Conservation Agriculture Adoption    Challenges in Zimbabwe Kizito Mazvimavi, Putso Nyathi and Conrad Murendo             ...
Conservation Agriculture in Zimbabwe    Largely introduced through relief programs       NGOs provided inputs and techni...
ICRISAT CA Panel Surveys, 2007 - 2011Study Sample: • 15 Districts • 450 Households • Soil sample analysis
Maize Yield for CA and Non-CA in                                                                     2010/11 Cropping Seas...
Components of CA techniques being            Practiced, 2006 - 2011 (%)                                  2005/06 2006/07 2...
Changes in area under CA                                                                End of most free seed             ...
Reason for not practicing CA                   45                   40                   35                   30% of respo...
Influence of NGO support on CA plot area                                                                  No access       ...
Labor Requirements for CA and Non-CA Plots (CT)                    (Mean Area; CA=0. 4ha, Non-CA=0. 3ha)          30      ...
Labor Requirements for CA and Non-CA Plots (CD Tillage)                       (Mean Area; CA=0. 4ha, Non-CA=0. 3ha)       ...
Targeting farmers in CA promotion• Is CA the best option for women famers, the  elderly and households affected by HIV/AID...
% of respondents                    10                    20                    30                    40                  ...
Dealing with Crop-Livestock Interactions• Communal grazing by-laws  commonly demand the use of  crop residues as livestock...
Harmonized Approaches to CA Promotion• CA promoters have different approaches to entice  potential technology adopters• CA...
The role of markets              Rather than direct distribution of free seed and fertilizer to CA                        ...
Conclusion• Farmers still appreciate the benefits of CA  technology• There is potential to increase CA plot sizes (area)  ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

CA adoption challenges in Zimbabwe. Kizito Mazvimavi

823 views
717 views

Published on

A presentation at the WCCA 2011 event in Brisbane.

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
823
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
16
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

CA adoption challenges in Zimbabwe. Kizito Mazvimavi

  1. 1. Conservation Agriculture Adoption Challenges in Zimbabwe Kizito Mazvimavi, Putso Nyathi and Conrad Murendo ICRISAT Presentation to the WCCA ,26 September 2011
  2. 2. Conservation Agriculture in Zimbabwe  Largely introduced through relief programs  NGOs provided inputs and technical supportBasins technique Targeted the vulnerable
  3. 3. ICRISAT CA Panel Surveys, 2007 - 2011Study Sample: • 15 Districts • 450 Households • Soil sample analysis
  4. 4. Maize Yield for CA and Non-CA in 2010/11 Cropping Season CA yield NON CA yield 3000 2500Maize Yield in Kg/Ha 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Nyanga Murehwa Bindura Makonde Chivi Chirumhanzu Binga Hwange Chipinge Hurungwe Masvingo Guruve Nkayi Insiza Mangwe Zaka Seke Kadoma Gokwe South Mt Darwin •CA remains a promising technology that enables smallholder farmers to get better yields  improve food security
  5. 5. Components of CA techniques being Practiced, 2006 - 2011 (%) 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11Winter weeding 87 76 71 63 46 13.8Application of Mulch 75 69 70 56 30 19.8Digging Planting Basin 99 99 97 89 86 70.6Application of manure 88 89 87 80 68 63.0Application of basal fertilizer 75 74 66 38 42 41.3Application of top dressing 92 92 88 70 60 55.1fertilizerTimely weeding 98 99 96 85 54 55.4Crop rotation 13 13 18 19 30 35.8•Winter weeding – in 2010/11 enumerators made visual assessment of CA plots in May/June:Only 14% had weed free plots
  6. 6. Changes in area under CA End of most free seed 8000 and fertilizer support 7000 6000 5000sq. meters 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 NR II NR III NR IV NR V
  7. 7. Reason for not practicing CA 45 40 35 30% of respondents 25 20 15 10 5 0 Labor intensive NGO left To rotate crops Plot not fenced Water logging High weed pressure
  8. 8. Influence of NGO support on CA plot area No access Access to NGO support 6000 5000CA Plot Area m2 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11
  9. 9. Labor Requirements for CA and Non-CA Plots (CT) (Mean Area; CA=0. 4ha, Non-CA=0. 3ha) 30 25 CF Plot Non-CF Plot 20Days/Ha 15 10 5 0 Digging Basins Planting First Weeding Second Weeding Third (+) Manure Basal Fertilizer Top dressing Harvesting Weeding Application Application
  10. 10. Labor Requirements for CA and Non-CA Plots (CD Tillage) (Mean Area; CA=0. 4ha, Non-CA=0. 3ha) 30 Mechanize (Rippers, Jab- Apply Herbicides planters)? (Training and Costs?) 25 CF Plot Non-CF Plot 20Days/Ha 15 10 5 0 Digging Basins Planting First Weeding Second Weeding Third (+) Manure Basal Fertilizer Top dressing Harvesting Weeding Application Application
  11. 11. Targeting farmers in CA promotion• Is CA the best option for women famers, the elderly and households affected by HIV/AIDS• Can vulnerable farmers (Poorer and HIV/AIDS) maximize input and technology support provided to CA beneficiaries? – NGO targeting of vulnerable households impact negatively on labor availability for CA practices – Need to include better resourced farmers as technology innovators, • These are able to take a risk with new technology
  12. 12. % of respondents 10 20 30 40 50 0Left in field for livestock Stored forlivestock feed Kraal manure Mulching Construction Left in plot - Crop Residue Uses Mulching Challenges: - the need to meet multiple uses Compost Others (e.g. Thatching)
  13. 13. Dealing with Crop-Livestock Interactions• Communal grazing by-laws commonly demand the use of crop residues as livestock feed,• CA plots are usually unfenced• Difficult for CA farmers to reserve residues for mulching purposes.• Identification of fodder alternatives for livestock feed• Use of non-crop residue materials as mulching material• Ammend community by-laws to keep livestock away from fields
  14. 14. Harmonized Approaches to CA Promotion• CA promoters have different approaches to entice potential technology adopters• CA promotion need full participation of national extension agencies Basin Size % Soil Cover
  15. 15. The role of markets Rather than direct distribution of free seed and fertilizer to CA farmers, use market friendly mechanisms•Promote platforms for farmers to sell their produce •Accumulate income to purchase inputs (Herbicides, mechanization implements)
  16. 16. Conclusion• Farmers still appreciate the benefits of CA technology• There is potential to increase CA plot sizes (area) through mechanization• Consistent extension support/training is critical for farmers to continue with the CA practice. ―Close participation of AGRITEX, to ensure sustainability• Address the issue of Mechanized CA Equipment Access (availability in market).• The government to now play a more leading role in CA technology transfer

×