8 Adapting and diffusing conservation<strong>agriculture</strong>Targeted populationAll farmers in Wanging’ombe are smallholders cultivating about 2.5 ha (ARI 2004).In Mshewe, 95% of the farmers are smallholders, while the remaining 5% arelarge-scale coffee farmers with 50–100 ha. The study targeted smallholder farmerswho used either hand or animal-drawn implements. The study wanted at least 40%women participants. Albeit the overall low preference accorded to jab planters,women who did not have access to oxen preferred the jab planter to rippers andseeders because they cost less, TZS 30,000 for jab planter compared with TZS120,000 for a ripper and TZS 400,000 for a seeder.Introducing conservation <strong>agriculture</strong>ARI Uyole clients can ask for preferred technology or seek technology to addressa field problem. The annual internal programme review allows farmers, extensionagents (including NGOs and projects), suppliers and researchers to interact andreview the research and development progress.All farmers who evaluated conservation <strong>agriculture</strong> through farmer researchgroups or farmer field schools were provided with free seeds, fertilizers, herbicidesand implements for the evaluation plots. They were also encouraged to borrowthe implements to use in their own fields. They could use a plough, jab planter,ripper, direct seeder, hand hoe or ridger. <strong>Conservation</strong> <strong>agriculture</strong> implements wereintroduced to farmers by their preference rather than access.Only one of the six villages was capable of maintaining most of the soil coveredfor the whole year against free-roaming livestock. In the other villages, since soilcover was inadequate, weed incidence was high. Weeding was mainly done by handhoe and ox-drawn weeders, which disturbed the soil. Sown cover crops and maizestover covered the soil until they were eaten by free-range cattle or burned. Thefields were therefore generally bare at the end of the dry season—a low entry pointfor conservation <strong>agriculture</strong>.PartnersExternal partners supporting conservation <strong>agriculture</strong> in the case study were theWorld Bank, Hifadhi ya Mazingira Iringa, Norwegian Agency for DevelopmentCooperation (Norad), Food and Agricultural Research Management (FARM) Africa,and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Theyprovided funding and guidance. Coordination between the partners was missing,leading some to compete for the same farmers, and individual partner strengthscould not be exploited. Budgeted funds were not given to the full amount nor forthe planned duration. Many well-planned projects were terminated prematurely.The ARI Uyole researchers worked on testing conservation <strong>agriculture</strong> technologyand setting experiment protocols. They provided basic supplies, implements and126 Mkomwa et al.
technical support. Trial treatments were discussed with village agricultural extensionofficers for minor adjustments before farmers implemented them. Researcherswere also responsible for training farmers and organizing farmer visits and fielddays. Not all researchers shared a common understanding on the appropriatenessof conservation <strong>agriculture</strong>. There were actually more opponents of conservation<strong>agriculture</strong> at research stations than outside them. <strong>Conservation</strong> <strong>agriculture</strong>interventions were therefore guided by ‘dreams’ of the leader or closely sharedfeedback and improvement by a small team of leaders.District councils were the custodians of these development initiatives on behalfof their people. They could get funding and would allocate them for conservation<strong>agriculture</strong>, if they were convinced it would benefit farmers and the council. Theyorganized awareness campaigns or enact and implement bylaws for maintainingsoil cover. Well-designed bylaws can prevent free-range grazing and bush fires.Village agricultural extension officers supervised operations of the group as farmersimplemented the trials. They enhanced farmer group dynamics and helped formgroup bylaws involving time management, fines and member rights. Group bylawswere necessary in the new farmer field schools to enhance group efficiency. Withoutthem, time was wasted in waiting for others to come, useless meetings and squabbles.The village extension officers guided the discussions on what members wanted—without interfering in the proceedings. Enacting bylaws was easy, but overseeingtheir implementation required serious group leaders.Farmers were obliged to provide work animals for the common demonstration plotat no cost, set aside time for training and make a commitment to train neighbours.Furthermore, each farmer or spouse was required to attend training at a common0.5–1 ha plot and apply it in his or her field. The farmer could choose amongimplements, cover crops, crop mixtures and agronomy.Most groups have kept going beyond the official project lifetime. By retaining the set oftest equipment, they continue to use this service, if they have not yet purchased theirown. The more advanced farmer groups in Mayale village are registering as savingsand credit cooperative societies that will manage the groups’ revolving loan fund ofTZS 8 million, and keep loaning implements to group members. Group strength wasenhanced by the common revenue earned from the farmer field school plot.Suppliers made improved maize and cover crop seeds, fertilizers and implementsavailable. There are many competing suppliers of seeds and fertilizers, but only onefor implements, SEAZ Agricultural Equipment Ltd. The director of SEAZ thoughtthat rippers had been accepted by farmers, creating a reasonable demand, but notfor jab planters, knife rollers or direct seeders.Approaches and methodsThe main approaches used to introduce conservation <strong>agriculture</strong> were ‘contactfarmers’ (1998–2000), farmer research groups (2000–2003), and farmer fieldschools (2004 to the present).Mbeya District 127
- Page 6:
ContentsPreface ...................
- Page 10:
Full conservation agriculture, howe
- Page 13 and 14:
February 2005, which made possible
- Page 16 and 17:
Table B. Key characteristics of cas
- Page 18:
Overemphasis on field-scale, techni
- Page 26 and 27:
Arumeru DistrictCatherine W. Maguzu
- Page 28 and 29:
8 Gaps and challenges .............
- Page 30 and 31:
Executive summaryA case study of co
- Page 32 and 33:
It has shown increase in yields, re
- Page 34 and 35:
The case study teamThe local team w
- Page 36 and 37:
NgorongoroKageraMaraMonduliArumeruM
- Page 38 and 39:
MarketsThe urban centres are Kikati
- Page 40 and 41:
middle-aged, who migrate to towns t
- Page 42 and 43:
4 Conservation agriculture historyI
- Page 44 and 45:
maize, pigeon pea, and lablab seeds
- Page 46 and 47:
herbicide was completely abandoned
- Page 48 and 49:
Most of the implements, except the
- Page 50 and 51:
6 Adapting and diffusing conservati
- Page 52 and 53:
villages with eight farmers (Mwalle
- Page 54 and 55:
ecognition and enforcement of the b
- Page 56 and 57:
Table 3. Labour for conservation ag
- Page 58 and 59:
Timeliness in irrigating a farm is
- Page 60 and 61:
to rehabilitate his land by constru
- Page 62 and 63:
Land tenureSmall-scale farmers will
- Page 64 and 65:
and handling herbicides should be d
- Page 66 and 67:
Appendix 1Conservation agriculture
- Page 68 and 69:
Organization Activities Methods to
- Page 70 and 71:
Appendix 3Lablab and mucuna seed di
- Page 73:
Karatu DistrictDominick E. Ringo, C
- Page 76 and 77:
10 Benefi ts and effects of conserv
- Page 78 and 79:
Karatu acknowledgementsWe are very
- Page 80 and 81:
Forces driving for adoption of cons
- Page 82 and 83:
Despite the soundness of conservati
- Page 84 and 85:
NgorongoroKageraMaraMonduliArumeruM
- Page 86 and 87:
TemperatureTemperature decreases wi
- Page 88 and 89:
Most of the surface and underground
- Page 90 and 91:
crop does not store well. But when
- Page 92 and 93:
used to attend to AIDS sufferers an
- Page 94 and 95:
Erosion is now considered responsib
- Page 96 and 97:
Traditional methods of soil conserv
- Page 98 and 99:
Tanzania Association of ForestersAc
- Page 100 and 101: Tanganyika Farmers AssociationAchie
- Page 102 and 103: History of conservation agriculture
- Page 104 and 105: what is feasible is to intercrop, w
- Page 106 and 107: to connect experiences from differe
- Page 108 and 109: mainly cover crop practices were ad
- Page 110 and 111: Alfred’s neighbour Cornel has bee
- Page 112 and 113: study tours, organizing farmer fiel
- Page 114 and 115: Socio-economic and process aspectsW
- Page 116 and 117: abreast of information. Information
- Page 118 and 119: availability of agriculture credit,
- Page 120 and 121: package being introduced should con
- Page 122 and 123: of a planning workshop on conservat
- Page 124 and 125: Organiza tionRIDEP (1980-1984)Natio
- Page 126 and 127: Organiza tionMazingira BoraKaratu (
- Page 128 and 129: Appendix 3 Estates in Karatu Distri
- Page 131 and 132: ContentsAbbreviations .............
- Page 133 and 134: AbbreviationsARIAgricultural Resear
- Page 135 and 136: 1 IntroductionOver 80% of the peopl
- Page 137 and 138: 3 MethodMbeya was selected as a cas
- Page 139 and 140: Table 1. Agricultural characteristi
- Page 141 and 142: Three agricultural officers serve t
- Page 143 and 144: egin until the first rains. Maize y
- Page 145 and 146: Table 4. Conservation agriculture r
- Page 147 and 148: slasher, machete and billhook (nyen
- Page 149: Farmers were advised to slash the c
- Page 153 and 154: In the latest FARM Africa project,
- Page 155 and 156: Crop yieldsNineteen farmers in Wang
- Page 157 and 158: Changes in costs and incomeThe aver
- Page 159 and 160: • Farmers proposed that to improv
- Page 161 and 162: 10 Gaps and challengesDespite the s
- Page 163 and 164: 12 Recommendations• While some be
- Page 165 and 166: Appendix 1 Selected farmer profiles
- Page 167 and 168: No. Farmer name M/F Age(yrs)Fam ily
- Page 169 and 170: Appendix 3Intervention detailsIniti
- Page 171 and 172: Conservation agriculture technology
- Page 173 and 174: Land degradation due to soil erosio
- Page 175 and 176: Banana crop with mucuna as a cover
- Page 177 and 178: Types of soil cover: lablab plus ma
- Page 179 and 180: The pigeon pea crop has been left o
- Page 181 and 182: Demonstrating conservation agricult
- Page 183: Transferring crop residue for lives