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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 2. Average maize yield estimates and farmer management of fields perceived as rich and poor fields in the three agroeco·regions in Zimbabwe Agro· Farmers' name and Field status Average . Farm management reoion Class maiz&- yields Mineral fertilizer Organic fertilizilr Legume rotations (kg hal) NR II Mr G2 - Class A Rich 5.0 150 D*; 100 ANI 7.0 t ha" manure Groundnut (4 years) Chikwaka Poor 0.9 OD;100AN 0 None Mrs K -Class A Rich 4.0 oD; 0 AN 6.0 t ha" manure None Poor 0.8 150 D; 100 AN 0 None Mr Ml - Clas.s B Rich 3.7 150 D; 100 AN 6.0 t ha l manure Groundnut (3 years) Poor 2.0 1500; 150 AN 0 Soyabeanl runnerbean Mrs M2 - Class B Rich 2.5 1500; 150 AN 0 None Poor 0.2 150D;100AN 0 None Mrs C - Class C Rich 1.5 150 D; 100 AN 0 Groundnut (5 years) Poor 1.0 150 D; 100 AN 2.0 t ha I manure Groundnut intercrop Mr Gl - Class C Rich 4.5 00; 0 AN 0 None Poor 0.6 150 D; 100 AN 0 None NR III Mr Cl - Class A Rich 7.0 2000; 200 AN 5.0 t ha l manure None Chinyika Poor 1.0 2000; 200 AN 0 Groundnut (2 years) Mr C2 - Class A Rich 6.0 150 D; 100 AN 4.5 t ha l manure Soyabean (3 years) Poor 2.0 150 D; 100 AN 0 None Mr Ml - Class B Rich 6.5 200 D; 200 AN 2.5 t ha" groundnut stover Groundnut (2 years) Poor 0.7 2000; 200 AN 0 None Mr M2 - Class B Rich 4.5 200 D; 200 AN 0 None Poor 1.5 2000; 200 AN 0 None Mr W - Class C Rich 2.5 00; 0 AN 0 None Poor 0.5 oD; 0 AN 0 None Mr Z - Class C Rich 4.0 150 D; 100 AN 0 Groundnut/bambara (4 yrs) Poor 2.0 1500; 100 AN 4.5 t ha" manure Groundnut/bambara (4 yrs) NR IV Mr Ml - Class A Rich 3.7 1000; 100 AN 0 None Zimuto Poor 0.2 00; 100 AN 4.5 t hal manure None Mrs M2 - Class A Rich 3.0 1000; 100 AN 2.5 t ha" manure None Poor 0.6 100 D; lDO AN 2.5 t ha" manure None Mrs C - Class B Rich 2.5 00; 200 AN 2.5 t ha'composted litter Groundnut/cowpea/bambara intercrp Poor 0.4 oD; 200 AN 4.0 t ha" manure None Mr Z - Class B Rich 2.7 100D;100AN 0.4 t ha ' litter/2 t ha" manure Groundnuts (2 years) Poor 0.4 OD;100AN 1.0 t ha I manure None Mrs N- Class C Rich 2.0 50 D; 100 AN 0.7 t ha I manure None Mrs T - Class C Poor 0.3 50 D; 100 AN 0 None Rich 2.1 oD; 0 AN 2.5 tha I manure Bambara (2 years) Poo: 0.8 oD; 0 AN 0.9 t hal manure None • 0 - Compound 0 fertilizer (7% N; 14% P205; 7K20); I AN - Ammonium Nitrate (34.5%N Grain legume adoption Less than half of the 18 interviewed farmers in the three study areas grow grain legumes in their fields. In Chikwaka, groundnut rotations in rich fields range from 1 in 3 to 1 in 5 years. Only one Class B farmer had tried to rotate maize with 'soya and run ner beans in his poor field. In Chinyika, legume ro tations included groundnut, bambara nut and soya bean on a two to four year cycle for all the three farmer classes, and only one Class B farmer utilized groundnut residues for soil fertility purposes. In Zi muto, only two farmers (Class Band C) grow leg umes in 2-year rotations (Table 2). Another Class B farmer intercropped groundnut, cowpea and bambara nut with maize in their rich field. maize yields (about 2.5 t ha- 1 from the ric.h field) . Manure usage in Chinyika was far lower than that in Zimuto and Chikwaka. Only one farmer (Class B) used legume stover as a soil ameliorant in Chinyika. In Zimuto, organic nutrient resource usage was more widespread with livestock manure and woodland litter being the common sources among the three farmer classes (Table 2). Most of the farmers who used organic fertilizers did not apply basal Compound 0 fertilizer. However, except for one resource-poor farmer, farmers in Zimuto applied the recommended rates of between 100 and 200 kg ha- 1 ammonium-nitrate fertilizer to both their rich and poor fields. 60 Grain legumes and Green Manures for Soil Fertility in Southern Africa
Soil carbon and nitrogen Soil organic carbon content of the soils from the rich fields in Chinyika ranged from about 4.5 (Classes B and C fields) to 8.2 mg C g-l soil (Class A farmer) while that from the poor fields ranged from 3.2 (Class B farmer) to 8.3 mg C g.l soil (Class A farmer) . In five out of six cases, organic carbon was consistently higher in the rich than the poor fields (Figure la). The only exception observed was that of a Class C farmer whose poor field had about 2.5 mg g -1 soil more C than his rich field. Total soil nitrogen was less than 1- mg N g.l ranging from 0.5 to 0.8 mg N g-l soil in Chinyika. There was little difference in the soil nitrogen contents between rich and poor fields in Chinyika for all the farmer classes (Figure Ib). In Zimuto, soil C contents ranged between 2.0 (Class B farmer) and 11.5 mg C g.l soil (Class A farmer) in rich fields and between 2.0 (Class C farmer) and 8.2 mg C g-l soil (Class A farmer) in poor fields (Figure 2a). Unlike the Chinyika case, soil nitrogen was relatively higher in Zimuto, with results ranging from 0.6 to 1.2 mg N g.l soil (Figure 2b). In all the selected field sites, the nitrogen content of the rich fields was higher than that of the poor fields regardless of farmer class. Discussion Ownership of resources was the key attribute differentiating farmer classes. When it came to farm management, the more resource-endowed Class A farmers had more soil fertility options at their disposal. The biophysical characterization of the smallholder farming systems has shown that nutrient sources accessible to farmers in the different agroecosystems were highly heterogeneous and varied in quantity. There was a general appreciation of the role of organic nutrient sources in soil amelioration in the three Natural Regions, particularly livestock manure_ However, it was Class A farmers who frequently used mineral fertilizers for crop production although they could afford to use other available resources. Although there was widespread use of manure among all classes, the survey also showed that application of woodland litter, composted household waste and crop residues to field crops was deemed experimental by the innovator farmers (Class B) and was also perceived as an option for resource poor farmers. In many instances, manure, when available, was preferentially applied to the rich fields particularly by the Class A farmers. This Chinyika (NR ·111) 12.---------------------------,-------, .RiCh field a) {2J Poor field I - ·0.02; df - 9; p > 0.05 Zimuto (NR IV) t - 1.89; df - 9; p > 0.05 .Rich field EJPoor field 0> .§. '6 1 2 b) '" t - 0.71; df - 9; p > 0.05 ; 1 0> E :; 0 .8 ::> iii "iii z 0. 6 u C ~0.4 o MrCl MrC2 MrMI MrM2 MrZ MrW Class A Class B Class C Farme r' s name and class Figure 1. Pre-season soil organic carbon (a) and nitrogen (b) contents of rich and poor fields belonging to six three different farmer groups in Chinyika, Zimbabwe Mr Ml Mrs M2 Mrs C Mr Z Mrs T Clk);rstt Class A Class B Farmer's name and class Figure 2. Pre-season soil organic carbon (a) and nitrogen (b) contents of rich and poor fields belonging to six three different farmer groups in Zimuto, Zimbabwe Grain Legumes and Green Manures for Soil Fertility in Southern Africa 61
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 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 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?