Factors affecting adoption of conservation agriculture in malawi

Factors Affecting Adoption of Conservation Agriculture in Malawi
(A Case Study of Salima District)

James Lewanika Mlamba (BSc., University of Malawi)

The thesis submitted to University College Dublin in partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Science (Agr) in Environmental
Resource Management

School of Agriculture, Food Science & Veterinary Medicine

Supervisor: Dr. John Fry

MSc. (Agr) Env. Res. Mgmt. November 2010

Acknowledgements
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. John Fry whose
advice and support during the course and to all the members of staff for their
instruction and guidance throughout the whole period of study.

I would also like to thank the Director of Land Resources Conservation
Department for nominating and having trust in me to pursue this course. To Dr.
E.P. Ching’amba of Lilongwe Agricultural Development Division in Malawi for the
provision of transport during data collection and Mr Mkuntha of Salima District
Agricultural Office for giving me a helping hand when the farmer interviews were
being conducted.

I am also grateful to my mum, brothers, and sisters for their love, encouragement
and the endurance for the entire period of my study. To all my friends for always
being there when I need them most and the good times we shared throughout the
year. Thanks

ii

Dedication
I would like to dedicate this thesis to my wonderful and loving wife, Setrida. In
pursuing of this course I had to leave the responsibility of taking care of our
daughter on her own and without her emotional support, encouragement, and
understanding I would not have possible to complete this study.

iii

Declaration
I declare that this is entirely my own work and has not been previously submitted
for any other qualification. Where material from other sources has been used it
has been referenced in full in the text, and all quotations from other work are
presented as such.

Signed: ____________________ Date: ____________________

iv

Abstract
The agriculture sector in Malawi is facing a number of environmental challenges,
which include soil erosion, low soil organic matter (SOM), nutrient deficiency and
water shortage caused by drought (Munthali et al 2008). To counteract these
problems different technologies are being promoted among which is
Conservation Agriculture (CA). Despite the efforts being employed and benefits
that CA has over conventional land management practices the adoption still
remains. This study therefore was carried out to determine factors
affecting/restricting adoption of conservation agriculture and also to identify
challenges farmers are facing in the application of conservation agriculture and
draw recommendations that may help in the upscaling of the technology.

The study was carried out in Salima District in Malawi and it was chosen because
it is one of the areas where the CA technology is being promoted owing to its low
rainfall and high temperature conditions. Primary data were collected from a
sample of selected farmers through administration of a semi-structured
questionnaire. The questionnaire comprised closed- and open-ended questions.
An open-ended questionnaire was also used to support interviews with as many
of the Agricultural Extension Development Officers working in the selected EPAs
as was possible. Secondary data were obtained from published and unpublished
documents

Gender of the household head, membership to a farmer group and farmer
trainings were found to have significant impact on adoption and continued use of
CA technology. Level of income and first CA inputs acquisition method were
found to have significant impact on the retention the CA practice as those who
had higher income and made personal investment in the initial inputs were more
likely to continue with the CA technology than their counterparts who solely
depended on grants. Weed management, access to farm inputs and crop residue
management were the main challenges farmers were facing in the
implementation of CA.

v

Based on these results it is therefore recommended that farmers should be
encouraged to make personal contributions to acquisition of initial CA inputs. This
can achieved through encouraging farmers to make group savings for the
purchase of inputs or giving them inputs on loan as opposed to grants. Farmers
should be encouraged to belong to farmer groups as this makes it possible to
reach them with agriculture extension messages and it acts as a platform for
farmers to exchange ideas and experiences. Farmer trainings should also be
emphasized.

The current study mainly focused on Individual and household factors, but there
is an obvious need for further research to be done to determine other biophysical,
policy and institutional factors that might be affecting the adoption of CA. It may
also be of paramount importance to carry out research on soil physical and
chemical properties dynamics under CA systems as the current information
available for Malawi is not adequate.

vi

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements .........................................................................................ii

Dedication ...................................................................................................... iii

Declaration .....................................................................................................iv

Abstract .......................................................................................................... v

Table of Contents .......................................................................................... vii

List of Tables .................................................................................................. x

List of Figures .................................................................................................xi

Abbreviations................................................................................................. xii

Chapter One: Introduction ........................................................................... 1

1.1 Rationale of the Study .............................................................................. 3

1.2 Background to Malawi .............................................................................. 4

1.2.1 Malawi Soils .......................................................................................... 6

1.2.2 Malawi Population ................................................................................. 8

1.2.3 Distribution of land holding sizes ........................................................... 8

1.2.4 Soil erosion............................................................................................ 9

1.2.5 Significance of Agriculture Sector to Malawi ........................................ 10

1.3 Objectives of the study ........................................................................... 11

Chapter Two: Literature Review ................................................................ 12

2.1. History of tillage and soil conservation in Malawi .................................. 12

2.1.1 Conventional Tillage in Malawi ............................................................ 14

2.2 Conservation Agriculture ........................................................................ 17

2.2.1 Principle of minimum soil disturbance ................................................. 18

vii

2.2.2 Principle of continuous soil cover ........................................................ 19

2.2.3 Principle of crop rotation ...................................................................... 21

Chapter Three: Research Site and Methodology ..................................... 22

3.1. Study area ............................................................................................. 22

3.2. Climate .................................................................................................. 23

3.3. Soil ........................................................................................................ 23

3.4. Data collection ....................................................................................... 24

3.5. Sampling Procedure for Survey ............................................................. 24

3.6. Data analysis and presentation ............................................................. 24

Chapter Four: Results and Discussion .................................................... 26

4.1. Demographic and Socio Economic Data ............................................... 26

4.1.1. Sex of the household head ................................................................. 26

4.1.2 Age ...................................................................................................... 27

4.1.3. Size of the Households....................................................................... 27

4.1.4 Education ............................................................................................ 28

4.1.5. Land Ownership and Size of the Gardens .......................................... 29

4.1.6. Level of Income .................................................................................. 30

4.2. Crops and Animal Production ................................................................ 32

4.2.1. Crops grown ....................................................................................... 32

4.2.2. Livestock ............................................................................................ 33

4.3. CA Message Dissemination .................................................................. 33

4.3.1. Farmer Groups ................................................................................... 33

4.3.2. Farmer contact with Extension Workers ............................................. 36

viii

4.3.3. Conservation Agriculture Awareness.................................................. 36

4.3.4. Farmer Training .................................................................................. 37

4.4. Input Acquisition Method ....................................................................... 39

4.5. Reasons for practicing CA ..................................................................... 40

4.7. Reasons for stopping practicing CA ...................................................... 42

4.8. Reasons for never adopting CA ............................................................ 43

4.9. Challenges being faced in implementation of CA .................................. 44

4.10. Reasons why CA is more rewarding ................................................... 46

4.11. CA promotion strategies ...................................................................... 47

Chapter Five: Conclusion and Recommendations .................................. 50

5.1 Conclusion.............................................................................................. 50

5.2 Recommendations ................................................................................. 52

References ................................................................................................... 55

Appendices................................................................................................... 63

ix

List of Tables

Table 1: Distribution of suitable land by type of land-use by ADD and region ..... 10
Table 2: x2 analysis of sex of the household head and level of CA adoption ...... 27
Table 3: Age categories of the household head .................................................. 27
Table 4: Household size ..................................................................................... 28
Table 5: Level of education ................................................................................. 28
Table 6: Size of the Garden ................................................................................ 30
Table 7: Estimated level of Income of respondent farmers ................................. 31
Table 8: Crops grown by respondents in Salima District ..................................... 32
Table 9: Livestock Kept by Respondents ............................................................ 33
Table 10: Farmer Group Membership among Respondents ............................... 34
Table 11: X2 analysis of Farmer Group membership versus level of CA adoption
............................................................................................................................ 34
Table 12: Farmer Group Membership by Type ................................................... 35
Table 13: Reasons for not belonging to any Farmer Group ................................ 35
Table 14: Frequency of Extension Worker visits ................................................. 36
Table 15: Sources of awareness about CA ......................................................... 37
Table 16: Level of Farmer Training in CA ........................................................... 37
Table 17: Training topics in CA received ............................................................ 39
Table 18: Financial inputs for first inputs acquisition method (NB: number add up
to more than 100%) ............................................................................................ 40
Table 19: Reasons given for practicing CA ......................................................... 42
Table 20: Reasons given for stopping practicing CA .......................................... 43
Table 21: Reasons given for not adopting CA .................................................... 44
Table 22: Challenges being faced when implementing CA ................................. 45
Table 23: Reasons given as to why CA is more rewarding ................................. 47
Table 24: CA promotion strategies...................................................................... 48

x

List of Figures

Figure 1: Map of Malawi Showing District and International boundaries ............... 5
Figure 2: Physiographic regions Map of Malawi.................................................... 6
Figure 3: Soil Unit Map of Malawi ......................................................................... 7
Figure 4: Young Conservation Agriculture maize crop plot mulched with crop
residues .............................................................................................................. 20
Figure 5: Map of Salima ADD showing Extension Planning Areas ..................... 22
Figure 6: Farmers engaged in CA crop residue management ............................ 38

xi

Abbreviations

ADD Agriculture Development Division (of the Ministry of Agriculture and
Food Security in Malawi)

CA Conservation Agriculture

CO2 Carbon dioxide

CTIC US Conservation Technology Information Center

EPA Extension Planning Area (of Ministry of Agriculture and Food
Security in Malawi)

FAO Food and Agricultural Organization (of the United Nations)

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GoM Government of Malawi

IMF International Monetary Fund

MK Malawi Kwacha (currency)

MoA Ministry of Agriculture (Malawi)

MoAFS Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security (Malawi)

NSO National Statistical Office (Malawi)

SOM Soil Organic Matter

SPSS Statistical Package for Social Scientists

TLC Total LandCare (Malawi NGO)

UN-REDD United Nations Collaborative Initiative on Reducing Emissions from
Deforestation and Forest Degradation

WFP World Food Programme (of the UN)

xii

Chapter One: Introduction
Agriculture is the single most important sector of Malawi’s economy as it employs
about 80% of the workforce, and contributes over 80% of foreign exchange
earnings. Most of all, it also contributes significantly to national and household
food security. However, agriculture in Malawi is characterised by low and
stagnant yields (IMF, 2007) and production of crops relies heavily on rainfall.
Crop production in Malawi is mainly dominated by maize and that is estimated to
cover 70% of the arable land. Maize is the main food crop, contributing to about
90% of the total area put to cereals (Sauer and Tchale 2006). Apart from maize,
Malawi also grows food crops such cassava, rice, millet, and sorghum, but on a
small scale. The country also grows some cash crops such as tobacco, tea,
coffee and sugarcane.

The agriculture sector in Malawi is facing some environmental challenges, which
include soil erosion, low soil organic matter (SOM), nutrient deficiency and water
shortage caused by drought (Munthali et al 2008). These challenges are
compounded by Malawi’s standard way of growing crops, which is associated
with making fresh ridges every season where the crops are planted. The
government has been advising farmers to make fresh ridges for a long time;
ridging is the method of land preparation whereby topsoil is scraped and
concentrated in a defined region to deliberately raise the seedbed above the
natural terrain. The process creates a loose and friable seedbed, and helps to
conserve soil and water (Materechera and Mloza-Banda 1997). Soil and water
conservation is achieved in two ways. Firstly the ridges act as barriers to surface
water movement and as such water is encouraged to accumulate along the
furrows thereby promoting infiltration. Secondly, loosening of the soil creates
more pore spaces that make it easy for water to move freely within the soil.

Despite having the mentioned advantages this method of land preparation has its
own challenges. The implement which is widely used in the construction of the
ridges is a hand hoe. With this implement land preparation can hardly go beyond
30 cm depth and, because the ridge making process is repeated each and every

1

season, a hard pan is created which impedes infiltration. Due to this, erosion is
encouraged as more water accumulates on the surface than the furrows can
contain. The other angle to the problem of erosion comes in because water
infiltration is high in the initial moments of precipitation, but with time the loosened
soil particles block the pore spaces, making it difficult for water to penetrate with
the result that surface runoff is encouraged. As runoff is moving it also carries
with it nutrients and this may result in reduced yields. The water that accumulates
in the furrows drains off nutrients from the ridges and as this water infiltrates the;
nutrients go down as well.

Continuous cultivation with little or no organic matter amendment is another
practice common in Malawi and other Sub-Saharan African countries. This
causes a reduction of organic matter in the soil and that is further compounded
by burning of biomass and crop residues (Makumba et al 2006). That has two
direct impacts on the soil. There is a loss of the organic matter which helps in the
formation of soil aggregates, improves soil structure and improves soil water
holding capacity. Secondly, the nutrients that were used in the production of the
biomass and crop residues are lost as well. The burning of crop residues is quite
surprising as most farmers in Malawi identify soil fertility constraints as their
primary challenge, because animal manure use is also limited as few farmers
own livestock (Snapp et al 2002). The long-term effect of reduced organic carbon
is on the cation exchange capacity of the soil and its ability to retain nutrients and
remain fertile (Makumba et al 2006).

It is against this background that alternative methods of crop production are being
promoted which enhance productivity while conserving soil and water. One such
technology is conservation agriculture (CA). CA which is defined as a system of
crop production based on the three principles of minimum soil disturbance,
continuous soil cover and crop rotation. The objectives of conservation farming
are to increase crop production, while at the same time protecting and enhancing
land resources on which production depends. It integrates ecological principles
with modern agricultural technologies (FAO, 2008).

2

Conservation agriculture also has economic benefits. Not incorporating the crop
residues and not tilling the soil for several years considerably increases the
organic matter content on the top layer. This provides a much greater
mobilisation of nutrients, permitting a significant reduction in fertilizer doses over
medium/ long term. It should be noted that fertilisation is one of the most
important crop inputs/expenses in the production situations and agrarian
systems. Studies have shown that more energy, time and money are saved in
conservation agriculture in comparison to the conventional techniques due to the
absence of tillage (García-Torres et al, 2002; Fowler and Rockstrom, 2001).

Despite having both economic and environmental benefits and the efforts being
put forward to promote it, adoption of conservation agriculture in Malawi still
remains low. This makes it imperative to investigate factors that are affecting
adoption of the technology.

1.1 Rationale of the Study
Malawi regularly experiences great difficulties feeding its population (Williams,
2008). The problem is compounded by high population growth rate which stands
at 2.8% per annum (NSO, 2008). That means more land is being put to
agriculture to feed the growing population with the result that cultivated land are
exceeds that of land suitable for rain-fed agriculture at traditional level of
management (GoM, 1996).

Malawi also faces a number of environmental challenges, among which soil
erosion ranks number one. It has been estimated that the rate of erosion exceeds
20t/ha/year (Bishop, 1992). Despite the benefits that are associated with CA
there is still a level of low adoption of the technology hence this study was
intended to find out the underlying reasons for this low adoption. This study
therefore looks determine the major factors influencing farmers’ adoption of
conservation agriculture. It also identifies challenges being faced in the
application of the technology, in order to put forward a set of recommendations
that would enhance adoption.

3

1.2 Background to Malawi
Malawi is a small landlocked country located in southeast Africa. It is bordered by
Zambia to the northwest, Tanzania to the northeast and Mozambique on the east,
south and west. It is separated from Tanzania and Mozambique by Lake Malawi
(Figure 1). It has a total area of 118, 000km 2, of which 20% is water. It lies
between 090 25’ and 170 08’ latitudes south of the Equator and 330 40’ and 350
55’ longitude East (Chilimba, 2001). The climate is semi-arid in the Shire valley
and some parts of the lakeshore plain, semi-arid to sub-humid on the medium
altitude plateau, and humid on the plateau itself.

Malawi has four main physiographic regions: the Highlands, Plateaux, the Rift
Valley Escarpment, and the Rift Valley Plain (figure 2). Highlands consist of
isolated mountains between 1,600-3,000 meters above sea level (masl); the
Plateaux lie at 1000 to 1600 masl with extensive gently undulating tracts in the
northern and central regions of the country; the Rift Valley Escarpment at 600-
1000 masl is a highly dissected zone with precipitous slopes; and the Rift Valley
Plain at 33 to 600 masl formed in large part by the deposition of material and
characterized by subdued relief and gentle slopes (Mloza-Banda and
Nanthambwe, 2010)

4

Figure 1: Map of Malawi Showing District and International boundaries
(Source: Chinsinga and O’Brien, 2008.)

5

Figure 2: Physiographic regions Map of Malawi
(Source: Mloza-Banda and Nanthambwe, 2010)

1.2.1 Malawi Soils
In general, Malawi’s soils are predominated by three major soil types: the eutric
leptisols, the chromic levisols and the haplic lixisols of variable morphology with
localised areas of acrisols, cambisols, gleysols, phaezems, planosols and
vertisols. The eutric leptisols (Lpe) are commonly referred to as lithosols. They
are the most widespread of the lithosol group, and are the shallow stony soils
associated with steep slopes. These occur in all areas of broken relief covering
an estimated area of 2,243,390 ha. The chromic luvisols (LVx) are referred to as
latosols. They are red-yellow soils that include the ferruginous soils of Lilongwe
plain and some parts of the southern region, and are among the best agricultural
soils in the country. These soils are generally of good structure and are normally
deep and well drained, but they also include the weathered ferrallitic (plateau or
sandveld) soils (some with a high lateritic content), which are of low natural
fertility and easily exhausted. These cover large parts of the plains with a total
area of 2,233,153 ha. The ferralic cambisols have similar characteristics to some
6

chromic luvisols, but they mostly occur on the western border of the country. The
haplic lixisols (LXh) include the alluvial soils of the lacustrine and river-line plains;
the vertisols of the Lower Shire Valley and the Phalombe Plain, and the
mopanosols in the Liwonde and Balaka areas. They cover a total area of
1,671,495 ha (GoM, 2002b).

Figure 3: Soil Unit Map of Malawi (Source: MoA/UNDP/FAO, 1992)

7

1.2.2 Malawi Population
Malawi’s current population and population growth rate are estimated to be 13,06
million and 2.8% respectively, based on the 2008 census. It is the most densely
populated country in Sub-Saharan Africa with a density of 139 people per square
kilometre (NSO, 2008). Over 86% of the population live in rural areas and rely
predominantly on rain-fed agriculture, and about 10% of the population are
deemed at risk of food insecurity annually (WFP, 2008). The high and ever
increasing population density exerts enormous pressure on the land based
resources in meeting the demands for the ever increasing population for food,
fibre, income and other livelihood activities. Unfortunately these pressures have
actually reduced the ability of the land to produce or provide goods and services
(Mloza-Banda and Nanthambwe, 2010)

1.2.3 Distribution of land holding sizes
Malawi has three main categories of land tenure namely customary, public and
private land. Customary land forms the bulk of Malawi’s land and is estimated to
occupy 66% of the total area. Customary land law is quite variable in the country
with the most important difference being expressed between matrilineal and
patrilineal systems of inheritance. This land is subject to control by village chiefs
and family heads. The village head grants cultivation right to the family head,
rather than ownership right. However, land which is in use can be held
indefinitely, the right being granted to a woman in the matrilineal system while the
opposite is true for the patrilineal system. Public land (which is occupied or
acquired by government) is land that is not customary or held under freehold or
leasehold title. Public land consists mainly of forest and wildlife reserves, and
other public places. Private land is all land that is exclusively owned, held or
occupied under freehold tenure, allocated exclusively to a clearly defined
community, corporation, institution, clan, family or individual (GOM, 2002a).

There has been a continual decline in mean land holding size over the years
because of the ever-increasing population, since the land size is static. The

8

national mean land holding size decreased from 1.53 ha in 1968/69 to 0.8 ha in
2000. Corresponding to this decrease, there was an increase in smallholder
households from 885,000 to 2,090,690 during the same period. With this
decrease in land holding size, it is no longer possible for the majority of farmers
to practice some form of rotation or fallow. There has also been an increase in
land fragmentation from generation to generation; as such it is no longer unusual
for a smallholder farmer to cultivate three or more plots in different locations. The
overall effect of reducing smallholding sizes is that land is cultivated continuously
with a single crop and this has contributed to falling soil fertility levels (GOM,
2002b).

1.2.4 Soil erosion
Soil erosion is ranked as the most serious environmental problem in Malawi
(GoM, 1996); it poses the biggest threat to sustainable agricultural production
and also leads to contamination of water resources. Bishop (1992) estimated the
erosion levels for the country to be 20 tonnes/ha/year on average and this is
higher than the rate of soil formation that is 12tonnes/ha/year. Soil erosion has
on-site and off-site costs. The first include declining soil fertility and loss in crop
yield; the second refers to sedimentation and siltation of rivers and reservoirs.
Fertile low-lying areas may become unproductive due to the deposition of infertile
sand (GOM, 1996)

The high population growth rate is leading to increased demands for land. While
land available for agricultural production for rain-fed cultivation at traditional
management levels is limited to only 32% of the land area, as much as 48% was
found to be under cultivation by 1989/90. This means that 16% of cultivation was
taking place in marginal and unsuitable areas without appropriate conservation
measures (GOM, 2002b). Ajayi et al (2007) also noted that as land with high
potential for agriculture becomes less available and the rural human population
increases, farming is extending into more fragile lands, undermining the natural
resource capital base as well as undermining the Southern African region's
continued ability to produce food for its people. Table 1 shows the distribution of

9

suitable land by type of land-use by administrative Region and Agricultural
Development Division (ADD) in Malawi.

Table 1: Distribution of suitable land by type of land-use by ADD and region
(Source: GOM, 2002b)

Region/ % % % % suitable % suitable but % % unsuitable
ADD suitable unsuitable cultivated and uncultivated unsuitable and
cultivated but uncultivated
cultivated
Northern 50.1 49.9 16.3 26.1 73.9 6.5 67.0
Region
Karonga 47.9 52.1 17.7 28.9 71.1 7.4 67.2

Mzuzu 51.1 48.9 15.7 25.0 75.0 6.1 67.0

Centre 61.2 38.8 38.0 52.8 47.2 14.6 36.0
Region
Kasungu 66.2 33.8 31.9 42.6 57.4 11.0 50.3

Salima 50.1 49.9 37.0 53.2 46.8 20.8 32.9

Lilongwe 61.8 38.2 45.5 65.0 35.0 13.8 20.1

Southern 56.3 43.7 39.6 58.5 41.5 15.2 27.2
Region
Machinga 58.0 42.0 50.0 66.9 33.1 26.6 15.4

Blantyre 58.0 42.0 50.0 66.9 33.1 26.6 15.4

Shire 51.0 49.0 36.8 58.9 41.1 13.9 27.6
Valley
Malawi 56.5 43.5 32.5 48.1 51.9 12.2 40.8

1.2.5 Significance of Agriculture Sector to Malawi
The significance of agriculture in Malawi needs no emphasis; it is the backbone
of the economy; it employs about 80% of the workforce, accounts 80% of foreign
exchange, 40% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and contributes significantly to
the national and household food sovereignty and security (GOM, 2006).
Agriculture in Malawi is made up of two sub-sectors, namely the smallholder
farmers sector which contributes almost 70% to agricultural GDP, and the estate
sector, which contributes the remaining 30%. The smallholder farmers are mainly
involved in the cultivation of food crops such as maize, rice, cassava, and sweet
10

potato for subsistence food requirements. The estate sub-sector on the other
hand focuses on high value cash crops such as tobacco, tea, sugar and coffee
for export (Banda and Nanthambwe, 2010).

Maize is a major food and cash crop for smallholder farmers in Malawi and is
grown on about 85% of the cropped area every year. The Government
recommends planting maize on ridges, which are laid out across the slope on a
contour and spaced at 0.75 or 0.91m (Materechera and Mloza-Banda, 1997). The
high dependence on maize makes Malawi vulnerable, as any decrease in maize
production is synonymous with food insecurity (Chinsinga and O’Brien, 2008).

1.3 Objectives of the study
The study had the following objectives
1. To determine factors affecting/restricting adoption of conservation
agriculture
2. To investigate challenges farmers were facing in the application of
conservation agriculture and draw recommendations that may hep in the
implementation of the technology in the future.

11

Chapter Two: Literature Review

2.1. History of tillage and soil conservation in Malawi
The history of tillage dates back many millennia when humans changed from
hunting and gathering to more sedentary and settled agriculture. Tillage was
used to soften the soil and prepare a seedbed that allowed seed to be placed
easily at a suitable depth into soil moisture using seed drills or manual
equipment. This resulted in good, uniform seed germination. Wherever crops
grow, weeds also grow and compete for light, water and nutrients. By tilling their
fields farmers were able to shift the advantage from the weed to the crop and
allow the crop to grow with minimal competition early in its growth cycle. Tillage
also helped release soil nutrients needed for crop growth through mineralisation
and oxidation after exposure of soil organic matter to air (Hobbs et al, 2007).

Tillage practices designed with soil conservation in mind can be traced back in
Malawi to the colonial period (Williams, 2008). Before colonialism, slash-and-burn
shifting cultivation was the commonest system of agriculture (Chilimba, 2001). In
this system an area would be cleared of vegetation and the cleared organic
material burned. Following this, a crop would be planted and no fertiliser was
applied. When the cleared area started showing signs of fertility exhaustion
another area would be cleared leaving the previous one to regenerate (UN-
REDD, 2010). This system is still practiced in some districts of the Northern
Region of Malawi, mainly for production of millet on a small scale. Several other
traditional methods of seedbed preparation do exist, including flat cultivation,
mounds, and other forms of raised beds.

Tillage in the form of annual construction of contour planting ridges has evolved
as an integral part of subsistence farming and is a most dominant feature of
Malawi’s agriculture (Mloza-Banda and Nanthamwe, 2010). When the English
arrived in Malawi (which was then referred to Nyasaland) they brought the plough
and introduced ridging with the purpose of soil and water conservation (Williams,
2008). The ridge along a contour has long been used as a first line of defence

12

against soil erosion. If properly designed, contour ridging reduces runoff by
temporarily storing excess rainfall behind ridges and thus reducing soil erosion
and increasing moisture storage (Mloza-Banda and Nanthamwe, 2010).
However, the arrival of the Europeans may not be the sole reason that curtailed
slash-and-burn practice. Chilimba (2001) and FAO (2001) explain that high
population pressure already meant less land being available, fallow periods
becoming shorter and the cleared plots being cultivated for more years than
before.

In the early 18th century, English landlords amassed large pieces of land and
required those living within to pay rent with three months of labour. Cotton was
the crop the colonials had turned to for economic rents when no mineral deposits
of worth were found in Malawi. These landlords confidently used the trusted
European ridging method when planting the cotton crop (Williams, 2008).
Although concern for soil erosion in the country started as early as the 1890s, it
was not until the 1930s and 1940s that the colonial government started to enforce
soil and water conservation structures on private fields (Nanthambwe, S.J. and
N.J. Mulenga,. 1999). During this period government officials publicly declared
that soil erosion had become a serious problem and required urgent attention
(FAO, 2001). Previously the colonial government had attempted to control
agricultural practices by influencing the chiefs and village headmen. However,
officials then gave up on this and resorted to direct coercion of farmers, with the
result that any who did not follow the new ridging method of cultivation would get
heavy punishment in the form of fines and imprisonment.

Although labour intensive, ridging became so widespread that it is acknowledged
as 'conventional practice' and most often synonymous with land preparation for
crop production. It was rooted enough that, when Malawi received its
independence, the new government continued to enforce these agricultural
requirements and a number of programmes and campaigns have been launched
to promote its adoption. The laws were subsequently repealed, but Malawians
have been hesitant to change because it is the only technology that they know
and some do not even know that ridging is no longer compulsory. Ridging using a
13

plough requires the availability of a tractor or animal power, which cannot be
readily accessed by the majority of the smallholder farmers, most of whom rely
on a hand hoe (Williams, 2007).

2.1.1 Conventional Tillage in Malawi
Conventional' crop production in Malawi is therefore characterised contour
ridging. This is the method of land preparation whereby topsoil is scraped and
concentrated in a defined region to deliberately raise the seedbed above the
natural terrain - making fresh ridges every season where the crops are planted.
The process creates a loose and friable seedbed and, if carried out correctly,
helps to conserve soil and water (Materechera and Mloza-Banda, 1997.)

Ridging is a tedious assignment and smallholders who practice conventional
tillage often plant late because land preparation takes considerable length of
time. This has a direct impact on yield as it is estimated that farmers lose 1.3% of
their yield for each day of delay in planting after the first planting rains, and
farmers who plant their crops 18 days late, for example, lose 25% of their
production. This means that no matter how good the farmer is in the subsequent
husbandry practices, the loss cannot be compensated (Siacinji-Musiwa, 1999).
Lack of resources of cash, chemical inputs, farm power and motorised
equipment, and dependence on the hand hoe and family labour aggravate this
problem.

Ridging on steep slopes leads to excessive soil loss and it is estimated that up to
50 tonnes of topsoil can be lost from each hectare annually. On conventionally
tilled and exposed land, up to 50% of applied fertilisers are lost in storm flow. This
is the case because the surface layers of soils exposed to the energy of rain
drops are pulverised and soon become crusted and sealed. This affects crop
germination and further accelerates runoff and erosion. Hoeing and ridging every
year results in hard pans, which limit crop root volume and make plants more
susceptible to dry periods (Siacinji-Musiwa, 1999). Wiyo et al (2000) also noted

14

surface runoff loss and increased drainage loss out of the root zone under
conventional ridging as opposed to tied ridging.1

However, as previously noted, there are other cultivation techniques being used
in the country. Continuous cultivation with little no organic matter amendment is
another practice common in Malawi and other Sub-Saharan African countries
(Makumba et al 2006). Although this may bring short-term yield increases,
continuous cultivation results in increased mineralisation of soil organic matter
and soil life and soil structure are damaged in the long term. Deep tillage, which
is employed with crops such as tobacco, is detrimental to earthworms and other
soil life as it may destroy them outright, disrupt their burrows, reduce moisture
and affect the availability of their food (FAO, 2001).

Reduction of organic matter in the soil is further compounded by burning of
biomass and crop residues (Makumba et al 2006). Just like most of the tropical
regions, burning of most residual matter is widespread in Malawi as it is believed
to be a good way of killing weed seeds and keeping the fields clean. Burning of
biomass and crop residues has two direct negative impacts on the soil. The
organic matter, which helps in the formation of soil aggregates improves soil
structure and improves soil water holding capacity, is lost. Nutrients that were
used in the production of the biomass and crop residues are lost as well. Manure
use is also limited as few farmers own livestock (Snapp et al 2002). The long-
term effect of reduced organic carbon is on the cation exchange capacity of the
soil and its ability to retain nutrients and remain fertile (Makumba et al 2006).
Burning of residues also exposes the soil, and this can lead to surface sealing
because the soil is no longer protected from the direct impact of raindrops which
break up soil aggregates and redistribute them according to physical, chemical
and suction forces. This is the case because water infiltration is high in the initial
moments of precipitation, but with time the loosened soil particles block the pore
spaces making it difficult for water to penetrate and surface runoff is encouraged

1
In tied-ridging, ridge furrows are blocked with earth ties spaced a fixed distance apart to form a
series of micro-catchment basins in the field
15

as a result. The size and intensity of the raindrops have a significant effect on the
degree and rate of sealing that takes place.

Formation of a structural crust is another way the soil structure itself can limit
crop production. This is caused by physical compression of the soil - usually from
livestock, machinery or people putting weight on the soil. In the case of
conventional (ridged) tillage, a hardpan is often formed as a result of repetitious
hand tilling to the same soil depth every year, leading to an increase in soil bulk
density due to compaction. The formation of such a crust may hurt a plant in the
sense that it has to exert more energy for the roots to penetrate, and failure to do
this may force the plant to become stunted (Williams, 2008).

The majority of the smallholder farmers in Malawi lack of alternative livelihoods
and this, combined with the small size of plots, compels farmers to cultivate
maize on the same land year after year (Chinsinga and O’Brien, 2008). It is not
surprising therefore that mono-cropping is also dominant cropping system, with
maize being the most dominant crop (Snapp et al 2002). In case of drastic
changes in weather pattern, monocropping can lead to total crop failure and this
will have negative effects on food security at household and national level. A
continuous monocropping system of farming will be less resilient to pest and
disease attack, unlike a diversified and rotational system where some crops may
be unaffected or may host natural enemies of certain pests. Monocropping may
also lead to a decrease in the crop productivity over time because the crop takes
nutrients from the same soil depth, and it may also encourage the development
of resistance to pesticides and herbicides as compounds with the same chemistry
are relied upon year after year. This is not the case with a crop rotation system as
different crops are attacked by different pests and weeds, with the result that a
range of different chemicals are required in their management.

Due to the challenges and limitations associated with conventional tillage other
technologies that can reduce such impacts are being promoted and one of such
technologies is conservation agriculture.

16

2.2 Conservation Agriculture
Worldwide there are rising concerns about loss of soil productivity and the
broader environmental implications of conventional agricultural practices. The
concerns are coming mainly because of the aftermath of repeatedly tilling the
soil, either by the use of plough, disc harrow or hoe. This has impelled some
governments and farmers to search for alternative production methods that can
maintain soil structure and productivity. Conservation Agriculture (CA) is
becoming one of the obvious and increasingly popular alternatives due to the
principles that is based upon (Knowler and Bradshaw, 2007).

Conservation Agriculture is a system of crop production based on three
principles, namely minimum soil disturbance, continuous soil cover and crop
rotation. The objectives of conservation farming are to increase crop production
while at the same time protecting and enhancing the water and soil land
resources on which production depends. It is also referred to as conservation
tillage, minimum tillage, reduced tillage and zero tillage among other names in
different locations of the world. It is a resource-saving farming system that strives
to achieve acceptable profits together with high and sustained production levels,
while conserving the environment based on an integrated management of soil,
water and biological resources combined with external inputs (FAO, 2008). CTIC
(1999) defined conservation tillage as any tillage or planting system that covers at
least 30% of the surface with crop residues. The 30% threshold was based on
research which showed 80% reduction in soil erosion when the surface was
covered that much.

CA is achieved through direct seeding and this involves growing crops without
mechanical seedbed preparation and with minimal soil disturbance after the
harvest of the previous crop. CA land preparation for seeding or planting involves
slashing or rolling the weeds, previous crop residues or cover crops; or spraying
herbicides for weed control, and seeding directly through the mulch (FAO, 2008)

17

2.2.1 Principle of minimum soil disturbance
Agriculture impacts on the condition of the environment in many ways, including
impacts on global warming through the production of ‘greenhouse gases’ such as
CO2. In the USA it was estimated that agriculture contributed approximately 8%
of the US greenhouse gas emissions (Paustian et al, 2006). However, agriculture
also has a potential of acting as a CO2 sink by sequestering it from the
atmosphere in the form of soil carbon if proper practices are employed in
production. A study conducted in the USA conclude that intensive tillage using a
mouldboard plough results in major carbon loses immediately after tillage, and
also found that the rate of carbon oxidation was reduced when the extent,
frequency and magnitude of mechanical disturbance of the soil caused by tillage
was minimised (Baker et al, 2007).

Minimum soil disturbance also reduces soil erosion, since the soil is not loosened
as is the case with conventional tillage. The reduction in erosion has benefits to
the growing crop as well as the environment. In conventional tillage the soil is
continuously disturbed, making it easy to be carried by runoff. As the soil is being
eroded it also carries with it soil nutrients which are essential for crop growth. The
removal of nutrients impacts negatively on the crop as its growth is retarded and
a crop that is weak is more susceptible to pests and diseases. The combination
of pests, diseases and soil loss due to erosion leads to food insecurity as a result
of reduced yields. The reduced erosion brought by CA also benefits the
environment in the sense that it enhances water quality. A number of
experiments in semi-arid and dry sub-humid locations in East and Southern
Africa have demonstrated that minimum soil disturbance/minimum tillage
practices reduce the risk of crop failure as they increase water productivity and
crop yields. These positive results are attributed to the water harvesting effects of
minimum tillage practices (Hobbs et al 2007).

Increased infiltration means that streams are fed more by subsurface flow than by
surface runoff. This entails having cleaner water, which more closely resembles
groundwater in areas where CA is dominant than in areas where intensive tillage

18

and accompanying erosion and runoff predominate. Greater infiltration also has
an advantage of reducing flooding, by enhancing more soil water storage and
slow release to streams. It also recharges groundwater, thus increasing well
supplies and revitalising dried-up springs (FAO, 2008)

Tillage takes valuable time that could be used for other useful farming activities or
employment. Conservation agriculture reduces time for establishing a crop as
intensive tillage is eliminated. The time spent in tilling the land can also delay
timely planting of crops, and this can result in reductions in yield potential. By
reducing turnaround time to a minimum, zero-tillage can get crops planted on
time, and thus increase yields without greater input (Hobbs et al, 2007)

2.2.2 Principle of continuous soil cover
Surface soil cover intercepts raindrop energy and protects the surface soil from
soil aggregate destruction; it promotes infiltration of water, and reduces the loss
of soil by erosion. The surface crop residues shield the loose soil particles from
water and wind erosion. It minimises soil water losses by evaporation and also
helps moderate soil temperature. This enhances soil biological activity and
promotes nitrogen mineralisation. This is an important factor, especially in areas
where water is limited as most of it will be used by the growing crop (Hobbs et al,
2007). It also helps to suppress weed infestation as weed seeds are shielded
from sunlight, which is frequently required for germination and necessary for
subsequent growth. The soil cover improves soil fertility after decay and this
reduces the requirement for inorganic fertilisers in the future. The decayed soil
cover improves availability of soil organic matter (SOM) in the soil. SOM has a
characteristic of improving soil water holding capacity and this water is used by
the growing crops (Giller et al, 2009)

The soil organisms crush the mulch covering the surface, and incorporate and
mix it with the soil. When the mulch becomes humus after decomposition it
contributes to the physical stabilisation of the soil structure. Furthermore, the soil
organic matter provides a buffer function for water and nutrients (FAO, 2008).

19

Larger soil organisms, such as earthworms ingest soil and also digest dead plant
material, and their nutrient-rich wastes are deposited on the surface (as casts) or
within the soil profile. This process helps to improve the soil structure, as their
wastes are better soil aggregates. The improved soil structure is beneficial to
plants as it also means improved water-holding capacity. As earthworms are
moving within the soil they also form an intricate and extensive network of
burrows, which function as biopores and increase aeration and drainage and
these elements are also necessary for plant growth. Of all the soil micro-fauna,
earthworms are probably the most important group for improving soil quality, as
they ingest nearly ten times their own weight each day while burrowing through
the soil. Their burrows are mainly in the region where plant roots frequently
occur, and this helps to facilitate the exchange of nutrients (Dubbin, 2001).

Figure 4: Young Conservation Agriculture maize crop plot mulched with crop residues
(Source: TLC 2010)

Since many of the benefits of CA are directly related to mulching, limited
availability of crop residues is in many cases a constraint to their adoption. This
demand for crop residues as mulch greatly changes the flow of resources at the
farm level, especially where the residues have more than one use. Farmers face
20

the dilemma of whether to use residues as mulch or fodder, in which case
precedence is mostly given to livestock considering its cultural and economic
value. The challenge to retain crop residues as mulch is not only limited to those
areas with more livestock. In regions where farmers own few livestock, but rely
on hand hoe for tillage, crop residues are traditionally burned as a fast way to
clear agricultural fields in order to facilitate further land preparation and planting
(Giller et al, 2009), and this tradition will have to change if the full benefits of the
mulch are to be realised.

2.2.3 Principle of crop rotation
Crop rotation provides an opportunity for nutrient cycling as roots at different
depths are able to get nutrients from different soil layers. Nutrients that have
been lost from the upper layers through leaching and are no longer available to
short-rooted crops, can be brought back to the surface by using deep-rooted
ones in rotation. The diversity of crops in rotation enhances a diverse flora and
fauna such as fungi and bacteria, which are also necessary for transformation of
organic materials into available nutrients during decomposition. Other means of
improving soil fertility and nutrient cycling are being encouraged. Intercropping
cereals with legumes is encouraged because the legumes fix nitrogen (one of the
macro-nutrients) from the atmosphere to further improve soil fertility. Two legume
species often intercropped with maize in Malawi are pigeon peas (Cajanus cajan)
and Tephrosia vogelli (TLC, 2007).2 Crop rotation also plays a phytosanitary role
as it prevents the carryover of crop specific pests and diseases from one season
to another through residues. The diversity of crops achieved through crop rotation
is also important as a climate change adaptation strategy because it reduces the
susceptibility to unforeseen climatic events such as drought, floods and other
biophysical occurrences such as pest outbreaks that might lead to crop failure
(FAO, 2008). However, given their economic pressures, in the face of rapid
population increase and continued decrease in land holding sizes it is not always
possible to practice crop rotation. Malawian farmers cannot afford to include a
fallow phase as incorporated in older European crop rotation systems.

2
Also known as fish bean, the crushed leaves of T. vogelli are added to water to poison fish.
21

Chapter Three: Research Site and Methodology

3.1. Study area
The study was carried out in Salima District within the Salima ADD (Figure 4).
Administratively the district is located in Central Region of Malawi and it lies along
the lakeshore plain 100km to the east of Lilongwe City.

Figure 5: Map of Salima ADD showing Extension Planning Areas
(Prepared for the current study by J K Chirwa, Salima ADD)

Study Area

22

This district covers a total area of 2196 km 2 and is located in the Rift Valley Plain
physiographic region. It lies on latitude 13°45' north and longitude 34°35' east. It
is situated within the altitude range 33-600 metres above sea level. The land is
flat to gently undulating, with deep calcimorphic soils in the hollows formed in
large part by the deposition of material and is characterised by subdued relief and
gentle slopes. The district was chosen because it is one of the areas where
conservation agriculture is being intensified owing to its semi-arid conditions and
accessibility. For agriculture purposes the district is divided into 7 Extension
Planning Areas (EPAs) namely Chipoka, Katerera, Makande, Tembwe,
Chinguluwe, Matenje and Chiluwa. The study was conducted in Katerera,
Makande and Chinguluwe EPAs.

3.2. Climate
Salima district experiences a warm tropical climate characterised by unimodal
rainfall lasting approximately five months from the end of November to the end of
April, and dry weather during the remainder of the year. Annual rainfall varies
from around 800mm to about 1200mm, however most areas receive less than
1000 mm of rain. Despite receiving this amount of rainfall the area experiences
frequent dry spells which impact negatively on crop production within the crop
growing period. The mean temperature range along the lakeshore plain is 18-28°
Celsius, with mean maximum temperatures of 32-34° Celsius in October to
December.

3.3. Soil
Salima district soils are grouped into two main soil units namely Eutric gleysols,
and Ferric fluvisols (MoA/UNDP/FAO, 1992). Gleysols are soils showing
hydromorphic properties within 50 cm of the surface; having no diagnostic
horizons (unless buried by 50 cm or more new material) other than an A horizon,
an H horizon, a cambic B horizon, and a calcic or a gypsic horizon. Fluvisols on
the other hand refers to soils developed from recent alluvial deposits, having no
diagnostic horizons (unless buried by 50 cm or more new material) other than an

23

ochric or an umbric A horizon, an H horizon, or a sulphuric horizon (FAO, 1975).
Eutric gleysols and Ferric fluvisols cover a total 599.8 and 94253.2 (km 2) in
Malawi, respectively (Chilimba, 2001).

3.4. Data collection
Primary data were collected from a sample of selected farmers through
administration of a semi-structured questionnaire. The questionnaire (Appendix
1) comprised closed- and open-ended questions. An open-ended questionnaire
(Appendix 2) was also used to support interviews with as many of the Agricultural
Extension Development Officers working in the selected EPAs as was possible.
Secondary data were obtained from published and unpublished documents.

3.5. Sampling Procedure for Survey
The study involved total of 60 farmers and involved comparisons between three
equal-sized sub-groups based on differences in their practices. The first group
comprised farmers who had been practicing conservation agriculture for a
minimum of three years, the second involved farmers who once practiced the
technology but were no longer doing it, while the last one comprised farmers who
had never tried the technology. The respondents were selected from three
randomly selected EPAs within Salima District, and the study villages were also
randomly selected within each EPA. After this farmers were selected from each
village on a semi-random basis, using lists supplied by the local Agricultural
Extension Development Officers. The lists indicated farmers who were
practicing, once practiced but stopped, and those who never practiced the
technology. The final selection of the farmers from each of these lists was also
random.

3.6. Data analysis and presentation
The data were coded and fed into the Statistical Package for Social Scientists
(SPSS) for statistical analysis and presentation. Descriptive statistics in the form
of frequencies and percentages were used when analysing, presenting and
24

interpreting the data because the data collected was mainly qualitative. In some
instances Chi-square was used to determine the significance of some variables
on CA adoption.

25

Chapter Four: Results and Discussion
Introduction
This chapter covers the results of the study carried out in Salima District. It looks
at factors affecting/restricting adoption of CA and the challenges the farmers are
facing in the implementation of the technology in Malawi. To do this demographic,
social and economic data were collected and analysed. CA message
dissemination mechanisms, farmer technology awareness, first input acquisition
method reasons for adopting, stopping practicing and never adopting the
technology information was also analysed.

4.1. Demographic and Socio Economic Data

4.1.1. Sex of the household head
The study involved a total of 60 households divided into 3 categories of 20
households each. The first group was composed of farmers who had been
practicing conservation agriculture for a minimum of three years, the second
group comprised farmers who once practiced CA but had stopped, and the last
category consisted of farmers who have never practiced CA. Seventy per cent of
the households interviewed were male headed while the remaining 30% were
women headed.

Table 2 provides Chi-square (x2)3 analysis of sex of the household head and
adoption of CA. The results support the idea that male-headed households were
more likely to adopt CA than those headed by females at 95% confidence interval
and 2 degrees of freedom (df). Mazvimavi and Twomlow (2009) found similar
results in a study carried out in Zimabmbwe.

3 3
Where O is observed frequency and E is expected frequency.
26

2
Table 2: x analysis of sex of the household head and level of CA adoption

Sex of the df Calculated Tabulated
2 2
household X X
head
Level of adoption Total
Practicing Stopped Never
CA practicing Practiced
CA CA
Male 18 10 14 42 2 7.619 3.84
Female 2 10 6 18
Total 20 20 20 60

4.1.2 Age
Thirty five per cent of the farmers who are practicing CAS and those who were no
longer doing it were in the age category of 26-35, as compared to 30% of those
who had never practiced CA (Table 3). No relationship was found between age of
the respondents and adoption of CA. Studies in the literature has come up with
conflicting results. Knowler and Bradshaw (2007) also found it difficult to link
adoption of CA and age of a farmer in their review and analysis of recent
research on farmer’s adoption of conservation agriculture. However, Mazvimavi
and Twomlow (2009) found positive correlation.

Table 3: Age categories of the household head

Age Practicing CA No longer Practicing CA Never Practiced CA
Category

Frequency % Frequency % Frequency %

18-25 2 10.0 0 0 3 15.0
26-35 7 35.0 7 35.0 6 30.0
36-45 4 20.0 4 20.0 4 20.0
46-55 3 15.0 3 15.0 2 10.0
>56 4 20.0 6 30.0 5 25.0

4.1.3. Size of the Households
More than 65% of the respondents involved had households of greater than 4.4,
which is the national average (Table 4). No statistical correlation was found
27

between household size and CA adoption, but those who had never practiced
CA, or had given it up were more likely to have larger families than those who did
practice it.
Table 4: Household size

Household Practicing CA No longer Practicing CA Never Practiced CA
Size

1-2 2 10.0 2 10.0 1 5.0
3-4 5 25.0 3 15.0 5 25.0
5-6 6 30.0 7 35.0 2 10.0
>6 7 35.0 8 40.0 12 60.0
Total 20 100 20 100 20 100

4.1.4 Education
It is assumed that the ability of the household head to understand technical
aspects of conservation agriculture would be dependent on their educational
level. A positive relationship was expected between educational level and
adoption as farmers with higher education are expected to have more access to
information on the dangers of not following recommended soil and water
conservation technologies. In the event, no overall correlation was found between
the adoption of CA and the household head's level of education - probably
because less than 20% of all respondents had actually attended school to
secondary level (Table 5).
Table 5: Level of education

Level of education Practicing CA No longer practicing Never Practiced CA
CA


No formal education 3 15.0 4 20.0 2 10.0
Std 1 - Std 5 9 45.0 5 25.0 5 25.0
Std 6 - Std 8 4 20.0 8 40.0 11 55.0
Secondary education 4 20.0 3 15.0 2 10.0
Total 20 100 20 100 20 100

28

However, those who had attained that level were more likely to have tried CA
than those who had not (7/2).

4.1.5. Land Ownership and Size of the Gardens
Land is one of the important factors of production. It assists the farmer in
budgeting what and how much to produce. It also helps the farmer in deciding
the production system to follow. In this study it was assumed that farmers with
larger gardens would be able to adopt CA more easily because they can follow
all the principles of CA, including crop rotation.

All the households who participated in the study owned a piece of land ('garden'),
save for one respondent who was renting. Overall, 71.7% of the farmers were
farming on customary land while the remaining 28.3% were cultivating on public
land. All the farmers who were using customary land had obtained it through
inheritance, while those under public land obtained it from government under
settlement scheme programme. The settlement scheme programme was set up
with four main aims namely, reclamation and utilisation of underused land;
settlement of underemployed rural people to provide them with a decent income
and livelihood; promotion of cash-crop production for export purposes; and
settlement of Malawi Young Pioneers to provide opportunities for their gainful
employment (Nothale, 1982). The minimum land holding size in the study area
was 0.4 ha, while the maximum was 4.4 ha, and 35%, 30% and 20% of the
farmers who were practicing CA, who once practiced CA and those who had
never practiced CA, respectively, had pieces of land of greater than three
hectares. All the farmers from Chinguluwe Extension Planning Area had gardens
of greater than three hectares owing to the land settlement programme as each
settler was allocated eleven acres4. The study found no statistical correlation
between farm size and adoption of CA, but most who did not practice CA (60%)
owned less than 2ha, while most who did practice it (65%) owned more than 2 ha
(Table 6).

4
1 acre = 0.404686 ha
29

Table 6: Size of the Garden

Size of the Practicing CA No longer Practicing CA Never Practiced CA
Garden (Ha)


0.1-0.5 0 0 2 10 1 5.0
06-1.0 1 5.0 4 20.0 6 30.0
1.1-2.0 6 30.0 5 25.0 5 25.0
2.1-3.0 6 30.0 3 15 4 20
>3.0 7 35.0 6 30.0 4 20.0
Total 20 100.0 20 100.0 20 100.0

4.1.6. Level of Income
Household income is the aggregation of income both in cash and/or kind that
accrues from economic activities performed by household members on a regular
basis (NSO, 2005). The assumption in this study was that higher income would
have a positive influence on adoption of CA because the higher the level of
income the higher the chances that the farmer can invest in conservation
technologies. Data for income distribution among the three categories of farmers
(Table 7) indicate that the majority of respondents were poor. Going by the 2004-
2005 Malawi Integrated Household Survey (which puts MK16,165.00 5 per person
per year as a poverty line6 and 4.4 persons per household as national average) it
means that more than 70% of households in the study area live below the poverty
line. The results are not far from the NSO (2005) findings, which put 69.1% of
people in Salima District as living below the poverty line.

Additional information recovered during the survey revealed crop production
contributing over 80% of the total income from agriculture while the remainder
came from livestock.

5
$1=MK150
6
The poverty line is a subsistence minimum expressed in Malawi currency based on the cost-of-basic-needs
methodology. It is comprised of two parts: minimum food expenditure based on the food requirements of
individual and critical non-food consumption
30

A further 20% of the respondents pointed to piecework contributing 21-40% per
cent of their total income. Piecework (locally known in Malawi as ganyu) is a term
that describes a variety of temporary rural relations. It corresponds to any off-
own-farm work done by rural people on casual basis, with remuneration being
made in cash or in kind (Le Danvic, 2009).

Table 7: Estimated level of Income of respondent farmers

Level of Practicing CA No longer Practicing Never Practiced CA
income (MK) CA

0-10,000 0 0 1 5.0 1 5.0

11,000-25,000 3 15.0 8 40.0 5 25.0

26,000-40,000 4 20.0 7 35.0 7 35.0

41,000-60,000 2 10.0 3 15.0 1 5.0

61,000 and 11 55.0 1 5.0 6 30.0
above
Total 20 100 20 100 20 100

Comparing income levels among the three categories of farmers it was found that
55% of those practicing CA, 5% of those no longer practicing CA and 30% of
those who had never practiced CA were earning greater than 61,000 Malawi
Kwacha (MK7) per annum (Table 7). No significant difference in levels of income
was found between farmers practicing the technology and those who had never
practiced it. Nevertheless, a significant difference was observed between
farmers still practicing CA and those who had stopped. The calculated X 2
(12.624) was larger than the tabulated one (9.49) at 95% confidence interval. The
results support the hypothesis that farmers with higher income are likely to
continue with CA than the low income ones.

7
Malawian Currency
31

4.2. Crops and Animal Production

4.2.1. Crops grown
The main crops grown in the study area are maize, ground nuts, cotton and
tobacco (Table 8). All the households involved indicated that they had grown
maize in the previous season - this is not surprising since it is the main food crop
in Malawi and is grown on over 70% of the cultivated are every year. Groundnuts
are the other popular food crop in the area, and 95% of both those practicing and
those no longer practicing CA, and 85% of the farmers who had never practiced
CA indicated to have grown it in the 2009/2010 season. Cassava, soya, millet,
cowpeas and sweet potato are also grown as food crops.

Table 8: Crops grown by respondents in Salima District

Crops grown Practicing CA No longer practicing Never Practiced CA
CA

Maize 20 100 20 100 20 100
Groundnuts 19 95 19 95 17 85
Cowpeas 6 30 2 10 2 10
Sweet potato 0 0 0 0 2 10
Tobacco 2 10 4 20 2 15
Millet 0 0 0 0 1 5
Soya 0 0 1 5 0 0
Cassava 3 15 0 0 0 0
Cotton 14 70 12 60 9 45

Groundnuts are also grown for cash, but cotton is the main cash crop in the study
area with 70%, 60% and 45% of those practicing, stopped practicing and having
never practiced CA, respectively, mentioning that they had grown cotton in
2009/2010. Furthermore, 15% of the farmers also indicated that they had grown
tobacco for cash. Clearly, the method of cultivation had no significant impact
upon the choice of the major cop species. The fact that cassava was only grown
by those who practiced CA does not seem to relate directly to this practice, since
that crop is not known to benefit particularly from CA and the technique would not
have been applied to all parts of the CA respondents' gardens,
32

4.2.2. Livestock
The majority (>70%) of the farmers in the area own chickens and goat rearing is
also dominant in the area, with farmers who are no longer practicing CA reporting
the highest percentage (Table 9). These results agree with the findings of 2004-
2005 Integrated Household Survey report, which also showed chicken and goats
as dominant livestock in Malawi (NSO, 2005). There was a moderate level of pig
ownership in all three groups and some farmers also indicated to have been
keeping ducks and guinea fowl on a small scale. Only one respondent owned
cattle and only one owned donkeys, both being indications of a higher income,
but this did not correlate with practising CA. About 8% of the respondents
indicated not to have any type of livestock.

Table 9: Livestock Kept by Respondents

Livestock kept Practicing CA No longer Practicing Never Practiced CA
CA

Cattle 0 0 0 0 1 5.0
Goats 10 50.0 14 70.0 10 50.0
Donkeys 1 5.0 0 0 0 0
Chickens 15 75.0 16 80.0 14 70.0
Guinea fowl 1 5.0 0 0 0 0
None 2 10.0 0 0 3 15.0
Pigs 3 15.0 3 15.0 4 20.0
Ducks 1 5.0 2 10.0 1 5.0
None 2 10 0 0 3 15.0

4.3. CA Message Dissemination

4.3.1. Farmer Groups
Farmer Groups are encouraged because they enable Agricultural Extension
Development Officers to reach more farmers with agricultural messages with
ease, and also give a chance to farmers to learn from one another. It is assumed,
therefore, that farmers belonging to groups have higher chances of adopting a
new technology.
33

Table 10: Farmer Group Membership among Respondents

Response Practicing CA No longer Practicing CA Never Practiced CA

Yes 17 85.0 6 30.0 6 30.0
No 3 15.0 14 70.0 14 70.0
Total 20 100.0 20 100.0 20 100.0

Just under half the sample of farmers were members of a Farmer Group (Table
10). However, the greater majority (85%) of respondent farmers practicing CA
belonged to a Farmer Group, as opposed to 30% of those who either stopped
practicing or never participated in CA. There was strong correlation between CA
adoption and farmer membership to a group as calculated: X2 (16.15) was larger
than the tabulated one (5.99) at 95% confidence interval (Table 11). Farmers
belonging to a Farmer Group were indeed seen to be more likely to be practicing
CA than those not belonging to any group.

2
Table 11: X analysis of Farmer Group membership versus level of CA adoption

Response Level of adoption of CA Total df Calculated Tabulated
2 2
Practicing Stopped Never X X
CA practicing Practiced
Yes 17 6 6 29
No 3 14 14 31
2 16.151 3.84
Total 20 20 20 60

Most of the farmers practicing CA (85%) were in the soil and water conservation
(SWC) Farmer Group, as opposed to 5% and 10% for those no longer practicing
and never practiced, respectively. Some farmers were found to belong to multiple
groups covering irrigation, livestock, agroforestry, bee-keeping, grain and
legumes, credit and cotton (Table 12).

34

Table 12: Farmer Group Membership by Type

Type of Farmer Practicing CA No longer Practicing CA Never Practiced CA
Group


Irrigation 4 20.0 1 5.0 2 10.0

Soil & Water 17 85.0 1 5.0 2 10.0
Conservation
Livestock 2 10.0 0 0 0 0

Agroforestry 0 0 0 0 1 5.0

Bee-keeping 0 0 4 20.0 0 0

Grain & legumes 0 0 0 0 1 5.0
association
Credit group 0 0 0 0 1 5.0

Cotton 0 0 0 0 1 5.0
association

The remaining farmers (mainly those who had never practiced CA or had
stopped) were asked why they did not belong to a Farmer Group. Overall, 41.9%
of them indicated that they were not interested, while 35.5% gave lack of farmer
groups in their villages as the reason. However, the remaining 22.6% had once
been, but were no longer members - either due to disbandment of the group or
due to lost interest (Table 13).

Table 13: Reasons for not belonging to any Farmer Group

Reason Frequency Percentage

Not interested 13 41.9

There is no farmer group 11 35.5

The group disbanded 7 22.6

The main cause of lost interest seems to have resulted from unfair distribution of
free farm inputs on those occasions when the groups received inputs from
government and agriculture development stakeholders and others. Allegations
were also made against agricultural extension workers as not being transparent
in the distribution of such inputs, or in the identification of farmers to host

35

demonstration plots - with favour being shown to farmers with the more
accessible gardens along the road.

4.3.2. Farmer contact with Extension Workers
All the respondents indicated that an agricultural extension worker was available
in the area, and that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security (MoAFS) was
the main institution offering extension services in conservation agriculture. Asked
as to how often the extension worker visits per month, 95% of those practicing
CA responded that they were visited more than two times per month and all
received at least one per month. This is an encouraging result considering that
extension workers are advised to make a minimum of two visits to a farmer
group. The first visit is for training while the second one is for follow up. In
contrast, twice-monthly contacts with those no longer practicing or those who had
never practiced CA were only 55%, and 65%, respectively. No statistical
correlation was found within the sample between CA adoption and farmer
extension worker contacts, but a significant minority of those not involved in CA
had either never been visited or received only one visit a month.

Table 14: Frequency of Extension Worker visits

Practicing CA No longer practicing Never practiced CA
No of visits
Doesn't visit 0 0 6 30.0 3 15.0
Once a month 0 0 3 15.0 2 10.0
Twice a month 1 5.0 0 0 2 10.0
> Twice a month 19 95.0 11 55.0 13 65.0
Total 20 100 20 100 20 100

4.3.3. Conservation Agriculture Awareness
All the respondents save one said that they had heard of CA, and 100%, of those
practicing, 95% of those no longer practicing, and 75% of those who had never
practiced CA gave the extension workers from MoAFS as the source of that
awareness. The other sources of CA information mentioned by the interviewees
36

were fellow farmers, Non Governmental Organizations (NGO), the local
extension worker, radio and a private cotton company (Table 15).

Table 15: Sources of awareness about CA

Source Practicing CA No longer Never practiced CA
practicing

Fellow farmer 0 0 0 0 3 15.0
MoAFS extension 20 100.0 19 95.0 15 75.0
worker
NGO extension 1 5.0 0 0 0 0
worker
Radio 1 5.0 7 35.0
Private company 0 0 1 5.0 0 0

4.3.4. Farmer Training
All the farmers practicing CA, 85% of those no longer practicing and 40% of
those who had never practiced indicated to have been trained in CA (Table 16).

Table 16: Level of Farmer Training in CA

Response Practicing CA No longer practicing Never practiced CA


Attended CA training 20 100 17 85 8 40
Never Attended CA training 0 0 3 15 12 60
Total 20 100 20 100 20 100

A comparison was made between respondents practicing CA and those who had
never practiced CA using chi-square (X2) to test whether farmer trainings had any
bearing on CA adoption. The results showed significant different between the two
categories of respondents as the calculated X2 (20.80) was larger than the
tabulated one (3.84) at 95% confidence interval. No significant difference was
observed when X2 was used to test if training had any bearing on retention, when
farmers who were practicing CA and those who stopped were compared. This
suggests that, though farmer training is crucial in adoption of CA, other factors

37

come into play when a farmer is deciding whether to continue with the technology
in the subsequent years.

The training conducted mainly covered three areas, namely crop residue
management, weed management and nutrient management. In crop residue
management farmers were trained on how to lay the crop residues (Figure 6), the
benefits of retaining them in the field and the dangers of burning or removing crop
residues from the agricultural field. Weed management involved how light
weeding can be done so as to avoid excessive soil disturbance and it also
included weed control by using herbicides. Nutrient management encompassed
fertilizer application, organic manure making and application and planting of
nitrogen fixing agroforestry trees.

Figure 6: Farmers engaged in CA crop residue management

Ninety five percent of farmers practicing, and 75% and 35%, respectively, of
those no longer practicing and never practiced CA, mentioned that they had
received training in crop residue management. However, 55% of those practicing,
65% of those no longer practicing, and 15% of farmers who had never practiced
CA said they had been trained in weed management. The unexpectedly low
response from CA farmers may be due to the fact that they had to volunteer the
38

form of training rather than tick boxes. Nutrient management as a training topic in
CA was mentioned by 30% of the farmers practicing CA, while only 5% of no
longer practicing and never practicing CA mentioned it (Table 17). Only one
respondent indicated to have been trained in soil and water conservation, and
this involved the relatively new technique of digging trenches on contours
(commonly known as swales) for rainwater harvesting.

Table 17: Training topics in CA received

Topic Practicing CA No longer Practiced Never Practiced

Crop residue 19 95.0 15 75.0 7 35.0
management
Weed management 11 55.0 13 65.0 3 15.0

Soil and water 0 0 0 0 1 5.0
conservation
Nutrient management 6 30.0 1 5.0 1 5.0

4.4. Input Acquisition Method
Introducing a new technology in an area can sometimes be a challenging task as
it involves a change of mindset in the sense that farmers are encouraged to
abandon old ways of conducting their business. It also involves risk-taking
because farmers are asked to venture into an area they have no experience of.
Due the risks involved in switching from the old technology to a new one,
sometimes introduction of agriculture technologies comes with incentives in the
form of loans or grants. It was found out during the study that 50% of the
respondents in the category participating in CA got a grant, but among them were
those who managed to buy additional inputs out of their pockets, so that 75% of
respondents could claim to have acquired CA inputs using their own cash;. In
addition, 40% and 60% of those no longer practicing CA got their inputs through
their own cash and grants, respectively.

39

Table 18: Financial inputs for first inputs acquisition method (NB: number add up to more
than 100%)

Method Practicing CA No longer Practicing CA

Frequency % Frequency %
I bought with my own cash 15 75.0 8 40.0
Loan 1 5.0 0 0
Grant 10 50.0 12 60.0

To test whether there was any relation between method of input acquisition and
the farmer’s likelihood to retain CA practices or not X2 was used. The results
showed strong correlation, since calculated X2 (10.41) was greater than the
tabulated one (3.84) at 95% confidence interval. This supports the suggestion
that farmers who buy their own inputs when starting a new technology are likely
to continue than those who solely depend on grants. The reason for this could be
that farmers with the greatest investment put more effort into the management of
the crop and reap more benefits knowing that any reduction in yield would mean
personal loss.

4.5. Reasons for practicing CA
The reasons why farmers continued with CA were investigated, with respondents
giving more than one answer (Table 19). Overall, 45% indicating that their
continued involvement in this technology was because it helped in the
conservation of soil and water. The mulch that is spread on the soil surface helps
to reduce rainfall impact, thereby minimising splash erosion. It also enhances
infiltration and reduces runoff. Water conservation is also achieved through
reduced surface water evaporation as the mulch acts as a shield to sunlight. The
water conservation is very crucial to agriculture as Salima district is one of the
areas that receive low rainfall and experience high temperatures. Similarly, 60%
of the farmers gave soil fertility improvement as a reason for practicing CA. The
farmers explained that the crop residues that are left on the surface in the field
turn into manure after decomposition, and the inclusion of nitrogen-fixing
agroforestry species as intercrops also helps to improve soil fertility. The

40

commonest agroforestry shrub species were pigeon peas (Cajanus cajan) and
the fish(-poison) bean (Tephrosia vogelli - Figure 7).

Figure 7: Harvested CA plot with Tephrosia vogelli intercrop (Source: TLC, 2010)

Forty five percent of the farmers also explained that they were involved in the CA
technology because it was resulting in higher yields if compared to the
conventional methods. Low labour demand was another reason that 75% of the
respondents gave for their involvement. This is because tilling is minimised
during land preparation and the reduced labour helps farmers save time and to
carry out other farm operations, such as planting on time.

CA’s ability in reducing labour demands has been debated in some quarters.
Giller et al (2009) argue that the reduced work load can only be achieved in
cases where herbicides are used. The basis for this thinking is that not tilling the
soil and planting directly into the mulch may indeed reduce labour requirement for
land preparation, but increases weed pressure if herbicides are not used. Thus
the increased amount of labour required for weeding with CA may outweigh the
labour gained by not ploughing. Based on this thinking it may therefore be said
that the reduced labour demand observed by the respondents may not necessary
be attributed to CA alone, but to the use of herbicides as well.
41

Table 19: Reasons given for practicing CA

Reason Frequency %

soil and water conservation 9 45.0
Soil fertility improvement 12 60.0
Low cost 1 5.0
Low labour demanding 15 75.0
High yielding 9 45.0

4.7. Reasons for stopping practicing CA
It was important to try and identify the reasons why farmers had stopped CA
practices (Table 20). In contrast to those still practicing CA, 10% considered it to
be more labour demanding, as crop residues necessary for mulching the surface
had to be fetched from outside their farms, because their own surface mulching
material is often destroyed by fire or livestock. However, the majority (65%) of
those who had stopped practicing CA did so because they found it to be
expensive. When asked to identify the most expensive component of CA, all the
farmers in this category singled out inputs (especially herbicides) as the main
limiting factor. The same was also identified by 65% of respondents who were
still practicing CA. It is true that some people equate CA to use of herbicides,
because almost all the partners (NGOs, private sector and government) involved
in the promotion of CA include herbicides as part of CA package. However, it
remains to be proven whether these herbicide inputs are strictly necessary.
However, the financial aspect is important as 35% mentioned the stoppage of
grants a reason for no longer participating in CA. Some proponents of CA
(MoAFS inclusive) regard grants as an incentive for farmers' participation -
especially in the first year, and it is assumed that the farmers will be able to
continue on their own having seen its benefits. This is not always the case, as
some farmers are only interested in the free inputs rather than the technology,
and others took the grants as a prerequisite for their participation in CA. Farmers
dropping out of soil and water conservation programmes is not a new
phenomenon in most of the countries in the southern African region. A closer look
at success stories in adoption of some conservation technologies shows a strong
42

Factors affecting adoption of conservation agriculture in malawi

Factors affecting adoption of conservation agriculture in malawi

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (20)

Ähnlich wie Factors affecting adoption of conservation agriculture in malawi

Ähnlich wie Factors affecting adoption of conservation agriculture in malawi (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Factors affecting adoption of conservation agriculture in malawi