By Peter Aagaard
No Farmers no Future
Conservation Farming Unit
CFU established in Zambia in 1996 – conservationagriculture.org
WELCOME
1
By Peter Aagaard
What farmers want?
African farmers aspirations are no different from farmers
the world over. They want to:
 Feed their families
 Drive down costs labour inputs, increase yields, make more money.
 Survive adverse climatic conditions
 Ride out the crests and troughs of market turbulence
 Have ready access to sound technical advice
 Be linked to input supplies, markets and other farming services
 Benefit from stable agricultural policies
1A
The early enthusiasts
Ron Landless A Zambian commercial farmer with a social conscience
Brian Oldreive Pioneer of Min-till systems for small-scale hoe farmers in Zimbabwe
Henry Elwell Years of research on the effects of conventional tillage on soils - Zimbabwe
Richard Winkfield ART Farm Zimbabwe – Mechanized Zero Till Research
Isiah Nyangumbo Professor of Agriculture University of Zimbabwe
Stephen Muliokela GART Farm Golden Valley Zambia
Ed Voss EU Crucial early support to get our ideas together
Chaim Helman IDA Knocked on Norwegian, Swedish and Finnish doors to get funding
George Grey Former Executive Director of the ZNFU
Ben Kapita Former President of the ZNFU
Ginty Melville Executive Director Lonrho Cotton
James Burke’s – TV program showed how various discoveries and technological
breakthroughs were built from one another successively in an interconnected and
often informal way
‘CONNECTIONS’ – THE BIRTH OF THE CFU
2
Some Early Milestones:
April 1996
Meeting convened by the ZNFU where we made our pitch to Norad, Sida, Finnida to
support a small, tightknit and highly focused organization to promote CF among
small-scale farmers in Zambia
May 1996
CFU registered as an independent entity associated with the ZNFU
1996/7 Planting Season
Launch of small demonstration program based on Hoe Min-Till and rotations – 6 staff
August 1999
Ministry of Agriculture embed the promotion of CF in national extension policy.
By 2000/2001
800 demonstrations and 150 on-farm trials
By 2002/3
No more demonstrations necessary and program funded by Norway alone
3
Acknowledging the pioneers of No-till
From the devastating experience of the Dust Bowl, the principles and practices of CF
gradually emerged and to this day are the subject of continuous refinement. 4
We must all recognize the invaluable contributions of the
No-till pioneers:
Hugh Bennett of Dust Bowl fame, Edward Faulkner, Albert Howard, Walter Lowdermilk, George
McKibben, Shirley Phillips, Herbert Bartz, John Landers, Rolph Derpsh, Ademir Calegari and many
others who have dedicated their lives to the development of what we call CF.
Also ICI, Monsanto, John Deere one of the first manufacturers of Zero Till planters and many other
companies and manufacturers.
Min-Till Pioneer
In 1962 Haywood County farmer
John Kirkpatrick used this
homemade unit to prepare a narrow,
tilled zone which was later followed
with a regular planter. Erosion
control on a steep slope was a major
goal.
The obvious is seldom seen until expressed simply.
5
At the CFU we have never tried
to ‘be something’ - what we have
always tried is to ‘do something’
We don’t work for an
organization we work on an idea,
we work for farmers
6
 Who funds us, where do we operate now, what is the scope of our programs?
 What are the agro-ecological settings within the countries and regions we operate?
 Conventional Farming practices – what are they, what are the disadvantages with them?
 Min-till and Zero till based CF practices - what is MT,CT, RT, CF, CA, CSA, what are the advantages?
 What practices do we recommend for hoe, ox and mechanized farmers ? Can it work anywhere or not?
 How do we deliver training and knowledge to farmers?
 How do we encourage farmer to farmer service provision as a business and what services are provided?
 How do we measure the impact of our programs? Adoption numbers, areas of adoption what exactly is
being adopted and what are the socioeconomic benefits – M&E & Research?
 If CF is so good then why isn’t everybody doing it?
 What other technologies/practices do we promote alongside CF/CA ? Agro-forestry, food security crops?
 How do we engage with the private sector to ensure farmers can access the equipment and inputs they
require to convert?
 What is our position on GMO’s?
 What is the national agricultural policy setting in Zambia and how does it differ in other ESA countries?
 What are they major constraints confronting the promotion and adoption of CF/CSA in ESA?
The dilemma - what to talk about?
7
Starting From 2006/7 Significant Scale up
Zambia
Conservation Agriculture Programme (CAPI) 2006 - 2010
Zambia
Conservation Agriculture Programme (CAPII) 2011 - 2015
Uganda, Kenya, Malawi, Tanzania
Conservation Agriculture Regional Programme (CARP) 2011 -2015
Indirect Support Services
Madagascar, Senegal, Ghana
Sponsored by the Norwegian Government,
implemented by the CFU 8
Region 111
Rainfall 1000-1200mm
Miombo woodland
Region 11a
Rainfall 800-850mm
Maize Production Belt
Zambia’s plateau’s
Region 11b
Rainfall 800-900mm
Zambezi floodplains
Region 1
Rainfall 700-750mm
Low altitude river valleys
Rainfall Mono-modal
Late Nov to Mid March
9
CAP Areas : 4 Administrative Regions – 16 Districts out of 73
Western Region
Southern Region
Central Region
Eastern Region
Mongu, Mkuski and Lundazi
Sub-Regions
Most of Agro-ecological Region IIa &
part of IIb
Mainly Zambia’s Maize & Cotton belts
509,000 farm households (+-)
10
10a
Comparison of Crop Yields
World Bank 2008
African Agriculture – The Backdrop
11
Between 2000/2008, 25% to 40% of the Maize planted by smallholders
was abandoned .
Over these 8 years, smallholders abandoned 1,700,000 hectares of Maize
that was planted .
Average yields on area committed to Maize ranged from 1.0 to 1.5 tons
per hectare.
73% of small-scale growers didn’t sell any maize at all.
67% of small-scale farmers didn’t use fertiliser.
80% of surplus SSF production came from 10% of farmers.
Source MACO/CSO/FSRP 2000-2008 analysis
Some Extraordinary Statistics Relating to SSF Maize
Production in Zambia
12
13
About 3 decades ago something changed?
Farming and agriculture became boring and we entered a
brave new world driven by impenetrable jargon
Community mobilization, community coordination groups,
safety net management capacities, focus group
assessment, positive deviance enquiry, trigger indicators,
strategic incrementalism, livelihood frameworks etc.
‘Finance like other forms of human behaviour underwent a change,
a break with commonsense, a turn toward abstractionism and
notions that couldn’t be explained in workaday English: John
Lanchester –Whoops
The rationalisation of nonsense
Often researchers propose that much ‘local adaptation’ will be
required if CF is to take off in different agro-regions and countries,
that blanket recommendations are dangerous and much more
research is needed.
This idea confuses ‘tillage’ with ‘cropping’. ‘On the ground’ must be
separated from ‘above the ground’. Ploughing, harrowing, overall
digging and ridge-splitting are the conventions that reflect what the
vast majority of smallholders do to establish their crops.
Min Till and Zero-Till are the ‘non negotiables’ on which CF/CA is
built and they provide a foundation that can accommodate a wide
range of agronomic practices, planting configurations, crops and
cropping systems suited to local conditions including rotations,
inter-crops, relays, and agro-forestry trees.
14
Conservation Farming is a system.
 If you can’t describe it you can’t define it.
 If you can’t define it you can’t distinguish it from other
farming systems.
 If you can’t distinguish if from other farming systems you
can’t compare its performance with them.
 If you can’t compare performance you can’t establish
program goals, objectives and expected results.
Conservation Farming definitions - why they are
important
15
Some well known Definitions of CA
“A concept for resource-saving agricultural crop production that
strives to achieve acceptable profits together with high and
sustained production levels while concurrently conserving the
environment”.
Embodies general principles that do not provide a sufficiently
precise basis for comparative evaluation
“CA promotes the concept of optimizing yields and profits while
ensuring provision of local and global environmental benefits and
services”.
A sweeping declaration of aims that is equally unhelpful
16
The common agronomic definition of CA is equally
unhelpful:
‘Minimum tillage, permanent ground cover and 30% of
cropped area occupied by legumes in rotation’.
 Sets standards that are nigh impossible in areas of mono-modal
rainfall (e.g. permanent ground cover).
 Ignores economic considerations such as fluctuating commodity
prices and market opportunities which drive the proportion of
different crops grown by farmers.
 Eliminates all farmers who may have adopted highly significant
and beneficial components of CF but not all of them.
17
19
20
Conventional farming - the common denominator
Continuous and unnecessary overall soil
disturbance by hoes, ox ploughs and ridgers,
tractor ploughs and harrows
The universal and everlasting turning and
churning of soil
The destructive practice that links all
conventional farming systems:-
21
Conventional Farming Practice
22
Africa – Active Fire Detections February and August 2004
23
Owned
24
25
Hired
26
Ridging with Plough
27
Hired
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Annual soil movement
300 tons/ha
Total in Malawi > 540
million tons
17 million km of ridges
built up annually
Farming Families 2.5m?
Annual Dry Season Ridge Splitting
36
38
39
40
CF Basins show significant benefit in seasons with difficult early rains
CF Basins Ridges
2,769 1,291
34
35
36
37
Low Yields
 Soil erosion, nutrient depletion, acidification
 Soil compaction, poor root development
 Excessive crop stress in dry spells
 Water logging in wet spells
 Late planting
 Waste of purchased and on-farm resources
 Poor crop emergence & low plant populations
 Excessive weed competition
 Food insecurity
 Deforestation
 Land degradation
 Migration
Negative effects of conventional farming practices
38
Example - Maize Production Losses
Causes Losses 4.0 tons Expected Yield
Partially degraded soils. Acidic, compacted, oxidised. 10%
Inaccurate application and loss of nutrients. 5%
Loss of rainwater. Intermittent moisture stress. 10% TOTAL LOSS 65%
Planting 15 days after 1st opportunity.
20%
Inaccurate seeding. Poor plant populations. 5%
Weed Competition.
15% 1.4 tons Actual Yield
Note: Fairly skilled farmer AER IIA - Adequate rainfall - Hybrid Seed + fert
The escalator to disillusionment
The proportion of specific losses will vary considerably depending
on numerous local circumstances
41
Conservation Farming Practice
Hoe MT
H
If the technologies work so well why isn’t everybody doing it
 In Zambia Government incentivises farmers to mono-crop Maize with costly and
inefficient input and marketing subsidies. No incentive to improve efficiency.
 No differentiation between agriculture and social welfare. NGO handouts and
Govt subsidies undermine growth of private sector driven services to SSA.
 Govt extension staff focus on numerous services not related to extension &
training
 Stop start interventions by donors. Lack of coordination, fragmentation and
confusion.
 Inadequate focus on farming and farmers. Endless top down strategic planning
and dialogue among institutions. Insufficient penetration of knowhow to grass
roots.
 Programmes overloaded with peripheral add-ons to satisfy political imperatives of
donors.
 Shallow knowledge of CF/CA among promoters. Very few experienced
agriculturalists anywhere.
 Dumbing down, oversimplification and distortion of CF/CA.
Reasons for not attending training
Digging of
CF basins is
too labour
intensive
Do not have
access to CF
implements
Do not
receive
inputsto
make CF
practice
more
beneficial
No accessto
information
and
knowledge
about CF
Not
convinced
about its
benefits in
improving
yields
Not
interested in
changing
farming
practices
Only apply
mechanised
farming
methods of
ridging
and/or
ploughing
Ripping of
soilstoo
difficult to
manage
Unableto
control
weedsin
ripped fields
or dug with
basins
HIGH 17.4 18.2 11.2 31.8 5.8 9.3 0.0 1.6 4.7
MEDIUM 15.1 16.0 6.9 39.1 9.6 8.7 0.2 0.7 3.6
LOW 11.7 8.7 5.3 58.9 7.4 4.2 0.5 0.9 2.4
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
Chart 10: Main Reasons given for notAdopting CF (%)
If its so good why isn’t everybody doing it?
40 CFU Trials under Mature Trees for 4 seasons
Maize outside
tree
Maize Under
tree
4 Crops. All plots Zero Fertiliser & CF basins
Maize yields under and outside Mature Faidherbia - 4 seasons means
Zero Fertilizer
CFU experiences and lessons on Conservation Agriculture

CFU experiences and lessons on Conservation Agriculture

  • 1.
  • 2.
    No Farmers noFuture Conservation Farming Unit CFU established in Zambia in 1996 – conservationagriculture.org WELCOME 1 By Peter Aagaard
  • 3.
    What farmers want? Africanfarmers aspirations are no different from farmers the world over. They want to:  Feed their families  Drive down costs labour inputs, increase yields, make more money.  Survive adverse climatic conditions  Ride out the crests and troughs of market turbulence  Have ready access to sound technical advice  Be linked to input supplies, markets and other farming services  Benefit from stable agricultural policies 1A
  • 4.
    The early enthusiasts RonLandless A Zambian commercial farmer with a social conscience Brian Oldreive Pioneer of Min-till systems for small-scale hoe farmers in Zimbabwe Henry Elwell Years of research on the effects of conventional tillage on soils - Zimbabwe Richard Winkfield ART Farm Zimbabwe – Mechanized Zero Till Research Isiah Nyangumbo Professor of Agriculture University of Zimbabwe Stephen Muliokela GART Farm Golden Valley Zambia Ed Voss EU Crucial early support to get our ideas together Chaim Helman IDA Knocked on Norwegian, Swedish and Finnish doors to get funding George Grey Former Executive Director of the ZNFU Ben Kapita Former President of the ZNFU Ginty Melville Executive Director Lonrho Cotton James Burke’s – TV program showed how various discoveries and technological breakthroughs were built from one another successively in an interconnected and often informal way ‘CONNECTIONS’ – THE BIRTH OF THE CFU 2
  • 5.
    Some Early Milestones: April1996 Meeting convened by the ZNFU where we made our pitch to Norad, Sida, Finnida to support a small, tightknit and highly focused organization to promote CF among small-scale farmers in Zambia May 1996 CFU registered as an independent entity associated with the ZNFU 1996/7 Planting Season Launch of small demonstration program based on Hoe Min-Till and rotations – 6 staff August 1999 Ministry of Agriculture embed the promotion of CF in national extension policy. By 2000/2001 800 demonstrations and 150 on-farm trials By 2002/3 No more demonstrations necessary and program funded by Norway alone 3
  • 6.
    Acknowledging the pioneersof No-till From the devastating experience of the Dust Bowl, the principles and practices of CF gradually emerged and to this day are the subject of continuous refinement. 4
  • 7.
    We must allrecognize the invaluable contributions of the No-till pioneers: Hugh Bennett of Dust Bowl fame, Edward Faulkner, Albert Howard, Walter Lowdermilk, George McKibben, Shirley Phillips, Herbert Bartz, John Landers, Rolph Derpsh, Ademir Calegari and many others who have dedicated their lives to the development of what we call CF. Also ICI, Monsanto, John Deere one of the first manufacturers of Zero Till planters and many other companies and manufacturers. Min-Till Pioneer In 1962 Haywood County farmer John Kirkpatrick used this homemade unit to prepare a narrow, tilled zone which was later followed with a regular planter. Erosion control on a steep slope was a major goal. The obvious is seldom seen until expressed simply. 5
  • 8.
    At the CFUwe have never tried to ‘be something’ - what we have always tried is to ‘do something’ We don’t work for an organization we work on an idea, we work for farmers 6
  • 9.
     Who fundsus, where do we operate now, what is the scope of our programs?  What are the agro-ecological settings within the countries and regions we operate?  Conventional Farming practices – what are they, what are the disadvantages with them?  Min-till and Zero till based CF practices - what is MT,CT, RT, CF, CA, CSA, what are the advantages?  What practices do we recommend for hoe, ox and mechanized farmers ? Can it work anywhere or not?  How do we deliver training and knowledge to farmers?  How do we encourage farmer to farmer service provision as a business and what services are provided?  How do we measure the impact of our programs? Adoption numbers, areas of adoption what exactly is being adopted and what are the socioeconomic benefits – M&E & Research?  If CF is so good then why isn’t everybody doing it?  What other technologies/practices do we promote alongside CF/CA ? Agro-forestry, food security crops?  How do we engage with the private sector to ensure farmers can access the equipment and inputs they require to convert?  What is our position on GMO’s?  What is the national agricultural policy setting in Zambia and how does it differ in other ESA countries?  What are they major constraints confronting the promotion and adoption of CF/CSA in ESA? The dilemma - what to talk about? 7
  • 10.
    Starting From 2006/7Significant Scale up Zambia Conservation Agriculture Programme (CAPI) 2006 - 2010 Zambia Conservation Agriculture Programme (CAPII) 2011 - 2015 Uganda, Kenya, Malawi, Tanzania Conservation Agriculture Regional Programme (CARP) 2011 -2015 Indirect Support Services Madagascar, Senegal, Ghana Sponsored by the Norwegian Government, implemented by the CFU 8
  • 11.
    Region 111 Rainfall 1000-1200mm Miombowoodland Region 11a Rainfall 800-850mm Maize Production Belt Zambia’s plateau’s Region 11b Rainfall 800-900mm Zambezi floodplains Region 1 Rainfall 700-750mm Low altitude river valleys Rainfall Mono-modal Late Nov to Mid March 9
  • 12.
    CAP Areas :4 Administrative Regions – 16 Districts out of 73 Western Region Southern Region Central Region Eastern Region Mongu, Mkuski and Lundazi Sub-Regions Most of Agro-ecological Region IIa & part of IIb Mainly Zambia’s Maize & Cotton belts 509,000 farm households (+-) 10
  • 13.
  • 14.
    Comparison of CropYields World Bank 2008 African Agriculture – The Backdrop 11
  • 15.
    Between 2000/2008, 25%to 40% of the Maize planted by smallholders was abandoned . Over these 8 years, smallholders abandoned 1,700,000 hectares of Maize that was planted . Average yields on area committed to Maize ranged from 1.0 to 1.5 tons per hectare. 73% of small-scale growers didn’t sell any maize at all. 67% of small-scale farmers didn’t use fertiliser. 80% of surplus SSF production came from 10% of farmers. Source MACO/CSO/FSRP 2000-2008 analysis Some Extraordinary Statistics Relating to SSF Maize Production in Zambia 12
  • 16.
    13 About 3 decadesago something changed? Farming and agriculture became boring and we entered a brave new world driven by impenetrable jargon Community mobilization, community coordination groups, safety net management capacities, focus group assessment, positive deviance enquiry, trigger indicators, strategic incrementalism, livelihood frameworks etc. ‘Finance like other forms of human behaviour underwent a change, a break with commonsense, a turn toward abstractionism and notions that couldn’t be explained in workaday English: John Lanchester –Whoops
  • 17.
    The rationalisation ofnonsense Often researchers propose that much ‘local adaptation’ will be required if CF is to take off in different agro-regions and countries, that blanket recommendations are dangerous and much more research is needed. This idea confuses ‘tillage’ with ‘cropping’. ‘On the ground’ must be separated from ‘above the ground’. Ploughing, harrowing, overall digging and ridge-splitting are the conventions that reflect what the vast majority of smallholders do to establish their crops. Min Till and Zero-Till are the ‘non negotiables’ on which CF/CA is built and they provide a foundation that can accommodate a wide range of agronomic practices, planting configurations, crops and cropping systems suited to local conditions including rotations, inter-crops, relays, and agro-forestry trees. 14
  • 18.
    Conservation Farming isa system.  If you can’t describe it you can’t define it.  If you can’t define it you can’t distinguish it from other farming systems.  If you can’t distinguish if from other farming systems you can’t compare its performance with them.  If you can’t compare performance you can’t establish program goals, objectives and expected results. Conservation Farming definitions - why they are important 15
  • 19.
    Some well knownDefinitions of CA “A concept for resource-saving agricultural crop production that strives to achieve acceptable profits together with high and sustained production levels while concurrently conserving the environment”. Embodies general principles that do not provide a sufficiently precise basis for comparative evaluation “CA promotes the concept of optimizing yields and profits while ensuring provision of local and global environmental benefits and services”. A sweeping declaration of aims that is equally unhelpful 16
  • 20.
    The common agronomicdefinition of CA is equally unhelpful: ‘Minimum tillage, permanent ground cover and 30% of cropped area occupied by legumes in rotation’.  Sets standards that are nigh impossible in areas of mono-modal rainfall (e.g. permanent ground cover).  Ignores economic considerations such as fluctuating commodity prices and market opportunities which drive the proportion of different crops grown by farmers.  Eliminates all farmers who may have adopted highly significant and beneficial components of CF but not all of them. 17
  • 21.
  • 22.
  • 23.
    Conventional farming -the common denominator Continuous and unnecessary overall soil disturbance by hoes, ox ploughs and ridgers, tractor ploughs and harrows The universal and everlasting turning and churning of soil The destructive practice that links all conventional farming systems:- 21
  • 24.
  • 25.
    Africa – ActiveFire Detections February and August 2004 23
  • 26.
  • 27.
  • 28.
  • 29.
  • 30.
  • 31.
  • 32.
  • 33.
  • 34.
  • 35.
  • 36.
  • 37.
  • 38.
  • 39.
    Annual soil movement 300tons/ha Total in Malawi > 540 million tons 17 million km of ridges built up annually Farming Families 2.5m? Annual Dry Season Ridge Splitting 36
  • 40.
  • 41.
  • 42.
  • 43.
    CF Basins showsignificant benefit in seasons with difficult early rains CF Basins Ridges 2,769 1,291
  • 44.
  • 45.
  • 46.
  • 47.
  • 48.
    Low Yields  Soilerosion, nutrient depletion, acidification  Soil compaction, poor root development  Excessive crop stress in dry spells  Water logging in wet spells  Late planting  Waste of purchased and on-farm resources  Poor crop emergence & low plant populations  Excessive weed competition  Food insecurity  Deforestation  Land degradation  Migration Negative effects of conventional farming practices 38
  • 49.
    Example - MaizeProduction Losses Causes Losses 4.0 tons Expected Yield Partially degraded soils. Acidic, compacted, oxidised. 10% Inaccurate application and loss of nutrients. 5% Loss of rainwater. Intermittent moisture stress. 10% TOTAL LOSS 65% Planting 15 days after 1st opportunity. 20% Inaccurate seeding. Poor plant populations. 5% Weed Competition. 15% 1.4 tons Actual Yield Note: Fairly skilled farmer AER IIA - Adequate rainfall - Hybrid Seed + fert The escalator to disillusionment The proportion of specific losses will vary considerably depending on numerous local circumstances 41
  • 51.
  • 52.
  • 68.
  • 69.
    If the technologieswork so well why isn’t everybody doing it  In Zambia Government incentivises farmers to mono-crop Maize with costly and inefficient input and marketing subsidies. No incentive to improve efficiency.  No differentiation between agriculture and social welfare. NGO handouts and Govt subsidies undermine growth of private sector driven services to SSA.  Govt extension staff focus on numerous services not related to extension & training  Stop start interventions by donors. Lack of coordination, fragmentation and confusion.  Inadequate focus on farming and farmers. Endless top down strategic planning and dialogue among institutions. Insufficient penetration of knowhow to grass roots.  Programmes overloaded with peripheral add-ons to satisfy political imperatives of donors.  Shallow knowledge of CF/CA among promoters. Very few experienced agriculturalists anywhere.  Dumbing down, oversimplification and distortion of CF/CA.
  • 70.
    Reasons for notattending training
  • 71.
    Digging of CF basinsis too labour intensive Do not have access to CF implements Do not receive inputsto make CF practice more beneficial No accessto information and knowledge about CF Not convinced about its benefits in improving yields Not interested in changing farming practices Only apply mechanised farming methods of ridging and/or ploughing Ripping of soilstoo difficult to manage Unableto control weedsin ripped fields or dug with basins HIGH 17.4 18.2 11.2 31.8 5.8 9.3 0.0 1.6 4.7 MEDIUM 15.1 16.0 6.9 39.1 9.6 8.7 0.2 0.7 3.6 LOW 11.7 8.7 5.3 58.9 7.4 4.2 0.5 0.9 2.4 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 Chart 10: Main Reasons given for notAdopting CF (%) If its so good why isn’t everybody doing it?
  • 75.
    40 CFU Trialsunder Mature Trees for 4 seasons Maize outside tree Maize Under tree 4 Crops. All plots Zero Fertiliser & CF basins
  • 76.
    Maize yields underand outside Mature Faidherbia - 4 seasons means Zero Fertilizer