Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T13:13:11.917Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does closing knowledge gaps close yield gaps? On-farm conservation agriculture trials and adoption dynamics in three smallholder farming areas in Zimbabwe

Part of: AGS Millet Collection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 April 2016

S. CHEESMAN ,
J. A. ANDERSSON  and
E. FROSSARD
S. CHEESMAN*
Affiliation:
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), P.O. Box MP 163, Mount Pleasant, Harare, Zimbabwe Institute for Agricultural Sciences, Plant Nutrition, ETH Zurich, Eschikon 33, 8315 Lindau, Switzerland
J. A. ANDERSSON
Affiliation:
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), P.O. Box MP 163, Mount Pleasant, Harare, Zimbabwe
E. FROSSARD
Affiliation:
Institute for Agricultural Sciences, Plant Nutrition, ETH Zurich, Eschikon 33, 8315 Lindau, Switzerland
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

On-farm demonstration-trials are a common strategy to introduce new technologies to farmers, while simultaneously evaluating these technologies’ performance under farmer conditions. The current study focuses on conservation agriculture (CA) technology adoption dynamics among a small group of farmers who can be considered increasingly knowledgeable, as they have hosted CA demonstration-trials for at least 7 years. Management and performance of farmers’ fields were compared with the CA demonstration-trials implemented on the same farm, focusing on yield gaps (YGs) between the two and the uptake of CA or some of its principles. Comparisons were made between demonstration-trials and farmers’ fields in three distinct land classification areas: Madziwa Communal Area (est. 1910s), Chavakadzi (est. 1980s) and Hereford (est. 2000s) Resettlement Areas. It was found that closing knowledge gaps on CA did not close YGs and that CA adoption was partial. In the Communal Area, CA principles have barely been taken up, but farmer yields were often as good as on the demonstration-trials. In the Resettlement Areas, farmers did take up reduced tillage (CA principle 1) and practised rotations (CA principle 3), but not residue retention (CA principle 2). Rather than partial CA adoption, lower fertilization rates explained the recorded YGs in the Resettlement Areas. In the three areas, farmers’ interest in CA-based increasing of yields was limited, as circumstances drove them to embark on extensification rather than a land use intensification pathway.

Type
Crops and Soils Research Papers
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 155 , Issue 1 , January 2017 , pp. 81 - 100
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Allan, W. (1965). The African Husbandman. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd.Google Scholar
Andersson, J. A. & D'Souza, S. (2014). From adoption claims to understanding farmers and contexts: a literature review of Conservation Agriculture (CA) adoption among smallholder farmers in southern Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 187, 116–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersson, J. A. & Giller, K. E. (2012). On heretics and God's blanket salesmen: contested claims for conservation agriculture and the politics of its promotion in African smallholder farming. In Contested Agronomy: Agricultural Research in a Changing World (Eds Sumberg, J. & Thompson, J.), pp. 22–46. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Baudron, F., Andersson, J. A., Corbeels, M. & Giller, K. E. (2012). Failing to yield? Ploughs, conservation agriculture and the problem of agricultural intensification: an example from the Zambezi Valley, Zimbabwe. Journal of Development Studies 48, 393–412.Google Scholar
Bolding, J. A. (2003). Alvord and the demonstration concept: origins and consequences of the agricultural demonstrator scheme, 1920–1944. In Interventions in Smallholder Agriculture: Implications for Extension in Zimbabwe (Eds Bolding, J. A., Mutimba, J. & van der Zaag, P), pp. 35–83. Harare, Zimbabwe: University of Zimbabwe Publications.Google Scholar
Erenstein, O. (2003). Smallholder conservation farming in the tropics and sub-tropics: a guide to the development and dissemination of mulching with crop residues and cover crops. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 100, 17–37.Google Scholar
FAO (2002). Conservation Agriculture: Case Studies in Latin America and Africa. FAO Soils Bulletin 78. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
Floyd, B. N. (1962). Land apportionment in Southern Rhodesia. Geographical Review 52, 566–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, R. & Rockström, J. (2001). Conservation tillage for sustainable agriculture: an agrarian revolution gathers momentum in Africa. Soil & Tillage Research 61, 93–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fritsch, F. (2012). Nährstoffgehalte in Düngemitteln und im Erntegut: für die Düngeplanung; für Nährstoffvergleiche. Rheinhald-Pfalz, Germany: Staatliche Pflanzenberatung.Google Scholar
Giller, K. E., Witter, E., Corbeels, M. & Tittonell, P. (2009). Conservation agriculture and smallholder farming in Africa: the heretic's view. Field Crops Research 114, 23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IUSS Working Group WRB (2014). World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2014. International Soil Classification System for Naming Soils and Creating Legends for Soil Maps. World Soil Resources Reports No.106. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
Kassam, A., Friedrich, T., Shaxson, F. & Pretty, J. (2009). The spread of conservation agriculture: justification, sustainability and uptake. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 7, 292–320.Google Scholar
Lobell, D. B., Cassman, K. G. & Field, C. B. (2009). Crop yield gaps: their importance, magnitudes, and causes. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 34, 179–204.Google Scholar
Ngwira, A. R., Aune, J. B. & Thierfelder, C. (2014). On-farm evaluation of the effects of the principles and components of Conservation Agriculture on maize yield and weed biomass in Malawi. Experimental Agriculture 50, 591–610.Google Scholar
Oenema, O., Kros, H. & de Vries, W. (2003). Approaches and uncertainties in nutrient budgets: implications for nutrient management and environmental policies. European Journal of Agronomy 20, 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ojiem, J. O., de Ridder, N., Vanlauwe, B. & Giller, K. E. (2006). Socio-ecological niche: a conceptual framework for integration of legumes in smallholder farming systems. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 4, 79–93.Google Scholar
Palmer, R. (1977). Land and Racial Domination in Rhodesia. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Pittelkow, C. M., Liang, X., Linquist, B. A., van Groenigen, K. J., Lee, J., Lundy, M. E., van Gestel, N., Six, J., Venterea, R. T. & van Kessel, C. (2015). Productivity limits and potentials of the principles of conservation agriculture. Nature 517, 365–368.Google Scholar
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations, 5th edn. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Rufino, M. C., Rowe, E. C., Delve, R. J. & Giller, K. E. (2006). Nitrogen cycling efficiencies through resource-poor African crop-livestock systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 112, 261–282.Google Scholar
Rusinamhodzi, L. (2015). Tinkering on the periphery: labour burden not crop productivity increased under no-till planting basins on smallholder farms in Murehwa district, Zimbabwe. Field Crops Research 170, 66–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rusinamhodzi, L., Corbeels, M., van Wijk, M. T., Rufino, M. C., Nyamangara, J. & Giller, K. E. (2011). A meta-analysis of long-term effects of conservation agriculture on maize grain yield under rain-fed conditions. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 31, 657–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R. D. (1988). Tillage Trials in Zimbabwe 1957 to 1988: Report Commissioned for IAE/GTZ-Project ‘Conservation Tillage for Sustainable Crop Production Systems’. Harare, Zimbabwe: Institute of Agricultural Engineering (IAE), Hatcliffe.Google Scholar
Thierfelder, C. & Wall, P. C. (2012). Effects of conservation agriculture on soil quality and productivity in contrasting agro-ecological environments of Zimbabwe. Soil Use and Management 28, 209–220.Google Scholar
Thierfelder, C., Cheesman, S. & Rusinamhodzi, L. (2012). A comparative analysis of conservation agriculture systems: benefits and challenges of rotations and intercropping in Zimbabwe. Field Crops Research 137, 237–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thierfelder, C., Cheesman, S. & Rusinamhodzi, L. (2013 a). Benefits and challenges of crop rotations in maize-based conservation agriculture (CA) cropping systems of southern Africa. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 11, 108–124.Google Scholar
Thierfelder, C., Chisui, J. L., Gama, M., Cheesman, S., Jere, Z. D., Bunderson, W. T., Eash, N. S. & Rusinamhodzi, L. (2013 b). Maize-based conservation agriculture systems in Malawi: long-term trends in productivity. Field Crops Research 142, 47–57.Google Scholar
Thierfelder, C., Mwila, M. & Rusinamhodzi, L. (2013 c). Conservation agriculture in eastern and southern provinces of Zambia: long-term effects on soil quality and maize productivity. Soil & Tillage Research 126, 246–258.Google Scholar
Thierfelder, C., Rusinamhodzi, L., Ngwira, A. R., Mupangwa, W., Nyagumbo, I., Kassie, G. T. & Cairns, J. E. (2015 a). Conservation agriculture in Southern Africa: advances in knowledge. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 30, 328–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thierfelder, C., Matemba-Mutasa, R. & Rusinamhodzi, L. (2015 b). Yield response of maize (Zea mays L.) to conservation agriculture cropping system in Southern Africa. Soil & Tillage Research, Part B 146, 230–241.Google Scholar
Thierfelder, C., Mutenje, M., Mujeye, A. & Mupangwa, W. (2015 c). Where is the limit? Lessons learned from long-term conservation agriculture research in Zimuto Communal Area, Zimbabwe. Food Security 7, 15–31.Google Scholar
Valbuena, D., Erenstein, O., Homann-Kee Tui, S., Abdoulaye, T., Claessens, L., Duncan, A. J., Gérard, B., Rufino, M. C., Teufel, N., van Rooyen, A. & van Wijk, M. T. (2012). Conservation agriculture in mixed crop–livestock systems: scoping crop residue trade-offs in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Field Crops Research 132, 175–184.Google Scholar
Valbuena, D., Homann-Kee Tui, S., Erenstein, O., Teufel, N., Duncan, A. J., Abdoulaye, T., Swain, B., Mekonnen, K., Germaine, I. & Gérard, B. (2015). Identifying determinants, pressures and trade-offs of crop residue use in mixed smallholder farms in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Agricultural Systems 134, 107–118.Google Scholar
van Ittersum, M. K. & Cassman, K. G. (2013). Yield gap analysis - rationale, methods and applications - introduction to the special issue. Field Crops Research 143, 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Ittersum, M. K., Cassman, K. G., Grassini, P., Wolf, J., Tittonell, P. & Hochman, Z. (2013). Yield gap analysis with local to global relevance - a review. Field Crops Research 143, 4–17.Google Scholar
Vanlauwe, B., Wendt, J., Giller, K. E., Corbeels, M., Gerard, B. & Nolte, C. (2014). A fourth principle is required to define Conservation Agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa: the appropriate use of fertilizer to enhance crop productivity. Field Crops Research 155, 10–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wall, P. C. (2007). Tailoring conservation agriculture to the needs of small farmers in developing countries: An analysis of issues. Journal of Crop Improvement 19, 137–155.Google Scholar
Wall, P. C., Thierfelder, C., Ngwira, A. R., Govaerts, B., Nyagumbo, I. & Baudron, F. (2013). Conservation Agriculture in Eastern and Southern Africa. In Conservation Agriculture: Global Prospects and Challenges (Eds Jat, R. A., Sahrawat, K. L. & Kassam, A. H.), pp. 263–292. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing.Google Scholar
Zingore, S., Murwira, H. K., Delve, R. J. & Giller, K. E. (2007 a). Influence of nutrient management strategies on variability of soil fertility, crop yields and nutrient balances on smallholder farms in Zimbabwe. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 119, 112–126.Google Scholar
Zingore, S., Murwira, H. K., Delve, R. J. & Giller, K. E. (2007 b). Soil type, management history and current resource allocation: three dimensions regulating variability in crop productivity on African smallholder farms. Field Crops Research 101, 296–305.Google Scholar