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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Transport costs Competitiveness is eroded by high transport costs and the short time available to buy the crop, move it to export centers, clean, pack, and 'ship grain to the markets before the export window closes. Because of poor infrastructure and short timing there is a need to ship large quantities of pigeon pea to export centers at the same time that either commodities such as cashew nuts and tobacco are being transported. Transport costs are high because roads are bad (high vehicle .depreciation and operational costs) and because few transporters operate, and set monopolistic prices. For example, transporting pigeonpea from Babati to Dar es Salaam cost 42,000 TSh/t, the same as shipping costs from Dar es Salaam to Mumbai. Transport from Tunduru to Mtwara takes 24 hours to travel 265 km and is more expensive than sending goods fro~ Dar es Salaam to Durban. It costs US$ 95/t to transport pigeonpea by road to South Africa from Malawi for transshipment to international markets. If· Nacala port in Mozambique worked, transport costs would be only US$23 / t. Traders reported that failure to deliver products in time results in renegotiation of contracts and heavy financial losses. Lack of information Industry, exporters and farmers often lack information on production and quanUty available for sale in different areas, prices offered and quality standards demanded by different buyers, and transport options. Because of the lack of a market information system, there is high price uncertainty, which makes it difficult for exporters to procure pigeonpea and discourages farmers from investing in pigeonpea production as they do not what prices they will get. Because of lack of information, farmers, middlemen and large traders engage in strategic bargaining, further increasing transaction costs. Attitudes towards traders There are negative attitudes towards intermediaries and political rhetoric against traders, many of whom are ethnic minorities. Lack of domestic markets Few local companies manufacture pigeonpea food products for the domestic market and there is little domestic consumption of processed pigeonpea food products. If exporters are unable to sell the crop in export markets, they incur heavy losses. Government policies Pigeonpea production and trade are hampered by inconsistent government policies, including licensing requirements for traders, road haulage, district local government levies and cess. The regulations create opportunities for corruption and harassment and increase transaction costs. For example, the Tanzanian government declared that levies and cess should not exceed 5 percent of the farm gate price but today district rural councils charge levies of more than 25 percent. This directly results in farmers being paid less. Farm gate prices are indirectly reduced because traders are required to have several licenses. For example, a trader requires 6 to 7 licenses to deal in cashew nuts. Traders often need to visit district by district to obtain licenses because of excessive bureaucratic controls and regulations . . Despite these constraints, traders argued that there are high payoffs to investments in the pigeon pea sub-sector. For example, in Malawi, 15 years ago there were only two firms processing pigeonpea. Today over 10 firms process and export pigeonpea, and at least 15 ,firms export raw pigeonpea. Farm-level Opportunities and Constraints Farmer interviews revealed that opportunities exist for expanding the production of pigeonpea both as a food security crop and as a cash crop, targeting niche export markets. But increasing production for the market requires greater use of quality seed of the right varieties (i.e., varieties with traits in demand in specific markets), and better crop management in order to achieve grades and standards required by international buyers. ICRlSAT and NARS scientists have developed improved, shortand medium-duration varieties, with white bold grain. These varieties are suitable for cultivation by small-scale farmers aiming to service the August-to November export market to India. Both on-station and on-farm agronomic trials show that the yield gains from the improved pigeonpea varieties vary from 27 to 190 percent (Figure 1). The marginal rate of return from adoption of the varieties ranges from 500 to 1000 percent, which far exceeds the 100 percent hurdle rate of return that is required for widespread adoption by smallholders. But the perform "0 ~ 2000 1500 1000 500 o Treatrrent DOn-farm 2000/1 .On-station:2001/2 Figure 1. Performance of new pigeonpea varieties in on·station and on·farm trials, Oodoma, Tanzania, 2000/01·2001/02. 232 Grain Legumes and Green Manures for Soil Fertility in Southern Africa
ance of sorghum-pigeonpea intercropping technology is highly variable depending on varieties, soil type, rainfall, and crop management practices including methods of land preparation, crop residues management, manure application, planting time and methods weed, pest control, harvesting and post-harvest handling. Productivity gains from short-season varieties under farmers' conditions have been limited, largely because of high insect damage as these cultivars flower during the rainy season, when pest populations are high. In addition, short-season varieties are unsuited to the traditional practice of intercropping. Medium-duration varieties have given much higher gains because they flower during the dry period when pest incidence is low and therefore escape insect damage. In collaboration with TechnoServe, a US-based NCO, grain samples of the new varieties have been sent for test marketing in Europe and India. Several varieties have been identified that are high yielding, have characteristics demanded in international markets, and offer productivity gains even when planted late and grown without intensive weeding. NARS scientists have also developed a range of crop management options, (intercropping, planting date, spacing and plant arrangement) designed to fit the different resource endowments, investment strategies, and risk management practices of different smallholders. Use of these management options along with the new varieties will enable farmers to produce grain that fetches a premium in international markets. Farmers identified opportunities to expand pigeonpea cultivation in semi-arid areas, including maizepigeon intercrops in areas with less rainfall risk, and sorghum-pigeonpea intercrops in areas of higher risk. Cross margin analysis reveals that pigeonpeamaize and pigeonpea sorghum intercrops are the most profitable among the major competing cropping activities in Tanzania and third most profitable in Malawi (Tables 11 and 12). This explains why in Kondoa district in Tanzania, pigeonpea is now the major cash crop, following an expansion of research and extension over the last five years. Farmers used to grow pigeonpea on a small scale; production expanded when they adopted the Kombowa variety, developed at Ilonga Research Station, and intercropping and spacing technologies developed by the Selian Agricultural Research Institute. Because of increased availability of white-seeded mediumsize Kombowa grain, traders came in from the neighboring Babati district, where pigeonpea was already highly commercialized. Farmers found they could earn high cash income from pigeonpea, dna eKfi'dl1u\~d fi'l\JdU"L....IUf., dl.\·l-dL......i-rg- ~eli ffl\Jl."e' traders. Farmers have become much more receptive to new technology, adopting crop management practices such as rotating the maize--pigeonpea intercrop with lab lab, using mucuna as a cover crop, and adopting the Magoye ripper to incorporate crop residues into the soil to increase fertility. Farmers interviewed for this study also believe that significant opportunities exist to increase household food security by expanding pigeonpea cultivation. Legumes are commonly eaten as relish, along' with cereals. Cowpea and beans are the traditional legume crops but in most semi-arid areas, farmers cannot produce beans successfully because of drought. Pigeonpea is a better alternative, but most households do not plant pigeonpea because they are unfamiliar with the crop and do not know how to utilize it. Some varieties are bitter when dry and difficult to cook. Farmers reported several constraints to expanded pigeonpea production, including poor farming implements which results in inadequate land preparation and late planting, poor access to seed of im~ proved varieties, non-availability of.chemicals for spraying, poor farming knowledge, lack of e~tension agents, pests and diseases, and lack of reliable organized markets. Technological, Institutional and Policy Innovations with Potential to Increase Competitiveness Traders suggested that to increase competitiveness on the international market, constraints must be resolved, and available opportunities exploited. This will require innovative approaches. Table 11. Profitability of principal crops in Kondoa District, Tanza· nia, 2001/02 (Tanzania Shilling) Maize + Finger Sesame Sun· Sorgo Pearl Maize Pig'npea millet flower hum millet Gross margin 123,731 53,672 48,626 16,519 7,289 6,948 6,379 (Sh/ha) Breakeven 32 66 82 47 83 53 51 price (Sh/kg) Breakeven 133 541 224 960 907 873 635 yield (kg/ha) Table 12. Profitability of principal crops in Chisepo Extension Planning Area, Malawi, 2000/01 Tobacco Ground· Maize + Soybean Bambara Maize nut Pig'npea Gross margin 34,906 10,771 6,495 4,769 4,337 (626) (Kwacha/ha) Breakeven price 21 15 5 11 18 11 (Kwacha/kg) Breakeven yield 198 249 330 155 340 1,144 I (kg/ha) I Grain Legumes and Green Manures for Soil Fertility in Southern Africa 233
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 and 238: 3. If households are linked to prod
Page 239: Table 9. Average Table 8. Pigeonpea
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?