TOTAL LANDCARE

SCALING-UP CA SYSTEMS – FROM PLOT TO

DISTRICT AND REGIONAL LEVELS

IFAD LEARNING EVENT / SEMINAR

ROME, JANUARY 13-14, 2015

FOCUS OF PRESENTATION

Part 1: Development of the CA System

Promoted by TLC

Part 2: Identification of Challenges to

Adoption & Strategies for Scaling up CA

CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE:

TLC Experiences with CIMMYT

Keep the message simple:

Make small planting holes with a dibble stick

Retain crop residues produced in situ

Diversify crops with rotations or intercrops.

Minimal Soil Disturbance

No Ploughing or Tilling

No Ridging, Pitting or Banking

Sow seed direct into small planting holes

Organic Manures

Compost

Animal Manures

Green Manures

Crop Rotations / Crop Associations

Full & Partial Rotations

Intercropping / Associations

Methods of Planting

Dibble Sticks /

Hoes / Planting Blades

Rippers

Other Conservation Measures

Contour Vetiver Hedges

Raised Foot-Paths &Storm Drains

Agroforestry

Soil Fertility

Ground Cover

Wood Products/Uses

Herbicides

Weed Control withIncreased Yields

Conservation of soil nutrients and moisture

Chemical Fertilizers

Soil Fertility

Increased Yields& Ground Cover

Figure 1: TLC'S System of Conservation AgricultureMinimal soil disturbance is the core foundation supported by other principles

and practices depending on the local farm situation

Good Soil Cover

Growing Crops

Crop Residues & Other Plant Biomass

CA Planting Holes – an age-old practice

before the introduction of ridging

Planting holes using hoes (left) or dibble sticks (right)

Crop residues protect the soil from the elements, maximize

rainfall capture, minimize loss of water and top soil from

runoff, improve soil health, help to suppress weeds and

increase beneficial termite & earthworm activity

Safe and proper use of herbicides controls weeds

with low labor costs & minimizes soil disturbance

Weed-free maize planted on the flat

with crop residues

Legume rotations under CA:sugar beans left & groundnuts right

Legume rotations reduce weeds, pests & diseases,

improve soil health, offer a more diversified diet

and increase yields and soil cover (by cutting the row

spacing in half)

Young crop of groundnuts under ridge tillage

(left) vs. CA after maize which shows good soil

cover with low risk of runoff (right)

Conventional Ridge Tillage vs. CA –

same farmer, same land, same date

Runoff & standing water

under ridge tillage forced

farmers to tie ridges to

reduce runoff & erosion

CA with residues in adjacent

plot showing excellent

infiltration with no sign of

runoff or loss of top

MAIZE – COWPEA RELAY CROPGives high returns to land, labor and capital, suppresses late season

weeds, provides good soil cover and offers a more diversified diet

Cowpea relay crop under CA with Faidherbia

trees after maize harvest with no weeds

Positive impact on maize under the canopy of Faidherbia

trees during a dry spell due to the improved micro-

environment (left) and with a good maize crop (right)

Integration of CA with Faidherbia trees

Vetiver grass hedges on the contour

with CA help control water runoff

and erosion

Increased yields of 20-30% on average, with 60-100% in

years of poor rainfall

Labor savings of 30-50% with major impacts on women

and child labor

Increased income from increased yields and lower costs,

especially with legumes as sole or intercrops.

Synergies from integrating CA with Faidherbia albida in

the extensive belt where the tree is common

Use of Stellar Star vs Roundup as a more effective

herbicide that can be applied up to 4 weeks after planting

maize

Key Drivers for Adopting CA:

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Mean

Means Across Sites by Year

Mean Maize Yields kg/ha on Farmer Fields under CA vs. CRT from 2004/05 to 2013/14 (p is significant except in 2005/06)

CRT-Mz CA-Mz CA-Mz+Leg

N=24

N=36 N=54

N=48

N=54

N=6 N=54

N=54N=72

N=71

N=473

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Mean

Mean Groundnut Yields kg/ha on Farmer Fields after CA and Conventional Ridge Tillage

CRT Maize CA Maize CA Maize + Leg

N=18

N=42 N=60

N=120

Increased Maize Yields of 38% on farmer fields in

Malawi with CA vs. Ridging under Faidherbia in

2010/11 (all plots had modest levels of fertilizers)

3858

2799

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

CA + Faidherbia Conventional Ridge Tillage +Faidherbia

Effects of Faidherbia albida on Soils

Soil C, OM and K are much

higher with Faidherbia

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

C (%) OM (%) K(Cmol/Kg)

% Soil N is almost double with

Faidherbia

0.029 0.030

0.057

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

Control Maize

CA Maize

CA Maize-Faidherbia

Labor Costs (6 hr days) CRT Maize CA MaizeCA Maize +

Legume

Land Prep/Clearing 7.50 0.00 0.58

Ridging 36.00 0.00 0.00

Distributing Crop Residues on the Ground 0.00 6.80 7.15

Planting Maize 9.44 10.08 10.08

Planting Legume Intercrop 0.00 0.00 13.50

Basal Dressing 12.28 12.60 13.56

1st Weeding 24.63 3.85 3.25

Top Dressing (CAN) 11.43 12.00 12.60

Drawing Water (herbicide use) 0.00 2.40 1.20

Roundup Application 0.00 4.17 4.17

Harness Application 0.00 4.17 0.00

2nd Weeding/Banking 23.29 4.25 2.20

Harvesting Maize (Stooking/Collecting Cobs) 12.69 12.69 12.69

Harvesting Legume (Uprooting plants/Collecting Pods)0.00 0.00 11.42

Total Labor Costs 137.26 73.01 92.40

Labor Savings % 0% 47% 33%

Labor Costs of 2 CA Systems vs. CRT from TLC-CIMMYT-MoAIWD Trials

CRT Maize CA Maize CA Mz + Leg

468 806 1034

189 443 573

1701 1493 1686

Treatment

Break-even yield @ current price (kg/ha)

Gross Margin / ha ($)

Gross Margin if yield or price drops 30% ($)

2005/06

2006/07

2007/08

2008/09

2009/10

2010/11

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

# Farmers 46 114 591 2,067 3,924 6,634 10,64 17,79 32,89

# Ha 14 34 236 499 1,275 2,704 5,461 5,865 14,50

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

# H

a

# F

arm

ers

# Farmers Practicing CA from 2005 to 2014

Key Challenges to Adoption Resistance to Change: Compelling evidence is needed to show that CA offers

significant benefits to break the deep-rooted culture of ridging and clean fields

Conflicting Policies: MOA has maintained the old policy on conventional

ridges which is in direct opposition to conservation agriculture

Delivery of inconsistent and conflicting technical messages on CA by

different organizations creates confusion among extension staff and farmers and

compromises the benefits of CA.

Quality Training: Lack of practical knowledge on CA emphasizes the need to

deliver quality training to extension staff from all sectors.

Focus on inputs: Farmers and extension staff believe that specific inputs

and/or tools are required to undertake CA (e.g., fertilizers, herbicides, large

amounts of crop residues, etc).

Competition with Livestock: Although cereal residues are of low value, they

can be a critical food source when other forage is limited. Generally, the stalks

are not eaten as they are unpalatable. A simple solution is for farmers to grow

fodder trees around their farm to provide quality feed during the dry season..

Conventional Ridge Tillage

Malawi smallholders commonly remove or burn crop residues

and weeds followed by building ridges 90 cm apart, a practice

repeated every year using an enormous amount of manual labor

Labor and Soil Moved for Ridging

Soil moved to build 1 m of ridge = 54 kg

• Malawi farmers construct ridges by hand on about 2 million ha every year.

• This means 13.3 km of ridges are built per ha every year, equal to moving 720 tons of soil.

• Across the country, this equates to 26.6 million km of new ridges every year which entails moving 1,440 million tons of soil.

Basin size and spacing has been

badly distorted by many

implementers – adds another

dimension to confuse farmers

Min Till vs. Basins

• Soil Disturbance: Although a one-off operation with value for

water harvesting and efficient use of fertilizers/ manure, basins

require moving 1000 tons of soil per ha to flatten ridges and to

dig basins with high risks of loosing top soil with the rains.

• Labor Costs: Digging basins is labor intensive in the hard clay

soils of Malawi which is a barrier to adoption. By contrast, min

till with dibble sticks is fast and easy.

• Adaptability: The fixed location of basins is not compatible

with the spacing of many crops and intercrops, but min till is

adaptable to a wide range of crops, as well as other practices

such as agroforestry and vetiver hedges.

• Conflicting Messages: Promoting basins adds confusion to

extension staff and farmers on which CA system to adopt for

little gain in productivity

LABOUR COSTS FOR RIDGING ON TYPICAL MALAWI SOILSTotal meters of ridges per Ha with a spacing of 75 cm between ridges: 13,333

Tons of soil moved per ha based on 54 kg of soil per meter of ridge: 720

Farmer

Minutes to Ridge 10 meters

Projected Labor Cost of Ridging per Ha

Labor/ha at Same Pace as for 10 meters Estimated Actual Labor Cost /ha

Hours/haDays/ha @ 6

hrs/dayLabor Cost @

$1/day Hours/haDays/ha @ 6

hrs/dayLabor Cost @

$1/dayOwen 5.13 114 19 19 228 38 38

Chikobudzo 5.30 118 20 20 236 39 39Lofat 6.21 138 23 23 276 46 46Jalek 4.85 108 18 18 216 36 36Average 5.37 119 20 20 239 40 40

LABOUR COSTS FOR DIGGING BASINS ON TYPICAL MALAWI SOILSNo. of basins/ha at a spacing of 75 cm x 70 cm: 19,047

Tons of soil moved per ha based on 15 kg of soil per basin: 285

Farmer

Minutes to Dig 10 Basins

Projected Labor Cost for Digging Basins (without back-filling) per Ha

Labor/ha at Same Pace as for 10 Basins Estimated Actual Labor Cost /ha

Hours/haDays/ha @ 6

hrs/dayLabor Cost @

$1/day Hours/haDays/ha @ 6

hrs/dayLabor Cost @

$1/dayLofat 23.5 745 124 124 1,490 248 248Owen 16.8 533 89 89 1,067 178 178Chikobudzo 19.3 613 102 102 1,225 204 204Jalek 17.5 556 93 93 1,111 185 185Average 19.27 612 102 102 1,223 204 204

Importation of Crop Residues from

Surrounding Fields

Key Objectives of SAPP – Increasing

Productivity and Profitability with Enhanced

Resilience to Climate Change

1. Increase adoption of CA among 150,000 smallholder

farmers over 5 years.

2. Integrate crop diversification, agroforestry and small

livestock with CA to increase benefits and impacts

3. Increase farmer access to input and output markets.

4. Harmonize best CA practices for delivering sound and

consistent extension messages to farmers.

5. Increase support for CA by strengthening the

knowledge base and understanding of CA among key

stakeholders. partners

Foundation for Scaling Up CA under IFAD’s

Sustainable Ag Productivity Program

• Evidence-based Results: Collaboration with CIMMYT

over the past 10 years has provided the scientific

foundation and credibility for TLC to take a lead role in

promoting CA in Malawi.

• Experience with Farmers: There is no substitute for

practical hands-on experience in identifying key

challenges and drivers to the adoption of CA. TLC has a

sound understanding of the factors impacting adoption and

how to overcome them.

• Extension Network: TLC’s extensive network of field

staff is closely aligned with that of Government to provide

the infrastructure necessary to promote CA on a large

scale.

Foundation for Scaling up…..

• Lead Farmer Approach: TLC delivers effective extension

services by training and supporting lead farmers elected by

communities to train fellow farmers through demonstrations on

their own farms. No incentives are offered except for the

training and inputs received for demonstrations and field days.

• Harmonization of technical messages and training: As the

nominated lead institution on CA in Malawi (through the NCATF

and its members), TLC is developing guidelines and certified

training courses to help harmonize the delivery of sound and

consistent messages on CA principles and practices.

• Improve farmer access to inputs and markets by facilitating

linkages with agro-dealers and buyers of produce to enhance

productivity and profitability while lowering labor costs.

SAPP – Strategy for Scaling up CA

TLC has mapped out a strategy to scale up CA based on the

experiences and knowledge gained over the past 10 years:

1. Address the major challenges to adoption

2. Promote key drivers of increased yields and incomes at

lower costs:

increased yields of legume crops from halving the row

spacing and doubling the ground cover

Promote CA in the belt where Faidherbia is common.

integrate cowpeas and pigeon peas as relay and

intercrops to increase returns to land, labor and capital

(high yields of high value crops resistant to drought

with suppression of late season weeds)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Information in this presentation was produced by Total

LandCare and CIMMYT with support from the

Government of Malawi, IFAD, the Royal Norwegian

Embassy, USAID and DFID

TOTAL LANDCAREP.O. Box 2440

Area 14, Plot 100Lilongwe, Malawi

Tel: +265 1 770 904 / 905; Fax: +265 1 770 919Email: total.landcare.mw@gmail.com

Website: www.totallandcare.org