Successfully reported this slideshow.
Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

van Asten - CIALCA's efforts in farming systems R4D

Ad

CIALCA's efforts in farming systems R4D

Ad

CIALCA's efforts in farming systems R4D


1.   Understand farming systems diversity & complexity
     a. Quantitative anal...

Ad

CIALCA's efforts in farming systems R4D


Baseline survey – 2506 farms in 10 regions (i.e. mandate areas)




Differences ...

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Check these out next

1 of 35 Ad
1 of 35 Ad

More Related Content

Slideshows for you

Similar to van Asten - CIALCA's efforts in farming systems R4D

van Asten - CIALCA's efforts in farming systems R4D

  1. 1. CIALCA's efforts in farming systems R4D
  2. 2. CIALCA's efforts in farming systems R4D 1. Understand farming systems diversity & complexity a. Quantitative analysis of resource availability b. Qualitative understanding of objectives + practices 2. Identify opportunities to improve systems, adapted to a. Agro-ecology and market opportunities b. Production objectives and farm resources 3. Test and evaluate a. Quantify resource use efficiency, food, and income b. Understand farmer perceptions 4. Lessons learned
  3. 3. CIALCA's efforts in farming systems R4D Baseline survey – 2506 farms in 10 regions (i.e. mandate areas) Differences within sites are bigger than differences between 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)
  4. 4. Farming system diversity and complexity Baseline survey – 2506 households in Rwanda, Burundi, DR Congo General 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 - maize Rice, Maize ↑, Coffee ↓
  5. 5. Farming system diversity and complexity Baseline survey – 2506 households in Rwanda, Burundi, DR Congo Resource 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%
  6. 6. Farming system diversity and complexity Baseline survey – 2506 households in Rwanda, Burundi, DR Congo Off-farm variable -> higher in Rusizi, South Kivu, Gitarama, Kibuye-Gisenyi
  7. 7. Farming system diversity and complexity Baseline survey – 2506 households in Rwanda, Burundi, DR Congo Three farm types 1. Resource-rich entrepreneurs – commercially oriented 2. Resource-constraint farmers – subsistence oriented 3. Natural resource-rich farmer – making ends meet 1 2 3
  8. 8. Farming system diversity and complexity Resource-rich entrepreneurs 1. Access to financial and natural capital 2. Social capital highly variable 3. Good access to (urban) markets 1 4. Off-farm income allows investment and risks Relatively more abundant in Gitarama, Rwanda Rusizi plains, Burundi
  9. 9. Farming system diversity and complexity Resource-poor farmers 1. Low physical, social, financial and natural capital 2. Subsistence oriented – limited access to market 3. Household food insufficiency 2 Relatively more abundant in: Gitega, Burundi Kirundo, Burundi Walungu, South Kivu, DRC Butembo, North Kivu, DRC
  10. 10. Farming system diversity and complexity Natural resource-rich farmer – making ends meet 1. Relatively large land holdings and livestock units 2. Remotely located from basic amenities / markets 3. Mainly involved in subsistence agriculture and petty trade as livelihood strategy 3 Relatively more abundant in: Umutara, Rwanda Mutwanga, North Kivu
  11. 11. Farming system diversity and complexity Qualitative understanding of farmer objectives and constraints Depending on the FERTILISATION PAILLAGE ecology and production RE objective differences: RS -crops RO -varieties -surface area BU -crop management CO -soil fertility options Van Damme et al., this conference
  12. 12. Farming system diversity and complexity Qualitative 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
  13. 13. Farming system diversity and complexity Intensification -> more production per unit land Small farms < 0.5ha - Selling labor -> no nutrient inputs Medium farms 0.8ha - Relatively high labor + nutrient inputs Large farms > 1.0 ha - Less labor and nutrient inputs per unit area Van Damme et al., this conference
  14. 14. Farming system diversity and complexity Intensification -> managing the soil Soil 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
  15. 15. Finding the win-win-win’s The quest for integrated solutions –> win-win-win 1. 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 pressure 3. Respond to the needs / constraints of rural livelihoods a. Increase income and food b. Reduce risks c. More equitable benefits - gender
  16. 16. Integrating farming system components Integrating crop components: legume x maize 1. Validating the Mbili system in Central Africa
  17. 17. Integrating farming system components Integrating crop components: legume x maize Results 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%
  18. 18. Integrating farming system components Integrating crop components: legume x cassava 1. Different planting arrangements a. cassava – traditional/random b. cassava 1 x 1m c. cassava 2x0.5m 2. Different legume intercrops: a. First 4 lines beans/ground at 40cm b. Second 2 lines soybean at 67cm 3. Strategic application of nutrients a. Compost or farmyard manure b. Mineral fertilizer
  19. 19. Integrating farming system components Integrating crop components: legume x cassava Improvements in system productivity in farmer-managed trials cassava storage root yield (t ha ) -1 max. SED (1st legume) 2nd legume (soybean) northern axis max. SED legume 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%
  20. 20. Integrating farming system components Integrating 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 risks 3. Responds to livelihood needs/constraints - Yes, but fertilizer access is challenge - Requires technical know-how… - First farmers became ‘technicians’ (Lambrechts et al., pers. comm.)
  21. 21. Integrating farming system components Integrating crop components: banana x legume Common practice -Traditionally low yielding bush beans -Tillage at onset of planting season -> damage roots Quest: - Can we improve the legume component, while maintaining banana yields?
  22. 22. Integrating farming system components Banana x legume intercropping: zero tillage + mulch Zero-tillage and mulch certainly works for bananas Tillage / no-mulch No-till / self-mulch Hyparrhenia Tripsacum Bizimana, Muliele, et al. – this conference
  23. 23. Integrating farming system components Banana x legume intercropping: zero tillage + mulch Bean yields -Mulch first increases bean yields -Dense banana leaf canopies reduce bean yields (Bizimana, Muliele et al., this conference)
  24. 24. 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 0 ean soybean Climbing Bush bean Climbing Bush bean soybean soybean Climbing Bush bean soybean bean bean bean after banana 2010B (3 months after banana 2011A (9 months after banana 2011A (9 months after banana g) planting) planting) planting) (Ntamwira et al., this confernce)
  25. 25. Integrating farming system components Banana x legume intercropping: win-win-win? 1. Improved resource efficiency? -LER > 1 -Income ? 2. Improved resilience and sustainability -Permanent canopy and soil cover reduces erosion 3. 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
  26. 26. Integrating farming system components Integrating crop components: coffee x banana systems Coffee was introduced at large scale in 1950s as mono-crop Farmers 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
  27. 27. Integrating farming system components Integrating crop components: coffee x banana systems Burundi : 10 Mulch depth (cm) 8 Farmers are removing crop residue from 6 banana fields to mulch coffee fields 4 -> farmers plant bananas around coffee 2 0 LB PB COFFEE BANANA Bunchy Coffee Cherries weight Yield (T of 100cherrie Banana weight Yield sub-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 a PB 1,98 a 4,87 a 161,6 b PC 15,1 b 28,6 b (Nibasumba et al., this conference)
  28. 28. Integrating farming system components Perception analysis through interviews: coffee x banana Arabica Robusta Extension Managers Sum Citing Incentives for intercropping (n=12) (n=12) (n=8) (n=8) (n=40) order Rating 1. Cash and food from same land 9 11 5 7 32 6.3 202 2. Banana provides shade 8 9 4 7 28 6.1 170 3. Land scarcity 5 5 4 5 19 5.2 98 4. Banana provides in situ mulch 8 3 0 2 13 6.5 84 5. Motivates to manage better 1 3 2 2 8 4.1 33 6. Thicker coffee cherries 2 2 0 2 6 2.7 16 7. Feed animals banana biomass 2 0 0 0 2 5.5 11 Disincentives for intercropping Low soil fertility 2 2 8 8 20 5.2 103 Lack of recommendations 4 0 1 2 7 4.3 30 Unbelief through experience 2 2 1 0 5 2.6 13 Bananas damage coffee 0 2 0 0 2 5.0 10 Cultural traditions 0 1 0 0 1 4.0 4 (Jassogne et al., this conference)
  29. 29. Integrating farming system components Sustainability and resilience: coffee x banana 1. 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 variation 3. Certain coffee pests/diseases decrease when intercropped
  30. 30. Integrating farming system components Banana 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 volatility 3. 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
  31. 31. Integrating farming system components Erosion 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
  32. 32. Integrating farming system components Erosion 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)
  33. 33. Integrating farming system components Erosion 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
  34. 34. CIALCA's efforts in farming systems R4D Lessons learned 1. We don’t really invent -> we learn and adapt from the best farmers 2. Certain intercrop systems allow increased efficiencies at farm level in terms of returns to land, labor, nutrients/fertilizer 3. Medium-size farms (≈1 ha) produce most per unit land 4. Control of resources (land, labor, capital) is key -> gender issues, cultural barriers, policies, and access to knowledge and markets Research outlook and gaps 1. The quest continues 2. Role of livestock and nutrient cycling not yet sufficiently exploited 3. Trade-offs have to be better quantified in space and time 4. Socio-political implications have to be better understood
  35. 35. Thank! Acknowledgements The national research partners, universities, NGO’s, cooperating farmers, you, and particularly the students!

×