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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

estimated for the soil fertility man agement investment options for the farm households. Table 2. Expected ~nnual returns (Zimbabwe $/ha) and risk of alternative maize and sorghum soil fertility management technologies for de facto female·headed households, Gwanda, Tsholotsho and Zimuto, 1990/91·2000/01 Gwanda Tsholotsho Activity Return Risk Return Risk POSB savings account 289 328 289 328 Sorghum +kraal manure ·12801 3654 ·10128 4911 Sorghum +Okraal manure +ON 62 4366 3177 6334 Maize+Okraal manure+ON 3378 4422 5042 5965 Sorghum+9N 2203 6042 4874 7642 Maize+groundnut intercrop 2007 6352 1417 8479 Sorghum +pit manure 344 6435 4908 8839 Sorghum +groundnut intercrop ·1151 6542 ·843 8883 Maize+9N 5591 6699 6657 7505 Sorghum +groundnut rotation 1886 7039 5374 8204 Sorghum +cowpea rotation 1509 7264 11369 11236 Maize cowpea rotation 4456 7470 13524 10753 Maize +groundnut rotation 4422 7564 7563 9056 Maize +kraal +9N 4505 7767 5937 7952 Sorghum +18N 697 7863 3548 9749 Sorghum +kraal manure +18N 2873 7911 6205 10293 Maize +pit manure 3884 8166 5791 8155 Maize +cowpea intercrop -482 9005 7217 11232 Sorghum +cowpea intercrop ·1860 9220 8243 13643 Maize+ 18N 3491 9286 4625 8780 Maize +kraal manure 4031 9334 4946 9764 Maize +kraal +18N 5770 9611 7682 8839 Sorghum +kraal manure +9N 2577 9980 3890 8759 groundnut rotation, and maize cowpea rotations. The ranking is similar in the lower rainfall sites (Gwanda and Zimuto) but in wetter sites (Tsholotsho) groundnut and cowpea rotation give the highest expect annual returns. For de facto female-headed households with intermediate resource endowments but better access to off-farm cash, maize plus kraal plus 18 kilograms of nitrogen, maize plus 9 kilograms of nitrogen, and maize plus kraal plus 9 kilograms of nitrogen give the best returns followed by maize cowpea and maizegroundnut rotation in the drier sites. But the maizecowpea rotation, sorghum-cowpea rotation, and sorghum-cowpea intercrop gives the best returns in the wetter sites. For the de jure households who are most resource-constrained, the most profitable technologies are the same as for the de facto households for drier and wetter sites although the legume rotations and intercrops are more profitable for de jure households compared to de facto households across all sites. For all household categories, higher ex !Jected returns are associated with higher risks and lower expected returns with lower risks irrespective of site. This shows that the Capital Asset Pricing Model approximates the risk-return characteristics Zimuto Figures I, 2, and 3 show trade-offs Return Risk between expected returns and risks 289 328 of the alternative soil fertility production technologies. The dominating technologies are reflected by 3200 7619 the set of points on the frontier. Technology investments that lie ·11012 7138 inside the frontier can be eliminated from further analysis as inferior because households can choose from among better options on the ·1802 6449 22751 10686 frontier that give higher expected returns for the same level of risk. The efficiency frontier for maleheaded households in Gwanda includes, in increasing order of risks 427 8424 and r,eturns, POSB savings account, ·1924 22736 sorghum plus kraal manure, traditional maize production technology without manure and nitrogen fertilizer, traditional sorghum, maize 4974 9054 plus 9 kilograms of nitrogen per ·896 9912 hectare, maize plus pit manure, maize plus kraal manure plus 9 ·10118 40691 kilograms of nitrogen, maize plus 3170 9678 18 kilograms of nitrogen, and ·6049 39594 maize plus kraal manure plus 18 kilograms of nitrogen. The frontier for male-headed households in Tsholotsho is dominated by POSB savings account, traditional maize, maize plus 9 kilograms of nitrogen, maize-cowpea rotation, maize plus kraal manure and maize plus kraal manure plus 18 kilograms of nitrogen. Zimuto male-headed households have a smaller available set of risk-efficient technologies: POSB savings account, traditional maize, maize-groundnut rotation, maize plus 9 kilograms, and maize plus kraal manure plus 18 kilograms of nitrogen. In contrast, the frontier for de facto female-headed households in Gwanda includes POSB savings accounts, traditional maize technology, maize plus 9 kilograms of nitrogen, and maize plus kraal manure plus 9 kilograms of nitrogen. For Tsholotsho de facto female-headed households, the frontier consists of POSB savings account, traditional maize, maize plus pit manure, maize plus kraal manure plus 18 kilograms nitrogen, maize-groundnut, sorghum-cowpea, and maizecowpea rotations. The risk-return frontier available for de facto households in Zimuto comprises POSB savings accounts, traditional maize, maize plus pit manure and maize-cowpea rotation. The frontiers for de jure female-headed households are similar to those for de facto female-headed households across 82 Grain Legumes and Green Manures for Soil Fertility in Southern Africa
Table 3. Expected annual returns (Zimbabwe $/ha) and risk of alternative rnaize and sorghum the three sites although cowpea soil fertility management technologies for de jure female·headed households, Gwanda, dominates the efficient sets for de Tsholotsho and Zimuto, 1990/91·2000/01 jure compared to de facto house Gwanda Tsholotsho Zimuto holds. We conclude that legumes Activity Return Risk Return Risk Return Risk lie on the frontier and dominating POSB savings account 289 328 289 328 289 328 set for especially de facto and de jure Sorghum +kraal manure ·13023 3668 ·7821 4410 households in Tsholotsho and Sorghum +Okraal manure +ON 1704 8129 5419 6018 Gwanda and therefore are attrac Maize+Okraal manure+ON 3692 4422 5375 tive to farmas. The mix of legume 5986 5560 7518 based technologies in the portfolio Sorghum+ 9N 1981 5994 7181 7347 will depend on the tolerance for Maize +groundnut intercrop 1976 6364 4721 8216 ·15949 6092 risk of different households. Be Sorghum +pit manure 122 6398 6405 8531 cause legume technologies are asso Sorghum +groundnut intercrop ·1795 6476 3966 8355 ciated with high risks and high re Maize+ 9N 5954 6714 7759 7529 ·1997 22645 turns, especially maize-groundnut Sorghum +groundnut rotation 1696 7024 7986 7992 rotations, they are likely to be at Sorghum +cowpea rotation 2296 7278 12735 11081 tractive to mostly households with Maize cowpea rotation 5534 7482 14288 10698 6349 10647 a high tolerance for risk. Maize +groundnut rotation 4524 7571 9573 8990 ·1777 7727 Maize +kraal +9N 4869 7796 7044 7976 Because different technology in ·2111 22647 vestments are differently correlated Sorghum + 18N 475 7814 5855 9464 with the current farm plan and Sorghum +kraal manure +18N 2650 7861 8512 9992 farm households can choose to in Maize +pit manure 4247 8185 6893 8175 4779 8970 vest resources among several in Maize +cowpea· intercrop 800 9076 8291 11151 ·1108 9812 vestments in order to reduce risk Sorghum +cowpea intercrop ·545 9171 10167 13431 without reducing expected returns, Maize+ 18N 3855 9310 5727 8796 2983 9632 we need to consider the effects of Maize +kraal manure 4394 9397 6053 9785 ·6237 39510 including a production technology Maize+kraal+ 18N 6134 9632 8789 8865 ·10313 40600 on the whole farm portfolio when Sorghum +kraal manure+ 9N 2355 9926 G197 8470 deciding whether or not to include it in the current farm plan. Tables 15000 • Gwanaa 4, 5, and 6 report the risk diversification indices for 11 Tsholotsho 10000 . the whole farm for different household typologies. ..Zimuto The analysis is extended to include the benefits of 5000 ·M :~" .l: • •• a • • • ~ • peas and temporary migration to urban labor marc ~000".· • 10000 15000 :; -5000 kets. The risk indices for maize-cowpea and maize C; • a: groundnut . rotations and maize-pigeon pea inter -10000 crops and rotations are positive for different kinds -15000 +--- _.o_---- - ---- of households across sites indicating that these legume-based soil fertility production technologies of -20000 -'-------------- Risk ($/ha) fer significant gains through diversification. Therefore they are likely to be adopted by farmers. Figure 1. Risk-return tradeoffs of alternative maize and sorghum soil fertility management technologies for male-headed households, Gwanda, Tsholotsho and Zimuto, 1990/91-2000/01 .GNan:l:l iii ..-. .. .... diversifying to medium and long duration pigeon ~.--------------- .. 1WOO~-~r------------ 10000 l s~_________ i woo ~~~~'------------- ~ ~~, ~~ o ~·-~~~~--~-~--~-~ E ;;" -woo . ~ OO:O II:: -100Xl -1--_"_ ________----.._ _ ·1 WOO +--. c-r .... - - --------- -20).)) '------ - ------ ---- II Tsrobtsro A ZimJD Figure 2. Risk-return tradeoffs of alternative maize and sorghum soil fertility management technologies for de facto female·headed households, Gwanda, Tsholotsho and Zimuto, 1990/91·2000/01 Figure 3. Risk-return tradeoffs of alternative maize and sorghum soil fertility management technologies for de jure fem
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: management technologies with differ
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?