Forces driving for adoption of conservation <strong>agriculture</strong> include success storiesaround the world, research findings, results from early adopters showing benefitsin soil fertility improvement and increased yield with reduced labour and othercosts of production, and government policies supporting conservation <strong>agriculture</strong>technologies and practices. Project support in conservation <strong>agriculture</strong> inputs,knowledge and various incentives promoted adoption. <strong>Conservation</strong> <strong>agriculture</strong>pathways, which are referred to as the adoption process, were based on thepurchasing power at household level, land size, existing indigenous technologiescompatible with the introduced conservation <strong>agriculture</strong> practices, multiple uses ofcover crops, and group formation and dynamics such as farmer field schools.Some conservation <strong>agriculture</strong> successes recorded from the study area includeincreased yield in beans from an average of 2–3 bags to 5–7 bags per acre, and maizefrom 5–7 bags to 15 bags per acre. Rippers and subsoilers have also improved waterinfiltration, enabling crops to tolerate dry spells. <strong>Conservation</strong> <strong>agriculture</strong> has alsoproved to be a labour-saving technology as fewer operations are required comparedwith conventional <strong>agriculture</strong>. Households that have adopted no-till no longer needto slash and burn their trash or plough and harrow their fields. The reduction ofweeding operations has been of great relief to farmers, especially women. Usinglablab as a cover crop has resulted in multiple benefits such as suppressing weeds,controlling soil erosion and improving soil fertility. It is also used as a cash crop, hasedible seeds, and is available as a green vegetable during the dry season.Despite the success of conservation <strong>agriculture</strong> principles in improving cropproduction, there are many challenges to overcome, as the concept seems to be‘new’ in many farming systems. Among the problems are the need to change farmerperceptions and mindset and to make inputs more readily available. Unpredictableweather conditions, inability to maintain a permanent soil cover, limited knowledge,and livestock keeping are retarding efforts to make conservation <strong>agriculture</strong> takenup more widely. Many projects have not proved sustainable in the long term, slowingthe diffusion of conservation <strong>agriculture</strong> technologies. Inadequate coordinationof conservation <strong>agriculture</strong> activities at district level due to the limited numberof extension staff and knowledge of how best conservation <strong>agriculture</strong> can fit indifferent systems have also posed problems. <strong>Conservation</strong> <strong>agriculture</strong> implementsare not readily available at district headquarters, and some are too expensive for thepurchasing power of most farmers. Few initiatives have focused on policy analysisor on advocating that conservation <strong>agriculture</strong> technologies be included in nationalagricultural policies and that whenever possible each district have a resource centreto deal with such technologies, inputs and implements.Suggestions have been made on ways to overcome challenges that include coordinatingconservation <strong>agriculture</strong> stakeholders towards a common focus in achieving set goals,establishing a database of conservation <strong>agriculture</strong> activities and references, creatingawareness and sensitizing the community about conservation <strong>agriculture</strong>, analysingpolicy and advocating that conservation <strong>agriculture</strong> technologies be included in thenational agricultural policy, and encouraging that a conservation <strong>agriculture</strong> programmerather than conservation <strong>agriculture</strong> projects be undertaken. <strong>Conservation</strong> <strong>agriculture</strong>manuals need to be translated into local languages in simple phrases. The conservation<strong>agriculture</strong> package of technologies should integrate livestock with crops.56 Ringo et al.
1 Introduction<strong>Tanzania</strong>’s agricultural development plans aim to stimulate and facilitate sustainableproduction in the smallholder farming systems (URT 2000). The government’spriority is to introduce participatory technologies that are environmentally andsocially acceptable and that can sustainably ensure poverty alleviation, and food andnutritional security. Planning, coordination and implementation of developmentplans in <strong>Tanzania</strong> are all highly decentralized. Government authorities in the districthave this responsibility, and so do key stakeholders in planning and implementingagricultural programmes. At the grassroots some agricultural project activities arefacilitated by non-governmental organizations (NGOs), community-based andfaith-based organizations, and some local initiatives.Agricultural plays an important role in the economy of <strong>Tanzania</strong> as it contributessignificantly to the country’s GDP; it accounts for 60% of export earnings andemploys 84% of the rural population. Crucial components of the agriculturalsector are food crops, at 55% of the total agricultural GDP, livestock at 30%, andtraditional export crops at 8% (URT 2004a).For many years, the agricultural production of small-scale farmers has generallybeen low, constrained by low soil fertility, erratic and unreliable rainfall, and poorproduction techniques (Shetto 1998). According to Elwell et al. (1998), <strong>agriculture</strong>in <strong>Tanzania</strong> is characterized by extensive ploughing, which has proved to be one ofthe major causes of land degradation.Many interventions have been introduced in an attempt to solve these problems; mosthave had zero or at best marginal impact on the livelihoods of small-scale farmers(URT 2001). Technologies introduced in the district include contour cultivation, useof inorganic fertilizers, agroforestry (improved fallowing), and organic farming. Sincethe late 1990s, several agricultural researchers and extensionists have been consideringconservation <strong>agriculture</strong> as an alternative that can improve the livelihoods of smallscalefarmers through improved crop production. The GTZ/TFSC project with itsconservation tillage, cover crops and subsoiling components started in 1996 with theSelian Agricultural Research Institute (SARI). In January 2000, FAO supported a visitby a team from Brazil to Karatu. The team, which also came with a few jab plantersand the no-tillage seeder, discussed and presented the Brazil conservation <strong>agriculture</strong>model. The IFAD/FAO study on saving labour, with focus on reduced tillage practicesand use of cover crops, started in October 2002 in Karatu. SARI has been keen inmost of the conservation <strong>agriculture</strong> interventions in the northern region.<strong>Conservation</strong> <strong>agriculture</strong> aims to conserve, improve and make efficient use ofnatural resources through integrated management of soil, water and biologicalresources. It has the potential to increase crop production while simultaneouslyreducing erosion and reversing declining soil fertility, improving rural livelihoodsand restoring the environment (FAO 2000). The fundamental principle of thistechnology is to achieve sustainable soil productivity through rotating crops,reducing disturbance of the soil structure, protecting soil from direct climatic effectssuch as solar radiation, rain and wind, enhancing water infiltration, and buildingup soil organic matter and soil organisms.Karatu District 57
- 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 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 and 150:
Farmers were advised to slash the c
- Page 151 and 152:
technical support. Trial treatments
- 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