van Asten - CIALCA's efforts in farming systems R4D

CIALCAs efforts in farming systems R4D

CIALCAs efforts in farming systems R4D1. Understand farming systems diversity & complexity a. Quantitative analysis of resource availability b. Qualitative understanding of objectives + practices2. Identify opportunities to improve systems, adapted to a. Agro-ecology and market opportunities b. Production objectives and farm resources3. Test and evaluate a. Quantify resource use efficiency, food, and income b. Understand farmer perceptions4. Lessons learned

CIALCAs efforts in farming systems R4DBaseline survey – 2506 farms in 10 regions (i.e. mandate areas)Differences within sites are bigger than differencesbetween sites -> clustered sampling is more efficient(Bouwmeester et al. - comparison of 3 different datasets in East DRC)(Ouma and Birachu, 2010, CIALCA baseline survey report)

Farming system diversity and complexityBaseline survey – 2506 households in Rwanda, Burundi, DR CongoGeneral findings:-small farms (<1ha)-large families (7 people)-few livestock (0.4 TLU – Rwanda >0.8)-high illiteracy rates (up to 60%)-food insecurity >60% in South Kivu, Burundi-depending on few staple crops - cassava - bananas - beans - maizeRice, Maize ↑, Coffee ↓

Farming system diversity and complexityBaseline survey – 2506 households in Rwanda, Burundi, DR CongoResource limitations-Land ownership often problem in East DRC ->30% of plots in upland and lowland-Access to improved germplasm - <25% access to improved bananas - <1% up to >98% for bush beans-Very limited access to credit-Social capital generally poorly developed - member of farmer groups <45%

Farming system diversity and complexityBaseline survey – 2506 households in Rwanda, Burundi, DR CongoOff-farm variable -> higher in Rusizi, South Kivu, Gitarama, Kibuye-Gisenyi

Farming system diversity and complexityBaseline survey – 2506 households in Rwanda, Burundi, DR CongoThree farm types1. Resource-rich entrepreneurs – commercially oriented2. Resource-constraint farmers – subsistence oriented3. Natural resource-rich farmer – making ends meet 1 2 3

Farming system diversity and complexityResource-rich entrepreneurs1. Access to financial and natural capital2. Social capital highly variable3. Good access to (urban) markets 14. Off-farm income allows investment and risks Relatively more abundant in Gitarama, Rwanda Rusizi plains, Burundi

Farming system diversity and complexityResource-poor farmers1. Low physical, social, financial and natural capital2. Subsistence oriented – limited access to market3. Household food insufficiency 2 Relatively more abundant in: Gitega, Burundi Kirundo, Burundi Walungu, South Kivu, DRC Butembo, North Kivu, DRC

Farming system diversity and complexityNatural resource-rich farmer – making ends meet1. Relatively large land holdings and livestock units2. Remotely located from basic amenities / markets3. Mainly involved in subsistence agriculture and petty trade as livelihood strategy 3 Relatively more abundant in: Umutara, Rwanda Mutwanga, North Kivu

Farming system diversity and complexityQualitative understanding of farmer objectives and constraintsDepending on the FERTILISATION PAILLAGEecology and production REobjective differences: RS-crops RO-varieties-surface area BU-crop management CO-soil fertility options Van Damme et al., this conference

Farming system diversity and complexityQualitative understanding of farmer objectives and constraints Complex system of different production units (livestock and crops) A range of crops are grown in different small fields (usually a 1-10 ares) with varying management intensity and soil fertility level. Rented distant fields, maize-legume based Pig stable and ‘compostière’ next to the homestead Banana plantations near homestead Distant fields with sweet potato, cassava and legumes Example from Gitega, Burundi

Farming system diversity and complexityIntensification -> more production per unit landSmall farms < 0.5ha- Selling labor -> no nutrient inputsMedium farms 0.8ha- Relatively high labor + nutrient inputsLarge farms > 1.0 ha- Less labor and nutrient inputs per unit area Van Damme et al., this conference

Farming system diversity and complexityIntensification -> managing the soilSoil fertility gradients- Better yields close to homesteads- More inputs close to homestead kitchen- Organic matter is key to soil fertility Kitchen residues, ashes, urine,… More nutrient inputs near the kitchen (dark green leaves) give better yields than further away (light green leaves) Delstanche 2011, PhD thesis at UCL Okumu et al., 2011, Scientia Horitculturae

Finding the win-win-win’sThe quest for integrated solutions –> win-win-win1. Increasing efficiencies a. Returns to land b. Returns to labor c. Returns to inputs (e.g. nutrients)2. Improve resilience and sustainability a. Maintain / improve natural resource base b. Adapt to climate change and extreme events c. Reduce pest and disease pressure3. Respond to the needs / constraints of rural livelihoods a. Increase income and food b. Reduce risks c. More equitable benefits - gender

Integrating farming system componentsIntegrating crop components: legume x maize1. Validating the Mbili system in Central Africa

Integrating farming system componentsIntegrating crop components: legume x maizeResults confirm benefit of Mbili – nutrient inputs further ↑ this Bean crop Bean crop local vs. improved arrangement with vs. without fertilizer 3.0 3.0 northern axis northern axis Bean yield MBILI + NPK (t ha-1) 2.5 southern axis 2.5 southern axis Bean yield MBILI (t ha-1) 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 -1 -1 Bean yield local practice (t ha ) Bean yield MBILI (t ha ) % yield increase relative to the traditional practice (averaged across all participants) Legume Maize MBILI 00-10% 05-20% MBILI + Fertilizer 15-50% 15-60%

Integrating farming system componentsIntegrating crop components: legume x cassava1. Different planting arrangements a. cassava – traditional/random b. cassava 1 x 1m c. cassava 2x0.5m2. Different legume intercrops: a. First 4 lines beans/ground at 40cm b. Second 2 lines soybean at 67cm3. Strategic application of nutrients a. Compost or farmyard manure b. Mineral fertilizer

Integrating farming system componentsIntegrating crop components: legume x cassavaImprovements in system productivity in farmer-managed trials cassava storage root yield (t ha ) -1 max. SED (1st legume) 2nd legume (soybean) northern axis max. SEDlegume grain yield (kg ha-1) 3000 max. SED (2nd legume) 1st legume (common beans) 30 northern axis southern axis 2000 20 southern axis 1000 10 0 0 trad. 1x1 1x1 2x0.5 trad. 1x1 1x1 2x0.5 trad. 1x1 1x1 2x0.5 trad. 1x1 1x1 2x0.5 +NPK +NPK +NPK +NPK +NPK +NPK +NPK +NPK % yield increase relative to the traditional practice (averaged across all participants) Legume Cassava 1x1 ~10% 0-5% 1x1+fertilizer 25-40% 15-25% 2x0.5+fertilizer 40-60% 20-35%

Integrating farming system componentsIntegrating legume x cassava/maize: a win-win-win?1. Improved resource use efficiency: - Land, Labor, Nutrient inputs - But strongly site-specific!2. Improved resilience/sustainability - Improved soil fertility long term? - Mixed cropping -> spread risks3. Responds to livelihood needs/constraints - Yes, but fertilizer access is challenge - Requires technical know-how… - First farmers became ‘technicians’ (Lambrechts et al., pers. comm.)

Integrating farming system componentsIntegrating crop components: banana x legumeCommon practice-Traditionally low yielding bush beans-Tillage at onset of planting season -> damage rootsQuest:- Can we improve the legume component, while maintaining banana yields?

Integrating farming system componentsBanana x legume intercropping: zero tillage + mulchZero-tillage and mulch certainly works for bananas Tillage / no-mulch No-till / self-mulch Hyparrhenia Tripsacum Bizimana, Muliele, et al. – this conference

Integrating farming system componentsBanana x legume intercropping: zero tillage + mulchBean yields-Mulch first increases bean yields-Dense banana leaf canopies reduce bean yields (Bizimana, Muliele et al., this conference)

Integrating farming system components Banana x legume intercropping: reduce banana canopy -Leaf pruning increases yield, particularly for soy and climbing bean -But pruning has negative impact on banana performance 2500 Legume grain yield(kg/ha) Monocrop 400 Monocrop Banana plant height(cm) 2000 350 4 leaves 4 leaves 300 1500 7 leaves 7 leaves 250 4 leaves All leaves 200 All leaves 7 leaves 1000 150 All leaves 500 100 50 0 0ean soybean Climbing Bush bean Climbing Bush bean soybean soybean Climbing Bush bean soybean bean bean beanafter banana 2010B (3 months after banana 2011A (9 months after banana 2011A (9 months after bananag) planting) planting) planting) (Ntamwira et al., this confernce)

Integrating farming system componentsBanana x legume intercropping: win-win-win?1. Improved resource efficiency? -LER > 1 -Income ?2. Improved resilience and sustainability -Permanent canopy and soil cover reduces erosion3. Responds to livelihood needs/constraints -More food and income, but … -Banana often controlled by men, when cash crop / beer -Beans often cultivated by women, important source of proteins

Integrating farming system componentsIntegrating crop components: coffee x banana systemsCoffee was introduced at large scale in 1950s as mono-cropFarmers in Uganda and Tanzania have developed intercrop systems 6000 coffee banana Yield value (USD ha-1 yr-1 ) 5000 error bars - S.E. 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 intercrop coffee banana intercrop coffee banana mono mono mono mono SW Uganda - Robusta East Uganda - Arabica

Integrating farming system componentsIntegrating crop components: coffee x banana systemsBurundi : 10 Mulch depth (cm) 8Farmers are removing crop residue from 6banana fields to mulch coffee fields 4-> farmers plant bananas around coffee 2 0 LB PB COFFEE BANANA BunchyCoffee Cherries weight Yield (T of 100cherrie Banana weight Yieldsub-plot (kg/tree) cherries/ha) weight (g) sub-plot (kg) (T/ha)LB 2,01 a 4,92 a 152,2 a LC 8,00 a 10,4 aPB 1,98 a 4,87 a 161,6 b PC 15,1 b 28,6 b (Nibasumba et al., this conference)

Integrating farming system componentsPerception analysis through interviews: coffee x banana Arabica Robusta Extension Managers Sum CitingIncentives for intercropping (n=12) (n=12) (n=8) (n=8) (n=40) order Rating1. Cash and food from same land 9 11 5 7 32 6.3 2022. Banana provides shade 8 9 4 7 28 6.1 1703. Land scarcity 5 5 4 5 19 5.2 984. Banana provides in situ mulch 8 3 0 2 13 6.5 845. Motivates to manage better 1 3 2 2 8 4.1 336. Thicker coffee cherries 2 2 0 2 6 2.7 167. Feed animals banana biomass 2 0 0 0 2 5.5 11Disincentives for intercroppingLow soil fertility 2 2 8 8 20 5.2 103Lack of recommendations 4 0 1 2 7 4.3 30Unbelief through experience 2 2 1 0 5 2.6 13Bananas damage coffee 0 2 0 0 2 5.0 10Cultural traditions 0 1 0 0 1 4.0 4 (Jassogne et al., this conference)

Integrating farming system componentsSustainability and resilience: coffee x banana1. Bananas provide mulch -> - Increased nutrient recycling, - Intercropped coffee appears less nutrient deficient - Accelerated nutrient mining?2. Resilient to climate shocks - Shaded coffee -> less drought - Less strong biennial variation3. Certain coffee pests/diseases decrease when intercropped

Integrating farming system componentsBanana x coffee intercropping: win-win-win?1. Improved resource efficiency? -LER + income > 1.5x -Impact on coffee quality?2. Improved resilience and sustainability -Increased nutrient recycling and needs! -Adapted to climate shocks and change? -More resilient to market volatility3. Responds to livelihood needs/constraints -More food and income, but…… -Coffee is dominated by men -When bananas = food crop, then women will see their labor input increased

Integrating farming system componentsErosion control trials in South Kivu Fanya juu earth embankments Researcher-managed long-term trial to evaluate the effects of: -zero-tillage -Calliandra hedgerows -Fanya juu earth embankments Calliandra hedgerows

Integrating farming system componentsErosion control trials in South Kivu Control: 30 kg m-2 after 4 years = ~3 mm of soil lost 50 Cumulated soil loss (kg m )-2 40 SED 30 20 10 0 tilled not tilled tilled not tilled tilled not tilled tilled not tilled no hedge Calliandra no hedge Calliandra without embankments with embankments Most effective soil erosion control by fanya juu earth embankments Zero-tillage without additional measures increases soil erosion (reduced infiltration)

Integrating farming system componentsErosion control trials in South Kivu 1st season 1st season 7th season 7th season 1st season 7th season 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 Soybean yield (kg ha-1) Soybean yield (kg ha ) Soybean yield (kg ha ) Soybean yield (kg ha-1) Soybean yield (kg ha-1) Soybean yield (kg ha-1) -1 -1 800 800 SED 800 SED 800 800 SED SED SED 800 600 600 600 600 600 600 400 400 400 400 400 400 200 200 200 200 200 200 Caliandra 0 tilled 0 not tilled tilled tilled not tilled not tilled tilled tilled not tilled not tilled tilled tilled not tilled 0 not tilled tilled tilled not tilled not tilled 00 tilled tilled notnottilled tilled tilled not tilled tilled notnottilled tilled tilled tilled not tilled tilled not nottilled tilled tilled tilled not tilled tilled tilled not tilled not tilled 0 competes tilled not tilled tilled not tilled no hedge Calliandra no hedge no hedge Calliandra Calliandra no hedge no hedge Calliandra Calliandra no hedge no hedge no Calliandra hedge Calliandra Calliandra no hedge no hedge Calliandra Calliandra no hedge Calliandra without embankmentswithout embankments embankments with with embankmentswithout embankments without embankments embankments with without embankments with embankments with embankments without embankments 2nd season 2nd season 8th season 2nd season 8th season 8th season 3500 3500 3500 3500 3500 3500 Not win-win-win 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 Maize yield (kg ha-1) Maize yield (kg ha-1) Maize yield (kg ha-1) SED Maize yield (kg ha-1) Maize yield (kg ha ) SED SED SED -1 SED 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 -Yes, erosion reduces 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 -High labour requirements 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 Yields 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 -Yields not increased 500 500 500 500 500 500 slowly 0 0 0 0 0 0 catching up tilled not tilled tilled not tilled tilled not tilled tilled not tilled tilled not tilled tilled not tilled tilled not tilled tilled not tilled tilled not tilled tilled not tilled tilled not tilled tilled not tilled tilled not tilled tilled not tilled tilled tilled not tilled not tilled tilled tilled not tilled not tilled tilled tilled not tilled not tilled tilled not tilled tilled not tilled no hedge Calliandra no hedge Calliandra no hedge Calliandra no hedge Calliandra no hedge Calliandra no hedge Calliandra no hedge no hedge Calliandra Calliandra no hedge no hedge Calliandra Calliandra no hedge Calliandra without embankments with embankments without embankments with embankments without embankments with embankments without embankments without embankments with embankments with embankments without embankments

CIALCAs efforts in farming systems R4DLessons learned1. We don’t really invent -> we learn and adapt from the best farmers2. Certain intercrop systems allow increased efficiencies at farm level in terms of returns to land, labor, nutrients/fertilizer3. Medium-size farms (≈1 ha) produce most per unit land4. Control of resources (land, labor, capital) is key -> gender issues, cultural barriers, policies, and access to knowledge and marketsResearch outlook and gaps1. The quest continues2. Role of livestock and nutrient cycling not yet sufficiently exploited3. Trade-offs have to be better quantified in space and time4. Socio-political implications have to be better understood

Thank! AcknowledgementsThe national research partners, universities, NGO’s, cooperatingfarmers, you, and particularly the students!

van Asten - CIALCA's efforts in farming systems R4D

by CIALCA

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

2 Embeds 1,108

Statistics