CA-SFIP Maize Trust Presentation | Mahlathini Development Foundation

Optimising the Conservation Agriculture system for non-

commercial and semi-commercial smallholders 2013-2018

Grain-SA Smallholder farmer innovation programme

The Programme

Objectives, strategy, model, process, outcomes

Organisational capacity, beneficiaries

Areas and scale of operation

The CA-SFIP

Goals:

The long-term aims for this project are

to promote the use of CA;

•to increase farming production and

profitability,

•to improve the natural resource status

and quality allowing sustained crop

production / intensification and

•to promote systems for providing

appropriate value chain support.

Goals and Objectives

Objectives:

•OBJECTIVE 1; To engage in participatory research related

to the smallholder conservation agriculture farming

system; including aspects of soil health, water

conservation and increased productivity and diversity

using a learning systems approach

•OBJECTIVE 2; To increase the sustainability and

efficiency of CA systems in the study areas giving

specific attention to the value chain and incorporation

into the broader agribusiness environment.

•OBJECTIVE 3; To strengthen and use different innovation

platforms, as avenues to scale out sustained collective

action and CA practices.

Farmer-centred

Innovation

System

Awareness raising and

Access to Information

Incentives and

Market Based

Mechanisms

On-farm,

farmer-led

Research

Education

and Training

Farmers days,

symposiums, cross

visits, conferences,

popular articles

Subsidies, Village

Saving and Loan

Associations, farmer

centres, group based

access to equipment

and infrastructure

Farmer experimentation;

intercropping, crop

rotation, cover crops,

livestock integration.

Learning groups;

practical

demonstrations,

workshops, field

assessments

Stakeholder interaction,

partnerships, horizontal

and vertical scaling

The CA-SFIP; Programme strategy

The CA-SFIP; Model and Process

Continuous, cyclical

process; exit

possible after

~4years.

Most farmers opt

to continue with

experimentation

Every year they

build on previous

ideas and include

new ones

➢The only CA research process in SA focussing on smallholders –and the

only one that is showing success in adoption.

➢Academic, government, municipal recognition now starting (Land Care

(Best CSO implementation –limited financial support, conferences

(2ACCA, LaRSA, LandCare, No Till club, other stakeholders ( DARD, DSBD,

District and Local municipal farmer and LED forums and structures, DEA)

➢100% in line with the new CA policy (this model influenced the policy

development process)

oBuilding momentum in scaling out and up (more areas, small and larger

farmers)

oAchieving self sustaining food security status - over time –local value

chains. Increased farming and diversification in an area where less and less

farming is happening.

o550 smallholders implementing CA and 3 000 smallholder farmers involved

through learning groups and CA

oImpact on soil health and productivity now obvious –including increasing

yields (5 t/ha). Equivalent and even better than yields and soil health in the

commercial CA sector

oIncreased capacity: 4 post graduate studies in process (2PhDs’ -UKZN, 2

Masters- UWC, UP) that can be disrupted. One (agric economics Fort Hare

University and one Honours in CA completed

oOrganisational capacity- 5 dedicated field staff, numerous interns

The CA-SFIP; Position and outcomes

Longer term research

capacity development

is crucial for building

on this ground

breaking work

MDF organisational information

•-Board of trustees: Tim Houghton, Desiree Manicom,

Mazwi Dlamini

•-NPO (reg No 930051028); NPC (reg No

2016/285787/08). Tax exempt

•-Annual budget ~R4,5million

•-Auditing and financial accounting: RE Buhr and

associates (registered auditors)

•-Reporting: according to project/programme

directives; per deliverables –monthly bi-annually,

yearly, mid and end term report

Organogram

Beneficiary groupings

•Poverty in rural areas is high (South

Africa)

•Production is low, soils infertile, soil and

water erosion is high

•The largest beneficiary grouping are also

the poorest –and tend to be women

headed households who have limited

access to land, resources and traction

options –they farm by hand for the most

part

•Most appropriate technology: low

external sustainable agriculture (LEISA)

•5% : have slight chance of adopting &

sustaining high input maize systems.

Farmer Typologies

TYPOLOGY A: (2,5million) (72%); Primarily Female

headed, farm for food only, very low incomes –

mostly unemployed, access to small plots, no hh

level access to water, lower education levels and no

access to formal markets

Belong to VSLAs, engage in other livelihood

activities

TYPOLOGY B: (250 000) (23%) Male and female

headed, farm for food and sell surplus, slightly

higher incomes, some access to hh level water,

somewhat higher education levels and no access to

formal markets

Belong to VSLAs

TYPOLOGY C: (10 000) (5%) Primarily Male headed,

farm mainly for income, much higher incomes from

employment in hh, good access to water, higher

education levels and access to formal markets.

Belong to cooperatives or farm individually

Levels of income per household per month

-R1999

72%

R2000

-R4999

23%

>R5000

Bergville, 286

Midlands, 82

Southern KZN and

Eastern Cape, 80

CA study areas

Partners: KZNDARD, LandCare, LMs; Umshwati, Ubuhlebezwe, Okhahlamba,

DMs; Umgungundlovu, KwaNalu, StratAct, AWARD, Philakahle, Lima RDF,

Siyazisiza

19 villages,

16 VSLAs,

14 Local facilitators,

4 Farmer centres

2016-2017

Southern KZN

and EC- 108 (79)

4,0 ha trials

Results-CAstudy areas

2017-2018

KZN Midlands-

(75) 82

3,3ha trials

Bergville –

(350)286

15,2 ha-trials

2013-2014

Bergville-28,

EC-23

3,2 ha

3 areas,

13 villages,

5 VSLAs,

5 Local facilitators,

I mill, I thresher

3 areas,

9 villages

2 Local facilitators

Implementation

CA , farmer level experimentation, equipment, cover crops

Uptake and adoption, subsidies

Financial analysis

Conservation Agriculture (CA): three principles

▪Minimal soil disturbance

▪Diversified cropping

- Intercropping

-Mixed cropping

-Crop rotation

▪Permanent organic soil cover

-Inclusion of cover crops

-soil cover; residues, mulch

Farmer level experimentation

YEAR 1:

Predefined with the research team:

•Close spacing; intercropping, M,B,Cp; micro placement of fertilizer, liming, preplant spray of herbicide..

•Choice of planting method; hand hoes, hand planters, animal drawn planters

YEAR 2:

Choices and options within the same overall design:

•Different varieties maize (white yellow, OPV, hybrid)

•Different varieties and types of legumes

•Early planting

•Manure and fertilizer combinations

•Targeted fertility regimes and pest control measures

YEAR 3+:

Own design of experiments by participants :

•Intercropping vs crop rotation options

•Summer and winter cover crops

•Mulching

•Organic options

•Different herbicide and pesticide spray regimes

•Different planting times

•There are options for:

➢Hand planting: MBLIs’, Matracca and Haraka planters

➢Animal traction: Nogye rippers and Knapic planters

➢Tractor drawn planters: two row planters

Learning groups share equipment within and between

groups

Planting larger areas

Growing of CoverCrops

•Both summer (SCC) and winter cover (WCC) crop

mixes are grown

•SCC; are generally grown as a combination in

rotation with other crops- so in 10x10m plots in

the trials

•WCC-are generally relay-cropped into the rows

between maize once beans have been harvested

•E.g. 9 of 19 Bergville site villages experiment

(~80 participants)

•Progress:

▪Significant improvement in soil health in rotations

that include cover crops

▪Keeping of cover crop residues for feeding cattle-

both cut and carry and leaving the cover corps in the

field for grazing into winter

▪A few individuals –around 10 in total - have managed

to harvest and keep seed from the cover crops, both

for purposes of livestock feed (for sunflowers) and for

re-planting the following season.

For soil health and fodder

Winter cover crop mix: Saia oats, fodder rye, fodder radish

Sunflower seed harvested for poultry feed and re

planting

SCC –sunflower, millet and sunn hemp

planted together in one plot, in rotation

Sunflowers planted in rotation

Livestock grazing crop residue into winter

Adoption-comparing different models

Model/ approach

Level of Adoption

Researcher managed trials and demonstrations

1 week training, expecting smallholders to implement

–5%,

little impact

Learning groups, training on site, expect to implement

–35%

adoption, moderate impact

35%

Learning groups + experimentation + socio

economic context +

ongoing support

- >50% adoption with high levels of

awareness, understanding, capacity

-building and stronger

institutions

>50%

Uptake of CA

-New participants come on board every year

-There are drop off rates every year , but also recovery rates- as participants stop and

re-start their participation. Contributing factors are

▪Weather –2015 was a drought year and comparatively few participants planted

▪The introduction of the subsidy –here people withdrew not feeling able to pay, but later re-

joined realising that the subsidy amount was in fact manageable for them

-Overall the number of participants in CA are increasing steadily and the proportion

of participants who continue with CA after their first year is also increasing as

people start to trust the process more. This relates also to the good results those

participants who persevered for 3-4 years have been attaining

This talks to our brief of creating awareness and facilitating learning (capacity

building) around CA to increase adoption

The question we should consider is “how sustainable is this growth in adoption”

Participants are divided into 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th year experimenters

Bergville

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

EC,

SKZN

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

118

•All these participants are:

➢Implementing all three

principles of CA,

➢Involved in intercropping

➢Improving yields

➢Including CA into their

overall farming practices.

➢Saving money and

increasing food security

considerably

➢Involved in local VSLAs

(Village savings and loan

associations)

➢Using traditional seed

varieties alongside the

more modern OPVs,

hybrids and GM varieties

promoted.

Trends for 4th and 5th year participants

Sustainability

has been

achieved

2-3,5t/ha

Carbon

sequestered in

CA plots

Input subsidies

Reasoning for subsidy

•Participant farmers are expected to pay for their control

plots and after the first year of experimentation pay a

(33%) subsidy towards the input costs for their trial plots.

•The subsidy remains in place as long as the farmers

undertake experimentation.

•It is considered as an incentive for farmers to continue to

innovate and learn and also to do the ‘right’ thing in

terms of farming in a sustainable manner and

incorporating environmental concerns into their farming

practice.

Size of subsidy

•The subsidies have been set at this amount using the following

assumptions:

1. That the household of the smallholder farmer receives around

R2 000/ month income

2. That the smallholder farmer belongs to a VSLA (Village savings and

loan association) or has some other means of saving for inputs and

3. That the smallholder farmer saves a minimum of between R100-

R200/ month for agricultural production (this would include saving

for both their trial and control plots)

•This ensures that the subsidies are affordable to even the poorest

participants in the programme

The system is sustainable without the subsidy at the level of food security and local sales, but not

as a commercial operation-as that is presently understood

CA Farmer Led Trial summaries

Midlands

Bergville

EC, SKZN

Season

2017 2013

2014

2015 20162017

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

No of villages

639 11 1718 410 88 13

No of trial participants

42 288373212 259 23

43 5493

Area planted (trials)

-ha 1,36 2,87,2 5,913,517,4 0,4 0,30,41,23,6

Average yield maize (t/ha)

2,0 3,7 3,64,15,05,7

0,95

0,7 1,42,52,1

Min and max yield maize

(t/ha)

0,4-7,1 2-4,3 1-

6,7

0,6-7,4

0,3

11,7

0,5

12,2

0,3

1,7

0,3

1,8

0,5

4,4

1,1

5,2

0,2

6,7

Average yield beans (t/ha)

0,6 1,2 0,30,81,01,2 1,3 0,30,71,3

0,35

Trial summaries over5 seasons; Bergville, SKZN and EC

Average Maize price 2018:

•R2 500/ton

Average input costs: R10 000/ha

Break even yield: 4 t/ha

•Average yield:2-5,7t/ha

Average price sugar beans:

•R8 000/ton

Average yield 1,16 t/ha

Income potential

Yieldsvary across regions:

Yield ranges depend on

farmers’ practices, soil

quality and weather

conditions.

Ave for “good”

farmers; 7-8t/ha

Incomepotential:~ R8

000 / ha. This cannot

be considered a

commercial scale of

operation-but can

provide a good basis

for a diversified

livelihood

Size of fields

•Field sizes depend on a

number of factors

including:

•Size of area easily

cultivated by hand

•Cash for land preparation

and buying inputs

•Land available through

communal tenure system

Amount of production depends on yields, land size, resources, traction

Bergville

SKZN and EC

Midlands

Trial plots

Controls

Trial plots

Controls

Trial plots

Controls

0,1 and 0,04ha

0,13ha

0,01 and 0,04ha

0,053ha

0,04ha

0,052ha

Productivity and sustainability; a financial analysis

-Value to hh as food is 13x more than selling into the commercial value chain

-Diversity serves HH better; food, maize for livestock feed, fodder, beans

*Control yields estimated based on average of control yields/ha

1Value of maize meal has increased yearly; 2013- R6,85/kg, 2014-R7,80/kg, 2015 –R8,47/kg, 2016 –R10,50/kg, 2017 -R11,25/kg

2Local milling costs around R20/50kg, this has been subtracted from the amount

Bergville

Assume 5,7t/ha

Trial plots

Controls

Total Income

(Trials + Controls)

Input costs

Profits (Income

Input costs)

Plot sizes

0,1 and 0,04ha

0,13ha

Ave yields for trials 2015, 2016

(kg/household)

571kg

~500kg*

040

Value commercial (Assume

R2500/ton) (not inclusive of

transport)

R1 430

R1 250

R2 680

R2 040

R640

Value local

–selling as kernels

(R3/kg)

713

R1 500

R3 213

R2 040

173

Rand replacement value (value of

maize meal)

7462

R5 000

R10 746

R2 040

R8 706

Commercial/conventional

production

1ha

R14 250

R10 000

R4 250

Research results

Participatory monitoring

Environmental indicators; run-off, bulk density, soil health, water productivity

Impact indicators- systemic

Participatory Monitoring & Evaluation

•Social indicators:

•No of learning groups, VSLAs, farmer experiments,

involvement in open days, forums, cooperatives etc,

learning, knowledge, changes

•Economic indicators:

•Food security, livelihoods diversification, incomes, cost

of input supplies, cost-benefit analyses(qualitative)

•Production indicators:

•Yields, germination, growth, fertilizer and agrochemical

use, weed and pest incidence, crop diversification, soil

fertility

•Environmental indicators:

•Soil health indicators, organic matter, % carbon and

nitrogen, water holding capacity and water balances,

run-off

Social, economic, environmental, production

Farmer involvement: Contracts and baselines, production monitoring

forms, yield measurements, focus groups- review, learning, planning,

open days, reports

•CA helps to save money and improves yields

•CA reduces water erosion and run-off in the fields

•CA reduces wind damage to crops as maize is not blown over, as it is under

conventional tillage

•CA increases soil fertility and soil health

•CA increases soil moisture and makes the soil soft and more workable

(Thulani Dlamini, Bergville)

Run-off and waterinfiltration

Rainfall

records

Run

-off plots

litres

Date

Maize+

Beans

Maize

Maize+CP

Summer

Trial

ave

Control

Feb-

169

35,61

18,53

37,05

31,54

57,59

Mar-

114,7

7,5

1,52

8,9

7,7

6,04

23,32

Rainfall

records

Percentage rain converted

to runoff

Feb-

169

21%

11%

22%

21%

18,75%

34%

Mar-

114,7

5,75%

20%

•Bulk density of soil not related much to tillage practices (or how long the

plots have been under CA),

•Bulk density is slightlylower for SCC plots compared with other plots for

all three participants

•This generally indicates the high compaction as well as the high clay

content of soils in the Bergville area –but has not negatively impacted

crop growth under CA

Bulk Density

Village

Period

(yrs

)

Name

and

Surnam

Control

M+B

M+CP

SCC

Average

Ezibomvini

Phumelele

Hlongwane

,30

,38

,33

,38

,28

,34

Eqeleni

Ntombakhe

Zikode

,49

,37

,32

,38

Thamela

Mkhuliseni Zwane

,14

,08

,09

,07

,10

Average

bulk density

,27

Dum

azile

Nxus

Dum

azile

Nxus

Dum

azile

Nxus

Dum

azile

Nxus

Man

ene

Mkhi

Man

ene

Mkhi

Nom

usu

Shan

Nom

usu

Shan

Rita

Ngob

ese

Rita

Ngob

ese

Rita

Ngob

ese

Veld M+C

PM+B Cont

MM+B Cont

MVeldM+B Cont

Mayi

zeka

Mayi

zeka

Mayi

zeka

Mayi

zeka

Mayi

zeka

Mayi

zeka

Mayi

zeka

Mayi

zeka

Gobiz

embe

Gobiz

embe

Gobiz

embe

R value of Org N (R)R241 R213 R216R178 R201 R173 R203 R168 R291 R261 R153

N Immediate release (ppm)22 19 19 16 18 15 18 15 26 23 14

N Short term relsease (ppm)011 5 4 3 6 3 4 0 013

100

150

200

250

300

350

AvailabilityofOrganicNforthe

Swayimanesoilhealthsamples;2018

•Soil health scores for CA plots higher than

conventional plots; and those for M+CP intercrops

are higher than for M+B plots

•Microbial respiration, OrganicC and organic N

increases in the CA intercropped plots and are

highest for M+B intercropped plots

•Organic N is highest for CA M+B intercropped plots

•With savings of R30-R40 in inorganic N per ha over

conventional tillage ( 2nd year of implementation).

•This is a ~6-10% saving in input costs

Soil health example: Midlands

0.050.0100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0

Cont M

M+B

Veld

Cont M

M+B

M+CP

Veld

Gobizem

be Mayizekane

Gobizembe Mayizekane

Cont MM+BVeldCont MM+BM+CPVeld

Average of Organic N ppm

N11.810.411.6 8.99.9 13.2 9.6

Average of Organic C ppm

C174.0 152.0 213.0 139.7 137.0 151.0 158.0

Average of CO2 - C, ppm C22.4 41.7107.923.9 28.5 24.2 52.4

Average of Soil health

calculation (new)6.9 8.314.46.4 6.6 6.8 9.4

SoilHealthScoresSwayimane;

2018

•Three 5th year participants from Ezibomvini and Stulwane respectively

•% OM is highest for SCC plots, followed by M+CP and then M+B

•Carbon sequestration in these CA mixed crop plots is between 0,75-1,5t/ha

more than the single crop plots

•Overall carbon sequestration is on average around 2-3t/ha for CA plots

Soil health example: Bergville (5th year)

Cont

M+B LablabM+BM+CP MaizeSCCVeldBeans

only M+BM+CPSCCVeld CA Cont

Ezibomvini Stulwane

Total 2.9 3.2 3.6 4.5 3.6 5.3 5.8 5.6 4.9 6.0 6.1 7.5 5.0

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

%OM

%OrganicMatter;Bergville2018

•Intercropping and use of

cover crops is very

important for building soil

fertility and soil health

•Crop rotation aids in

stabilising high soil health

scores over time

•The more crops you use

and rotate the better

•Having legumes in the mix

speeds up the process

Soil Health Summary

Crop diversity is

crucial

Crop rotation in

combination with crop

diversity supports this

process

Lab-Lab and SCC

provide for very high

organic C and N

values

Lower C:N ratios are

found in crop mixes

that contain legumes –

cowpeas, Lab-Lab

Water productivity

•Water productivity for mono cropped maize is substantially improved in a crop rotation

system under CA (3-year rotation that includes legumes and a mix of cover crops)

•Water productivity for maize and bean intercrops (grain and biomass yield) is higher

than maize produced in a mono-crop under CA

•Water productivity for maize and cowpea intercrops (grain and biomass) is lower than

both maize produced in a mono-crop and maize and bean intercrops.

M-CA

trial

M _CA

Control

M+C-

CA Trial

M + B-

CA Trial

M-CA

Control

M + B-

CA Trial

M + B-

CA Trial

M+C-

CA Trial

PH PH PH PH NZ NZ NZ NZ

WP (kg/m3)21.82 35.26 31.74 44.05 10.39 11.49 13.258.59

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

45.00

50.00

Water Productivty (kg/m3)

WP -Maize (kg/m3)

PH -Phumelele Hlongwane

NZ- Ntombakhe Zikode

M=Maize, B=Beans, C=Cowpeas

M-CA

trial

M _CA

Control

M+C- CA

Trial

M + B-CA

Trial

M-CA

Control

M + B-CA

Trial

M + B-CA

Trial

M+C- CA

Trial

PH PH PH PH NZ NZ NZ NZ

Series1 87 43 64 83 34 21 19 17

100

Biomass kg/m3

Biomass WP -Maize (kg/m3)

PH - Phumelele Hlongwane

NZ- Ntombakhe Zikode

•5-6 years: Reduced need for herbicide -no spraying on trial

plots for 2 seasons

•Increased organic matter, reduced fertilizer requirements - No

basal fertilizer applied- only top dressing

•Reduced runoff

•Increased yields and diversity

Bergville: Case study

Phumelele Hlongwane- Ezibomvini

t/ha

2016/7

2017/8

Maize (Control)

-CA

7,8

9,7

Maize Trial CA

- combined

6,93

10,8

Beans

0,25

1,81

Sunflower

0,3

0,8

Social agency

2013 2018

Value chain

2013 2018

Productivity

2013

2018

No of female farmers

89% 83%

Saving for inputs

0% 28%

Intercropping

–maize

and beans

0% 92%

No of participants involved

51 533

Reduced labour in CA plots

0% 78%

Intercropping maize and

other legumes

0% 17%

Learning groups (No)

531

Reduced weeding in CA

plots

0% 39%

Crop rotation

0% 20%

Months of food provisioning:

-12

-9

-6

-3 100%

15%

38%

39%

Use of planters:

Hand hoes

Hand planters

Animal drawn planters

Tractor drawn planters

97%

26%

69%

0,5%

Covercrops; summer mix

–

sunflower, millet, sunn

hemp, sorghum

0% 26%

VSLAs (Village Saving and Loan

Associations)

% of participants

involved

0% 79%

Local financing of

infrastructure

Threshers

Mills

Covercrops; winter mix

relay cropping

–Saia

oats, fodder sorghum,

fodder radish

0% 31%

Sale of crops locally (maize,

beans, cowpeas, sunflowers)

0% 10%

Farmer centres

Fodder: provisioning of

livestock through cut and

carry

0% 5%

Innovation platforms; including

external stakeholders

Ave maize yield (t/ha)

3,7 5,7

Seed saving

0% 11%

Innovation systems indicators; KZN 2013-2018

Way Forward

•Continued focus on longer term research questions

•Fodder production and livestock integration

•Carbon footprints and sequestration

•Productivity

•Scaling for commercialisation

•Input supply partnerships

•Storage and marketing options appropriate for smallholders

•Develop a model for broader implementation and expansion; financial

incentives, collaborative project development with potential partners

•Build in a feasible exit strategy for farmers involved for >4years

•Expand into new areas

•Larger professional capacity development focus