Soil fertility and water management technology adoption in Zimbabwe

1. Key messages
1. Adoption of soil fertility and water management technologies has been poor in the communal
areas of Zimbabwe but innovative approaches such as farmer field schools and participatory
extension are proving to be successful.
2. Farmers should be encouraged to work in groups in order to promote faster learning and access
to knowledge.
Background
There is no simple answer to the question of why many African farmers do not adopt or adapt
seemingly superior technologies. However, it is clear that there is a greater need to consult with
farmers about questions they need to be resolved and on the factors that prevent access to solutions.
The purpose of this study was to capture the effectiveness of ICRISAT’s and partners’ participatory processes
in soil fertility and water management technology promotion in the 2004/05 and 2005/06 seasons.
Conceptual framework
Farmer-driven processes can spur rapid widespread adoption and adaptation if appropriate
complimentary support systems are put in place. The research process is based on iterative
learning and feedback loops with two-way sharing of information. The process must be farmer
centered, fully involving the intended beneficiaries from the early stages of problem identification to
technology development and adaptation (Pretty and Hine, 2001). The responsibility of researchers
is to understand farmers’ problems and this can only be done within the farmer’s own environment.
Methodology
A household survey consisting of 231 farmers drawn from 10 districts of Zimbabwe formed the basis of
the analysis. Farmers in the sample hosted paired plots participatory adaptive trials (PATs) promoted
by ICRISAT through NGOs in partnership with the national extension services. Farmers’ engagement
in these PATs was to test ready-made solutions developed by ICRISAT and partners beforehand with
room to refine, validate, and adapt over time. The technologies provided an easy-to-implement package
for farmers who were resource constrained with limited or no access to draft power. Those farmers who
hosted trials were provided with fertilizer, seed, and technical support as required.
Analysis and findings
Changes in farmer practice or adoption
The largest promotional activity was through experiential learning plots where farmers would see,
do and learn. This provided the greatest conduit for moving the technology from researchers and
extension to farmers (Table 1).
Farmers were asked not to modify the trials and experiment in the first year. However, when this
restriction was lifted almost every farmer hosting the trial the second year modified and improved on
the technologies. Farmers cited a variety of reasons for deciding to adopt the technologies (Table 2).
Most farmers who worked in groups preferred centrally located plots. Teamwork was considered to
be important during site selection, measurement of plots and management of trials. Farmers hosting
trials for the first time requested more supervision and guidance. The presence of social capital and
networks led to farmer-to-farmer extension being the most popular transmission vehicle used by
more than 70% of the farmers. Farmers cited interaction with other farmers as one of the primary
benefits of attending field days.
Table 1. Adopted changes brought about by hosting trials
Proportion of farmers implementing the change (%)
Changes in farmer practice Conservation agriculture (n=194) Microdosing (n=37)
Use of bottle cap to apply fertilizer 36.1 62.2
Use of fertilizer as fertility amendment 9.8 24.3
Targeted application of plant nutrients 27.3 35.1
Timely planting 17.5 N/A
Minimum tillage 79.9 N/A
Mulching using maize stover 4.6 N/A
Winter weeding 1.5 N/A
Source: ICRISAT survey data (2006)
Table 2. Reasons for moving away from the old practices
Old practice New practice Reasons for changing
Use of cattle manure, anthill soil,
ashes and compost
Use of chemical fertilizer Got access to fertilizer through programs
Fertilizer makes crops grow fast and
improves soil fertility
Broadcasting Targeted application of nutrients and
microdosing
Economical and efficient way of applying
fertilizer
Summer plowing Minimum tillage (digging basins) Enables maximum water use per plant
Contours and storm drains More effective in soil erosion control
Winter plowing Mulching Improves water retention by soil
Improves soil fertility
Source: ICRISAT survey data (2006)
Table 3. Problems and solutions for the trials hosted by farmers (n=229)
Problems encountered during
trials
Proportion of farmers
encountering problem (%) Measures put in place
Proportion of farmers
using the measure (%)
Rodents/termites due to crop
residue
20 Used traditional practices
(sand, ashes, treated with
certain plants)
38
Stray animals 17 Protected the plot by fencing or
guarding
46
Labor constraints 16 Pooled labor by working in
groups
26
Invasion by worms/birds
(seasonal)
13 Used traditional pesticides
(special ashes, wild plants)
50
Lack of fertilizer 10 Used manure instead of
fertilizer (farmers allowed to
choose between manure and
fertilizer)
38
Excessive rain/wind 7 Replanted destroyed crop 59
Source: ICRISAT survey data (2006)
Farmers at a green field day in Masvingo; field days have the potential to disseminate information to
many farmers.
Adaptation of technologies
Farmers employed various means to solve problems they encountered during trial implementation
(Table 3). The measures taken by farmers are important feedback to scientists as these can tune the
agenda for further research.
Way forward
1. Participation is a continuous, rather expensive, process and requires a long timeframe for
implementation and evaluation. The learning curve in participatory research is long and patience
is needed for one to register sustained positive change in productivity.
2. It is imperative that scientists and promoters seriously heed feedback responses from farmers
so as to achieve the real objectives of participatory processes.
3. It is paramount for both research and farmers to move beyond experimentation to scaling up
and out of innovations.
References
Pretty J and Hine R. 2001. Reducing food poverty with sustainable agriculture: A summary of evidence. Final
report from SAFE-World Research Project. Colchester, UK: University of Essex.
Pedzisa T, Minde I, Twomlow S and Mazvimavi K. 2008. Participatory technology development and transfer:
The key to soil fertility management technology adoption in Zimbabwe. Report No. 2. PO Box 776, Bulawayo,
Zimbabwe: ICRISAT. 40 pp.
This work was funded by IDRC
Tarisayi Pedzisa, Isaac Minde, Stephen Twomlow and
Kizito Mazvimavi
Sciencewithahumanface
International Crops Research Institute
for the Semi-Arid Tropics
Farmer participation levels
Farmers indicated their level of participation at each stage of trial implementation. Most farmers
actively participated at all stages except during data collection where the greatest constraint was the
use of a record book.