Bergville Annual Progress Report 2017 | Mahlathini Development Foundation

APPENDIX3: BERGVILLEANNUAL

PROGRESS REPORT

CA FarmerInnovation Programme for

smallholders in Bergville

Period: October 2016 - September2017

Farmer Centred Innovation in Conservation Agriculture

in upper catchment areas of the Drakensberg in the

Bergville region of KwaZulu-Natal

Compiled by:

Erna Kruger and Hendrik Smith

September 2017

Project implemented by:

Mahlathini Development Foundation

Promoting collaborative, pro-poor agricultural innovation.

Contact:Erna Kruger (Founder and Coordinator)

Address: 2 Forresters Lane, Pietermaritzburg, 3201, KZN

Email: erna@mahlathiniorganics.co.za, info@mahlathini.org

www.mahlathini.org

Cell: 0828732289

Time of operation: 2003-2016

Legal status: NPC

BEE status: 4. – Certificate available.

In collaboration with:

Funded by:

3 
Contents 
Contents.................................................................................................................................................3
Identification of the project..................................................................................................................5
Description and selection of study areas.........................................................................................5
Approach and Methodology.................................................................................................................5
Key activities: October 2016-August 2017..........................................................................................6
Progress.............................................................................................................................................7
Results achieved to date.....................................................................................................................11
CA practice ............................................................................................................................................14
Year 1(1st level) trial outlines ........................................................................................................14
Year 2 (2nd level) trial outlines .......................................................................................................14
Year 3-7 (3rd level) trial outlines ....................................................................................................15
Possible agrochemical spraying regime options ...............................................................................15
Rainfall Data ..........................................................................................................................................16
Soil fertility and soil health  test results and analysis ...........................................................................18
Stulwane: Soil fertility status ............................................................................................................23
Mtholeni Dlamini (Stulwane) ........................................................................................................26
Phumelele Hlongwane ..................................................................................................................28
Eqeleni ...........................................................................................................................................36
Liming trials.......................................................................................................................................38
Yields for CA trial and control plots ......................................................................................................39
Bean production...................................................................................................................................42
Maize production ..................................................................................................................................45
Cover crops ...........................................................................................................................................46
Farmer Centres.....................................................................................................................................52
Ezibomvini Farmer Centre ................................................................................................................52
Mhlwazini  Farmer Centre ................................................................................................................55
Socio-economic situation of participant smallholder farmers .............................................................55
Socio economic data.........................................................................................................................55
Learning and implementation of CA practices..................................................................................57
Learning workshops ..............................................................................................................................61
Implementation per area ......................................................................................................................61
Ezibomvini .........................................................................................................................................61

Emabunzini ........................................................................................................................................66

Ndunwana .........................................................................................................................................66

Stakeholder engagement ......................................................................................................................68

Building of Social platforms ..............................................................................................................70

General comments and suggestions on the experimentation .............................................................71

Attachment 1: Multi-stakeholder Forum; Mahlathini Development Foundation. ...............................74

Attachment 2: farmers’ day programme..............................................................................................75

Attachment 3: Social Compact Agreement. ..........................................................................................77

Identification of the project

Description and selection of study areas

Work in the Bergville (KwaZulu-Natal) site continued with the scaling out (horizontal expansion)

process that has been put in place, to include more villages around central nodes and more

farmers within each village. In this way villages included expanded from 11 to 17 and the

numbers of farmer participants in farmer level trials have increased from 163 in the 2014-2015

season to 263 this season. The overall area for trials has increased from 5,9ha to 13ha.

Approach and Methodology

The farmer centred innovation systems research process underpinning the programme, which is

based on working intensively with farmer learning groups and local facilitators in each of the villages,

has been continued and strengthened.

Within the learning groups farmer innovators volunteer to set up and manage farmer-managed

adaptive trials as the ‘learning venues’ for the whole learning group. Farmer Field School

methodologies are used within the group to focus the learning on the actual growth and

development of the crops throughout the season. New ideas are tested against the ‘normal’ practise

in the area as the controls. Farmers observe, analyse and assess what is happening in the trials and

discuss appropriate decisions and management practices. Small information provision and

discovery-learning (training) sessions are included in these workshops/ processes. These are based

also on the seasonality of the crop and the specific requests and questions from farmer learning

group participants.

Local facilitators are chosen from within and by members of the learning group to be a person who

has the required experience, knowledge and a willingness to support the other farmer innovators in

their implementation. Facilitators are only chosen and appointed where people with the appropriate

skill and personality exists. Local facilitators receive a stipend for a maximum of 10 working days per

month, for their support to the farmer innovators. They fill in detailed timesheets outlining their

activities against which they claim a monthly stipend.

Learning group members agree to a season long learning process and put forward the farmer

innovators to run the trials. Each prospective innovator is interviewed and visited and signs an

agreement with the Grain SA team regarding their contribution to the process. They undertake to

plant and manage the CA trials according to the processes and protocols introduced as well as a

control plot of the same size. For the latter, farmers provide their own inputs.

The adaptive trials are also used as a focus point for the broader community to engage through

local learning events and farmers’ days. Stakeholders and the broader economic, agricultural

and environmental communities are drawn into these processes and events. Through these

events, Innovation Platforms (IPs) are developed for cooperation, synergy between programmes

and development of appropriate and farmer-led processes for economic inclusion. These IPs

also provide a good opportunity to focus scientific and academic research on the ‘needs’ of the

process.

As learning groups mature they engage in a number of additional processes within the value

chain that build social capital and cohesion. VSLAs (Village savings and loan associations) are

set up to provide a mechanism for payment for inputs and for setting up bulk buying groups for

production inputs. Farmer centres are set up and managed locally (at village and nodal level) to

provide for local access to inputs through negotiated agreements with local suppliers and

agribusiness, management of shared tools and advice and mentoring in CA. Learning group

members also negotiate joint decisions around their crop production planning and marketing

and engage with stakeholders and support organisations. To support this process a social

compact agreement has been designed to outline roles and responsibilities of the various role

players in these forums.

In this season (2016-2017) we have continued to focus on the following elements of the model,

namely:

a) Support farmers who are in their 1st, 2nd , 3rd and 4th seasons,

b) Conscious inclusion of crop rotation to compare with inter cropping trials

c) Inclusion of summer cover crops in the crop rotation trials

d) Continuation with experimentation with winter cover crops, but planted in separate

plots rather than in-between maize

e) Planting of late season beans

f) More focussed introduction of lab-lab beans and

g) Initiation of nodes for farmer centres that can offer tools, input packs and advice.

Key activities: October 2016-August 2017

This report builds on, but does not repeat information presented in the 6monthly interim report in

February 2017.

For the 1st year of the 2ndphase of this CA Smallholder Farmer Innovation Programme (SFIP)

we have given attention to broadening the organisational scope and areas of operation of the

programme. A proposal was submitted to the LandCare programme of DARD in KZN and a

collaborative process was agreed to. Expansion into further villages in the Bergville areas was

initiated.

Researcher-managed trial plots were set up in Ezibomvini and Eqeleni to work on quantitative

benchmarking of some of the visual CA indicators being used in this process. This process is

designed to augment the new monitoring system being put in place.

The table below outlines the key activities and deliverables planned for the period. Expenditure has

been in line with the work plan. An initial over expenditure on inputs has been accommodated for in

the subsequent months. Partial recovery of over-expenditure on inputs (R98 196) was received from

smallholder participants paying input subsidies (R18 900). Subsequent savings were made in running

expenditures. Presently an amount of R83 475 remains for implementation in the last three months

of this project, which is sufficient for outstanding activities

TABLE1:KEY ACTIVITIES,OUTPUTS AND DELIVERABLEOCTOBER 2016-SEPTEMBER2017; PLANNED AND

ACTUAL.

Bergville, KZN Milestones: Farmer Centred Innovation in CA. October 2016- September

2017

Milestones/

Outputs

Key activities

OUTCOMES/

DELIVERABLES

Actual

expenditure

Aug 2017

Budgets

Capital Equipment

R10 410

R18 650

Farmer

experimentation

EC and SKZN

Documentation and

M&E

Meeting and monthly

reports

R89 786

R90 000

Experimentation

List of participants,

interviews and

contracts, awareness

and training

R 404 454

R 481 400

Innovation Platforms

Stakeholder meetings,

platform building and

events

R16 926

R15 000

Budget expenditure end June 2017

R 521 576

R605 050

Remainder

R83 475

Sub - TOTAL: Oct2016-Sept2017

R 605 050

Finances from your side Hendrik

Progress

This year has seen a great upsurge in new participants and the project expanded into 6 new

villages. The project is now operational across 17 villages in the Bergville area, with a total of 263

learning groupparticipants and 212farmer based trials.The map below shows the spread and

distribution of the villages involved.

A further map indicates the spread of villages in the Central Bergville region indicated above. This

gives some indication of the three clusters or nodes of villages that are presently involved; 5

villages around Ezibomvini (Stulwane, Magangangozi, Thunzini, Eqeleni and Vimbukhalo), 2

villages around Ndunwana(Thamela and Mhlwazini) and one village close to Ngoba

(Emabunzini). These three nodes are being explored for the farmer centres.

The basic experimental design was followedfor all 1st year participants and most of the 2nd year

participants as well. Variations have included crop rotation instead of intercropping, summer and

winter cover crop mixes, planting of lab-lab beans and late season planting of beans.

The table below outlines activities related to objectives and key indicators for the period of

October 2016 -September 2017.

TABLE 2:SUMMARY OFPROGRESS (OCTOBER2016–SEPTEBMER 2017)RELATEDTO OBJECTIVES

AND KEY ACTIVITIES

Objectives

Key activities

Summary of progress

% completion and

comment

1. Document

lessons

learned

Documentation for

learning and

awareness raising

- Finalisation of CA manual

(Eng and Zulu)

- Soil health symposium–

presentation and

participation (Nov 2016)

- Finalised PID report and

progress reports for CA

SFIP- on MDF website

- Sharing of information

through innovation

platforms processes;-

Participation in Ezibomvini

and Mhlwazinifarmers’ days

- Stakeholder engagements

with DRDLR, DARD,

Okahlamba LM, NGOs

- Articles and promotional

material

- 100 copies of E and Z

manuals printed. A further

print run expected. (50%

complete)

- 100 copies of group and

individual savings books

printed and in use. A further

print run of 300 copies done

in January 2017 (100%

complete)

-Innovation platforms

(100% completion) -

ongoing

- Grain SA DVD promotional

DVD produced and viewed

at farmers days (100%

completion)

Final report

- 6 monthly interim reports

and final progress report

- Interim report finalised.

Final report at finalised

(100% completion)

2. Increase

the

sustainability

and efficiency

of CA systems

1st level

experimentation:

farmers se their own

practice as a control –

size 400m² ha exp,

400m² control,

Control.9 villages, 45

farmers

- 9 villages, 115 farmers

- 100%. Basic CA design-

intercropping with maize

beans and cowpeas on a

100m2- 400m2 plot, with a

control plot managed

entirely by the participant.

Adaptation trials included

late season planting of

beans with a mixture of

winter and summer cover

crops.

2nd level

experimentation: 24

- 10 villages, 55 farmers

- 100%. Adaptation trials

included late season

existing farmers use

their own practice as a

control – size: size

400m² ha exp, 400m²

8 villages, 59 farmers

planting of beans with a

mixture of winter and

summer cover crops. Most

participants opted to

continue with intercropping

practice from their 1st year.

3rd level and 4th level

experimentation; own

contribution, larger

plots, own ideas (2

villages, 7 farmers in

total)

- 6 villages, 27 farmers

- 100%. Larger level

plantings using oxen drawn

planters and including

cover crops. Intercropping

still practised. Awa crop

rotation and summer and

winter cover crops.

Develop and manage

PM&E framework; –

weekly and monthly

M&E visits

-M&E forms redesigned and

used

- Digital monitoring system

piloted

-100%. Monitoring

completed for 138

participants across all 17

villages, including yield

measurements for maize,

beans and cc’s

Facilitation of

innovation platforms

-Co- facilitation of

information sharing and

action planning with

stakeholders and role

players

- 100%. Farmers days

CA working group,

and reference group

- Attended and presented in

Feb and Sept 2017

- 100%

Sharing of information

using a range of

innovation platforms

- Presentation at LandCare

conference end 2016

- 100% -Stakeholder

interaction- DRDLR, DARD,

Okahlamba LM, NGOs

A performance dashboard is indicated below. This provides a snapshot of performance according

to suggested numbers and outputs in the proposal.

TABLE3:PERFORMANCE DASHBOARD;SEPTEMBER2017

Outputs

Proposed (March 2016)

Actual (September

2017)

Number of areas of operation

Number of villages active

No of 1st level farmer experiments

115

No of 2nd level farmer experiments

No of 3rd level experiments

No of 4th level experiments

No of local facilitators

No of direct beneficiaries

149

212

Participatory monitoring and

evaluation process (farmer level)

Yes

CA manual (English and Zulu)

Yes

CA manual English – yes

CA manual Zulu-yes

Results achieved to date

The framework for scaling out implementation included: Continuation with existing farmer

experimentation options for 1st, 2nd and 3rd level participants. This includes intercropping, crop

rotation, late season planting of beans and combinations of summer and winter cover crop

mixes. 4th Year participants design their own implementation processes and provide a

mentoring role for newer entrants into the CA process

Cover crops, both a mix of SCC’s (sunflower, millet and sun hemp) as well as a late season relay

cropping of a mix of SCC and WCC (saia oats, fodder peas and fodder radish) were planted by 38

and 55 participants respectively across 5 villages. For the SCC’s a number of participants have

managed to collect some seed, mostly for the sunflowers that participants want to use as

poultry feed.

Six (6) new villages were included, based on their interest in CA. Thus around 212 farmer

experiments were set up across 17 villages around Bergville. 2 Farmer centres were initiated in

Ezibmovini and Ndunwane respectively. The farmer centre in Ezibomvini is functioning very

well and will continue. The centre in Ndunwane did not do very well.

A total of 8 VSLAs have been initiated and supported specifically for the purposes of saving for

inputs for field crop production (Ezibomvini, Eqeleni, Nudnwane and Emabunzini). See the table

below. An improved record keeping process has been designed and record keepers in each of

the VSLAs have received training and mentoring. This has allowed for accurate recording of

group savings and loans and an indication of use of these funds by the individuals in the groups

TABLE4:SCGS OPERATIONAL IN THEBERGVILLE AREAS,WITH NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS AND

YEARS OF OPERATION

SCG NAME

NUMBER

AREA

VILAGE

YEAR

Masithuthuke

Bergville

Qeleni

4th year

Masibambane

Bergville

Qeleni

4th year

Mtwana

Bergville

Stulwane

3rd year

Ezibomvini

Bergville

Ezibomvini

2nd year

Ukuzama

Bergville

Ezibomvini

2nd year

Mphelandaba

Bergville

Ndunwane

1ST year

Sceluthando

Bergville

Mhlathuza

1st year

Siyaphambili

Bergville

Ndunwane

1st year

Sakhokuhle

Bergville

Emabunzini

1st year

Two very successful farmers days were held in Ezibomvini and Mhlwazini respectively. Interest

in this process is growing and many external role-players and stakeholders participated actively

in these processes. Further involvement with stakeholders has been pursued with the DRDLR

DARD, the Okahlamba LM – LED section and LandCare to ensure coherence and work on

collaborative implementation processes. Discussions with DEA are in progress around a

payment for ecosystem services model appropriate for smallholders.

TABLE5:ACTIVITIES ANDNUMBERS OF FARMERS INVOLVED, PER VILLAGE FOROCTOBER2016-

SEPTEMBER2017.

BERGVILLE

Year started with CA

COMMENTS

Villages

2013

2014

2015

2016

Total

Emabunzini

10 (8)

Intercropping with

hand hoes and MBLI

planters; Maize,

beans, cowpeas

Emangweni-

Engodini

12 (14)

7(2)

19 (16)

1st and 2nd level

experimentation;

intercropping

Emangweni-

Emaqeleni

(5)

1st level

experimentation;

intercropping

Eqeleni

9 (5)

13(3)

7(4)

(1)

29 (13)

1st, 2nd and 3rd level

experimentation;

MBLI’s hand hoes

and animal drawn

planters;

intercropping crop

rotation summer and

winter cover crops,

late season beans

Ezimbovini

1 (6)

8 (4)

(10)

19 (20)

1st, 2nd and 3rd level

experimentation;

MBLI’s hand hoes

and animal drawn

planters;

intercropping crop

rotation summer and

winter cover crops,

late season beans

Magangangozi

10(7)

11(7)

1st and 2nd level

experimentation;

intercropping

Mhlwazini

17(5)

12(13)

29(18)

1st, 2nd and 3rd level

experimentation;

MBLI’s hand hoes,

intercropping crop

rotation summer and

winter cover crops,

late season beans

Ngoba

6(6)

4(5)

10(11)

1st, 2nd and 3rd level

experimentation;

MBLI’s hand hoes

and animal drawn

planters;

intercropping crop

rotation summer and

winter cover crops,

late season beans

Nsuka-

Zwelisha

11(12)

Intercropping with

hand hoes and MBLI

planters; Maize,

beans, cowpeas

Okhombe

6(3)

17(3)

1st and 2nd level

experimentation;

intercropping

Potshini

1(1)

3rd level

experimentation

Stulwane

7(7)

14(4)

3(2)

(2)

24(15)

1st, 2nd and 3rd level

experimentation;

MBLI’s hand hoes

and animal drawn

planters;

intercropping crop

rotation summer and

winter cover crops,

late season beans

Thamela

11(12)

Intercropping with

hand hoes and MBLI

planters; Maize,

beans, cowpeas

Thunzini

20(24)

Intercropping with

hand hoes and MBLI

planters; Maize,

beans, cowpeas

Vimbukhalo

(7)

7(5)

12(12)

19(23)

1st and 2nd level

experimentation;

intercropping

Ndunwana

14(15)

9(0)

23(15)

1st and 2nd level

experimentation;

intercropping

Emazimbeni

10(10)

Intercropping with

hand hoes and MBLI

planters; Maize,

beans, cowpeas

Grand Total

19(12)

59(27)

81(55)

106(115)

263(212)

~13-14 ha

Of these 263 participants, across 17 villages that registered for participation in the beginning of

the season, 212 (80%) farmers planted their trials. The beginning of the season was still quite

dry and a few farmers opted not to plant or left planting too late. In some of the villages, cattle

were not sent into the mountains for summer grazing- as is the general procedure, due to a lack

of grazing caused by the severe drought of the previous season. Cattle invasion of fields was

thus a big issue and some participants opted not to plant because of that. Others did not come

forward with the required subsidy payments and then opted not to plant.

Although the payment of subsidies is a comparatively small amount (R150 for 400m2 and R320

for 1000m2), the issue for some participants was that they were also paying the subsidy

amounts for the GrainSA Farmer Support Programme and for the DARD, both of which amount

to around R1,100 each for inputs for 1ha. 60% of participants who started between 2013-2015

have continued with the CA experimentation process. The arrangement is that the 1st season

participants, those from 2016 on this list, do not pay the subsidy.

The two GrainSA programmes and the DARD are in communication with each other to ensure as

much coherence as possible across programmes. CA is being introduced in all three processes to

a greater or lesser extent. Participants are encouraged to participate across these programmes

to be able to glean the benefit from them. The GrainSA SFIP focusses on learning and

experimentation with different aspects of CA within the maize value chain while the GrainSA

FSP and DARD focus on commercialisation options. Some support for inputs is provided in all

three processes.

VSLAs (Village saving and loans associations) are being promoted to enable cash flow and

affordability of inputs. These are present in 9 of the 17 participant villages, with 3 new villages

having been brought on board in this past year.

CA practice

Going into the 4th year, the farmer experimentation protocols for each level of farmer

participants has been more clearly defined, given that those farmers with more experience can

now incorporate some of their own learnings and preferences in the trials, but the 1st level trial

participants still need to get used to the overall CA planting process and thus the close spacing

intercropping trial plots are ‘prescribed’ for them.

The protocols are outlined below:

Year 1(1st level) trial outlines

Experimental design is pre-defined by the research team (based on previous implementation in

the area in an action research process with smallholders). It includes a number of different

aspects:

-Intercropping of maize, beans and cowpeas

-Introduction of OPV and hybrid varieties for comparison (1 variety of maize and beans

respectively)

-Close spacing (based on Argentinean model)

-Mixture of basin and row planting models

-Use of no till planters (hand held and animal drawn)

-Use of micro-dosing of fertilizers based on a generic recommendation from local soil

samples

-Herbicides sprayed before and/or at planting

-Decis Forte used at planting and top dressing stage for cutworm and stalk borer

-Planting of cover crops; winter mix in Autumn

-Experimental design includes 2 treatments; planter type (2) and intercrop (2)

Year 2 (2nd level) trial outlines

Based on evaluation of experiment progress for year 1, this includes the addition of options that

farmers choose from. Farmers also take on spraying and plot layout themselves:

-A number of different OPV and hybrid varieties for maize

-A number of different options for legumes (including summer cover crops)

-Planting method of choice

-Comparison of single crop and inter cropping planting methods

-Use of specific soil sample results for fertilizer recommendations

-Early planting and Own choices.

Year 3-7 (3rd level) trial outlines

Based on evaluation of the experimentation process to date this protocol includes issues of cost

benefit analysis, bulk buying for input supply, joint actions around storage, processing and

marketing. Farmers design their experiments for themselves to include some of the following

potential focus areas:

-Early planting; with options to deal with more weeds and increased stalk borer

pressure.

-Herbicide mix to be used pre and at planting (Round up, Dual Gold ,Gramoxone)

-A pest control programme to include dealing with CMR beetles

-Intercropping vs crop rotation options

-Spacing in single block plantings

-Use of composted manure for mulching and soil improvement in combination with

fertilizer, or singly.

-Soil sample results and specific fertilizer recommendations

-Planting of dolichos and other climbing beans

-Summer and winter cover crops; crop mixes, planting dates, management systems,

planting methods (furrows vs scatter)

-Seed varieties; conscious decisions around OPVs, hybrids and GM seeds

-Cost benefit analysis of chosen options and

-Farmer level monitoring of trials for selected individuals.

Possible agrochemical spraying regime options

1 Round-up 2 weeks before planting- if there has been some rain. Dual Gold at planting (just

after with Decis Forte/Kemprin)

2. Gramoxone at planting (just before or after planting) with or without Dual Gold and Decis

Forte/Kemprin–Inactivated on contact with soil. Dual Gold does not work on dry soil (Followed

by heavy rain)

From the outcomes of 2014-2105 season it has been decided to revert back to the use of a pre-

emergence herbicide as many participants had trouble with nut-grass and couch grass. The

spraying of Gramaxone at planting did not provide the same level of weed control as Roundup,

but has still been included as an option given the dry conditions and the limited efficacy of

Roundup and Dual Gold under these circumstances.

Rainfall Data

Rainfall data this year was collected by community based volunteers from 5 different villages. In

previous years we have relied on data from nearby weather stations, but this season we wanted

to engage the farmers more directly in this process and also see whether there are large

differences in rainfall between the villages as the farmers have always suggested.

TABLE5:SUMMARIES OF RAINFALL DATA COLLECTED BYFARMER PARTICIPANTS IN DIFFERENT

VILLAGES AROUNDBERGVILLE.

Ezibomvini

Eqeleni

Ndunwana

Okhombe

Emangweni

Average

Cumulative

rainfall (mm)

562.5

301.4

429.3

814

32.7

526,8

Mean (mm) per

rainfall event

2.29

1.40

2.71

3.43

1.17

Max (mm) per

rainfall event

20.1

Note:The data from the Emangweni participant is unreliable, given too few readings taken by her and was

not included in the averages provided

In general, the average annual rainfall for the Drakensberg region ranges between 750mm-

1350mm. The actual amount of rainfall has not been seen to vary over time that much (besides a

potential 20year periodicity), even for long term studies over 50years, but the monthly

variability has been increasing reasonably dramatically

The rainfall data collected by farmer participants reflect the difference in rainfall in the

Drakensberg region- mostly related to altitude, with those villages at a higher altitude closer to

the mountains receiving more rain. The differences in the above table between the mean

precipitation per rainfall event and the maximum also points strongly towards this kind of

variability, with Okhombe being the highest altitude village in this series and Eqeleni being the

lowest. It also points towards the high variability of rainfall between villages which participants

experience. Eqeleni and Ezibomvini for example are neighbouring villages and should receive

comparable amounts of rainfall.

From the participants’ recordings, it can be seen that this year also was a below average rainfall

year.

Nel, W. 2009 Rainfall trends in the KwaZulu-Natal Drakensberg region of South Africa during the

twentieth century. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLIMATOLOGY Int. J. Climatol. 29: 1634–1641 (2009)

Published online 12 December 2008 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI:

10.1002/joc.1814

This graphs below are based on information from Ezibomvini. The first graph depicts daily

rainfall and gives an indication of the rainfall distribution throughout the season. Together with

the monthly averages in the second graph, this gives a clear indication of how rainfall spread

across the season.

It can be seen that the season started quite late with very little rain before November. It then

continued to rain reasonably regularly right through until the end of February and then rain

stopped abruptly in the middle of March for about 3 weeks. The upshot of this trend is that the

beginning of the season was very dry which affected germination of crops. The usual ‘dry spell’

between January and February did not materialise, which led to a substantial reduction in beans

yields and the abrupt nature of the end of season rainfall led to difficulty in the cover crops’

growth – It also meant that cattle were allowed back into the villages two weeks earlier than

normal due to lack of grazing in the mountains.

Figure 2: Monthly rainfall as recorded by farmer participants in Ezibomvini

100

120

140

Rainfall (mm)

Time (months)

MonthlyRainfall in Ezibomvini 2016-2017

Monthly Rainfall

-10

Precipitation (mm)

Time (days)

Rainfall distribution in Ezibomvini 2016-2017

Rainfall

2 per. Mov. Avg. (Rainfall)

Figure 1: Rainfall data recorded by farmer participants in Ezibomvini

Soil fertility and soil health test results and analysis

Soil samples were taken for a number of new participants to continue building on the information in the database. This information is important,

both to ensure an appropriate sol fertility amendment recommendation for the trials (both generic and specific for individualsupon request) and

also to be able to compare over time whether and how the soil fertility changes for the CA trials.

Repeat soil samples were taken for 16 participants across Eqeleni, Ezibomvini and Stulwane who have been active in CA trials for 3 years (see

Figure 3 below). These were analysed at Cedara for the normal soil fertility parameters. Percentage organic carbon and nitrogen are determined by

Cedara using Mid infrared spectroscopy and are recorded as percentages. Generally the percentage change organic carbon and nitrogen in the soil

followed the same trend for each of the participants, although the values varies. For example, if the trial showed a positive trend in organic carbon,

so did the control.

Hlatsh

wayo

(T )

Dlami

ni (T )

Hlong

wane

(T )

Zikode

(T )

Zikode

( T )

Ntomb

akhe

Zikode

(T )

Ntomb

Zikode

(T )

Tholw

ephi

Mabas

o (T )

Noma

vila

Ndaba

(T )

Nkabi

nde (

C )

Hlong

wane (

C )

Ndaba

( C )

Hlong

wane

(T )

Hlong

wane(

T )

Dladla

(T )

Stheb

e (T )

% Change in organic C-45 60 57,1429 5050 -31,25 -42,857-18,182-18,18240 -10 42,3077-31,81811,42868,69565-24,138

%Change in Organic N-68,966 -500-6,25-15 -63,636 -55-35-4053,8462-82,353-3,8462-31,5790-11,765-60,87

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

Perecntage change

Percentage change in soil organic carbon and nitrogen content for trial

plots between 2014-2016; Eqeleni, Ezibomvini and Stulwane

Figure 3: Percentage change in some of the soil fertility parameters, over time, for a selection of participants; 2014-2016

Comments:

-The average percentage organic carbon available in soils for these 16 participants increased from 1,93%to 2% over the three year period.

There is no difference in the increase in percentage organic carbon for the trial and control plots.

-Nitrogen availability, similarly has been the same for both control and trial plots at an average percentage of 0,13% – 130kg/ha. The average

percentage N decreased from 0,19% to 0,13% over the three year period.

-Average percentage increase in percentage organic carbon for the trial plots has been 6,3% over the three year period. This is an average

increase of around 6,3 tons/ha of carbon (assuming a bulk density of around 1g/cm3 for the samples)

-The average percentage increase over the same period for control plots has been 9,4%.

-Overall, on average, therefor the organic carbon accumulation for the CA plots has been lower than that of the control plots.

-But for 56% of these participants the organic carbon has increased- and this at an average of 34,6% or 34,6 tons/ha. For 7 of these

participants (thus 78%) the organic carbon on their trial plots has increased more than that of their control plots.

-Thus, in summary, the practice of CA is increasing the percentage organic carbon in the participants’ soils. It is possible that participants

provide more nitrogen in their CA plots, as topdressing is not a common practice in the control plots (even in those control plots where some

of the CA principles are being incorporated). This could lead to a difference in the C:N ratios in the CA and control plots, And could lead to

greater rates of processing of the organic carbon in CA plots, with bacterial activity stimulated through the presence of more N. This

supposition is given some weight by looking at soil health test results, where the C:N ratios are generally higher for the CA plots.

-An aspect that has been noted is that control plots for participants are adapted to more closely resemble the CA plots given that they have

noticed increases in growth and yield in the CA plots. This makes comparisons of control and CA plots a rather tricky process. It means that

data then needs to be compared over time within the same system.

-In addition, in the smallholder system of grazing of residues by cattle, no dramatic increases in soil carbon can be expected.

As for most the analyses related to smallholder farmers the variability in results due to differences in farmer practices and also weather related

variability in dryland conditions, provides for highly variable results that can be quite confusing. It can therefore be considered a positive step that

the CA system, on average, provides for an increase in organic carbon in the soil and also that this increase is at a rate of around 34tons/ha over

three years.

The small decrease in percentage nitrogen available can be interpreted in a number ways. One aspect of this process can be that the Nitrogen applied

and available in the system is being more fully utilized for plant growth – or it can point towards the increased volatilization of nitrogen in the drier

and hotter conditions that have prevailed in the last three years.

Figure 4: Percentage change in nutrient requirements; 2014-2016

-150,00

-100,00

-50,00

0,00

50,00

100,00

150,00

200,00

250,00

S Hlatshwayo ( C )

S Hlatshwayo (T )

S Dlamini ( C )

S Dlamini (T )

K Hlongwane ( C )

K Hlongwane (T )

T Zikode ( C )

T Zikode (T )

S Zikode ( C )

S Zikode ( T )

Ntombakhe Zikode ( C )

Ntombakhe Zikode (T )

Ntombi Zikode ( C)

Ntombi Zikode (T )

Tholwephi Mabaso ( C)

Tholwephi Mabaso (T )

Nomavila Ndaba ( C)

Nomavila Ndaba (T )

M Nkabinde ( C )

M Nkabinde (T )

P Hlongwane ( C )

P Hlongwane (T )

H Ndaba ( C )

H Ndaba (T )

D Hlongwane ( C )

D Hlongwane (T )

N Hlongwane ( C )

N Hlongwane(T )

M Dladla ( C )

M Dladla (T )

P Sthebe ( C )

P Sthebe (T )

Kg/ha

Participants; Control (C) and tiral (T) plots

Percentage change between 2014-2106 for P and K requirements

% Change in P (kg/ha)

% Change in K (kg/ha)

Comparisons were made for soil sample results taken in 2014 and then again for the same participants in 2016. The intention was to see whether

any changes in soil fertility could be attributed to the CA experimentation undertaken by these 16 participants. As the N recommendations in soil

sample results are generic and based on crop nutrient use, these were not included here. What can be seen is that:

-For a number of participants (7/16- 44%), for both their trial and control plots, fertility recommendations have remained the same.

-For three participants (19%), the P recommendations have decreased for the CA trial plots, and for a further 3 participants (19%) the

recommendation has decreased for their control plots- but not their trials.

-P recommendations have increased for one participant only (6%) in her trial plot and for 2 participants (12%) in their control plots.

-For the most part participants do not have to add K, as their soils contain adequate to high levels of K. However 2 participants (12%) , needed

K in their plots, which increased for the CA trials and decreased for their controls. This is because no K has been added in the trial plots in

the last three years and participants generally use compound fertilizers (with K) in their control plots.

-From the above trends the changes in soil fertility are more likely due to the addition of fertilizer than changes effected by the cropping

system. The need for P in the soil also needs to be considered in combination with the soil acidity and liming requirements for those soils.

An analysis was also done for changes in Liming requirements for these participants. A yearly surface application of lime 91t/ha0 has been used

throughout. The results are shown in figure 5 below.

Increased requirement for P is mirrored in increased requirement for Lime and thus is related to unavailability of P through acidity in2 participants’

(12%) of the control plots. 6 Participants (38%) have shown a reduced need for lime, and for a further 6 participants (38%) the lime requirement

has remained unchanged. This indicates that the ‘top-up’ liming practice of using 1t/ha every year is having the required effect of stabilizing or

reducing acidification in the soil. However, given that the average H for these participants is 4,17 and the average % acid saturation is 19,2% one

would have to comment that the situation is stable but not ideal. These soils need much more lime than is presently being used.

The four participants who have an increased need for lime all have pH values below 4 and acid saturation values of >40% in their plots and would

need the application of much higher quantities of lime in their fields to make a significant difference.

-150,00

-100,00

-50,00

0,00

50,00

100,00

150,00

200,00

250,00

300,00

350,00

S Hlatshwayo ( C )

S Hlatshwayo (T )

S Dlamini ( C )

S Dlamini (T )

K Hlongwane ( C )

K Hlongwane (T )

T Zikode ( C )

T Zikode (T )

S Zikode ( C )

S Zikode ( T )

Ntombakhe Zikode ( C )

Ntombakhe Zikode (T )

Ntombi Zikode ( C)

Ntombi Zikode (T )

Tholwephi Mabaso ( C)

Tholwephi Mabaso (T )

Nomavila Ndaba ( C)

Nomavila Ndaba (T )

M Nkabinde ( C )

M Nkabinde (T )

P Hlongwane ( C )

P Hlongwane (T )

H Ndaba ( C )

H Ndaba (T )

D Hlongwane ( C )

D Hlongwane (T )

N Hlongwane ( C )

N Hlongwane(T )

M Dladla ( C )

M Dladla (T )

P Sthebe ( C )

P Sthebe (T )

t/ha

Participants' control (C) and trial (T) plots

%Change in lime (t/ha)

% Change in lime (t/ha)

Figure 5: Percentage change in lime requirements; 2014-2016

Stulwane: Soil fertility status

In Stulwane, repeat samples were taken for 8 participants who have been active for three or more seasons (2014-2016). The intention is to see how

the soil fertility parameters have changed for these participants in their CA plots. The assumption is that the combination of good soil management

practices, soil building strategies using crop diversification and soil residues, and judicious use of fertilizers would improve the soil statues and

reduce the need for fertilizers. The figure below provides summaries for acidity, nutrient requirements and carbon and nitrogen stocks in the soil.

0,0010,00 20,00 30,00 40,00 50,00 60,00

Average of pH

Average of Acid sat (%)

Average of N Req (kg/ha)

Average of P req (Kg/ha)

Average of K req (kg/ha)

Average of Lime req (t/ha)

Average of Org. C %

Average of N %

Average of Clay %

Average

Average of

pH Average of

Acid sat (%)Average of N

Req (kg/ha)Average of P

req (Kg/ha)Average of K

req (kg/ha)

Average of

Lime req

(t/ha)

Average of

Org. C %Average of N

%Average of

Clay %

OVERALL AVERAGE4,04 32,0640,6342,8125,00 7,412,610,19 45,19

2016 AVERAGE4,09 28,3841,2537,5033,13 2,502,500,15 44,38

2014 AVERAGE3,9935,75 40,00 48,13 16,88 12,312,710,2346,00

Stulwane:Average of soil fertility values 2014,2016 (Maize)

Figure 6:Summary of soil fertility status parameters for 8 participants in Stulwane; 2014-2016

From Figure 6 the following trends can be seen:

-Average pH has increased slightly and the percentage acid saturation has decreased. From the 8 participants Ph in their plots have decreased

for 3 participants and increased for 5. Average lime requirements or 2016 were much lower at 2,5t/ha than in 2014 when it was12-13t/ha.

This indicates that the small quantities of lime (1t/ha), added yearly as a top up have had a significant effect on the acidity status of the soils

in the participants’ CA plots.

-The average pH at 4,04 with acid saturation at 32% is still a matter for concern, as this will affect bean growth and yields, maize being a bit

more tolerant to acidic conditions

-Along with acidity status, the amount of P required/ ha has reduced for 7 of the 8 participants.

-N required has increased for 1 participant, thus increasing the average and K requirements have increased for 2 participants

-Nutrient requirements have reduced for 6 of the 8 (75%) participants over the three years. This is a very positive trend

-The average percentage organic carbon in the soil has decreased, overall % organic carbon increased for 3 of the 8 participants only by and

average of 0,4% (~400kg/ha).

-Mineralizable Nitrogen in the soil has decreased over the three

year period., by around 0,08%.

Generally soil fertility status has increased in the CA plots over the last

three years. Specifically acidity and the need for Phosphate has

reduced. This is considered to be a combination of addition of lime to

the soil and an increase in soil health for these participants. The %

organic carbon in the soil has shown a small decline, which is

unexpected, but is not likely to be statistically significant..

We also compared the soil fertility results for the control plot and CA

plots of the 9 participants in 2016. Given the 3-4 years of CA being

practiced it was expected that differences could now be seen in the

soil fertility status between control and CA plots. Figure 7 provides

the averages for a number of soil fertility measurements

Figure 7: Average soil fertility results for control and CA plots for 9 participants in Stulwane (2016)

Control averagetrial average

Average of pH3,75 4,06

Average of Acid sat (%)33,56 28,33

Average of P req (Kg/ha)37,50 29,44

Average of Lime req (t/ha)6,00 4,03

Average of Org. C %2,39 2,43

Average of N %0,14 0,15

0,00

5,00

10,00

15,00

20,00

25,00

30,00

35,00

40,00

Stulwane,2016: Soil fertility averages for

control and trial plots

Control plots were left for participants to practice their ‘normal’ way of planting. For most of these participants this entails ploughing, addition of

some fertilizer (but not lime) and planting of mono cropped blocks of maize (traditional or bought seed) and beans (bought seed)

From the figure above the following comments can be made:

-The average pH for the trial plots is substantially higher at 4,06 than the control plots at 3,75

-Percentage acid saturation for the trial plots is significantly lower (28,33%) than for the control plots (33,56%). Thus the average lime

requirement per hectare for trial plots is also lower.

-Average P requirement for trial plots is also substantially lower than for the control plots.

-The average percentage of organic carbon for trial plots is higher than for the control plots. 7 of the 9 Participants (78%) have a higher %

organic carbon in their trial plots and the average increase is 0,24% (240kg/ha)

-The average percentage nitrogen is higher for the trial plots when compared with control plots for 6 of the 9 participants (67%), and the

average increase is 0,09%. This is equivalent to around 90 kg/ha of mineral nitrogen more that is available for the CA plots.

These results indicate that soil fertility and soil health is better on the CA plots than on the control plots. This would be a combined effect of more

accurate use of fertilizers and lime and the positive effect of the conservation agriculture on soil. The differences are not as marked as one might

expect (most likely due to the removal of crop residues by livestock), but the reduction in percentage acid saturation, the lowered P requirements

and the increased percentage of organic carbon are all indicative of a more productive, better balanced soil and are important observations.

Mtholeni Dlamini (Stulwane)

Mr Dlamini has been involved since 2013.

Right: Mr Dlamini standing in his CA maize and bean intercrop plot

Far right: MR Dlamini’s bean yield for this season

The table below indicates some general information regarding his trials

TABLE6:YIELD COMPARISON FOR THREE SEASONSFORMR MTHOLENI DLAMINI

(STULWANE)

Season

Trials (1000m2)

Yields Maize

(t/ha)

Yields maize t/ha

(Control)

Yields Beans

t/ha

Comments

2014-2015

M+B intercrop, maize and beans

single blocks

1,9

Also planted winter cover crops and

control

2015-2016

Beans, cowpeas

n/a

Summer cover crops and control

2016-2017

3( M+B), 2 (B), 1 ( B+SCC), 2 (M), 1 (

M+C), 1 (SCC)

3,85

2,63

1,81

Summer cover crops and control

Mr Dlamini’s soil health results show a pattern that is similar to a number of participants who are considered to be good farmers and already put in

the work and get reasonable yields. He is also one of the participants that mixes kraal manure and fertilizer in his control plots. For these

participants, the soil health test results for the control plots so far have been on a par with the CA plots.

From the above results, it can be seen that the bean and cowpea mixture predictably provide for more N to the following crop and the scc mix

provides for more P. The control plot values are higher than the CA trial plot values in this case. Mr Dlamini, is another of the participants who has

CA trial plot: summer cover crops (sunflower, miller and sunn hemp), 2015-2016.

following on a maize and bean inter crop (2014-2015 and 2013-2014) N=50,6kg/ha,

P= 12,4kg/ha , K=186,3kg/ha)

Control plot: Planted to beans 2015-2016. following on a maize control plot in 2014-2015.

N=75,5kg/ha, P=26,4kg/ha, K=162,9kg/ha

Figure 8: Veld baseline sample plant available N,P and K. This is a 'high' benchmark against

which the cropping experiments can be compared. N=124,5kg/ha, P=13,3kg/ha ,

K=216,4kg/ha

CA trial plot; bean and cowpea intercrop, 2015-2016, following on a maize and bean

intercrop (2014-2015 and 2013-2014). N=65kg/ha, P=7,7kg/ha, K=186,4kg/ha

been practicing CA in his control plots. Fertilization practices, spacing of crops and seed types are however

different to the CA trial plots. All values are below the high veld benchmark.

Phumelele Hlongwane

In the 2015-2016 season, Phumelele out performed almost all the other smallholders and managed to get

rather impressive yields at a time when most other farmers’ crops failed. She experimented with a number of

different crop combinations in her CA plots. Her maize control was also a CA plot, but with use of her own

fertilizer and seed options. Her experimental plots included:

-Intercropping of maize with beans

-Intercropping of maize with cowpea

-Planting cover crop in between rows of maize

-Intercropping maize with lablab

-Planting a single crop of maize (control)

-Planting a single crop of Lab-lab (Dolichos) beans and

-Intercropping of maize with Lab-lab beans

Phumelele followed with a rotation schedule of the same experiments in

the 2016-2107 season.

Clockwise from Top right: Phumelele standing in front of her maize and bean

intercrop plot, taken on 17 Jan 2017. Her Lab-Lab plot and a SCC plot where

she grew sunflower separately and millet and sunn hemp together.

The table below shows yield comparisons for Phumelele’s experimental

plots

TABLE7:MAIZE YIELDS FROM DIFFERENT EXPERIMENTAL PLOTS INPHUMLELE HLONGWANE’S (EZIBOMVINI)FIELD

2015/2016 season

2016/2017 Season

Crops Planted

Maize Yields (t/ha)

Crops planted

Maize Yields (t/ha)

Change in yield (t/ha)

Maize +Beans

8,3

Maize + Beans

8,8

0,5

Maize +Cowpea

8,7

Maize + Beans

8,9

0,2

Maize + Beans

10,4

Maize + Cowpea

7,7

-2,7

Maize +Cowpea

6,9

Maize

6,5

-0,5

M +SCC+WCC

8,7

Maize + Beans

10,1

1,4

Maize +Beans

6,9

Maize

6,2

-0,7

The small table below indicates yield averages over the last two seasons.

TABLE8:SUMMARY OF DIFFERENT CROP YIELDS IN PHUMELELE HLONGWANE’S EXPERIMENTAL PLOTS.

t/ha

2015-2016

2016-2017

Maize (Control)-CA

7,8

9,7

Maize Trial CA - combined

6,93

8,3

Beans

0,25

1,81

Sunflower

0,3

0,8

NOTE: Yield increases in 2017 were achieved despite reduction in fertilizer application. She did not apply basal MAP, only top dressed with LAN

The soil health test results from 2015-2016, with some yield data obtained for the different plots are shown in the figure below.

From the figure above the following points can be made:

7,8t/ha

Control

(maize under

CA) Lab labmaize and

beans

intercrop

maize and

cowpea Maize and

lab labmaize trial

Millet,

sunflower

and

sunhemp

Veld

baseline

sample

Phumelele Hlongwane

Average of pH - Ezibomvini5,6 6,0 5,6 5,4 5,7 5,6 6,1 5,9

Average of Soil aggregates - Ezibomvini33 44 44 52 33 58 44 44

Average of % OM - Ezibomvini5,3 3,4 3,1 3,1 2,9 3,2 3,3 2,5

Average of CO2 - C, ppm C - Ezibomvini62,7 90,2 54,5 62,7 52,3 68,7 78,4113,0

Average of C:N ratio - Ezibomvini16,1 14,8 15,2 17,3 18,3 24,2 14,6 14,2

Average of Soil health Calculation - Ezibomvini7,2 9,5 7,0 6,4 6,2 5,1 9,111,3

0,0

20,0

40,0

60,0

80,0

100,0

120,0 Soil health tests-Ezibomvini

8,6t/ha

7,8t/ha

3,5t/ha

7t/ha

7,8t/ha 7,6t/ha

Figure 9: Phumelele Hlongwane's soil health test results for different cropping practices within her CA system for the 2015-2016 cropping season. Yields re indicated in the square text

boxes for each practice.

-After the veld baseline the highest Soil Health Test (SHT) scores (in descending order) were : Lab-Lab beans, Summer cover

crops, Control maize (CA), maize and bean intercrop, maize and cowpea intercrop, with the lowest score for the maize CA plot.

-The Solvita, microbial respiration tests followed the same trend with the veld baseline being the highest followed by Lab-lab

beans, summer cover crops, maize CA trial, maize and cowpea and maize CA control with the maize and lab-lab plot showing the

lowest Solvita results.

-The C:N ratio for the maize CA trial plot is particularly high, due to no legumes (low N input) and maize residues having a high C

content (or C:N ratio) . Yields were not affected, as the inorganic N content in this plot was higher than the others; the maize

requires higher N-fert input due to N immobilisation in the soil.. It also vindicates Phumelele’s decision not to supply basal

fertilizer in the following season.

-The lowest C:N ratios were achieved for the cover crop plots (lab-lab and summer cover crop mix) – which correlates with the

Solvitas and indicates highest microbial activity and conversion (mineralisation) of nutrients in these plots.

-The maize yield for these plots do not entirely coincide with the soil health scores. The highest yield for maize was achieved in

the maize and bean intercropped plot at 8,6t/ha, followed by the maize and cowpea intercrop plot and the control CA maize plot

at 7,8t/ha respectively.

If one goes into a bit more detail regarding the soil Nitrogen availability; the following small table represents the SOLVITA Labile

Ammonium Nitrogen Analyses (SLAN). This provides the amount of "upstream nitrogen" bound in the Soil Organic component and

represents total releasable N over time.

TABLE 9:COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT FORMS OF NITROGEN AVAILABILITY FOR PHUMELELEHLONGWANE’S CONTROL AND CATRIAL PLOTS;2015-2016

Plots: Phumelele

Hlongwane 2015-2016

SLAN Total

releasable N

Long term

release N

Short term

release N

Immediate

release N

Rand value of N saved

Kg/ha

Maize CA trial

397,6

383,0

8,3

6,3

R107,00

Maize CA Control

341,6

313,6

9,6

18,4

R312,00

Lab-Lab

341,6

310,9

0,0

30,7

R522,00

Maize and scc

319,2

285,2

3,4

30,7

R522,00

Maize and beans

308,0

278,0

11,6

18,4

R312,00

Maize and Lab-Lab

268,8

242,4

17,2

9,2

R156,00

Maize and cowpeas

240,8

218,2

9,2

13,4

R228,00

What can be seen from this table is that:

-The cover crop plots (Lab-Lab and scc) are the best at providing immediate release N for the next crop and can save a Rand value

of R522 of nitrogen fertilizer. This helps to explain why the soil health scores are highest for these two plots. They also provide a

substantial amount of long term release N and are thus a very important practice in building soil health.

-The CA maize trial plot provides for the highest long term release N but the lowest immediate release N, This point towards this

practice building soil organic Carbon over time.

-The CA control plot provided more immediate release N, but lower quantities of stable nitrogen, indicated by the larger overall

soil disturbance in the control plot vs trial plots.

-The Maize and legume intercrop plots combine a high value of long term release N with larger quantities of short term and

immediate release N than the Maize only CA plot and provide an average of a rand value of R228 of Nitrogen to the following

crop.

-In addition the maize and bean intercrop plot also provided for the highest yield of maize in the experimental plots at 8,6t/ha

(previous figure).

Overall, for soil health and for benefit of the following crops in terms of available nutrients the cover crop plots and the maize-legume

(specifically maize and beans) intercrop plots are the most beneficial. The latter also provides for the highest yield of maize.

A further study on Soil health was done through a team from the ARC

. They took a number of samples from different CA sites in the

Free State North West and KZN. Of interest is that 4 samples from Phumelele Hlongwane were also included (Soybean following maize;

Innovative soil health assessments to advance the understanding, improvement and sustainability of grain crop cultivation systems in South Africa.

Johan Habig.ARC-PPRI, Soil Microbiology Laboratory, Private Bag X134, Queenswood, 012

maize following maize, maize and bean intercrop and soybean(1st season), They used the Shannon-Weaver (microbial richness) and

Evenness (microbial abundance) indices to look at microbial populations for these samples. “The Shannon-Weaver diversity index is

used to quantify the functional diversity of soil microbial communities based on the amount of different carbon sources utilised by soil

microbial communities. The Evenness index, on the other hand, is used as an indicator of how abundant species are within a soil

microbial community, i.e., how close in “numbers” each microbial species are in a soil microbial community.”

The report attests to the following :

“The overall highest microbial diversity was present in samples obtained from the smallholder farmers, while the lowest microbial diversity

was found to be in the Vrede district. These results could be attributed to the fact that soils from smallholder farmers are not as intensively

cultivated as is the case with commercial farmers. The low microbial diversity in the Vrede district might be attributed to soil

physicochemical properties or weather conditions. Although insignificant, the microbial diversity was slightly higher under CT than CA

practices in Bergville and Winterton, whereas the contrary was true for the Vrede district”.

He continues to summarise the results as:

“The highest overall microbial activity was present in the “old no-till” soils cultivated with maize in Bergville, the smallholder farm

cultivated with maize monoculture intercropped with beans under CA in Winterton, and where maize followed a multispecies mix under CA

in Vrede”.

The significant points are that Phumelele’s CA plots contain a high microbial diversity, with a high evenness of distribution of different

microbial species, which had the highest potential of all samples tested to convert N for plant uptake. This study also corroborates the

finding that the maize and bean intercrop plots are the most beneficial for soil health.

An aspect that could be interfering with seedling

germination and growth and overall yields is the

presence of pathogenic soil fungi. A study was conducted

using soil samples from Phumelele Hlongwane’s CA trial

plots by the ARC

. Specifically, for Phumelele’s plots

Fusarium and Phoma species were detected. These are

damping off species that would affect germination and

early growth of seedlings.

The data indicates that the severity of root rots is higher

in the CA plots than the conventionally tilled plots.

This could then provide the beginnings of an explanation

as to why the yields in conventionally tilled plots tend to

be a bit higher than the CA plots.

Right: Figure indicating the severity of root and crown rots from

soil samples taken from Phumelele Hlongwane’s plots. The

potential for higher severity of soil borne diseases in the two CA

plots is shown clearly.

Agricultural Research Council. Plant Protection Research Institute. P/Bag X134, Queenswood, Pretoria 0121. Preliminary Consultation Report-Analyses Of Soil borne

Diseases Of Maize, Soybean And Sunflower – Soil Health Project. Prepared by: Dr Sandra Lamprecht and Thabo Phasoana. Tel: (021) 887 4690 Fax: (021) 887 5096. Email:

lamprechts@arc.agric.za

Pasteurisation of the soil samples prior to germination and growth of seedlings was done to test the difference. The two pictures below

are indicative

Maize grown in pasteurised(2 pots on the left) and non pasteurised (two

pots on the right) soil from Phumelele's CA maize and bean intercrop CA

plot. The difference in growth and germination is clearly visible

Figure 10: Maize grown in pasteurised (2 pots on the left) and non

pasteurised (2 pots on the right) soil from Phumelele's CA maize trial plot.

The difference in growth and germination is clearly visible.

Eqeleni

In Eqeleni soil health samples were taken for control and trial plots for Khonzaphi

Hlongwane and Smephi Hlatshwayo. Both are good farmers who have been part of the

CA farmer innovation process for 4 years.

Khonzaphi Hlongwane is another of the participants for whom the soil health results are

presently higher for her control plot than her maize and bean intercropped plot. As

shown for Phumelele Hlongwane in the section above this does not mean that gains in

soil health in terms of longer term build up of nutrients and microbial populations in the

soil is not occurring.

Right: Smpehi Nkosi’s conventionally tilled maize control showing drought stress on 25

February 2016 Far right: Her sorghum cover crop, following on 2 years of CA maize and

bean intercrop growing very well at the same time.

For Smephi Hlatshwayo her CA maize plot fared better than the cover crop (sorghum) plot. Both plots however have very high soil health scores. The

maize CA plot in particular has a much higher percentage of OM in the soil and also a high rate of microbial respiration, indicating a soil with high

microbial diversity and evenness of microbial population types. The results are shown in the figure below

Figure 11: Soil health test results for veld baselines, control plots and CA plots for Khonzaphi Hlongwane and Smephi Hlatshwayo from Eqeleni (2015-2016)

General recommendations regarding soil health tests:

-Veld baselines need to be done specifically for each farmer and every season. They also need to be taken in the same place every year to

make them comparable.

-Some attention needs to be given to sampling- the need for a larger no of sub samples is becoming evident in high variability in results from

the same plots

-As the control plots no longer represent standard conventional tillage – these samples need to be taken in plots that do represent that – and

need their own veld baseline samples.

-It may not be possible to compare soil health test results across years meaningfully, especially in the early CA implementation stages and also

due to high climatic variation between seasons.

-Comparison of soil health test results from different CA practices within a trial seem to be interesting and provide for meaningful

comparisons.

maize and

beans Maize,

control

Veld

baseline

sample

maize and

beans

intercrop

maize

control (CA)Sorghum Veld

baseline

sample

Khonzaphi HlongwaneSmephi Hlatswayo

Average of pH - Eqeleni4,9 5,6 5,1 5,7 5,1 5,6 5,1

Average of Soil aggregates - Eqeleni33 33 33 33 35 33 33

Average of % OM - Eqeleni4,8 5,3 5,1 2,6 4,2 2,8 5,1

Average of CO2 - C, ppm C - Eqeleni82,3102,047,6 43,5 94,1 74,6 98,8

Average of C:N ratio - Eqeleni16,8 14,9 20,6 12,4 13,1 13,4 16,3

Average of Soil health Calculation - Eqeleni8,9 12,2 7,77,3 12,3 9,69,0

0,0

20,0

40,0

60,0

80,0

100,0

120,0

Soil health tests -Eqeleni

Liming trials

After 2-3 years of involvement in the GRAINSA-SFIP project, some famers are still getting low

yields from their trial and control plots. Soil acidity appears to be one of the major contributing

factors to this problem. The soil sample analysis results have shown lime requirements ranging

between 0 t/ha and 11 t/ha. Generally, maintenance lime of 1 t/ha has been recommended as a

standard for farmers in the programme. For those with the highest lime requirements, yields

remain very low and the maintenance lime does not work well for them.

In order to test if soil acidity is a cause of low yields, three farmers with the highest lime

requirements in 3 villages (Eqeleni, Mhlwazini and Stulwane) were selected. The farmers in

Eqeleni, Mhlwazini and Stulwane had lime requirements of 10.25 t/ha, 7.25 t/ha and 11.5 t/ha,

respectively. A farmer led experimentation was undertake with these 3 farmers (see the small

table below) to test the following; (a) if applying the required lime would have an impact on the

yields and (b) which of the two lime application methods (applying lime and leaving it on the

surface under CA plots and applying lime and ploughing it in the soil under conventional tillage)

is more effective. The overall aim of these experiments was to test two methods of lime

application and to evaluate how those contribute to yield improvement.

TABLE10:LIMING REQUIREMENTS AND APPLICATION FORTHE3PARTICIPANTS IN THELIMING TRIALS;2016-

2017

Name and village

Ntombakhe

Zikode

(Eqeleni)

Phumzile

Zimba

(Mhlwazini)

Phasazile

Sithebe

(Stulwane)

Amount of lime required(t/ha)

10.25

7.25

11.5

Amount of lime applied (50 kg bags)

Maintenance lime (t/ha)

Figure: Top left: Phasazile Sithebe applying lime in her field, Top right: tilling the lime under

conventional tillage, Bottom Left and right: method use in applying maintenance lime for beans

and or cowpea and maize, respectively

The results from all three experiments indicated that the yields are higher in plots were lime

was applied and left on the surface compared to plots were lime was applied and ploughed in.

See the table below This shows that lime application under CA/ No Till is more effective

compared to lime application under conventional tillage. Other factors (e.g. fertilizer

application) were kept constant and therefore lime was the only variable in the experiments.

Other factors, planting dates, rainfall and frequency of weeding were also kept constant and

their effect is considered negligible.

TABLE11:YIELDS FOR THE3 LIMING TRIALS:2016-2017

Names

Ntombakhe

Zikode

(Eqeleni)

Phumzile

Zimba

(Mhlwazini)

Phasazile

Sithebe

(Stulwane)

Surface liming plot (maize yield (t/ha))

6.2

3.4

Lime and plough plot (maize yield (t/ha))

2.6

4.6

1.6

Difference

0.4

1.6

1.8

An attempt was made to compare the results from this year’s trial and conventional tillage

control plots, to those of previous seasons. Yields from 2013 and 2014 were compared, as the

first year of involvement for the three participants. Yields for both the CA and control plots have

increased substantially. See the small table below.

TABLE12:YIELD COMPARISONS FOR2SEASONS FOR THE THREE LIMING TRIAL PARTICIPANTS.

This indicates that liming can have a significant effect on yields. For this small sample of

participants there is no indication however, that ploughing in of lime works better than surface

application. The experiment will be continued into the next season.

Yields for CA trial and control plots

Yields were measured and recorded for 164 of the overall 212 participants. This accounts for

78% of the participants who planted. 22% of Participants experienced crop failure. 85% of

participants collected their harvests for weighing. This, under these smallholder circumstances,

is truly an impressive feat of organisation and motivation of smallholder farmers, by the

Mahlathini field work team.

Names

Ntombakhe

Zikode (Eqeleni)

Phumzile

Zimba

Mhlwazini

Phasazile

Sithebe

(Stulwane)

20132016

20142016

20132016

Surface liming plot (maize yield

(t/ha))

1.72

0.93

6.2

2.67

3.4

Lime and plough plot (maize yield

(t/ha))

2.5

2.6

0.75

4.6

1.6

The figure below summarises the average yields across all the villages in Bergville.

TABLE13:AVERAGE,MINIMUM AND MAXIMUMCROP YIELDS FOR BERGVILLE;2016-2017

YIELDS

2016-2017

Maize -

Trial

n=141

Maize

Control

n=29

Beans

Trial

n=137

Beans

late

n=13

Cowpeas

n=14

Sunflower

n=10

Millet

n=1

Sunn

hemp

n=1

Average

2,80

2,82

0,91

0,76

0,52

0,97

0,05

0,20

max

11,74

9,69

2,44

2,10

2,80

2,95

0,05

0,20

min

0,28

0,34

0,02

0,07

0,05

From the above figure and the small table outlining the yields for this season the following

points can be made:

-The highest average maize yields were obtained in Ezibomvini (5,02t/ha), Eqeleni

(4,8t/ha) and Emabunzini (4,47t/ha). The latter is a new expansion area next to

Ezibomvini.

-The lowest average maize yields were in Magangangozi (0,16t/ha). This area struggled a

lot with cattle invasions and yields were decimated. The other two villages with the

lowest trial maize yields were Emangweni (1,22t/ha)and Nsuka (1,49t/ha). In these two

villages yields suffered because of lack of trial maintenance and weeding.

Ema

bun

zini

Ema

ngw

eni

Ema

qele

Ema

zimb

eni

Eqel

eni

Ezib

omvi

Mag

ang

ozi

Mhl

wazi

Ndu

nwa

Ngo

ba Nsu

Okh

omb

Stul

wan

Tha

mel

Thu

nzini

Vim

buk

halo

Average of Maize-trial (2016)4,47 1,22 2,16 2,45 4,80 5,02 0,16 2,11 3,15 1,64 1,49 1,94 2,49 2,18 4,28 2,73

Average of Maize- Control (2016)5,12 5,172,52 1,83 2,090,34

Average of Beans (2016)0,16 0,74 1,37 1,50 1,13 0,96 1,02 1,12 0,70 0,55 1,13 0,97 0,41 1,21 1,30 0,51

Average of Late Beans (2016)0,820,43 0,07 1,76

Average of Cowpeas (2016)1,12 0,230,170,20

Average of Sunflower(2016)0,90 0,191,37

Average of Millet (2016)0,05

0,00

1,00

2,00

3,00

4,00

5,00

6,00

Yield averages across all villages in Bgvl 2016-2017

Figure 12: Yield averages across all villages in Bergville:2016-2017

-The average maize yield for all villages in the trials(2,8t/ha) was marginally lower than

for the maize control plots (2,82t/ha)

-The highest yield for the maize trials was 11,74t/ha -for Nombono Dladla in Ezibomvini

and the highest control maize yield was 9,69t/ha for Phumelele Hlongwane in

Ezibomvini -this was a CA control plot.

-For beans, the average yield for early season beans was 0,91t/ha and for late season

beans was slightly lower at 0,76t/ha.

-For cowpeas the average yield was 0,52t/ha and the range of yields fell between 0,05t/h

to 2,8t/ha.

-For sunflowers, the average yield was 0,97t/ha (0,05-2,95t/ha)

Maize yields in intercropped plot tend to be slightly higher than in single block plantings, with

and LER of 1,1-1,5 depending on the farmer. This is not generally factored in as most farmers

tend to combine their maize harvests, so it is not possible to differentiate yields from the

different plots of Maize and beans and maize and cowpeas for example.

This season, as with previous seasons, the range of yields was incredibly variable - on average

from about 0,28t/ha to 11,74 t/ha for the maize trials as an example. More participants fell

within the lower range of yields which brought the average down to 2,8t/ha.

If one compares the yields across the 4 seasons where the GrainSA SFIP has been active a

clearer trend becomes apparent.

For maize for example (see figure 13 below), there was a systematic increase in yields from

2013-2014 – both good rainy seasons. For 2015 there is a dip in yields due to the drought and

then the yields increased again this year. For the first two years there was a definite increase in

production of the CA Maize over the control maize. In the drought year, the control maize grew

better and in this last season the yields are comparable.

For this year the

comparable yields are

probably due to the fact

that quite a number of

the longer term

participants are now

planting their control

plots under CA as well.

3,09 3,00 2,74

3,76 4,25

3,18 2,87

2,03

0,00

1,00

2,00

3,00

4,00

5,00

t/ja

Trials and controls

Maize yields 2013-2016 for trial and

control plots

Average of Maize-trial (2016)Average of Maize- Control (2016)

Average of Maize-trial (2015)Average of Maize- Control (2015)

Average of Maize-trial (2014)Average of Maize- Control (2014)

Average of Maize trial(2013)Average of Maize-Control (2013)

Figure 13:Miaze yields for control and CA trial plots; 2013-2016

If one disaggregates the average maize yields somewhat and look at the average maize yields

across these seasons for different villages, then another trend becomes apparent. See figure 14

below. But, perhaps it does indicate yield differences between villages

Figure 14: Average maize yields per village across 4 seasons

From this figure it is clear that the average yields in some villages are higher than in others. So

in addition to the yearly variations in yields due to weather conditions, there are now variations

that appear to be village based. Why this would be the case is a bit of a mystery.

The trend of a general increase in yields over time for the CA plots, is only clear for Eqeleni,

Ezibomvini and Stulwane – it appears from this that the local variability in weather conditions

between different villages can affect the yields considerably.

Bean production

As in previous years, most participants have planted beans (Gadra or Pan 148) either as an

intercrop in the maize plots or in mono cropped plots. A number of participants also opted for

late season planting of beans (Jan-Feb 2017), as they have found that beans planted later tend to

yield better. This is an adaptation that is being made to accommodate the changing climate in

the area.

The “normal” bean plantings (November 2016), have again had problems in pod production.

Generally, the beans grow well during the season, but shading of plants, infestation of CMR

beetles and late season rains, along with initial germination problems tend to depress the

overall yields considerably.

In addition, this year has seen problems of theft of seed from the fields. IN a few of the villages,

the inefficacy of the initial herbicide spraying meant a heavy weeding load and consequent

negative impact on bean growth and yields. Vimbukhalo participants specifically mentioned

this issue

Below is an analysis of yields obtained in the different Bergville villages where bean yields were

obtained, as at end May 2017

AVERA

GE Emang

weni Eqeleni Ezibom

vini Mhlwaz

ini Ndunw

ana Stulwa

ne Vimbuk

halo

Average of Maize-trial (2016)3,1 1,2 4,8 5,2 2,1 3,1 2,5 2,7

Average of Maize-trial (2015)2,7 2,5 4,1 2,8 1,6 3,4 2,1 0,7

Average of Maize-trial (2014)4,35,3 6,1 2,73,7 1,6

Average of Maize trial(2013)2,9 3,62,3

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

Axis Title

Maize yield averages across for seaons for the CA trials,

for a selection of villages

TABLE14:TOTAL YIELD OF DRY BEANS HARVESTED PER VILLAGEBERGVILLE ‘17

Village

Number of pp

weighed

Total beans

(kg)

Ave per

participant

(kg)

Yield (t/ha)*

Stulwane

160.4

11,5

0,46

Ezibomvini

196.74

11,6

0,46

Thunzini

127.19

14,1

0,56

Thamela

5,5

1,4

Emazimbeni

17.77

2,53

0,54

Emangweni-

Emaqeleni

7.94

0,4

Nsuka- Zwelitsha

0,5

0,05

Ndunwana

127.31

8,5

0,85

Emabunzini

7.2

1,4

0,14

Eqeleni

320.35

24,6

1,1

Mhlwazini

119.95

10,9

1,1

Vimbukhalo

88.15

6,3

0,63

Ngoba

161.23

20,1

0,81

Okhombe

1,0

Emangweni-

Engodini

19.79

0,4

Total

138 participants

1427.02 kg

10,3kg

Ave~0,63t/ha

*Yields have been calculated, estimating the area of the plots for each participant under beans to be 25%

of the total trial planted.

From the above table, it can be seen that the average yield for dry beans (normal/early season

planting) was around 0,63tons/hectare. The highest yield was obtained in a new area -Thamela

at 1,4t/ha. Reasonable yields were also obtained in Eqeleni, Mhlwazini and Okhombe. Overall

the most beans were produced in Eqeleni, followed by Ezibomvini , Ngoba and Stulwane.

The actual yields can be seen to be extremely variable ranging from 0,05-1,4tons/hectare. This

is not unusual in a smallholder system and indicates that different management practices are

the main source of variability in yield.

The above table also shows that a total 1.43 tons dry beans were harvested in the Bergville area

in the 2016/2017 planting season. The Figure below provides a representation of the amount of

beans harvested in each village.

As with the maize yields, there is no clear explanation why yields in certain villages are much

lower or higher than in others. The same overall trend of higher production in Ezibomvini,

Eqeleni and Stulwane is apparent.

Following are some photographs indicative of the season.

stulwane

11%

Ezibomvini

14%

Thunzini

Thamela

Emazimbeni

Emaqeleni

Nsuka

Ndunwana

Emabunzini

Eqeleni

23%

Mhlwazini

Vimbukhalo

Ngoba

11%

Okhombe

Emangweni

Early beans '17

Figure 15: Percentage bean yields per village

Mrs Thembelani Hlongwane from Ngoba busy with de-

podding her late bean harvest.

Mr Mtoleni Dlamini from Stulwane with

his bean harvest. He also planted the

traditional runner bean (yellowish seed)

and obtained a reasonable harvest.

Tozi Zikode from Eqeleni

with her late bean planting

yields. She considers this a

much better option for bean

production than panting

earlier in the season

Maize production

This year, despite the dry start has

been a good year for maize in the

Bergville area. Two hybrids were

used in the trials PAN6479 and

PAN53. Harvesting and weighing of

maize has been a huge task for both

the field staff and the farmers. Many

participants were involved also in

the GrainSA Farmer Develpment

Programme and planted 1ha of

maize, alongside their CA trials. For

the most part, participants do not

have the labour and logistical and

infrastructural requirements to handle these

volumes.

Some participants have constructed new and slightly

larger structures for maize storage. These

traditional structures are however not vermin or

damp proof.

Zodwa Zikode from Ezibomvinii planted beans in single crop blocks 9Left) as well as in the recommended intercropping

design. Growth for both plots looked similar and good midseason when these photographs were taken

Sibongile Mpulo from Vimbukhalo shows her

stored beans with bruchid damage. No control

mechanisms are known to participants

Smephi Hlatshwayo from Eqeleni surveys her mountain of harvested maize. She

has no dedicated structures for maize storage and does shelling by hand.

Neliwise Msele from Stuwlane constructed a new maize

storage structure for her harvest.

A number of participant farmers also planted

traditional maize and yellow (hybrid?) maize alongside

their white maize trials and controls??. This remains

one of the most central reasons why genetically

modified varieties are not promoted by the CA

facilitation team. Not so clear…

Cover crops

Cover crops are offered as an experimentation option for participants in their 2nd to 4th years of

involvement. Two to three variations are presently being tested:

Planting a mix of 3 summer cover crops (SCC’s) – millet, sunflower and sun hemp, in a plot as

part of a four block rotations trial (Here a number of participants opted to plant the sunflower

separately in part of the 10x10m plot and the millet and sun hemp together – to ensure a better

seeding rate for the sunflower. This is done in one 10mx10 block as a rotation for maize.

Planting lab-lab (Dolichos) beans in one of a four block crop rotation plot and

Relay cropping a mix of 5 covers crops; 2 SCC’s (sunflowers, sun hemp) and 3 winter cover

crops (WCC’s)- fodder rye, saia oats and fodder radish, into a stand of maize in towards the end

of the growing season (February-March).

For the most part, participants are not too keen to plant a crop that they cannot eat themselves,

no matter the benefit to the soil and potentially to livestock. A concerted effort was made by the

facilitation team to promote the planting of cover crops and thus a reasonable number of

participants participate: – 30 for SCC and 59 for wcc. See the tables below for more detail.

Mr Mthileni Buthelezi from Eqeleni has harvester 4-5 different kinds of maize

including yellow maize and a traditional red variety. On the right, he is busy

sorting his maize for shelling and storage.

For the late season cover crop planting- which was either scattered into maize plots or planted

in rows after harvesting of beans in intercropped plots, the germination was again not very

good. A lot of the seed, was eaten by free range poultry. Villages where wcc were planted

include Ezibomvini, Ngoba, Eqeleni, Stulwane and Ndunwana, For those where the seed did

germinate, growth was reasonably good until the cattle were let back into the fields. Presently

all has been consumed.

There also appears to be a

fine balance in terms of

timing of planting of the

wcc. It needs to be done

early enough to take

advantage of remaining

soil moisture- thus

somewhere in February,

but late enough that

actively growing maize

does not compete for soil

moisture. Of those who

planted, only 52% (20/38)

of participants’ cover

crops germinated and

grew.

TABLE15:SUMMARY OF PARTICIPANTS INVOLVED IN SCC TRIAL PLANTINGS

Village

Name and surname

Cover Crops

Description

Eqeleni

Ntombakhe Zikode

2 plot SCC intercropped

with maize

Simephi Hlatshwayo

2 intercropped plots:

1 maize and sunflower, 1

millet and sun hemp

Ezibomvini

Phumelele Hlongwane

1plot SCC in rotation

1 plot lab-lab

Sunflower planted in

separate rows

intercropped with millet

and sun hemp

Cabangani Hlongwane

1 plot SCC

Sunflower planted in

separate rows

intercropped with millet

and sun hemp

Mtuleni Nkabinde

1plot SCC in rotation

1 plot lab-lab

Sunflower planted in

separate rows

intercropped with millet

and sun hemp

Velephi Zimba

1 plot SCC

Sunflower planted in

separate rows

intercropped with millet

and sun hemp

Balungile Mkhwanazi, Zodwa Zikode,

Kcinegile Zikode, Mantombi Mabizela,

Landiwe Dlamini, Nonhlanhla Zikode,

Tozi Zikode, Alfred Gumede, Ntombono

Dladla, Khanyisile Zikode

1 plot SCC

Sunflower planted in

separate rows

intercropped with millet

and sun hemp

Goba

Fikile Benghu

2 plots SCC

1 plot WCC

In rotation trial

1PHumelel Hlongwane’s. maize plot that had a relay planting of wcc. Livestock are browsing

(July 2017)

In relay cropping with

maize

Sebenzile Hlongwane

1 plot SCC

Crop rotation plot of

millet, sun hemp and

sunflower.

Thobile Mthembu

1 plot SCC

Crop rotation plot of

millet, sun hemp and

sunflower.

Stulwane

Mtholeni Dlamini

1 plot SCC

Crop rotation plot of

sunflowers

Dlezakhe Hlongwane

1 plot SCC

Crop rotation plot of

sunflowers

Khulekani Dladla

2 plots SCC

1 plot Sunflowers, 1 plot

maize intercropped with

millet and sun hemp

Cupile Buthelezi

2 plots SCC

Sun hemp, sunflower and

millet

Makethi Dladla

2 plots SCC

Sun hemp, sunflower and

millet

Bangeni Dlamini

2 plots SCC

Sun hemp, sunflower and

millet

Thulani Dlamini

2 plots SCC

Sun hemp, sunflower and

millet

Nokwaliwa Hlongwane

2 plots SCC

Sun hemp, sunflower and

millet

Xabanisile Mabaso

2 plots SCC

Sun hemp, sunflower and

millet

Phasazile Sithebe

2 plots SCC

Sun hemp, sunflower and

millet

Kethabahle Miya

1 plot SCC

Intercrop plot with

maize

Below is a summary of yields measured for sunflower. Very few yields were recorded

for sunn hemp and millet nad these were very low.

TABLE 16:SUMMARY OF YIELDS OF SCC–SUNFLOWER.

Area

Name and Surname

Weight

Yield (t/ha

Stulwane

Nelisiwe Msele

14,6kg/100m2

1,1

Nokwaliwa Hlongwane

7,4kg/100m2

0,55

Chupile Buthelezi

5,7kg/100m2

0,43

Dlezakhe Hlongwane

2,4kg/100m2

0,24

Khulekani Dladla

2,7kg/100m2

0,27

Thulani Dlamini

8,2kg/100m2

0,82

Eqeleni

Ntombakhe Zikode

6,7 kg/100m2

0,67

Simpehi Hlatshwayo

6,74kg/144m2

0,46

14,9kg/625m2

0,23

Ezibomvini

Zodwa Zikode

0,18

Phumelele Hlongwane

1,7

Mrs Simpehi Hlatshwayo a 4th year

participant from Eqeleni designed her own

trials; she planted sunflower on a control

plot (24mx12m) intercropped with maize

and another trial plot where it was

intercropped with beans (50mx25m) and

millet. Her sunflower that was intercropped

with beans developed very big heads, even

though there was poor germination because

seeds were burnt due to fertilizer mixed

with seedsduring planting.

TABLE 17:SUMMARY OF PARTICIPANTS INVOLVED IN WCC TRIAL PLANTINGS

Name & Surname

Ezibomvini

Status

Planting method

Phumelele Hlongwane

Planted and germinated very well but

eaten by cows

Broadcasted as a mix between maize rows

Cabangani Hlongwane

Planted and germinated very well but

eaten by cows

Planting method

Ntombenhle Hlongwane

Planted and germinated very well but

eaten by cows

Broadcasted as a mix between maize rows

Mantombi Mabizela

Planted and germinated very well but

eaten by cows

Broadcasted as a mix between maize rows

Mthumeni Nkabinde

Planted but seeds planted eaten by

chickens

Broadcasted as a mix between maize rows

Balungile Mkhwanazi

Broadcasted as a mix between maize rows

Gcinekile Zikode

Planted and germination very well but

eaten by cows

Broadcasted as a mix between maize rows

Nombono Dladla

Planted and germinated very well but

eat

Broadcasted as a mix between maize rows

Fikile Zikode

Planted but seeds planted eaten by

chickens

Broadcasted as a mix between maize rows

Tozi Zikode

Planted but seeds planted eaten by

chickens

Broadcasted as a mix between maize rows

Alfred Gumede

Planted and germinated very well and

eaten by cows

Broadcasted as a mix between maize rows

Velephi Zimba

Planted but eaten by chickens

Broadcasted as a mix between maize rows

Simpehi Hlathwayo from Eqeleni shows her sunlfower

harvest.

Neliswe Msele'S (Stulwane) sunflower harvest.

Zodwa Zikode

Planted and germinated very well but

eaten by cows

Broadcasted as a mix between maize rows

Name & Surname

Goba

Status

Planting method

Fikile Bhengu

Planted and germinated very well

but ate by cows

Broadcasted as a mix between maize rows

Thembelani Hlongwane

Planted and germinated very well

but ate by cows

Broadcasted as a mix between maize rows

Ntombenhle Hlongwane

Planted but poor germination due to

chicken’s damages ate seeds.

Broadcasted as a mix between maize rows

Sebenzile Hlongwane

Planted but poor germination due to

chicken’s damages ate seeds.

Broadcasted as a mix between maize rows

Mantombi Shabalala

Planted but poor germination due to

chicken’s damages ate seeds.

Broadcasted as a mix between maize rows

Thenjiwe Hlongwane

Planted and germinated very well

but ate by cows

Broadcasted as a mix between maize row

Vimbeni Ndaba

Planted and germinated very well

but ate by cows

Broadcasted as a mix between maize rows

Khangwayini Hlongwane

Planted and germinated very well

but ate by cows

Broadcasted as a mix between maize rows.

Name & Surname

Ndunwana

Status

Planting method

Elizabeth Hlatshwayo

Planted and germinated

Planted between maize as a mix

Noyi Mazibuko

Collected seeds but not planted

Matozo Zondo

Planted and germinated

Planted between maize as a mix

Shiyiwe Zondo

Planted and germinated very well

Planted between maize as a mix

Tholiwe Nkala

Planted and germinated

Planted between maize as rows(2 rows of a

mix between maize)

Boniwe Hlatshwayo

Planted but seed eaten by chickens

Planted between maize as a mix

Makhu Mdluli

Planted

Planted between maize as a mix

Zandile Khumalo

Collected seeds but not planted

Name & Surname Stulwane

Status

Planting method

1-14.

All participants received seed and

planted

Planted between maize as a mix. Germination

was not very good.

Name & Surname

Eqeleni

Status

Planting method

1-16.

All participants received seed and

planted

Planted between maize as a mix. Germination

was not very good.

Above left; Khulekani Dladla in front of his sunflower plot and Above right: His maize and millet &

sun hemp intercropped plot.

Zodwa Zikode from Eizbomvini standing in front of her scc plot. Sunflowers have been

intercropped (double rows) with millet and sun hemp mixtures.

A particpant in the Ngoba learning group standing in her lab-lab and

maize intercrop plot. Thiswas in May 2017, and the lab-lab has

started to pod.

A participant form Eqeleni who planted her scc mix

in a separate plot, She planted in rows nad mixed

the three varieties provided. Millet seeded well in

this case and sunflowers did not.

Farmer Centres

The concept of farmer centres was introduced to all participating groups with the main focus

being the villages in the 2nd to 4th year of programme participation. The general response from

the participating groups was that the procurement of production inputs has been widely limited

to the neighbouring towns of Bergville and Winterton and with this the challenge has always

been around transportation. Although the thinking behind the introduction of such centres is

positive, the greatest threat is that of security in the villages. With most of the programme’s

participants being women and heading households their greatest fear was that should this be

known to the local community they would be subject to robberies. Although this was the case

the villages of Ezibomvini and Mhlwazini were very much willing to give this a try. Mam

Phumelele Hlongwane and Mam Zodwa Zikode opted to run the Ezibomvini Farmer centre as a

pair with Mam Mathula Mdladla solely running the Mhlwazini Farmer Centre.

Ezibomvini Farmer Centre

This farmer centre has exceeded the expectations of the owners as initially they as pair

ventured into something completely new and were uncertain about how successful this new

business would be. However they were amazed by the response the people in the village had

and the way in which they supported the initiative. Production inputs such as seed, fertilizer

and herbicides are the main products available at the farmer centre. Villagers were particularly

drawn by the availability of these in quantities that are small enough and affordable. Seed and

fertilizer available at the farmers centre ranges from 1kg to an entire bag (25-50Kg). Where

members required a whole bag of fertilizer, they were encouraged to put in their orders and

payment beforehand. Villagers buying inputs from the farmers centre are also equipped with

knowledge and skill of how to optimally use these inputs using CA principles, with Mam

Phumelele Hlongwane, the community facilitator in the programme being at the forefront of

this. The customers of the centre range from programme participants who want to use the

inputs in control plots and own fields to general community members that are not part of the

programme who practice CA on their own.

Off season farmer centre operation

During the growing season the farmer centre is very active with sales taking place as often as

possible but this trend has been seen to decline during the off season months. This has led the

pair to start assessing other options because they now feel that it is important for the farmer

centre to be operational throughout the year. The local department of Agriculture Bergville also

works very closely with the farmers of the area and have steered a number of initiatives of

which the programme participants are a part of.

These include the Department’s no till programme which makes use of GMO seed as well as

sweet potato production in the area. The department has been responsible for the sourcing of

sweet potato vines and the provision of trainings regarding the planting and further processing

of the produce. With this the farmer centre owners found an opportunity to broaden the list of

inputs that are now available at the farmer centre now providing different culinary spices. This

was a of good example of creating opportunities from various ideas that are presented to them.

Apart from this the farmers

have also identified that there is

a need to include inputs

required in the winter season

such seed potatoes and

seedlings, venturing slightly

away from maize production

during the winter season,

however still speaking to maize

production the duo are looking

to source the preservative pill,

Quickphos and Blue Death to

protect stored grain from grain

moth and weevils.

Right: A view of the available

products at the Ezibomvini farmer Centre in July 2017

Farmer centre model

From the initial capital outlay that was provided by Mahlathini of R 2900.00; this being used to

purchase the initial set of inputs, the loan amount was paid back on the 14th of March 2017.

Cash on hand available is currently R 2 700.00. The sharing of profits made from the farmer

centre has not been tabled as the team still want to focus their energies on the growing of the

farmer centre and injecting any profits made into the further growing of the centre.

Markets

Products are sold to local farmers and other farmers not in the programme but from the area.

Clients are happy about the service they receive from the farmer’s centre. Positive feedback

received based on the quality of seed farmers centre offers. Beans seeds are in high demand. It

goes out of stock faster than anything else.

Management

The farmers centre is managed by two farmers (Zodwa Zikode and Phumelele Hlongwane) who

formed a solid partnership to manage their business. Apart from business partnership, these

farmers are neighbors and they are relatives. Zodwa is a treasurer, she takes care of finances

and she plays a major role in collecting money from people who owe. Phumelele Hlongwane

manages all other business operations such as selling inputs to farmers, weighing and pricing

inputs. She also plays a major role in giving advice to farmers on how to apply or use inputs.

Challenges

Resources are insufficient; they need a scale for weighing inputs to ensure an accurate and

equal amount of inputs sold to individuals. They need a money box to keep the money safe. They

also need a receipt and record book to keep records of their business. The record keeping

system of the farmers still needs an upgrade and a training on this is required.

Customers are not always expected to buy products with cash. The challenge is that people buy

on credit and don’t always pay back.

There are emerging competitors within the community who are selling the same products that

are sold in a farmer centre.

In the absence of Mahlathini Development Foundation field workers, transport to deliver bags

of inputs becomes a problem.

The two small tables below summarise the expenditure and income for the centre between

December 2016-April2017.

TABLE18:SUMMARY OF EXPENDITUREFOR EZIBOMVINI FARMERCENTRE FROM13/12/16TO

16/03/17

Date

Inputs bought

Payment by

centre

Potential

profit(@12.5%

Mark up)

13/12/16

2x50kg fert 2:3:2(22)zn

4x50kg UREA(46) GRAN

4x5kg seed drybean 148

3x1L Round up powermax

1x5kg seed PAN 66

R3000

06/01/17

4X50kg UREA(46) GRAN

R1003.20

17/01/17

2X50kg UREA(46) GRAN

R501.60

04/02/17

1X50kg UREA(46) GRAN

R267.50

16/03/17

1X50kg UREA(46) GRAN

R274.70

20/07/17

Cash on hand(R2700)

Total

R5047.00

R630.87

TABLE19:EZIBOMVINI FARMER CENTRE RECORD(SALES) FROM DEC2016 TO APRIL 2017

Date

Fertilizer

Herbicide

Top dresser

Seed

Total

December

2016

R2758

R1400

R480(LAN)

R630(UREA)

R1161(maize)

R80(beans)

R6509

January 2017

R280

R1692(UREA)

R360(beans)

R72(maize)

R2404

February

2017

R24

R336(UREA)

R80(beans)

R440

March 2017

R36(UREA)

R36

April 2017

Total

R9389.00

Below are some images of the record keeping sheets for the farmer centre.

Mhlwazini Farmer Centre

The Mhlwazini Farmer centre ran by Mam Mathula Mdladla did not get off the ground; the issue

was primarily around her commitment to other things and in a lack of awareness of how much

time the running of the farmer centre requires. Another issue was around the fact that a number

of people in the village are part of the Grain SA farmers support programme where inputs are

received in bulk. Marketing of the services provided was not on par, and the centre fell under.

Those interested in the services also required product prior to payment and this was not

possible with insufficient capital to stock up on larger orders beforehand. She received a start-

up grant from MDF to the amount of 2x50kg Map and 1x50kg LAN. She has not paid back this

amount.

Socio-economic situation of participant smallholder farmers

A yearly review is conducted with learning groups involved in the farmer experimentation

process. There are a number of objectives in the process including assessing the impact of the

CA implementation on the participants’ livelihoods, their level of understanding, learning and

implementation of CA practices and development of social and organisational capacity within

the groups.

The review consists of focus group discussions and individual interviews. The latter have now

been digitalised for ease of analysis of information.

Socio economic data

Of the 258 participants on the farmer experimentation listings, 35% are male and 65% are

female. There has been an increase in the number of male participants over the last four years.

The average household size in the area is 5 household members. Ages of participants range from

18 to >70 years. Around 60% of participants are between 36-55 years of age. Over time the

average age of participants has been decreasing, meaning more economically active and

younger people have become involved.

The main sources of income in the community are social grants (72%), employment (11%) and

farming (10%). See the figure below

This is the first year (in four years of involvement) that participants have started mentioning

farming as a source of income and supports participants’ responses that they are now selling

some of the surplus maize and beans they produce in the community.

Figure 16:Sources of income for CA participants in Bergville, 2017

Overall incomes per household are extremely low, with 75% of households earning between

R0-R2000/month. The remaining 25% earn >R3 000 /month. The average income is

R1875/hh/month – a reduction from last year where the average was around R2450/hh/month

Maize and beans have been used primarily for household food supply; 53% of participants now

have enough for 7-12months food provisioning. This proportion has increased from around

33% the last season. See the figure below

Figure 17: Months of food provisioning for CA participants, 2017

Around 10 VSLAs (village saving and loan associations) have been established across the 17

villages where CA is being implemented; so roughly 59%. Savings are for consumption

smoothing, household expenses and saving for inputs (28%). Overall savings is R100-R500 per

person per month.

Child

support

grant

55%

Pension

17%

Employment

11%

Remittances

Farming

10%

SOURCES OF INCOME

1-3months

4-6months

39%

7-9months

38%

10-12months

15%

HOUSEHOLD FOOD SUPPLY THROUGH CA

Notwithstanding the very low incomes participants save for inputs. Generally, these savings

amount to around 10-15% of their income. The two small figures below indicate the percentage

of savings group members who save for inputs and give an indication of the amount saved.

Figure 18: Money saved for buying inputs

Learning and implementation of CA practices

All participants in the farmer level trials start in their

first season by comparing different hand- held planters-

mostly use of hand hoes, compared to the MBLI

(Afritrac) hand planters. The jab planters and wheel

planters (Haraka planters) are not commonly used, but

are introduced for planting of cover crops. Animal

drawn planters are used by a small sub-group of

participants who have access to oxen. The small figure

alongside indicates the participants’ continued use of the implements after their initial learning.

The 69% of participants who use the MBLI planters said that it works better than hand hoes

because it saves time and effort. Some participants felt that they needed to check all the time

whether the seed and fertilizer had been deposited properly and thus did not feel they saved

time. In very high percentage clay soils, or very hard soils the MBLI planters also do not work

too well- thus the combined use of hand hoes and planters.

Regarding soil fertility, 78% of the respondents

shared that they are able to distinguish between

fertile and infertile soils. Criteria for assessing

fertile soil were the following; Increased yields

(53%), weed infestation (17%), increased organic

matter (12%), soil colour (12%) and improved crop

growth (6%). This indicates that a small percentage

of participants are starting to use characteristics

introduced and discussed in learning sessions-

such as organic matter alongside their traditional

assessment criteria

Savings

groups

(inputs)

Yes…

Savings

groups

(inputs)

72%

MEMBERS SAVING FOR INPUTS

R0-

R1000

78%

R1001-…

R2001- R

3000

11%

R 3001-over

11%

AMOUNT SAVED FOR INPUTS

Soil color;

12%

Increased

yield 53%

Weed

infestation

; 17%

Increased

organic

matter;

12%

Improved

crop

growth;

Characteristics of fertile soil

Figure 20: Participants understanding of characteristics of

fertile soil

Figure 19: Use of planters by CA participants

Participants were asked what the most important

factors were for them to improve crop growth.

Their answers here indicated some of their learning

around inputs. For the most part, respondents have

not yet made the connection that CA practices in

themselves can improve soil quality and soil

fertility. See the figure alongside

In terms of labour requirements, respondents felt that land preparation and planting are easier

in CA then for conventional cropping. They were however divided in their responses regarding

weeding. A significant number feel that labour for weeding is increased, but in fact one may

have expected that more participants would feel that weeding pressure was increased. See the

two small figures below.

Focus group review discussions have been held in the following villages

TABLE20:VILLAGES WHERE FOCUS GROUPREVIEW SESSIONS WERE HELD;JULY-AUGUST 2017

Village

Tot. no. of pp in attendance

Tot. new members

Ezibomvini

Stulwane

Ndunwana

Ngoba

Thamela

Okhombe

Nsuka

Mhlwazini

Cornfields

Total

106

Series1;

Fertilizer;

14; 47%

Lime;

10%

Herbicide;

20%

Manure;;

13%

Urea/LAN

; 7% Pesticides

; 3%

Inputs to improve production

Figure 21: Participants’ perception of inputs required to

improve production

More;

33%

Same;

28%

Less;

39%

Weeding CA vs conventional

More ;

5% Same;

17%

Less;

78%

Preparation CA vs conventional

Figure 22: Labour requirements for land preparation and weeding in CA

A very brief summary of some of the trends in these discussions is provided below:

-Participants are aware that input costs are very high but did not know the actual costs of

inputs per hectare

-They are also still unsure of the actual size of their fields

-Most participants do some saving, but not many save specifically for inputs. Presently

there are 2 savings groups (Ezibomvini and Ndunwana) set up specifically for saving for

inputs. In the other groups a proportion of their savings would be used. Participants feel

that they cannot belong to two savings groups as the extra burden in saving would be

too much for them

-Participants are comfortable paying for the input subsidies and feel that the cheaper

inputs help them a lot.

-Participants still buy inputs according to habit and what they can afford, rather than

according to the actual inputs that may be required. So, they would buy 1 bag of

fertilizer (or half a bag) and one bag of seed, irrespective of their field size –

notwithstanding the fact that the facilitation team have been working with them on

these calculations

-Participants also still buy whatever seed and fertilizer is suggested to them at the shops,

rather than requesting the seed and fertilizer types promoted through the programme.

This is mostly an issue of confidence, as most participants are now aware of differences

-Many participants still keep traditional seed for re planting, along with buying some

seed from local shops such as Farmsave in Bergville

-Many participants shared that there is a considerable cost saving with conservation

agriculture practice because it negates the use of expensive tractors which charge R 15-

R 20 per metre for ploughing and the same amount for discing.

-In Mhlwazini participants shared that with the practice if conservation agriculture

principles, they no longer make use of tractors and oxen and they have seen the general

condition of their cattle improved ,because their cattle are now not subjected to

intensive labour ploughing and planting fields.

-Participants felt that this season was good, and are satisfied with the yields they have

obtained for maize and beans.

-The quality of bean seed harvested this year was not good in most cases, as late rains

meant seed had water damage. The wetter seed has led to high levels of weevil

infestation.

-The mixed brown cowpea planted grew well, but did not pod or seed well, or at all in

most cases. It appears that podding happens too late in the season, when cattle are

already allowed into the fields for grazing.

-Millet as a cover crop is not working too well as birds eat all the seed

-Sunflower seed has been harvested by most participants who planted these in their

cover crop mixes. Some have even sold some of that seed in their local communities.

-Yields obtained are primarily for household consumption and for the feeding of cattle,

goats and chickens but these normally feed on spoilt maize from the uhlaka storage

structures which the participants reported is very prone to rat invasion and they have

resorted to the keeping of cats for the control of this threat while other participants

reported that the only way to save one’s maize from being damaged is by decobbing,

storing the grain in drums and using the preservative pill to prevent weevils from

affecting their stored grain

-Storage is an issue, especially for the older participants who are now producing a lot

more grain than they can easily store in their small storage structures and their huts.

Some of the older participants are now warming to the idea of joint storage structures,

although they still have doubts about trusting others and feel that the transport to and

from these structures would be problematic for the,, So overall, people would still want

something at their own homesteads.

-Some participants reported the occasional sale of produce, mostly dry beans (R100/5l).

Maize is seldom sold unless somebody comes requesting a “ithini”-(R50/20L). The

participants indicated that this year few people in the village did not plant and there is a

lot of maize to go around in the village.

-The local mill at Emmaus is responsible for the milling of maize from Emazimbeni,

Vimbukhalo, Ezibomvini, Eqeleni, Thunzini and Stulwane villages among others. The

pressure on this mill has meant the mill had been broken down quite a number of times

already. Transportation is an issue for those who cannot walk to the mill, local vans

charge anything between R 20-R25 for transportation to the mill.

-The experimentation with cover crops has been to date limited to the villages of

Ezibomvini, Stulwane, Eqeleni, Ngoba and Ndunwana. Participants shared that their

understanding of the purpose of the cover crops was to maintain soil moisture and the

provision of nutrients to the soils. Some participants requested more information.

-For winter cover crop mix; black oats, radish and forage peas, participants shared that

seed sown was affected negatively by scratching chicken. Of those that had germination

in their plots radish and oats were seen to have grown well but they feel these were

planted late because by the time they were growing well, the cattle were released into

the fields.

-There is a large concern with cattle damaging crops and neither the owners, nor the

traditional authority try very hard to keep cattle out of fields. This means that someone

always needs to stay at home to chase cattle when they come. Participants feel that

fencing their fields would be the best option, but feel that they cannot afford this

expense. They also felt that perhaps the department of Agriculture could assist the

community with secure grazing.

Learning workshops

This season learning workshops were conducted in some of the newer villages (Ndunwana,

Emabunzini and Thamela). It became apparent

to the facilitation team, during the course of the

growing season when monitoring was

conducted, that the introductory workshops

and then the joint spraying and planting

processes were not enough to help participants

to fully understand and appreciate what CA is

and how the process works.

The workshop agenda is shown in the text box

alongside.

Workshops were well received, but due to time

pressure in harvesting, these sessions could not

be conducted in all the areas.

Implementation per area

Ezibomvini

This season 9 participants from the Ezibmovini learning group separated their yields per plot.

This has allowed a comparison between different treatments for these participants.

Table ?below gives an indication of yields for mono cropped and intercropped maize plots, as

well as bean plantings and some summer cover crop yields

LEARNING WORKSHOP AGENDA

Healthy soils -Characteristics of a healthy soil

Soil texture- Characteristics of a soil texture types, methods of

identifying soil texture- sausage method

Soil structure-Soil profile, different soil structure types, soil erosion

and its effects

Soil sampling and significance- Essential plant nutrients and their

functions (tell -tale signs of deficiency)

Principles of conservation agriculture- Planting systems (inter

cropping, crop rotations), crop diversification, cover crops and their

significance, disease and pest life cycles

Good practice -Integrated weed management

Chemical use- Precautionary measures, protective clothing

Different chemicals and how they work

Seed types -Traditional, open pollinated, hybrid seed, genetically

modified seed. Important pointers to consider when using GMO

Phumzile Ncgobo works with participants in Ndunwana on the soil

type test - making soil sausages

Workshop participants in Emabunzini in discussion with their

facilitator Phumzile Ngcobo

TABLE21:PLOTYIELDS PER CROPFOR 9 PARTICIPANTS FROMEZIBOMVINI;2016-2017SEASON.

Note: C=Control, Sf=Sunflower, LL=Lab-Lab, S=sunnhemp, .E=Early, L=Late

From the above table the following comments can be made:

MAIZE: Maize was planted either as an intercrop with beans or cowpeas or as a single crop.

-Overall, the maize yields have been extremely good this season; ranging from 3,6-15,3

tons/ha in the trial plots, and 3,8-9,7tons/ha in the control plots.

-CA trial yields have been significantly higher than the conventionally tilled control plots

(Zodwa Zikode).

-Maize yields in the maize and bean intercropped plots have been higher than in the

maize and cowpea intercropped plots as well as the maize single crop plots, for all

participants where these were measured.

BEANS: Early beans were planted in November, along with the maize. Participants also

requested to do a late season planting, expressing their feeling that late season beans produce

better. This is due to late season rains that damage the early season harvest.

-Bean yields have generally been quite low – with the notable exceptions of Cabangani

and Phumelele Hlongwane. This indicates that the yield potential for beans was good

this season and that they have not been realised due to management practices and

potentially soil acidity issues for most of the participants.

-Single block plantings of beans have not yielded better than intercropped plots- despite

the strong ‘belief’ in the area that this is the case.

-Additionally, the late season plantings have not yielded better than the early season

plantings as participants had hoped.

Name

Surname

year

join

trial

size

trial

descriptio

Yields (tons/ha)

Maize

SCC

Beans

M+B

M+

N ZIkode

2016

400

2(m+b)

2(m+c)

6,10

6,02

0,98

Zodwa

Zikode

2014

1000

4 (m+b) , 4

(m), 1 (B), 1

scc plot

3,83

10,46

7,17

6,1

0,18

0,69

0,93

Landiwe

Dlamini

2015

400

4(m+b)

8,75

0,29

0,46

Cabangani

Hlongwane

2015

800

1(m+b)1(m+

c)1(m)1(b)

10,4

4,33

5,94

2,66

0,15

Mantombi

Mabizela

2016

400

3 ( M+B), 1(

M+C)

3,65

3,2

0,47

Balungile

Mkhwanazi

2016

400

4(M+B)

6,94

0,30

Phumelele

Hlongwane

2014

1000

3 m+b), 1

(m+c), 4( m),

1( Lab Lab),

1 Scc

9,69

11,99

9,79

9,0

1,72

0,02

0,01

2,27

0,92

Nombono

Dladla

2016

400

3(m+b),

1(m+C)

15,34

12,7

0,75

0,39

Khanyisile

Zikode

2016

400

2 (m+b),

2(m+c)

4,53

4,10

0,58

0,15

Seeds from summer cover crops (SCC) were only harvested by two of the participants. Yields

have been low. The sunflowers were planted in separate blocks with the intention of harvesting

seed for use as poultry feed. Phumelele Hlongwane realised a reasonable yield of 1,7t/ha of

sunflower seed. None of the participants manged to harvest millet this season due to bird

damage. Yields for sun hemp have been similarly low due to bird damage.

Table22 summarises a selection of monitoring indicators for the participants mentioned above.

From this monitoring data, it should be possible to discern whether the reduced bean yields for

example are an outcome of specific management practices not being executed well.

TABLE22:MONITORING INFORMATION FORA SELECTION OFPARTICIPANTS FROMEZIBOMVINI

Ave

yield

(t/ha)

Germination

At planting

Name

Save

for

input

Metho

d of

weedin

Resid

Wee

Fertili

zer

Por

sity

off

Pes

cide

Hlongwa

Phumelel

10,

2,3

yes

hand

weedin

lan

goo

deci

Mabizela

Mantomb

3,4

0,5

hand

weedin

lan

goo

mil

deci

Zikode

Zodwa

7,9

0,7

yes

herbici

map,

lan

poo

yes

deci

Zikode

Khanyisil

4,3

0,6

hand

weedin

herbici

map

deci

Dlamini

Landiwe

8,8

0,3

yes

20,

herbici

map

fair

yes

non

Nombon

o Dladla

0,7

herbici

0,2

map,la

goo

deci

Zikode

Nonhlan

hla

herbici

42%

General comments on the information from the table:

-A few socio-economic indicators have been included here to give a sense of who the

participants are. The average age of these participating women is 50 years. It is also

evident that those participants who save for inputs all belong to VSLA (Village savings

and loan associations). This corroborates the importance of introduction of the VSLA as

part of the implementation process in is crucial for longer term sustainability.

-The brown blocks indicate participants who had planted PAN 6479. The rest of this sub-

group planted PAN 53. It is understood in this area that PAN53 is better suited for drier,

hotter conditions. The yields of the two hybrids however are comparable and there is no

obvious indication of one out performing the other.

-This season, due to dry conditions early in the season, necessitated the use of

Gramoxone, rather than Round-up as the herbicide of choice. Generally the use of the

herbicide was effective for this group.

-For most of the participants the percentage residue cover at planting is still extremely

low. The only exception to this is Phumelele Hlongwane- who has a fenced plot and is in

her 4thyear of implementation.

-There is little correlation between percentage of weeds present at planting (after

spraying) and bean yields, as may have been expected.

-Percentage germination for maize averaged 63%, for cowpeas -35% and for beans- 60%.

These germination percentages are not very good, but are indicative of the extended dry

conditions at the beginning of the season. The depressed bean germination percentages

however cannot be directly correlated to the low bean yields, except perhaps in the case

of Landiwe Dlamini who only saw 9% germination and a consequent yield of 0,3t/ha.

-There is no trend showing yields increasing proportional to length of participation. The

four participants whose yields are blocked out in green, started implementation this

year. On average their yields are comparable to the participants who have been involved

for longer periods.

-Comments for individual participants:

-Phumelele Hlongwane realised exceptional yields for both maize and beans. She is in her

fourth year of experimentation and opted this year for a reduced amount of external

inputs. She did not spray herbicide (Gramoxone) but did hand weeding -citing that the

use of herbicides to date has reduced her weed load enough to make hand weeding

manageable. She also did not apply any basal fertilizer (MAP), but only did top dressing.

This indicates that her soil fertility and soil health status is definitely a lot better than

that of most of the other participants.

-Nombono Dladla is a new participant, who started this season. She has realised

exceptional maize yields. This is mainly due to her use of a highly fertile plot just below

her homestead, where there used to be a kraal.

Nombono Dladla, a new particpant in Ezibomvini

standing in her plot of late planted beans.

Khanyisilei Zikode in Ezibomvinii standing in her

late bean planting plot. She has not kept abreast

of weeding and subsequently realised a low

yield.

Phumelele Hlongwane indicates her

sunflower yields

Phumelele also planted a 10sqm plot of soya

beans and harvested 21,22kg -

Emabunzini

This is a new area, an expansion from the Ngoba group. The group consists of 9 participants

who planted the 1st year trial design of 400m2 maize and bean and maize and cowpea

intercropped plots.

Some specific challenges in this area include:

Threat of stray livestock

Over commitment of participants

General poor maintenance of the trials

Livestock were not sent to grazing areas this

season, due to lack of grazing and thus

participants who planted in unfenced plots

spent much of the season trying to stop

livestock from invading their fields. The

initial herbicide spraying did not work

particularly well and thus high weed

pressure results. Some participants did not

weed on time. They mentioned that they

were unaware of the amount of effort

required in maintenance of the CA plots and did not allocate the time.

Ndunwana

This area is in it’s 2nd year of CA trial implementation. The

group consist of 19 members, 5 of whom joined this season.

The group opted to plant the 1st year trial design layout of

400m2 maize and bean and maize and cowpea intercropped

plots. 13 of the14 2nd year participants paid their subsidy

amounts for inputs.

They also planted the late season relay crop of cover crops

into their drying maize plots – after harvesting beans. A mix

of 5 cc’s was used.

For this group, the following yields were obtained

Crop

Yield range

(t/ha)

Average

(t/ha

Beans trial

0,2-1,43

0,7

Maize trial

0,4-7,5

3,2

Maize control

0,3-4,8

1,9

Nomqibelo Hlathwayo's bean harvest being

weighed.

Thenjiwe Hlowane's plot of maize and cowpeas intercropped. Here

the poor maintenance and livestock damage have led to now yields

being recorded.

Through the local facilitator, Mrs Boniwe Hlatshwayo, a number of participants collected the

seed. However chickens feeding on the broadcasted seed were a major problem. Four

participants had signs of germination their fields (Nomgqibelo Hlatshwayo, Tholiwe Nkala,

Shiyiwe Mazibuko and Matozo Zondo)

Generally the group is happy about how the season has gone and feel pleased with the yields

obtained for their maize crops. Beans

however did not yield well because of

late rains.

The group had a challenge with weeding,

feeling that the herbicide was inefficient.

As with most groups this year,

Gramoxone was used instead of round

Up, given that there was not much weed

growth yet at planting- as the area was

still dry. This meant that weeds re-

emerged quickly.

Solutions offered were decreasing the

trial plot sizes and workign with

integrated weed management principles.

These include early weeding as a very

important strategy and the late weeding again to ensure that weeds do not set seed. Soil cover

and canpoly cover are critical components of the process.

Tholiwe Nkala shows his wcc planting. he opted to make furrows adn

plant in rows.

Oats, radish and sun hemp visible in the rows planted by Tholiwe

Nkala in Ndunwana

Germination and growth of the wcc mix relay

cropped into maize on Shiyiwe Mazibukko's plot in

Ndunwana. radishes and oats are clearly visible.

Stakeholder engagement

In the Bergville area a lot more specific attention has been given to engagement of stakeholders

in the past few months.

This has happened at a number of levels:

-Co-funding and implementation: Working with the KZN LandCare programme. Funding

has been received through this programme for procurement of tools and limited inputs

for the 2017-2018 season. Awareness raising events are to be conducted jointly in2

areas of cooperation; Bergville and Ixopo.

-Links have been made with other NGOs operating in the area; namely Lima RDF and

Pilakahle. In this context introductory team meetings were held to outline the

organisations’ respective programmes. Subsequent introductions were made with

community level learning groups. In Ezibomvini for example the 19 learning group

members have embarked on a training programme with Pilakahle in asset based

community development and business management training – the group is also

interested in the revolving loan fund operated by Lima, where much larger loans can be

procured than in their VSLAs.

For the latter it has been agreed that close cooperation between MDF and Lima would be

required to ensure that this revolving credit does not impact on the functionality of the VSLAs.

Explorations with government and Local Municipality officials to set up a stakeholder forum in

the area around maize production which can pull together all role players. Potential

stakeholders here include the DRDLR, DARD, Okahlamba LED section, DSD, COGTA, Dept of

Health , local agribusiness, grains farmer support programme, NGOs and farmers. See

attachment 1: Multi stakeholder Forum, for an outline of the proposed forum that has been sent

around to prospective stakeholder participants.

Communication with the Okahlamba LED manager regarding collaboration. Here discussions

revolved around Mahlathini’s involvement in one of the LED strategic initiatives funded through

the DRDLR – regarding the development of Agriparks and secondary cooperatives.

Farmers days have been held in Ezibomvini and Ndunwana. These have bene large public

events showcasing the Ca work in these communities and have included many different

stakeholders and role players including DARD extension services, Cedara specialist from their

Soil Sciences section and the Economics section, LandCare representatives and participants

from universities (UKZN, Fort Hare) and NGOs (lima, Pilakahle and FSG). An outline of the

programme for the Ezibomvini farmers day is presented in Attachment 3.

The farmer’s day attracted a lot of attention from stakeholders this year, as in previous years.

The general process was one of presentations being given by various stakeholders and then

small group “walk abouts” to a number of stations including:

-CA trial fields;- Phumlele Holngwane; showcasing intercropping cover crops, crop

rotation, water runoff plots, and soyabenas

-A power point presentation on principles nad progress

-A demonstration station run by DARD on LadnCare and

-A beautiful 1st year trial- Nombono Dladla

DVDs have been produced for implementation of CA in smallholder farming systems both as

awareness raising materials for grains and for a television programme

Ezimbovini farmers' day. left: The FarmSave representative helping in distributing prizes for the CA quiz conducted and Right;

Participants of the day listening to a presentation

Above left and middle: the Landcare demonstration site with posters for promotion of CA and a mulching demonstration. Above

right, participants looking at a trial site

The promotional DVD has been produced in both English and

isiZulu and has been used extensively in further farmers days

and awareness raising events. It has been very well received

by farmers, given that they know some of the people being

interviewed in the DVD and has done a lot to raise the profile

of CA.

Exploratory meetings have been held with the Dept of

Environmental Affairs to discuss their pilot programmes for

Climate Smart Agriculture and the GrainSA’s CA SFIP

involvement in this process as well as for consideration of

incentive schemes based on payment for ecosystem services.

Building of Social platforms

This process is integral to the entire innovation development process and is built on voluntary

association in learning groups as the first building block at community level. These groups then

undertake a number of activities that build social capital and cohesion including;

Joint working groups; where smaller groups of people undertake to do their farming activities

together to save time and use their combined labour more efficiently

Bulk buying groups; where groups of individuals club together to buy inputs from the farming

activities

Joint learning and review sessions; where groups come together to discuss progress and

observations and plan next steps together

VSLA’s (village savings and loan associations); where individuals set up groups who save

together and take out loans within the group to help them with consumption smoothing,

productive activities and small enterprise development

Selection of Local facilitators; who assist the groups in monitoring and provision of advice as

well as linkages with the programme and other stakeholders and

Development of local farmer centres; designed and run by the learning groups to provide local

input support, as well as management of group owned tools and provision of advice to learning

group members and potential new participants.

In this way a local community of practice is built up around implementation of Conservation

Agriculture that is community based and pays attention to the entire value chain for grain crop

production.

Busy setting up for an interview in Stulwane

This year has also seen the introduction of a Social Compact Agreement, wherein the learning

group and Mahlathini undertake an agreement that outlines their roles and responsibilities in

this process. This has become important as the groups mature and start to attract attention

from other stakeholders and relationships need to be managed in a way that is collaborative

and inclusive. See Attachment 4 for an example of the social compact agreement. This

agreement builds on the individual contracts that are signed with each farmer participant when

they join the programme.

General comments and suggestions on the experimentation

-The system being promoted is already a low external input system where pre-planting

spraying of herbicide is promoted, with the use of hand and mechanical weeding options

during the growing season. This strategy is causing some difficulties for participants,

especially now that the onset of rains has been later and the spring and early summer

seasons have mostly been dried than before. This trend has now been experienced for

three consecutive years.

-It means that the fields are still ‘bare’ when spraying should happen (2 weeks prior to

planting) as little to no rain has meant that weeds are still dormant.

-With the planting of scc’s(summer cover crops) growth has been good this season. Very

few participants harvested seed, partly due to seeding being problematic for some of the

cover crops- such as sun hemp and millet (bird damage). The hope that participants

would be able to produce enough seed to continue planting their own cover crops is not

being realised. Those that have harvested sunflower seed are intending to use the seed

as poultry feed.

-In addition, the planting of winter cover crops is still a high-risk activity, given the

potential for soil moisture competition in this relay cropping design, the difficulty of

seeding the cover crops and the high likelihood of consumption of theseed by poultry

and other birds.

-This means that in the foreseeable future the production of cover crops will need to be

an externally supported and funded process. farmers are not producing enough seed

themselves nad are unlikely to buy it, but are starting to appreciate the benefits of the

cover crops. Further experimentation with the relay cropping of the winter cover crops

is important. At the moment cover crops are not produced at a scale that is very useful

for winter fodder production for livestock and experimentation with larger plantings of

cover crops in certain situations could be a significant factor in bringing livestock

owners on board. Only around 30% of the participants also own livestock and some of

the larger livestock owners are not as yet a part of the CA experimentation process. It is

generally the men that own the livestock and the women who grow the maize.

-Bean production is still encountering many challenges; low germination, good growth

but poor podding, reduction of harvests due to late season pest (CMR beetles) and rain.

An added issue is that this season a number of participants have storage pests- bruchids

and do not have specific processes to deal with this. ….

This season a number of participants opted to try out late season bean plantings,

believing that yields would be much higher for these plantings. As the climatic

conditions have been shifting, participants have had some success with late season

plantings. This season however these improved yields did not materialise, partly due to

inadequate rain and soil moisture. Late season bean plantings will need to be timed

quite accurately- potentially no later than the first week of February.

-Maize production this year provided bumper crops for a number of participants, as they

had also expanded their production areas, partly by being involved in more than one

maize production support process. They do not have the logistical or infrastructural

requirements to handle these increased volumes. Suggestions for moving into the future

include:

oSetting up a process for harvesting support, contracting small teams of labour to

assist, or working on a process for the joint activity groups in the villages to

support each other.

oA mobile shelling machine needs to be obtained- either bought or hired for the

harvesting season to make this part of the process more efficient.

oStorage options at homestead level need to be upgraded. This has been a need

for a few seasons now. Participants od not easily consider buying storage

containers and some kind of support process here is now urgently required.

-The lack of coherent grazing management systems in the villages is posing a direct

threat to the implementation of CA and to dryland cropping. The traditional authorities

are responsible for setting and enforcing rules around grazing management for each of

the villages. Generally, there is a system for summer grazing in the mountains where

livestock need to be taken to these grazing areas and are herded during this season. In

winter, the cattle are allowed back into the villages. Fines can be levelled at people who

do not follow these broad rules. However, in times of stress and drought the TA’s will

more often than not decide to keep the cattle in and around the villages as there is

generally more water and grazing available. This then makes the planting and

management of dryland crops almost untenable. Individual smallholders do not feel

they have the power to intervene in such processes or ask for change. In some of the

areas, the smallholders have suggested that outside facilitation of a planning and change

management process for grazing management is the only option that they can see that

will work. It may be an idea to embark on such a process in one or two of the villages to

negotiate systems that are beneficial for both livestock owners and smallholders

practicing dryland cropping

-Learning workshops are a central part of the facilitation and implementation process.

Due to working with such a large number of participants across 17 villages, these

workshops were not held in all areas. This is seen to have created a weakness in the

programme, as newer participants are not well informed about the CA process.

A process for ensuring that these learning session are done in each of the new villages is

to be designed- interns can be brought in to assist with the planting and to free up some

time for facilitators to run these sessions with the learning groups.

-Participants generally assess the success of their CA trials in terms of visible differences

in their crops and in their yields. Generally there are noticeable increases in yield in the

CA plots, when compared to conventional plots in the short team (1st year). This is more

likely an effect of better management practices for maize production in general

(nutrient and weed management) rather than being a primary effect of the reduction of

tillage or soil health. It will be important to work pro-actively with longer term

participants to start to observe and analyse the more subtle changes wrought through

CA.

These are presently analysed in the yearly reviews and participants are aware of a

number of factors such as increased water infiltration and reduced run off., increased

moisture holding capacity of the soil, a reduction in weed pressure when CA is done

properly, increased value being placed on secondary crops such as beans and cover

crops and the value of intercropping for increasing maize yields.

-A further important motivational factor for participants is a reduction in input costs.

Given that they generally use a very low external input option for their control plots

(buying minimal fertilizer and keeping their own seed for re-planting) the main saving is

in ploughing costs. With the pending introduction of tractor drawn planters for the

participants’ planting larger fields, this particular benefit will be reduced. The other

benefits of the CA system will then come into play more strongly

-Participants have changing how they manage their control plots upon observations of

benefits in their CA plots. Thus a number of participants have now opted to have CA

control plots as well , or use the same fertilizer and weed management practices as for

CA plots. This has meant that the obvious differences between CA and control plots are

slowly eroding as control plot yields catch up with the CA plots.

A conscious strategy will need to be employed in terms of learning and observations for

these participants to ensure that they can unravel the effects of CA on their crop

management system and/or we will need to more consciously include conventionally

tilled plots as control plots going into the future.

Attachment 1: Multi-stakeholder Forum; Mahlathini Development

Foundation.

Introduction

Smallholder farmers in South Africa and in KwaZulu-Natal face a wide array of challenges that

constantly pose a threat to their livelihoods. These include limited resources, low economic

returns, low yields, poor infrastructure, and lack of access to information. Many of these farmers

are unemployed and rely on subsistence farming and government grants to sustain a living with

women playing a vital role in agricultural production. These challenges have led to a decline in

agricultural production in rural communities. However, smallholder farmers play an essential

role in livelihoods creation and household food security, therefore efforts need to be

strengthened by government, NGO’s, the private sector and other key role players to ensure that

agricultural production is revitalised in this sector (Ramaila et al, 2011).

In Bergville, KwaZulu Natal, there are a number of organisations working with smallholder

farmers to improve their access to resources and information, sources of income and their

social and economic levels. These organisations include government, NGOs’ and civil society

organisations. Although the challenges external organisations wish to address are similar, there

is limited communication and collaboration between the stakeholders. This could be due to

factors such as clashes in programs and timeframes and conflicting interests amongst others.

The purpose of this document is to propose the formation of a multi-stakeholder forum in

Bergville with the aim to improve stakeholder relations, coordinate programs and actions for

more efficient implementation and gain deeper understanding of the various stakeholder roles.

The establishment of a stakeholder forum entails initiating two-way dialogue seeking

understanding and solutions to issues of mutual concern.

Objectives of the Stakeholder Forum

Create a platform for stakeholders to present their programs and encourage broader

involvement.

Understand the expectations, roles and contributions of the different stakeholders in Bergville

and identify areas for collaboration

Coordinate the implementation of projects by identifying common areas of interest, possible

overlaps between projects and explore how stakeholders can support each other to avoid

duplication and conflict of interest.

Share knowledge and experiences in addressing common challenges

Promote ways of accelerating the implementation of actions

The stakeholder forum will not only focus on coordination on projects but will also assess the

roles of other key players such as input suppliers, commercial farmers and local businesses with

the aim to strengthen relationships between them and other stakeholders such as government

and NGOs by sharing information and identifying areas of mutual benefit. The ultimate goal of

the stakeholder farmer is to create partnerships that place the farmer at the centre and increase

efficiency of project implementation.

Stakeholders

The stakeholders identified for the forum include the following:

-Local Government: Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD),

Department of Rural Development and Land Reform (DRLR), Department of Economic

Development and Tourism (DEDT).

-Non-Governmental Organisations (Mahlathini Development Foundation (MDF),

Philakahle, Lima, Farmer Support Group (FSG))

-Private businesses (retailers and local business people)

-Commercial farmers

-Input suppliers (TWK, Farm Save, etc.)

-Local Authorities ( Chief/induna)

Forum Meetings

The stakeholder forum will be held quarterly, i.e. every three months in order to ensure

continuous engagement and allow enough time action plans to be implemented.

Forum Deliverables

The primary deliverable of the forum is an action plan on discussions and agreed actions and

updated reports on progress in implementation.

Attachment 2: farmers’ day programme

Ezibomvini Farmer’s Day

THEME: CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE: SOIL HEALTH AND USE OF

REDUCED INPUTS

Date: 02 March 2017

Time: 10h00

Venue: Emmaus Ezibomvini

ITEM

RESPONSIBILITY

Opening prayer

Mr. L Dubazane

Welcoming of guests(isqongo)

Mr. Zimba

TALKS

1. Asset based community driven development

Mrs Nkutha (Philakahle)

2. Cost benefit Analysis No-till vs conventional

agriculture

Agriculture economist Dept. of agric

3. Soil health

Dr Charmaine Mchunu Dept of Agric

4. Soil health and soil fertility the Role of CA

Dr Hendrik Smith (Grain SA)

5. Progress in CA SFIP Programme

Ms Erna Kruger (Mahlathini Dev. Foundation)

6. Correct use and handling of chemicals

Mr Ngcobo (Nulandis)

7. Testimonies

Farmer (Ezibomvini)

Farmer ( Stulwane)

Farmer (Eqeleni)

8. CA/ No till programme local Department of

Agriculture

Mr Khuboni (Local Extension officer)

9. Local Municipal programmes involving small

holder farmers

Mrs Ndaba (Senior LED officer)

9. Field visits to nearby sites

Zikode Zodwa, Dladla Nombono and Hlongwane

Phumelele

10. Open session & Remarks from Visiting

Farmers

11. Closing Remarks

Mr Hadede (ward councillor)

12. Closing Prayer

Mr Dubazane

LUNCH

END THANK YOU

GUEST LIST EZIBOMVINI FARMERS DAY

GUEST

ORGANIZATION

EMAIL ADDRESS

Mr Ngcobo

Nulandis (chemical suppliers)

chemiseed@futurenet.co.za &

neethling@megawifi.co.za

Mrs Ndaba

Okhahlamba Local

Municipality

hlengiwe.ndaba@okhahlamba.gov.za

TWK

representative

TWK agri boffins

(Winterton)

wrmuller@twkagri.com &

Winterton@twkagri.com

Farmsave

representative

Farm save (Bergville)

Lydia@farmsave.co.za

Mrs Nkutha

Philakahle

Nnyadi.nkutha@gmail.com

Ms Zodwa

Mazibuko

Department of Agriculture

(Cedara)

Zodwa.mazibuko@kzndard.gov.za

Dr Charmaine

Mchunu

Department of Agriculture

(Cedara)

Charmaine.mchunu@kzndard.gov.za

Mr Rob

Grain SA (farmers support

programme)

iron@futurenet.co.za

Ms Nonhlanhla

Mthembu

Farmers Support Group

(UKZN)

mthembuno@ukzn.ac.za

Mr Nkosi / Mr

Khuboni

Local Department of

Agriculture

Zamokwakhe.nkosi@kzndard.gov.za

Attachment 3: Social Compact Agreement.

GRAIN-SA SMALLHOLDER FARMER INNOVATION

PROGRAMME

PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT

Entered into and between:

MAHLATHINI DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION

Represented by:

and

FARMER LEARNING GROUP

In the community of Nokweja

Represented by:

Name of the Programme

The name of this programme is: Grain-SA Smallholder Farmer Innovation Programme. This

programme is funded by Grain-South Africa.

The Parties to this Programme Implementation Agreement (PIA)

The parties to this PIA are:

Mahlathini Development Foundation as the Programme Implementing Agent and herein

referred to as MDF; and

Farmer Learning Group as a collective of participating smallholder farmers in the said

community of Nokweja, and herein referred to as FLG.

PIA and Acceptance

MDF hereby confirms its commitment to support FLG as per terms and conditions contained in

this PIA.

FLG hereby confirms its acceptance in participation in this programme as per terms and

conditions contained in this PIA.

The duration of the programme shall be aligned to contractual dates of the Grain-SA as the

programme funder.

In the event of any conflicts with regard to the interpretation and understanding of this PIA, the

provisions contained in Section 7 of this document shall prevail.

Background

MDF has pioneered a model for value chain development and support at a local level for rural

smallholder agricultural commodities with few partners in KwaZulu-Natal and the Eastern Cape

provinces. The main commodities have been maize, and beans, poultry production (broilers and

layers), vegetables and potatoes.

The model is based on a farmer innovation approach linked to Village Saving and Loan

Associations (VSLAs) popular referred to as village level savings and credit groups, where

smallholder farmers in previously disadvantaged communities organise themselves into

commodity interest groups.

These interest groups work together within the whole value chain from input supply, through

production to marketing to learn together and create local economic opportunities within the

system.

These interest groups form bulk buying groups, set up local supply systems and local

microenterprises, participate in farmer level learning and experimentation and forge local

market linkages. They are supported to forge relationships with agribusiness and institutional

partners and receive support and training in small business development.

Over the last 5 years, this model has proven extremely successful in stimulating local production

and marketing and provides coherent support to smallholders to develop their farming

enterprises. Linking the smallholder into the wider economy and ensuring ongoing profitability

under their difficult conditions can be tackled as a challenge with appropriate industry and

government support.

Purpose of the Programme

The main purpose of this programme is to optimise Conservation Agriculture (CA) system for

non and semi-commercial smallholder farmers.

In other words, this programme aims to empower smallholder farmers to participate actively in

local value chains, transform their production into profitable enterprises and consequently

maximise their yields and their incomes.

Main Role of Mahlathini Development Foundation

MDF will facilitate the establishment of Farmer Learning Groups for the purpose of

experimentation in conservation agriculture so that smallholder farmers can learn together and

work as teams to increase their yields and income streams. MDF therefore commits to;

Promote the establishment of Farmer Learning Groups as the main community-based

institution that will implement conservation agriculture in a community;

Promote crop diversification and introduction of fodder and other food crops for food security

and income generation;

Promote innovation platforms open up options for local economic activities such as growing

and milling yellow maize for animal feed;

Facilitate innovation platforms build relationships with agribusiness stakeholders including

input suppliers, trainers, milling companies, marketing operations and buyers of produce;

Facilitate the establishment of Village Saving and Loan Associations (VSLAs) to support

participating smallholder farmers to create a savings and credit facility that members will use it

to procure inputs through bulk buying mechanisms; hire or buy no till implements and planters;

Train and supervise chairmen, secretaries and treasurers of VSLAs to operate and efficient VSLA

that is able to provide most appropriate financial products and services its members, mainly

savings and short-term credit;

Promote the establishment of a farmer-led support centre in a community;

Provide capacity building workshops, supervision session and operational guidelines to a well-

functioning FLG to establish and operate a farmer-led support centre; and

Advise the FLG of potential programme supporters and potential programme donors. MDF shall

do its best to invite relevant public and private sector stakeholders to participate in the

programme.

Main Role of Farmer Learning Group

Farmer Learning Groups are established by local producers that are currently involved in food

production whether for subsistence or commercial objectives. A FLG shall agree to participate in

this programme if as a collective farmers are willing to;

Treat and maintain this programme as independent from all other development projects and

programmes in the community,

Self-select members of a FLG from practising or active local small producers;

Work and learn together as a collective;

Establish, adopt and sign rules of engagement that are aligned to this PIA; which includes

qualifications for participation, acceptance and termination of participants, and beneficiation

rules;

Develop a database or list of participating smallholder farmers and provide it to MDF;

Elect an executive committee of Farmer Learning Group with a chairman, secretary and a

treasurer;

Appoint a chairman as primary contact person and secretary as a secondary contact person of a

FLG;

Operate a Village Saving and Loan Association (VSLA) which will be established to mobilise a

loan fund that will be used to finance individual member farming operations;

Collect annual and/or joining fees from members of FLG to procure things like stationary and to

pay for operating costs;

Encourage members of FLG to buy production inputs at the most appropriate time for a planting

season;

Participate fully in regular programme meetings and programme activities such as training

workshops, experimentation activities, harvesting, marketing and selling of produce, recording

of lessons, etc.

Participate in all research activities and knowledge sharing activities as expected by the

programme funder and MDF; and;

Take a lead in the establishment and operation of smallholder farmer-led support centre.

Dispute Resolution

In the event of a dispute arising between the parties in respect of any cause whatsoever, the

following may happen;

A meeting will be called to identify and declare a dispute and to indentify the causes of a

dispute;

A meeting will be called resolve a dispute; and

An independent arbitrator may be invited if the two parties fail to resolve the dispute on their

own.

Confidentiality

The parties undertake, both during the existence of and after the end/and or termination of this

PIA, not to disclose in any manner whatsoever any information gathered or obtained by virtue

of the services performed in terms of this PIA, except in fulfilment of a party's obligations under

this PIA.

All information gathered, obtained or known by virtue of involvement in services performed

under this PIA shall be deemed to be of commercial value and the parties and persons under

their control shall exercise due care and diligence in managing such information.

The parties accept that the information may be disclosed if a party is obliged to do so by

operation of law.

Termination

This PIA shall remain valid and in full force and effect for the duration of the project, unless it

has been terminated in terms of the provisions contained in this document.

General

This PIA constitutes the whole PIA between the parties and any amendment, addition or

alteration to the provisions hereof shall only be of force and effect if such amendment, addition

or alteration has been reduced to writing and signed by the parties.

No contract of employment

Nothing in this PIA must be construed as constituting a contract of employment offered by MDF

to participants in a FLG who by appending their signatures acknowledge that no such

relationship exists.

Signature

The following persons, hereunder, sign this Programme Implementation Agreement on behalf of

the members (participants) of the FLG.

Dated at ______________________________ on this ______ day of _______________ 20____

In the presence of the witnesses stated hereunder.