/2000 because of traders buying directly in that country. The bulk of Malawi's exports are milled into fur dhal, thus adding value, and shipped to India. Trader interviews revealed that both domestic and international markets are very volatile because there is negligible consumption of dry pigeonpea in domestic markets; pigeonpea is mostly exported. The international market is highly globalized and dominated by India, the major producer and consumer. Tables 4 and 5). Export demand depends largely on production in India -- demand and prices for African pigeonpea are high when there is a poor crop in India and Myanmar. Trader interviews also show that there is a marketing window for exports from Tanzania and Malawi, which opens around August to September and closes in October or November. Subsequently prices drop because the crops in India and Myanmar are harvested. This is an opportunistic market. Tanzanian and 'Malawian traders need. to discover prices, obtain confirmed orders with Table 4. World pigeonpea production ('000 t), 1980·98 1980·82 1990·92 1996·98 1996·98 1% share) India 1983 2432 2420 83.8 Myanmar 29 47 159 5.5 Africa 165 254 250 8.7 Rest of the world 56 72 58 2.0 Total 2805.4 2805 2887 100 Source: FADSTAT. 2001 Table 5. World dry pea imports ('000 t), 1995·99 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 European Union 2522 3838 1530 1882 1890 India 173 155 282 257 366 Total 3603 4743 2538 2845 3016 Source: FAD. 2001 specified prices before they start buying from farmers, and then buy the crop, transport grain to export centers, clean, pack, and export it before prices in India start to fall. Before declaring prices to farmers, traders take into account bagging costs, transportation, handling, cleaning, port charges, freight, local levies, corporate tax, corruption and harassment charges, and financial costs. An increase in any of these cost elements is passed down to smallholder farmers because the farm level-derived supply is highly inelastic in the short run. Exporters are reluctant to hold inventory stocks because of the high price uncertainty of the Indian market. Because Indian traders have monopolistic market power and can drive prices down, forward contracting with farmers is difficult since exporters cannot assure farmers the contracted prices. Market Participants' Assessment of Opportunities and Constraints to Increasing Competitiveness Trader interviews, analysis of volumes traded, and international prices indicate mixed prospects for increasing the long-term competitiveness of African pigeonpea exports. Historically there has been a strong export market demand, but this market is shrinking due to increased competition from other exporters (notably Myanmar) and substitution of pigeonpea with yellow pea (exported by Canada). In the past five years, Myanmar has more than quadrupled exports to India, driving down wholesale prices (Table 6). There also has been a sharp increase of competing yellow pea exports from Canada (Table 7). Because yellow peas have been used in the past as animal feed, they are being exported to India, the Middle East, and North Africa at extremely low prices. Because of. increasing price competition, the prospects for producing pigeon pea as a cash crop for the export market are diminishing (Table 8). hldeed, Tanzania and Malawi have lost market share and farm gate prices have declined compared to three years ago, when exports were increasing, production in India was poor, and Myanmar was still not competitive (Table 9). Traders reported that opportunities exist for exporting to niche markets in Europe. But the volumes are small, about 1000 to 1500 t annually, and markets get Table 6. Myanmar Table 7. Annual exports of dry peas pigeonpea (I) exports to from Canada ('000 t), 1997·2001 India, 1999·2001 Canada to Asia 1999 73,430 1997·98 395 2000 185,964 1998·99 700 2001 293,934 1999·00 638 Source: Directorate of Economics 2000·01 850 and Statistics. Ministry of Agriculture, India Source: Agriculture and Agri·Food Canada, FAO 230 Grain Legumes and Green Manures for Soil Fertility in Southern Africa
Table 9. Average Table 8. Pigeonpea import prices, US pigeonpea prices (US$/t) $ per onne C.I•• . f M urn bai 19952001 paid by marketing agents September October November at the first assembly 1995 375 415 400 stage, Malawi and 1996 315 320 295 Tanzania, 1998·2002 1997 n.a. n.a. 445 Malawi Tanzania 1998 450 410 395 1998 483 478 1999 325 300 310 1999 431 288 2000 300 n.a. n.a. 2000 336 248 2001 295 275 250 2001 139 136 Source: The Pulse Importers AssociatIOn 2002 154 quickly saturated. Another possibility is to supply pigeonpea as green vegetables to Europe. The companies surveyed did not have experience with these niche markets. To expand exports, there is a need to target particular niches and develop ways of reducing prices. Trader interviews revealed that the major determinants of competitiveness in international markets are consistent quality and quantity, price, and timeliness of delivery, especially for the August November window. Buyers look for grain color, size and milling characteristics, including ease of dehulling, shape, cleanness, and uniformity. White grains are preferred and fetch premium price~. B~bati White from northern Tanzania and whIte PIgeonpea varieties from Malawi have a unique taste that Asian and European customers like; and this explains why exporting firms are still surviving. In terms of grain size, market requirements vary. Indian millers prefer small to medium-grained varieties such as Babati White, while European millers require large-sized grains. Moreover, size requirements can change rapidly from large to small from one year to the next because of shifts in milling technology. Compared to Myanmar and India, Malawi and northern Tanzania produce better quality pigeonpea (Table 10). However, pigeonpea from central and southern Tanzania is mostly red color and poor quality because of insect damage. Infestation begins in the field, during the flowering stage. Insects are carried over into storage, and cause high losses. Quality standards are largely determined by traders who buy, grade, and sort grain for specific markets. For farmers to obtain a high-quality crop, Table 10. Grain quality traits relevant for the milling industry Africa Myanmar Yellow pea Grain size Medium to large Small to medium Large Grain shape Round Round Round Ease of dehulling Low Fair Very high Cleanness High Low High Weeviled grains Fair High Low Homogeneity High Low High Average yields % 65·70 65·75 90 various issues need to be addressed, including correct choice of variety, seed delivery systems for getting pure seed to farmers, crop management, pest and disease management, harvesting methods, post-harvest management and handling during the various stages from farm gate through assembly, transportation, cleaning, 9rading and packing for export. Traders cited several major constraints affecting the pigeonpea sub sector in Malawi and Tanzania: • Low yield • Poor quality • Low farm gate prices • High transport costs • Lack of information • Attitudes towards traders • Lack of domestic markets • Inconsistent government policies Yield Because yields are low, grain cannotbe delivered at competitive prices. This is partly because farmers use recycled seed of traditional varieties (low yielding, and susceptible to Fusarium wilt) and use poor crop management practices. Also farm gate prices are not high enough to attract investment from other competing activities -- farmers often view pigeonpea as a "wild" crop and focus their in vestments on other cash crops. Quality Pigeonpea from central and southern Tanzania is of poor quality. The varieties are not white-seeded, crop management (especially pest and disease con trol) is poor, harvesting and post-harvest manage ment are poor. Weevil infestation is a major prob lem. Farm gate price Farmers receive a much lower price than the prices offered by exporters at the factory gate. This is be cause of the large number of intermediaries and in efficient trading mechanisms. For example, export ers believe that they offer prices as competitive as anywhere in the world. Farmers believe that the prices they receive are too low for pigeonpea to compete with alternative activities. During the 2000/01 marketing season, exporters in Malawi were offeririg MK 10/kg at the factory gate, while farmers received not more than MK 5/kg at the farm gate. The first middleman was making MK 1/ kg and the other intermediaries were earning at least MK 2/kg. Traders interviewed for this study indicated that farmers are justified when they com plain that farm gate prices are low. Grain Legumes and Green Manures for Soil Fertility in Southern Africa 231
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 220 and 221: Table 1. Maize and Grain Legumes Pr
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: 3. If households are linked to prod
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?