Conservation farming unit (CFU) and conservation agriculture

No Farmers no Future
Conservation Farming Unit
CFU established in Zambia in 1996 – conservationagriculture.org
WELCOME
1

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

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

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

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

CF Basins show significant benefit in seasons with difficult early rains
CF Basins Ridges
2,769 1,291

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

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

Sustainability
• Technological
• Environnmental
• Economic
• Social
• CA without markets, policy, input supply etc.
will not lead to sustainable intensification
• Green Revolution of South Asia was technical
and institutional
Institutional
Factors

Effect of CA on Maize Yield – E&SA
Wall et al., 2013.

Of Heretics and Panaceas
• Over the last few years there has been a polarization of
positions on CA, with many suggesting that it is widely
applicable and pushing for widespread adoption, while others
argue that CA is only relevant for small pockets of farmers.
• We seem to have passed the “proof of concept” and it is
generally accepted that CA is biophysically and
environmentally more sustainable than conventional, tilled
systems.
• It is time to look at the whole value chain and identify ways to
catalyse and assure widespread sustainable intensification. See
Ndah et al., 2013.

Institutional Factors
• Markets
• Policies
• Credit etc.
We need to dedicate far more effort to these
factors. We now have a method for sustainable
intensification of agriculture in Africa - we need
to involve all players in achieving this change.

Growing More from Less
– it depends from where you start.

– it depends from where you start.
kg/ha
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$$
$$$$
$$$$$
$
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# #
# # # #
#
#
#
#
#
#
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
" "
" " " "
" " " " "
"
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
30% less fert.
50% less fert.
4 t/ha
8 t/ha
2,2 t/ha
3,6 t/ha
Year
Maize
Soya

• Implies increased efficiency
• How do we measure efficiency
• Efficient comparisons – first you need to know
how to best manage a CA system.
• Research needs to contemplate multiple system
changes at the same time – it is not a single factor
that provokes differences, it is the interaction of
many different factors.
• Economic analysis is able to
integrate the effects of multiple
system changes.

How efficient is the (CA) system?
• Different measures of potential yield and the
yield gap (Fischer et al. 2009)

How efficient is the (CA) system?
• Attainable potential yield changes from season
to season.
• How can the farmer (or researcher) know how
close to the attainable yield they are?
• An example: The French-Shultz “model” for
wheat production in South Australia.

French and Schultz, 1984
Water Use Efficiency

Achieving sustainable intensification
• Will often require more inputs than
(most/many) African farmers use today.
• They key is to use the applied inputs
efficiently = Less wastage – of fertilizer, seed,
soil, time, fuel etc.
• Efficiency best measured in terms of the most
limiting factor

Nutrients
• Nutrients are often cited as the most limiting factor in
African agriculture
• Fertilizer use in Africa is very low –especially to
staple crops.

Nutrients
• CA cannot produce “more for less” (applied nutrients) in
these systems. (or even more for the same!).
• CA is not a low-input (LISA) system.
• But present systems are not sustainable either.
• Farmers see that yields are going down and they have to
use more inputs if they want to reach previous yield level.
• They know about fertilizer – they use
it on cash crops.
• Why do African farmers apply so few
nutrients to staple crops?

Why such low nutrient use on staple
crops?
• One of the main reasons is risk – both production and
market risk
• Risk is likely to be exacerbated by climate change
• Nutrients, moisture and risk are inextricably linked

Water and Risk
• Moisture stress represents the most common
biophysical risk to African (dryland) crop
production.
• Across the semi-arid tropics of Sub-Saharan
Africa (maize-based systems) 75-85% of
rainfall is unproductive (Rockström et al.
2002)
• Zimbabwe - 30% of rainfall often lost to runoff
alone (Elwell and Stocking, 1988)

CA and Water
• One of the major benefits of CA is the improved
crop water balance:
60
0
0
20
40
80
100
Infiltration(%)
20 40 60 80 100
Soil Cover (%)
Improved infiltration (reduced
run-off)
Reduced evaporation
(Increased water retention)

0
2
4
6
8
10
Conventional DS Maize DS Intercrop
GrainYield(t/ha)
Malula-Balaka (n=29)
Malula, Balaka. n=29
0
2
4
6
8
GrainYield(t/ha)
Herbert - Balaka (n=12)
Herebert, Balaka. n-= 12
0
2
4
6
8
10
GrainYield(t/ha)
Linga - Nkhotakota (n=17)
Linga, Nkhotakota. n-= 12
0
2
4
6
8
10
Zidyana- Nkhotakota (n=45)
Zidyana, Nkhotakota. n=45
Lemu, Balaka. n=22
0
2
4
6
8
GrainYield(t/ha)
Lemu - Balaka (n=22)
Matandika, Machinga. n-= 23
2
4
6
8
10
Matandika - Machinga (n=23)
Mwansambo, Nkhotakota. n= 41
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
GrainYield(t/ha)
Mwansambo-Nkhotakota (n=41)
Chipeni, Dowa. n= 43
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
GrainYield(t/ha)
Chipeni - Dowa (n=43)
Chimamba, Chisepo. n= 20
2
4
6
8
10
GrainYield(t/ha)
Chimamba- Chisepo (n=20)
Minimum
Mean
Maximum
CA and Risk - Malawi

CA and Erosion
• Continent-wide soil losses of 5 t/ha (Angima
et al. 2003)
• A major benefit of CA is reduced soil erosion
(generally >90% reduction).

CA and Erosion
Zimbabwe - annual farm
losses through erosion
(Elwell and Stocking,
1988):
 SOM 850 kg ha−1
 N 50 kg ha−1
 P 8 kg ha−1

CA, labour and fuel use
• Zimbabwe – Machinery and equipment costs reduced
by 66% (MacRobert et al., 1995) – More production
with less fuel.
• In most surveys smallholder farmers cite labour savings
as the main benefit of CA. More production with less
labour – and less drudgery!
100 km/ha (Ethiopia)
140,000 hoe strokes/ha/yr
(Malawi)

CA, labour and fuel use
• But the reduction in labour requirements
depends on how the CA system is put together
– especially on how weed control is carried
out!

CA and Weed Control
• With herbicides definite labour
savings (not solely due to CA).
28% (Ngwira et al, 2012) to 63%
(Ito et al, 2007) less labour with
CA and chemical weed control in
Malawi

CA and Weed Control
• Important links to efficient input
markets, research, knowledge, service
providers and, possibly, credit.

CA and Weed Control
• Important links to efficient input
markets, research, knowledge, service
providers and, possibly, credit.
• Integrated weed control enhanced by
green manure cover crops and
residue cover

Labour and the basin system - CF
• More labour required in the CA system than in
the conventional system.
• More production for more work, but more
production per day worked.

• But labour use is spread out over the year
– not just in peak periods.

• But labour use is spread out over the year
– not just in peak periods.
• The benefits of concentrating inputs over
the long term – IF basins remain in the
same place – are not clear.

Capital
• Economic efficiency – greater efficiency of
applied inputs and less risk.
• Sort-term benefits in drier environments and
immediate erosion reduction in wetter
environments
• Longer-term effects on soil quality and health
leading to higher crop and system productivity.

CA and Knowledge
You definitely do not get more for less.
• CA is knowledge intensive
• This is possibly the biggest challenge
to the spread of CA.
• Need to enhance knowledge among
farmers, researchers, extension agents,
policy makers, input suppliers, credit
providers etc. etc.
• Facilitation of farmer-to-farmer
knowledge sharing.
• The importance of Innovation
Systems

Innovation Systems
Incorporate all
of the main
players in the
value chain to
bring their
comparative
advantages to
bear on
overcoming
limitations to
agricultural
productivity
and
sustainability.
Innovative
Farmers
Input
Suppliers
Equipment
Developers
Extension
(Change)
Agents
Machinery
Manu-
facturers
Researchers
A SIMPLE EXAMPLE.

Summary
• CA is not a low-input system
• The benefits of CA lie in using applied inputs
more efficiently
• Short-term gains from erosion control and
water harvesting.
• Economics and labour savings depend on the
conformation of the CA system – especially
weed control.
• Because of improved water balance under CA,
the feasibility of system intensification is
enhanced.

Summary contd.
• Institutional factors will be just as, or more,
important than technological change in
achieving sustainable intensification.
• Increasing the economically attainable yield
and reducing risk will be major factors in
effecting change.

Summary contd.
More for Less?
• More production per day worked (generally)
• More production per liter of fuel used.
• More efficient use of inputs = More production
with the same (or lower) investment
• More production with less risk
• But Knowledge development is
a necessity – Growing more
with more!

Low adoption of improved seeds

Conservation farming unit (CFU) and conservation agriculture

Conservation farming unit (CFU) and conservation agriculture

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Conservation farming unit (CFU) and conservation agriculture

Similar to Conservation farming unit (CFU) and conservation agriculture (20)

More from African Conservation Tillage Network

More from African Conservation Tillage Network (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Conservation farming unit (CFU) and conservation agriculture