EC SKZN Annual Progress Report 2016 | Mahlathini Development Foundation

APPENDIX 3: MATATIELE ANNUALREPORT

ConservationAgriculture Farmer Innovation

Programme (CA FIP) for smallholders, Grain SA

July 2015to September 2016

Farmer Centred Innovation in Conservation Agriculture in upper

catchment areas of the Drakensberg, Eastern Cape

Compiled by:

Erna Kruger

September 2016

Project implemented by:

Mahlathini Development Foundation

Promoting collaborative, pro-poor agricultural innovation.

Contact:Erna Kruger (Founder and Coordinator)

Address: 72 Tatham Road, Prestbury, Pietermaritzburg, 3201, KZN

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

Cell: 0828732289

Time of operation: 2003-2016

Legal status: NPC

BEE status: 4. – Certificate available.

In collaboration with:

Funded by:

3 
Table of Contents
SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................................................................................4 
KEY ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................................................................................6 
Progress ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................6 
RESULTS ACHIEVED .......................................................................................................................................................................................7 
Results for the 2015-2016 season........................................................................................................................................................9 
Yields ............................................................................................................................................................................................................9 
Cover Crops ............................................................................................................................................................................................11
Soil fertility results: fertilizer recommendations........................................................................................................................12
Soil health tests .........................................................................................................................................................................................16
PROGRESS PER AREA OF IMPLEMENTATION ..................................................................................................................................20
Mt Frere; .......................................................................................................................................................................................................20
Lutateni ....................................................................................................................................................................................................20
Mt Ayliff ........................................................................................................................................................................................................20
Saphukanduku ......................................................................................................................................................................................20
Swartberg, Mzongwana .........................................................................................................................................................................21
Matatiele; Nkau progress ......................................................................................................................................................................23
Khutsong ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 25
Sehutlong ................................................................................................................................................................................................26
Learning Group observations for specific areas...............................................................................................................................29
Mzongwana ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 29
Summary of learning points for the CA participants .................................................................................................................32
INNOVATION PLATFORMS .......................................................................................................................................................................33
Sehutlong/Nkau farmers’ day .............................................................................................................................................................34
MONITORING ..................................................................................................................................................................................................35
Considerations for future cycles .............................................................................................................................................................39
Appendix 1: Table. Key activities, outputs and deliverables July 2015- September 2016; planned and actual.  
Appendix 2: Soil health test results for Matatiele; 2015. .........................................................................................................41
Appendix 3.1: Focus group discussion outline ........................................................................................................................42
Appendix 3.2: GrainSA Conservation Agriculture impact assessment questionnaire; July 2016......................44

SUMMARY

Work in the Matatiele (EC) site continued with a scaling out (horizontal expansion) process put in place, to

include selected villages and also expanded into other areas including Swartberg/Mzongwana, Mt Ailiff and Mt

Frere. 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

Again, as in previous years in the Eastern Cape, the collaboration processes initiated with NGOs- Lima RDF and

those with the Eastern Cape Department of Agriculture were disappointing in the implementation phase with

little to none of the promised implementation and support. In addition, the extremely harsh climatic conditions

prevailed - drought followed by severe storms and hail, which provided for a further dampening effect.

Experimentation continued with a number of new elements: mulching trials to improve the groundcover,

planting of drought tolerant summer cover crops, crop rotation compared to the intercropping and single block

plantings of winter cover crops as well as continued support for the local maize milling operation for maize

meal and cattle feed in Khutsong.

Of the 43 participant farmers who volunteered to conduct trials this year, 29 (67% of participants) followed

through to initiate their trials; 23 of these farmers actually planted and continued with their trials, 20 farmers

achieved germination of crops (70% of those who planted); and only 9 farmers realised yields (39% of those

who planted). The season was extremely challenging with early season drought and extreme hail storms later

in the season. Even the drought tolerant cover crop mixes (summer and winter) that were planted to

accommodate for low crop germination and ground cover, did not grow very well.

Mulching trials were conducted for 4 participants in Nkau and Sehutlong. Yields on the mulched plots for both

beans (1,54t/ha) and maize (4,38t/ha) were higher than un-mulched plots of beans (0,8t/ha) and maize

(3,5t/ha). Average maize yields this season were low at 1,37t/ha. Average bean yields were 0,69t/ha. These

yields however have shown a steady increase for those participants who have practiced CA for more than one

season. And yields this season were higher in the trial plots than previous seasons, despite the drought.

Soil samples have been taken for 63 participants from 11 villages over the last three seasons. An average or

generic fertilizer recommendation has been used based on these results: 250kg/ha MAP (equivalent to

40kg/ha P), 150kg/ha LAN (equivalent to 60kg/ha N) and 1t/ha of lime. K was not included in the generic

recommendation. A more detailed statistical analysis of these results showed the validity of the generic

recommendation. Interestingly the variation between samples taken in the same villages across years was

higher than the variation in samples taken across villages. Thus there is little spatial difference in soil sample

results and the difference depends more on the history of the particular land use. Overall it would still be

possible to use the generic recommendations set for the area, although it may make more sense to set the

recommendations on a village level and to benchmark these recommendations on a yearly basis.

Soil health tests (Haney tests) were conducted for six participants in the Matatiele area towards the end of

2015. The SOLVITA tests (CO2 respiration – indicating microbial activity) indicate that the biological or

organically-bonded soil fertility is the lowest in the control plots of the participants (those plots under

conventional tillage and planting practices) and that the CA intercropped plots provide for microbial activity

and biological soil fertility that is higher than the veld baseline samples. This is a clear indication that this

practice fast-tracks increases in soil health and soil fertility. This result is borne out as well in the total organic

C and N fractions as well as the soil health score, which is the highest for the CA intercrop plots.

An analysis of the total N and the available organic and inorganic N fractions give an indication of build-up of

soil organic matter in the soil. The participant sample analyses indicate that there aren’t presently any local

cropping/pasture systems (including the veld baseline) that builds up the nitrogen reserve in this soil and

under these environmental conditions. It can be seen that the intercropping starts to build the reserve while

also increasing N release. This indicates that legumes need to be favoured strongly in crop rotation and cover

crop mixes and that the build-up of the soil health here would take a number years.

Participant smallholders in the Eastern Cape are mostly women (70%), around 54 years old on average and

with a household income of around R1 820 /month for a household size of around 6 members. They rely

heavily on government grants for their survival and none of the participants have household members that are

employed. Participants belong to local savings and credit groups and save around R300 per cropping cycle for

their production inputs. Cropping areas are consequently also quite small and crops are produced almost

entirely for household consumption only.

The building of innovation platforms has again included the hosting of local farmers’ days where CA

participants showcase their trials and crops for their broader communities and participants form stakeholder

groupings in the area also attended. This year a few farmers and facilitators from Lima RDF attended as did the

extension staff from the ECDAE. Partnerships have been initiated with KwaNalu, DRDLR (Dept of Rural

Development and Land Reform) as well as specific municipalities in southern KZN to embed the CA SFI

programme within these structures in the coming season.

The use of the two monitoring frameworks for the CA scores and the VSA- Visual Soil Assessment scores were

continued into the third season. Similar to the situation in the Bergville area, but even more pronounced is the

weather dependence of the CA scoring system. As a number of participants had complete crop failure their

scores have been a lot lower than in previous seasons. When comparing the ground cover and canopy cover

with overall growth for example, there is an expectation of finding similar trends, where good ground and

canopy cover is reflected in good growth of the crops. This year, due to the extreme weather conditions

however, these trends have been largely obscured. It is becoming apparent that using these scores to base

incentives on- or as the basis of a PES (Payment for Ecosystems Services) model, is going to be difficult given

the variances in weather across the years. It is considered that a simpler process for the incentives and subsidy

related criteria needs to be designed. This process will also need to include the social and organisational

criteria, such as group work and savings as well as the three overarching CA principles.

KEY ACTIVITIES

Implementation has continued in four areas (Mt Ayliff, Mt Frere, Swartberg/Mzonganwa and Matatiele) in 8

villages using the model of working more intensively with fewer farmers initially and also of using adaptive

researcher-managed trials alongside the farmer trials to ensure adoption of best practices in the CA planting

methods and processes used.

The table in Appendix 1 outlines the key activities and deliverables planned and implemented for the period.

The last column summarises actual expenses.

Progress

Drought and severe weather conditions have seriously hampered implementation as have strikes and unrest

related to the then upcoming local elections. This meant that only 65% of the participants for whom inputs

were bought actually planted their trials. The adaptation trials however fared reasonably well and very

interesting results were obtained using the summer and winter cover crop mixes. A few farmers had

reasonable maize yields, but only around 39% of those who planted managed to obtain some yields.

The table below outlines activities related to objectives and key indicators for the period of July 2015 -

September 2016)

TABLE 1:SUMMARYOFPROGRESS (JULY2015-SEPTEBMER2016) 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

English version

- Translation of all

chapters into isiZulu

- Soil Symposium

presentation in

Stellenbosch

- CA chapter in CABI book

-100%. Two small print runs (100

copies)

-90%. Finalise translation of last

chapter. Print run of 150 copies

-100%. Further information sharing

options through collaboration with

PID process (Kit- Netherlands), Lima

RDF- CA demonstrations at farmers’

days, articles and conferences

Exploration of PES model

- PES chapter for CA

manual – draft1

- Exploration of funding

options

- Farmer level monitoring

forms produced,

translated and facilitated

at farmer level

-95%. Continuation of framework

design

-100%. Ongoing- proposals to USAID

and WRC

-50%. Ongoing- still needs more fine

tuning

Final report

-At end of project

100% (August 2016)

2. Increase the

sustainability

and efficiency of

CA systems

Set up jointly managed

adaptation trials ( x9)

- 6 trials set up in

Saphukanduku,

Mzongwana, Nkau,

Khutsong, Ntenentyana

and Lutateni

-100%. Completion of trials to be

done with harvesting and

monitoring.

- response in Mt Ayliff communities

was limited due to drought and lack

of response from DoA

1st level experimentation

; basic CA system (15

villages x 5 farmers)

-8 villages , 22 farmers

100%. Basic CA design-

intercropping with maize beans and

cowpeas on a 100m2 plot, with a

control plot manage entirely by the

participant.

Adaptation trials included using

mulch for ground cover, and

introducing crop rotation that

includes winter and summer cover

crops.

2nd level

experimentation; incl

cover crops, rotations,

organic options and

livestock integration, own

contribution (15 x5)

- 3 villages, 5 farmers

100%. Adaptation trials included

using mulch for ground cover, and

introducing crop rotation that

includes winter and summer cover

crops.

Participants opted to continue with

intercropping practice from their 1st

year.

3rd level experimentation;

own contribution, larger

plots, own ideas (2

villages, 7 farmers in

total)

- 2 villages, 2 farmers

100%. Larger level plantings using

oxen drawn planters and including

cover crops of own choice such as

Lucerne. Intercropping still

practised. As well as crop rotation

and summer and winter cover crops.

Further development of

M&E system

- VSA used actively for all

farmers

- M&E forms redesigned

and used

100%. Planting and growth

monitoring completed, including

cover crops and adaptive trials.

Yields measured where possible

Facilitation of innovation

platforms

- Learning group meeting

and training workshops

- Attendance of No till

conference with farmers

and staff

- Attendance of

sustainable soil

symposium

- Linked with Eastern cape

Dep’t of Agriculture and

with a Grain SA study

group in Matatiele

-100%. 1 local farmers day at

Sehutlong. Inters group meetings for

setting up cooperatives, savings

groups and enterprise development

at community level in Mzongwana

Liaison with study group in Matatiele

to provide support to their fledgling

company – GrainCo.

CA working group, and

reference group

-Attended and presented

in Feb and Sept 2016

100%

RESULTS ACHIEVED

The performance dashboard for this season is indicated below. This provides a snapshot of performance

according to suggested numbers and outputs in the proposal.

TABLE 2:PERFORMANCEDASHBOARD;SEPTEMBER2016

Outputs

Proposed

(March

2015)

Actual

(September

2016)

Percentage of group

Number of areas of operation

80%

Number of villages active

89%

No of 1st level farmer experiments

52%

No of 2nd level farmer experiments

16%

No of 3rd level experiments

100%

No of local facilitators

No of direct beneficiaries

67%

No of farmers who actually planted

79% (of those who started)

No of farmers whose crops germinated

70% (of those who planted)

No of farmers who realised any crop

yields

39% (of those who planted)

Participatory monitoring and

evaluation process (farmer level)

Yes

CA manual (English and Zulu)

Yes

CA manual

English – yes

CA manual

Zulu-yes

The table below summarises the planned and actual farmer trial implementation for the 2015-2016 planting

season. A total of 43 trial participants volunteered through the planning processes across 8 villages in three

areas. 29 of these farmers planted trials. The implementation has been disappointing due to the severe drought

conditions and many participants opted not to plant in these conditions despite our urging. For those that

planted quite a number had 0% germination. Generally germination was extremely poor and crops have been

further devastated by subsequent severe storms.

TABLE 3:SUMMARYOFFARMERINNOVATION NUMBER AND AREAS PLANTEDPER VILLAGE INTHIS CA PROCESS;

EASTERNCAPE,2015-2016

Area

Village

Farmers

selected

Farmers

planted

(1st

level)

Farmers

planted

(2nd

level)

Farmers

planted

(3rd

level)

Experimentation

Comments;

incl planters

used.

Matatiele

Khauoe, Pontsheng,

Lubisini, Mapeng,

Moeaneng and Ghobo

Discontinued due to low levels of

participation

Sehutlong

Summer cover

crops, crop

rotation, OPVs,

winter cover crops,

intercropping

Nkau

Summer cover

crops, crop

rotation, OPVs,

winter cover crops,

intercropping

Bulelwa

Dzingwa – local

facilitator for

Nkau and

Sehutlong

PID process

Jabulani

Intercropping and

summer cover

crops

Used hand

weeder and

MBLI. Crops

eaten by

livestock

Khutsong

Summer cover

crops, crop

rotation, OPVs,

winter cover crops,

intercropping

Mapheele also

experimenting

with Lucerne

Animal drawn

planters used

here in larger

areas

Mr Frere

Ntenentyane

Mulching,

intercropping,

cover crops

Partnership

with Lima RDF-

and PID process.

Lutateni

Intercropping with

OPVs, MBLI

planters,

Partnership

with Lima RDF

and PID process

Swartberg

Mzongwana

Intercropping,

summer and winter

cover crops,

Mt Ayliff

Saphukanduku

Intercropping,

winter cover crops

TOTAL

Total area

planted~

0.37ha

Results for the 2015-2016

season

Of the 29 participants who planted

trials, only 9 participants (31%)

managed to harvest their crops and

have their yields recorded. Some

others, such as Matshepo Futhu in

Sehutlong (photo onthe right) for

example realised such low yields that

maize was eaten ‘green’ and not

recorded as a yield, or livestock were

allowed to eat the maize plants from

the field (e.g. Thabiso Diholo from

Jabulani). 13 Participants realised no yields at all.

Severe hailstorms around February and March decimated some of the crops that had survived the early season

drought.

Right: Mr Moshoeshoe from Saphukanduku’s field in

April 2016, with some recovery post a large

hailstorm. No maize could be harvested from this

plot and cattle were allowed to graze there. His roof

is also being re-tiled as a consequence of the storm

Far right: A view of the same plot in February 2016

before the storm. The crops were growing very well.

Yields

Crop yields varied considerably for the 9 participants for whom yields could be measured. The yields were

generally higher and more consistent for the mulched plots, both for the maize and beans. This indicates the

positive effect on growth and production in the mulched plots. Germination of crops was not better in the

mulched plots as compared with un mulched plots. See the figure below.

Figure 1: Trial plot yields for 9 participants who harvested in the eastern Cape for the 2015-2106 planting season.

An observation for this season that was different to the previous seasons is that in some cases the control plot

maize grew and yielded better than the trial plot maize. In this instance with the small amounts of moisture

available in the soil tilling increased the likelihood of germination of the seed and subsequent growth, given the

general lack of soil cover and soil organic matter.

Figure 2: A comparison of maize yields for trial and control plots in the Eastern Cape for the 2015-2016 growing

season.

BulelwaMatsepo Malunge

Mamolel

ekeng ThembaGcina Maponts

ho Zanzima Matshezi

DzingwaFutuHadebeLebouea Mncwab

Mzikayif

ani

Ranqaba

Sturuma

nMonkie

Average of Beans mulched2,15 1,23 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,23 0,00 0,00

Average of Beans unmulched1,54 0,30 0,46 1,55 0,51 0,00 0,00 0,46 0,00

Average of Maize mulched4,60 0,00 0,00 4,15 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00

Average of Maize unmulched1,80 0,00 1,49 5,90 2,94 4,15 4,150,00 4,15

0,00

1,00

2,00

3,00

4,00

5,00

6,00

7,00

t/ha

Trial yields Eastern Cape:2015-2016

(blank) (blank) (blank)8,13,610 3,451,56 (blank)

Bulelwa Matsep

Malung

elo

Mamole

lekeng Themba Matshez

iGcina Mapont

sho

Zanzim

Dzingw

aFutuHadebe Leboue

Mncwa

be Monkie Mzikayi

fani

Ranqab

ang

Sturum

Average of Maize mulched4,60 0,00 0,00 4,15 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00

Average of Maize unmulched1,80 0,00 1,49 5,90 2,94 4,15 4,15 4,15 0,00

Average of control8,103,60 10,00 3,451,56

0,00

2,00

4,00

6,00

8,00

10,00

12,00

t/ha

Trial and control plot maize yields Eastern Cape:2015-2016

What can be seen in the small summary table below is

that the maize and bean yields were higher in the

mulched plots than the un-mulched plots and that the

control plot maize yields (under conventional tillage)

were higher than the CA trial plots.

Right: Bulelwa Dzingwa (left), the local facilitator with

Mrs Ranqabang in Nkau to weigh and record her crop

yields.

TABLE 4:YIELDCOMPARISONS FORTHE MULCHED AND UNMULCHEDTRIAL PLOTS FOR2015

Yields (t/ha

Mulched

Un mulched

Control

Beans

1,54

0,80

Maize

4,38

3,5

5,3

Some of the participants have been part of the CA process for 2 to 3 seasons. A comparison of the yields from

their trials shows a year on year increase in their yields for both beans and maize. It is interesting to note that

yields this season, despite the drought, have mostly been higher than in previous years. This is a good

indication that the continuation of CA over a number of season has provided the participants with positive spin

offs in terms of soil structure, fertility, soil health and water holding capacity in their soils.

TABLE5:YIELDCOMPARISONS FORTHECA TRIALS FOR 2013-2015INTHEEASTERN CAPE

MATATIELE: 2013-2015

Bean Yields (ton/ha)

Maize Yields (ton/ha)

Farmer Participants

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Ave

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Ave

Lelatso Thuso

0,12

Bulelwa Dzingwa

1,6

1,8

1,7

1,01

3,2

2,1

Mamolelekeng Lebuoea

0,35

1,55

0,95

1,2

3,1

Manyalleng Sikhosana

0,16

0,73

Matshepo Futhu

0,21

0,76

0,49

0,53

Thabiso Dihollo

0,67

0,83

0,75

0,66

1,84

1,25

Tsoloane Mapheele

0,16

0,08

0,78

Grand Total

0,42

0,47

0,69

0,61

0,66

0,87

1,37

1,21

Notes: Mrs Sikhosana from Sehutlong died tragically before she could harvest her trials this year.

Mr Mapheele from Khutsong has once again not realised a harvest. He has persistent fertility issues in

his fields, despite his enthusiastic implementation and repeated plantings.

Cover Crops

A number of participants planted cover crop mixes into their fields in late February. The cover crops grew

reasonably well in most cases. The mix used included 5 species (a winter and summer mix); sunhemp, millet,

fodder rye, saia (black) oats and fodder radish. Participants did not harvest or keep seed of the cover crops, as

was the case last season, but have allowed their livestock direct access to what was available.

Of the mixture, millet, fodder rye and saia oats were the most consistent in terms of germination and growth.

Sunhemp growth was very patchy as was the fodder radish. It appears that in a number of cases the radish was

either washed out of the ground during rainfall events or eaten by birds or other small wildlife in the fields.

Above left: The cc mix growing in Mr Moshoeshoe’s field (Saphukanduku).Oats, rye and sun hemp are visible.

Above middle: Mr Mncwabe’s (Mzongwana) cc’s. Here the oats, millet and rye grew best. The radish was washed

out of the planting lines into a patch at the bottom of the field and Above right: Sun hemp, and oats seeding in Mrs

Mtshepo Futu’s (Sehutlong) cover crop mix, with radish also visible.

Mrs Malelekeng Lebouea from Sehutlong tried a number of different variations of the cover crops. Similar to last

year, she also bought some of her own cc seed and planted that. Above left: Mrs Lebouea’s maize and cc relay

cropping plot worked very well. And Above right: A plot of the winter cc mix is shown. Again as in other places in

Matatiele the fodder radish seed washed out of the ground and congregated in a clump towards the bottom of the

plot.

Soil fertility results: fertilizer recommendations

Fertilizers are expensive and difficult to access for most smallholder farmers. Knowledge about different types

of fertilizers and even the standard nutrients provided through fertilization (N, P, K) is limited. As a

consequence, smallholders tend to use fertilizers that they have seen others use or what is recommended in the

shop, rather than what is required on their fields. In addition, they buy what they feel they can afford in terms

of quantity, rather than what may be required. This has meant that fertilizer application, has often not been as

effective as desired and potentially very inefficient.

In an attempt to deal with this the practice of micro-dosing of fertilizer has been introduced- so placement of

small quantities of fertilizer close to the seed, rather than spreading or banding. This reduces the overall

amount of fertilizer required.

In addition, a yearly generic recommendation has been put together for each area (e.g Matatiele), meaning that

participants all use the same recommendation and fertilizers. This has helped farmers to be able to remember

which fertilizers they are using, which quantities are required and what the specific fertilizers are for.

In the Matatiele area 63 samples have been taken across 11 villages over the last three years. See the summary

of samples in the table below.

TABLE 6:SUMMARY OF SOIL SAMPLES TAKEN INMATATIELE 2013-2015.

Area

Village

Year

Total no. of

samples

No. of samples which required

P(t/ha)

(kg/ha)

Lime(t/ha)

Nkau

2015

Jabulani

2015

Matatiele

Khutsong

2014

Phontseng

Khauoe

Lubisini

Lutateni

Mapeng

Moyaneng

Mzongwaneng

Sekhutlong

2014

2013

2014

2013

2014

2015

Total

On the strength of a general analysis of average requirements form the samples the following generic fertilizer

recommendation has been used:

250kg/ha MAP (equivalent to 40kg/ha P), 150kg/ha LAN (equivalent to 60kg/ha N) and 1t/ha of lime. K was

not included in the generic recommendation.

A more detailed statistical analysis was done to see if these generic recommendations hold true. A category was

also developed for outliers- samples that fall far below or above the generic recommendation and where

fertilizer applications based on actual soil samples would be required.

From this analysis the following points can be made:

For Phosphorous (P): The generic recommendation of 40kg/ha would mean that 87% of the samples

would receive the correct amount of P or an amount of P that could guarantee 80% of the potential

harvest for maize and dry bean production. The outlier samples have also been identified to ensure

individual recommendations for these participants.

Figure 3: Derivation of Generic fertilizer recommendation for P application for dry beans and maize in the

Matatiele area.

For Potassium (K); 88% of the samples had a 0kg/ha requirement of K while the remaining 12% of the

samples have a K requirement which lies between 5kg/ha and 100kg/ha. According to the

recommendation report from the Soil laboratories at Cedara, not applying K while P and lime

recommendations are followed, could potentially reduce the relative yield by up to 6%. This means that

following a recommendation of 0kg/ha even for the samples with a K requirement which lies between

10kg/ha to 100kg/ha, a relative yield of 94% would be obtained.

Figure 4: Derivation of Generic fertilizer recommendation for K application for dry beans and maize in the

Matatiele area.

For lime: In the Matatiela area, 75% of the samples have a lime requirement of 0t/ha, while 25% of the

samples have a lime requirement which lies between 1 t/ha and 6.5 t/ha. According to the soil sample

recommendation report from Cedara, not applying lime when P and K recommendations are followed

does not significantly affect the relative yield for soils with a pH above 4.5. the generic recommendation

is thus 0t/ha and attention is to be given to those participants whose soils have a pH lower than 4.5

Figure 5: Derivation of Generic fertilizer recommendation for lime application for dry beans and maize in the

Matatiele area.

We then considered the question of whether there was variability in this generic recommendation across

villages in the same area. It is possible that soils vary between villages and that the general practices for soil

fertility enhancement also vary.

The table below shows the results of the generic fertilizer recommendation analysis for P across the 11 villages

in Matatiele.

TABLE7:GENERIC P REQUIREMENTSFOR DIFFERENT VILLAGESINMATATIELE

In Matatiele, it was foundthat 45%, 37% and 18% of the sampleshave a genericrecommendation of 20kg/ha,

40kg/ha and 60 kg/ha, respectively. Variation in P requirement from the villages does not seem to be associated

with spatial arrangements or setting of the villages but is related more tothe history of the land use within

individual villages or households.

What this shows is that there is some variability across the villages, although the overall generic

recommendation of course is still 40kg/ha.

A similar situation can be seen with the lime recommendations across villages in the Matatiele area. See the

table below.

TABLE8:DERIVATIONOFLIME GENERICRECOMMENDATIONFORMATATIELEVILLAGES

Area

Name of

village

% of

samples

with

lime of

0t/ha

Lime

min

(t/ha)

Lime

mean

(t/ha)

Lime

max

(t/ha)

% of

samples

with

lime

between

min and

mean

% of

samples

in the

outlier

zone

(t/ha)

Excluding samples with

lime requirement of

0t/ha

Jabulani

100

Khauoe

Khutsong

Matatiele

Lubisini

Lutateni

Moyaneng

100

Mzongwana

100

Nkau

Potseng

Sekhutlong

It can be seen that although the generic recommendation remains 0t/ha lime for most of the villages, there are

2 villages where lime requirements are 2and 3t/ha respectively.

We also considered the question of whether the same generic recommendation can be applied from year to

year. This was to check whether the samples of new participants starting in 2013, 2014 and 2015 respectively

could all fall within the same generic recommendation. This was checked as it is becoming evident more

generally that soil fertility analysis is sensitive to the time of year samples are taken and the environmental

conditions at that time. It means that a samples taken from the same field under the same cropping conditions

in different years could have different results.

Again there was some variability across years, specifically for the P and lime recommendations.

Overall it would still be possible to use the generic recommendations set for the area, although it may make

more sense to set the recommendations on a village level and to benchmark these recommendations on a

yearly basis.

Soil health tests

New laboratory based tools are available for exploring soil health. This is a test derived in the USA called the

Haney test and has now been taken on by a few laboratories in South Africa. The soil health tool is an integrated

approach to soil testing using chemical and biological soil test data, designed to mimic nature’s approach to soil

nutrient availability in the laboratory.

The soil analysis is performed using a soil microbial activity indicator (the Solvita Test), a soil water extract (for

the Organic C: Organic N ratio), and H3A extract. This provides information on the inorganic and organic

fractions of nutrients available in the soil and their ratios and balances.

The Solvita test is presented in ppm and is the amount of CO2-C released in 24 hr from soil microbes after the

soil sample has been dried and rewetted (as occurs naturally in the field). This is a measure of the microbial

activity in the soil and is highly related to soil fertility. In most cases, the higher the number, the more fertile the

soil.

Since soil microbes are highly adaptive (different for each soil type and environment) and acquire C, N, and P in

a ratio of 100: 10: 1 (C: N: P), it is safe to assume that soil microbes are a dependable indicator of soil health.

This consistent need sets the stage for a standardized, universal measurement of soil microbial activity. Since

soil microbes take in oxygen and release CO2, we can couple this mechanism to their activity.

WEOC: Water extractable organic carbon is the amount of C in ppm in the water extract and reflects the organic

C fuelling the microbes. % SOM -Soil organic matter provides an indication of the overall amount of organic

carbon in the soil. Together with the WEON – water extractable organic nitrogen, also used in the microbial

nutrient cycle these two fractions can provide the organic C: organic N ratio.

PMN is the potentially mineralizable N- fraction of the total N in the sample, which includes inorganic N.

A soil C: N ratio above 20:1 generally indicates that no net N and P mineralization will occur, meaning the N and

P are “tied up” within the microbial cell until the ratio drops below 20:1. As the ratio decreases the more N and

P are released to the soil solution which can be taken up by growing plants. A good organic C:N ratio is between

8:1 and 15:1. This C: N ratio is also used in calculating the soil health score.

The soil health score is calculated as 1-day CO2-C divided by the organic C: N ratio plus WEOC/100 +

WEON/10 to include a weighted contribution of water extractable organic C and organic N. It represents the

overall health of your soil system. It combines 5 independent measurements of the soil’s biological properties.

The calculation looks at the balance of soil C and N and their relationship to microbial activity. This soil health

calculation number can vary from 0 to more than 50. This number should increase over time. It indicates the

current soil health and what it needs to reach its highest sustainable state. Keeping track of this soil health

score will allow one to gauge the effects of management practices over the years.

Samples were taken from 6 participants in the Matatiele CA trials in July 2015. Veld samples provide a baseline

for comparison of natural activity and nutrient availability in the area. The table in Appendix 2 indicates the

Soil health / Haney test results

Figure 6: Results for the soil health tests for 6 CA participants in Matatiele; 2015.

From the summary of the soil health tests and the soil health scores provided above the following observations

can be made:

CO2-C

(ppmC)

Organic C:N

ratio

Total Org C

(ppm) Org N ppm Soil Health

Score

1st year control69,610,6 140,7 13,29,4

1st year intercrop trial155,69,2213,0 23,221,4

1st year intercrop trial with cover

crop 107,29,7124,3 12,713,1

Veld baseline samples141,8 13,221716,4 14,55

0,0

50,0

100,0

150,0

200,0

250,0

Haney Test: EC (Matatiele) N=6

1.SOLVITA: The ranges of values for this test are as follows:

a.>100: High N - sufficient for crops. Biomass 2500ppm.Well supplied with organic matter

b.61-100: Mod-high N - limited N required. Adequate organic matter

c.31-60: Mod. Supplement with N. Requires application of stable organic matter

d.6-30: Low-Mod. Apply N. Biomass<500ppm. Supply organic matter

e.0-5: Significant fertilization needed. Very inactive soil. Biomass<100ppm

The SOLVITA tests here indicate that the natural soil fertility is the lowest in the control plots of the

participants (Those plots under conventional tillage and planting practices) and that the CA intercropped plots

provide for microbial activity and natural soil fertility that is higher than the veld baseline samples. This is a

clear indication that this practice fast tracks increases in soil health and soil fertility. This result is borne out as

well in the total organic C and N fractions as well as the soil health score, which is the highest for the CA

intercrop plots.

2.The low Organic C:N ratio means that the nutrients are mineralize, thus available for use in the cropping

period. Adding cover crops to the intercropped CA trial plots reduces the CO2 respiration as well as

available organic C:N, which indicates that in this 1st year of CA the cover corps use nutrients made

available through microbial activity promoted by the intercropping system.

3. Both CA plots (intercrop and intercrop with cover crops) provide for greater soil health than the

conventional cropping system.

4.In the medium term more organic matter will need to be incorporated into the soil to be able to reap

the full benefits of planting cover crops for soil health and fertility.

An analysis of the total N and the available organic and inorganic N fractions give an indication of build-up of

humus in the soil. The available and unavailable N needs to be balanced in the cropping system to ensure soil

health and fertility improvement over time, rather than just replacing nutrients removed in the cropping cycle.

The graph below shows this analysis for crop mixes with ratio of legumes to grasses ranging from 30/70 to

80/20.

Figure 7: An analysis of N released and N reserves for trial control and veld plot samples in Matatiele; 2015.

From this graph it can be seen that there aren’t presently any cropping systems (including the veld baseline)

that builds up the nitrogen reserve in this soil and under these environmental conditions. It can be seen that the

30/70

40/60

50/50

60/40

70/30

80/20

30/70

40/60

50/50

60/40

70/30

80/20

30/70

40/60

50/50

60/40

70/30

80/20

N released N reserve Soil Health Score

Matatiele: N released and reserve for controls, intercrop trials,

with cover crops and veld baseline N=6

1st year control

1st year intercrop

trial

1st year intercrop

trial with cover crop

Veld baseline

samples

intercropping starts to build the reserve while also increasing N release. This indicates that legumes need to be

favoured strongly in cover crop mixes and that the build-up of the soil health here would take a few years.

Soil health tests are to be included in the yearly analysis of results for a selected number of participants in the

future to track changes and improvements in soil health status for these individuals.

PROGRESS PER AREA OF IMPLEMENTATION

Mt Frere;

Lutateni

In this area there was extremely low germination of maize and beans due to the drought. 5 Participants initially

planted but only 3 had any germination and only 1 participant Matshezi Monkie realised a harvest

Above left: Lucy/ Mashezi Monkie’s maize germinated in late January when the rains came and although

germination has been patchy and weed competition high she has realised some harvests. Above middle: Makaula

Mbhele’s trial plot is visible in the right of the picture- with very patchy germination and high weed pressure.

Again germination was delayed considerably until the rains came. Above Right: Mrs Mbhele’s control plot did

substantially better, with better germination and growth than the trial.

Ntenentyane

In this area participants did not take the CA trials very seriously, despite

combined input from our team and the lima RDF fieldworkers. None of

the 5 participants managed to harvest any of their crops and 4 of the 5

discontinued their trials before the end. Activities in this area will not be

continued

Right:Planting demonstration at Mamasoka Manyala’s trial plot in

Ntenentyana

Mt Ayliff

Saphukanduku

In Saphukanduku only 1 of the 4 participants achieved germination and surprisingly good growth in his crops.

Mr Moshoeshoe planted at the same time as the other participants who achieved 0% germination. His victory

however did not last long as a major hailstorm completely decimated his crop. He subsequently planted in the

cover crop mixture into his field with reasonable germination and growth.

Swartberg, Mzongwana

This is the area where Mr Mongoata who belongs to the Ongeluksnek study group in Matatiele farms. As the

rest of the study group members were not very interested in either CA or cover crops, Mr Mongoata offered

that we work with him on his 200ha farm and also set up a group for homestead level trials in the village

nearby. Six (6) farmer level trials have been set up, along with the larger scale cover crop trials in Mr

Mongoata’s fields.

Cover crops were planted in February 2016 by most of the participants. A

mixture of winter cover crops (fodder radish, saia oats and fodder rye) was

used.

Right: A view of maize plantings done by Mr Mongoata. The green section in the

middle of the photograph represents about 1ha of a mixture of cover crops

planted in February 2016.

Three of the participants, Mr Hadebe, Mr Mncwabe and Mr Mzikayifani,

managed to harvest their crops. They also planted in the cover crop mixtures

around February 2016. These cover crops germinated and grew, albeit under

duress.

Younger members of the community have been drawn in. They are specifically

interested to pursue a process of linking their small enterprises and growing fodder for livestock and poultry as

well as food. A cooperative has been formed in the community to continue with this process.

Above left to right: Mr Mlungelo Hadebe’s plot in April 2016. Maize has not grown well and plot has been invaded

by kikuyu grass. The cover crops planted in shallow furrows has struggled to grow, showing yellowing and

stunting (fodder rye and saia oats are visible); some cowpeas have survived in between the grass and are still

growing and around 1,5kg of beans have been harvested from the plot.

Above Left: Mr Gcina Mzikayifani’s trial plot on 15 January 2016. He planted in mid December. The plot shows poor

germination and growth due to drought and heat, but now with evidence of run-off due to recent rains. Above

middle: In April 2016 the growth of the trial plots of maize and cowpeas were reasonable, given two hailstorms

followed again by very hot and dry conditions. Beans have been harvested. Above right: the cover crops planted at

the ned of February 2016 have not grown well in Mr Mzikayifani’s plots. Some fodder radish and saia oats are

visible.

Above left: A similar situation of patchy and limited germination was evident for Mr

Themba Mncwabe, who planted on the 8th of December. Above right: Mr Mncwabe’s

plot on 4 February 2016. Here it is evident that the control is doing better with

patchy germination showing in the CA trial plot in the foreground, though

subsequent growth has been reasonable.

Right: Mr Mncwabe shows the Matracca jab planter that he bought for himself at a

store in Kokstad.

Far left: Mr

Mncwabe’s plot in

April 2016, shows

the effect of hail

storms and

subsequent heat

and drought. A lot

of run off has

occurred and the

soil is hard and

capped. Middle

left: The Fodder

radish seed

planted in shallow

furrows using

hand hoes had all washed out towards the bottom of the plot nod germinated there. Near left: Rows of saia oats

and fodder rye showing severe drought stress and lack of growth.

List of members for the Mzongwana cooperative

1.Mr Joseph Macala

2.Shadrack Hlenti

3.John Hlenti

4.Themba Mncwabe

5.Malungelo Hadebe

6.Wilfred Mabese

7.Mngankosi Hadebe

8.Tryphina Wawa

9.Nkosinathi Macala

10.Zwelakhe Zwajani

Matatiele; Nkau progress

For this season, the local facilitator Bulelwa Dzingwa took it upon herself to find more enthusiastic people and

set up an experimentation group with 7 participants. Six (6) participants have implemented the basic 1st level

experiment and Mrs Dzingwa has worked on the adaptive trial as well as a number of other options.

The group has now set up a cooperative with the assistance of the Department of Agriculture to continue their

farming and experimentation process with CA into the

future. See a list of cooperative members below.

Bulelwa Dzingwa also did the mulching experiment and a

5x10m plot of the summer cover crops. The latter

however did not germinate at all.

Right: Bulelwa’s mulching trial. In the foreground is the

beans plot and behind that the Maize and bean intercrop.

On the right hand side are the same plots without mulch.

The mulched plots germinated and grew better than their

unmulched counterparts. Mulch had to be redone a few

times during the season given the tendency to blow away

and get washed away in storms.

Clockwise from top left: Bulelwa’s maize and cowpea intercrop plot in March 2016. The cowpeas have recovered,

but maize has not done well. The beans in the mulched

plot performed a lot better than the un-mulched plot. Both

plots however did show signs of stress and yellowing of

plants.

List of cooperative members in Nkau

Nkau Coop (Matatiele)

1.Jacki Ndlovu

2.Jabulani Hlathi

3.Makamelo Nkejane

4.Mapontso Ranqabang

5.Zanzima Sturuman

6.Nuh Mpitsa

7.Bulelwa Dzingwa

8.Nomzwakhe Sturuman

Above: Mr Zamama Sturuman in fact had reasonable germination in his trial in spite of the weather and lack of

weeding. Left: Maphontso Ranqabang’s trial plot, shows reasonable growth but patchy germination. Her ploughed

control plot shown here has shown impressive growth for this season

Khutsong

Mr Mapheele invited a number of the slightly larger maize farmers from the area who have their home plots of

around 1200m2 to join the CA experimentation process. These farmers had also recently started to participate

in the Department of Agriculture supported process in their fields. Again interest waned considerably when

farmers realised that the Grain SA process does not do the actual ploughing and planting for farmers. Given also

the drought conditions in the area, only Mr Mapheele implemented in this group.

Below left and right. Mr Mapheele planted his trials as a maize and bean intercrops with tramlines using an

animal drawn planter. The results were extremely disappointing and there was almost 0% germination

Above left to right: The low organic matter content and sandiness of Mr Mapheele’s soil reduces germination and

growth considerably; germination of a winter cover crop mix planted end February 2016, in the plot where maize

did not germinate; A large plot of Lucerne has been planted to build up soil fertility over a period of time before

trying to plant maize again. This will be provided with supplementary irrigation during winter and a bag of teff

fodder harvested from his plots, ready for grinding for fodder.

Mr Mapheele installed an electric pump linked to a borehole close by and has been irrigation his cover crops with

remarkable results, Above left: Visible are the three plots – the cc mix (saia oats, fodder rye and fodder radish),

turnips and lucerne. Above middle: A view of the cc plot – now showing almost complete cover. And Above right:

Mr Mapheele’s pump for irrigation.

Mr Mapheele has also planted a large plot of turnips in his household

plot. This has grown well. He sells greens to the community and also

uses the greens as fodder for his livestock – sheep, horses and cattle.

Right: Mr Mapheele’s household plot of turnips, used as a winter rotation

crop for his maize.

Sehutlong

In this area we continued with three of the participants from the 2014-2105 season and one new participant

who all continued with the basic layout of close spaced intercropping of maize, beans and cowpeas.

In addition, two participants conducted a mulching trial (Matshepo Futhu and Mamolekeng Lebeoua). Only 3

participants continued due to lack of germination for the other participants.

In February 2016 a mixture of cover crops (both winter and summer) were planted into the unmulched trial

plots. Cover crops used were sunnhemp, babala/millet, dolichos beans, fodder rye, saia oats and fodder radish.

These were either scattered and raked into the soil in between the maize crops at the same time as weeding, or

planted in rows using hand hoes to open small furrows depending on the conditions in the fields at the time of

planting. Germination and growth of the cover crops were good considering the seasonal constraints.

Percentage germination of the different cover crops in the mixtures were very tricky to determine as different

combinations of the crops grew in different small patches within each plot.

Above left: Mtshepo Futhu’s mulching trial; the maize and bean intercropped plot shows somewhat patchy

germination but reasonable growth. Weed suppression was very good with no weeding required.Above Right; Mrs

Futhu’s maize only unmulched plot. Weeding had to be done 2-3 times, germination was worse than the mulched

plots and consequent ground cover was very little.

Left: A view of Mrs Futhu’s mulched maize and bean plot in April 2016. The

mulch has worked well to suppress weeds and improve growth of both the

maize and the beans for the whole season. Mrs Futhu did not weed this plot.

Above right: Here the border between the mulched and unmulched plots of

maize only plantings are clear- in the centre of the picture. The crops on the

left hand side in the un mulched portion have bene swamped by weeds, despite earlier efforts to do weeding.

Above left: A view of the cover crops planted into an un mulched maize plot in Mrs Futu’s trial. Here sunhemp,

fodder radish, fodder rye and Dolichos are visible. Above middle; a part of the plot showing a slightly different

combination of cover crops with Dolichos being more prevalent. And Above right; the saia oats in this view is

seeding along with fodder rye and Babala.

Mamolelekeng Lebouea’s field and trial plot were well looked after and general soil condition and fertility in

her field is better. This year her husband agreed to plant the entire field using CA having seen the potential

from last year.

Far left: Mrs Lebouea’s mulched plots in

her trial with maize only in the

foreground and maize and beans

intercropped in the top half of the picture.

Germination was reasonable, albeit a

little patchy and subsequent growth has

been good. Left: In the unmulched plots

of the trial maize grew well, but

somewhat shorter with some signs of

water stress.

Above left: Mrs Lebouea’s cover crop mixes grew well as relay crops in the unmulched plots of her trial. This

picture shows a patch where fodder radish and saia oats is dominating. Above middle: Here Dolichos and sunhemp

are thriving in the maize and bean intercrop plot, along with some fodder rye. Above right: A mixture of flowering

sunhemp and millet, with fodder rye and Dolichos visible.

Learning Group observations for specific areas

Towards the end of the season a focus group review session was conducted with the learning groups in the

Eastern Cape. Themes discussed included a review of their CA trials compared to the normal planting practices

and an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the approach. A discussion on inputs, supply, costs and a

cost benefit analysis of CA was done. Discussions regarding saving for inputs and bulk buying options were

included as were questions on joint actions in the learning group including joint storage, marketing and

potential for milling in the area. Cover crops were discussed including their potential for food and fodder

production and potential grazing management options in the community. See the Focus group discussion

outline in Appendix3.1.

In addition individual interviews were conducted for learning group members who agreed (See Appendix 3.2)

to glean more detail regarding specific practices for each farmer. In particular, food provisioning, sales and

incomes, and specific costs for each farmer was explored, as was other livelihoods information and specifics

regarding their farming practices.

Interviews and focus group discussions were facilitated by the project team. The review also sets the stage for

the more detailed planning for the coming season and for starting to do entrance interviews, layout of plots, soil

samples and payment of subsidises.

Mzongwana

This community also faced the harsh realities of the past dry season. Participants planted their control plots a

bit earlier than trials but growth was not good. Generally, people in the area do not grow their own food as

much as they did previously. A lot of fields are lying fallow and people buy way more as opposed to working the

land. The maize they grow is mostly eaten green, or dried and fed to livestock, horses and poultry.

Farmers typically keep their own seed for planting their control plots, so not much is actually spent on inputs.

The fertilizer is sourced in Kokstad and Matatiele and participants have been using 2:3:2, which they broadcast

in their plots.

Farmers appreciate the decreased labour in planting CA trials and want to buy a couple more jab planters for

their control plots. Herbicides are also part of the list of inputs they are after, but they need more training on

their handling and use. They would also love to have a plot where they’ll be using the animal drawn no till

planter. Ideally they want to plant late October and early November. The participant farmers think it is a great

idea to include fodder crops in their maize production system and are keen to continue and expand on this

process. For their control plots they are leaning more and more towards using roundup ready seed.

There is no formal savings group in Mzongwana but participants want to start one up. Presently four men have

been saving monies together for buying of inputs on a monthly basis. Each contributes what he can afford. So

far they have saved around R1150 and are continuing to save after having learned that fertilizer prices have

increased to around R480in Kokstad and R520 in Pietermaritzburg for a 50kg bag of MAP. So farmers are

aware that they have to contribute a bit more and they want to grow more maize in the hope that they will be

getting more rain than last year.

Regarding storage, rats are a huge problem and the use of Rattex in the storage rooms has not been very

successful. A better storage method would need to be used. Before people used to go to Hanover Farm to have

their maize milled (R20/50kg bag), but as production has decreased so much this is no longer done. A local mill

sounds like a good idea, but farmers are worried that not enough maize is being produced to justify this.

COMMENTS FROM FARMERS

Mr Themba Mncwabe: Mzongwana.(1st year). “CA is great

for me. It is less work and it costs less. There was less erosion

in the CA plot and the crops grew well. We planted in these dry

sandy soils, knowing that little would come up but did so in

recognition of our animals. Cover crops were good enough to

provide grazing for my animals for about two weeks. This past

season was a terrible one; yields were very low while others

didn’t get anything at all.I cannot say my yield has increased

with CA, it was my first attempt and an unfortunate dry one as well”. Mr

Mncwabe feels that his control did somewhat better than the trial

because he happened to plant early and his crops were able to recover

from the hail events more than the CA trial with maize. All the maize

produced will be fed to livestock and is currently stored in feed bags

that are kept in dry and cool rondavel huts. He has bought a jab planter

and has already started to use this for planting his control plots as

well.

Mrs Bulelwa Dzingwa: Nkau, 3rd year: “I feel excited and grateful that

such a project has found its way to our area. We were used to planting

our maize but it yielded very little. I would always encourage my

neighbours to do CA as it is an easy way to work the land and an

affordable way to feed our children. I feel the three years I’ve been part of the project have been worth it. I thought

it wouldn’t work for us. I knew of herbicides but thought it required heavy big machinery. Through the CA project

I’ve worked with herbicides and the smaller planters suited for us.My yield specifically beans has increased a lot,

maize cobs have just slightly increased with big full cobs.We all want more for less, so mixing cropping with maize

and beans is a complimentary combination also to rebuild and cover the soil as much as we can”.

I have learnt about the importance of not disturbing the soil

and how one can maintain and rebuild the soil. CA saves a lot of

money and labour. My soil has gone somewhat darker - a lot of

organic matter has been replaced; especially on the intercrop

plot. My soil is less prone to erosion and holds more moisture,

especially in the intercropped and mulched plots of this last

season.

She has learnt different ways of identifying fertile soil; soil

colour, organic matter, holding ‘shape’ in the dispersion test

and soil being more crumbly and less compact.

She felt that working with the MBLI hand planter was the best for them. It is easy also for the women to learn to

change the plates for the different seeds. The Haraka planter was good as it is just pushed, so easier and can

work larger areas, but changing the plates on that planter is a little complicated and it would be better if it

could also dispense fertilizer as the MBLI does.

She finds planting cover crops important. She lets her sheep graze as there is little food available in winter and

stray livestock will help themselves. But given the extreme winters it would be better to cut and keep fodder for

livestock.

She feels that she continues to learn new aspects every season and is ‘hungry’ to

continue.

Mrs Maphontsho Ranqabang: Nkau. (1st year) “CA is the answer to effective crop

production at reduced costs both to me and the soil, I have now realized that, unlike

back when Bulelwa first told me about it.” This was her first season and so she

could not see much yield difference compared to her control plots. She feels that

the herbicides do work but believes it is better to do hand weeding to also

remove the roots of the weeds. Because the soil was very dry and hard they were

obliged to use hand hoes instead of the planters. The mixed cropping idea makes

sense in terms of fighting weeds and better crop growth, but it makes the

weeding more difficult.

Mrs Matshepo Futu:Sehutlong.(2nd year) “CA works very well and I will

continue to use this method even if the project leaves. Even if you are poor and

have no money, if you work hard in your garden with CA you will harvest

something to feed your family. CA protects the soil and the work is less. Yields

are much better, except this last year because of the drought” She feels that her

soils are more fertile now and not eroded at all; there is too much work in

weeding.

Mrs Mamolelekeng Lebouea: Sehutlong. (2nd year) “There is a difference from before; weeds are reduced, water

is held and stored in the soil a bit more and of course yields are higher. There is no erosion any more and the soil

appears to be more fertile”. The cover crops grew well, especially the saia oats and animals have been grazing on

those plots. She has a kraal close to her fenced in garden and feels that cutting and feeding there would be a

better idea, as then the cover crops will have a chance to regrow and produce more.

Mr Tsoloane Mapheele: Khutsong(3rd year). “I had heard of CA, but

was not sure it would work on the ‘beach’ sand I have for soil. I find that

CA is great; there is no more erosion and the work is manageable. The

weeds are reduced over time and the yields are slowly increasing. I have

managed to try out many new crops; mostly fodder crops that are also

good for the soil. The soils are more fertile through the introduction of

cover crops and careful fertilizer use.My maize didn’t grow well this

year, so Iput cover crops on the entire plot where I had maize, broad

casted then weeded. In the previous season I had planted it between

maize rows. These cover crops grew really well. I included Lucerne and turnips as well.

Mr Mapheele works on 0,2ha of land and also has a home plot. He uses animal traction and has a small maize

mill. He still feels that there may be an issue with the planter and would like the suppliers to be there when he

plants to ensure better germination in future. He allows his animals to graze on the plots, then removes them

and waters the cover crops to allow them to regrow as a new strategy. Before he used to cut and dry the cover

crops as fodder. Both strategies work well for him. He feels more confident about which herbicides to use, as

before he depended on what others said and made many mistakes. He now understands the difference between

some of the types of herbicides.

Mr Khotso Moshoeshoe: Mt Ayliff (1st year). ´Despite the hail storm I had

a good experience with CA and I am ready for the upcoming season. I had

been told about CA before but hadn’t tried it, so I was a bit uneasy. I noticed

that the soil was a lot cooler and moister in the CA plots and the maize grew

sturdy and strong. The mixed crops grew better than my control. I now

know how you spray, I’ve sprayed before as I have my own sprayer but

obviously after CA demos I saw that I was not doing it correctly. I can now

work with the amounts required for spraying different sized areas that we

work with in CA”

Cover crops (saia oats and fodder radish) were grown as a relay crop after

the hailstorm and the small livestock were put into the plot to graze. If the

growth and yields are better in the future, then Mr Moshoeshoe will cut

and feed it to his livestock and keep some for winter.

Summary of learning points for the CA participants

Intercropping reduces the presence of weeds. Maize in the inter-cropped plot grows better and is

greener than maize in single block plantings

Soil fertility is described in terms of darker soil, more organic matter present and the presence of soil

life such as earthworms. A few farmers commented on the texture being more crumbly and soils being

less compacted.

Farmers have noticed a definite decrease in soil erosion in their CA plots, as well as an increase in soil

moisture in these plots as compared to their conventionally tilled plots.

Mulching suppresses weeds and increases moisture and thus growth of the crops.

Hybrid seed can withstand different conditions as they are specifically crossed to be able to do that.

It is not good to keep hybrid seed for replanting.

OPVs are similar to traditional seed and seed can be kept. That is good in these areas where people keep

and plant their own seed.

Herbicides help a lot and farmers have noticed fewer weeds and also fewer types of weeds being

present over time. They have learnt not to spray herbicides on fully grown plants, as it does not work

and also to be careful about the type of herbicide they use. Mid-season weeding is an issue on the larger

plots, as hand weeding is not possible and there are very few herbicides that work on the mixed plots.

Cover crops work quite well in out competing weeds and is a good strategy for weed control.

Farmers would prefer to store their own harvests. Presently rats are a big problem.

Farmers would prefer to use storage bins where they would control access and fumigate their seed also

against other storage pests.

Labour for land preparation, planting and harvesting is reduced. Labour for weeding however is

increased in the CA process.

Hand hoes are sometimes still the best way of planting as the MBLI planters struggle in hard dry soils

and in the areas where the soil is very sandy the seeds end up being too shallow and wash out of the soil

when the rains come.

The conception in the area is that any field larger than around 1000m2 would need tractors for

ploughing. This is a significant difference to the conceptions of hand cultivatable land sizes in the

Bergville area for example.

INNOVATION PLATFORMS

The members of learning groups are all members of local savings and credit groups in the Matatiele area. In

Mzongwana a new savings and bulk buying group has been set up. From livelihoods information gleaned from

the individual interviews the following small summary of livelihoods information can be made.

Livelihoods criteria

Units

Male/female ratio of participants

30/70

Average age of participants

54 years

No of household members

No of children/dependants

Average monthly income

R1 820,00 – grants and farming; 0% employment

Savings for input costs

R300 per participant

Provisioning of food from cropping

2-3 months

Cropping for household consumption

95%

From the above it can be seen that participants are all poor, living in large households and there is a high

dependency on grants for incomes. This leads to a decreased ability to save money for buying inputs and

cropping on a small scale.

Time was spent trying to liaise with the Eastern Cape Department of Agriculture to set up a collaborative

relationship in the communal fields in a number of villages. These fields are generally planted by and through

the Department, with farmers paying a subsidised amount for the service. Farmer assist with weeding and

harvesting. The idea was to allocate certain portions of the fields to CA. The agreement was further that the

Department would provide the Ongeluksnek study group with two no-till planters (2 row). Although promises

were made actual actions were unforthcoming. Similarly, the relationship with the Ongeluksnek study group

collapsed due to lack of focus from the group.

A decision was made to pursue relationships in southern KZN as extension of this implementation site, given

the present difficulties in implementing a model of farmer experimentation alongside a model where the

government departments provide inputs as well as doing cultivation for the farmers.

A relationship was initiated with Mr Roy Dandala from KwaNalu (The KZN agricultural Union) and the CA team

joined in during an open day for the Creighton area and gave an introductory input on CA. Farmers in this area

were very interested in this approach and this area will be incorporated as a site going into the future.

Above left: Field visits during the KwaNalu farmers’ day in Creighton. Above right: Mazwi Dlamini from the CA

SFIP team demonstrates the use of hand held planters to the community gathering during the KwaNalu open day.

In addition, a direct relationship with the Harry Gwala DM and the Ubuhlebezwe LM (local municipality) is

being set up through discussions with the provincial managers of the DRDLR (Dept of Rural Development and

Land Reform) and Mr Nqe Dlamini (from StratAct). The concept here is to implement the CA SFIP process in

these municipalities as an example of a model of agricultural development that builds on the concept of farmer

centres and agri-hubs. A forum involving all the role players in this process is to be set up in the coming

growing season.

Sehutlong/Nkau farmers’ day

The farmers day was arranged and managed by the community in Sehutlong, supported by the local facilitator

Bulelwa Dzingwa and hosted at Mrs Lebueoa’s homestead. Around 48 participants from the local area,

including the Nkosi for Nkau who opened the day and encouraged involvement. Bulelwa gave a presentation of

the process and principles and a number of farmers talked through their experiences with CA. The field

demonstrations were visited and explained and a power point presentation was done to discuss the Grain SA

SFI programme, the trial considerations and farming options available.

Clockwise from top left:

Participants in the tent

listening to a farmer’s

presentation; Bulelwa

Dzingwa presenting her

poster on CA; the power point

presentation and discussions

and a group of farmers

visiting Mrs Futhu’s field –

Below Right: Bulelwa is

explaining the trial layout.

MONITORING

The use of the two monitoring frameworks for the CA scores and the VSA (Visual Soil Assessment) scores were

continued into the third season.

Similar to the situation in the Bergville

area, but even more pronounced is the

weather dependence of the CA scoring

system. As a number of participants had

complete crop failure their scores have

been a lot lower than in previous seasons.

Right: Sylvester Selala works with a number

of smallholder farmers to demonstrate how

to work out the percentage groundcover

using the small wire quadrant shown in the

picture.

The table below outlines the CA scores for

the participants for the 2015-2016 planting

season. Canopy cover is generally low due

to lack of growth of the crops as is the crop growth percentage. The dry season did have the advantage of

reducing pest incidence in the crops.

TABLE9:THECA SCORES FOR CA PARTICIPANTSIN THE EASTERNCAPE FORTHE2015-2106 SEASON.

Surname

Name

No of

years

under

Ground

cover

percentage

at planting

Canopy

cover

percentage

(when?)

Weed

presence

on trial

plot

(when?)

Percentage

of pest

present on

trial plot

assessment

Percentage

crop growth

(germination,

height, leaf

colour)

scores

2015

(out of

10)

scores

2014

(out of

10)

VSA

scores

Futu

Matsepo

15%

10%

90%

60%

3,58

5,40

Lebouea

Mamolelekeng

90%

80%

5,34

6,50

Lebueoa

Malerato

80%

90%

4,35

Dzingwa

Bulelwa

15%

75%

90%

55%

4,80

6,00

Nkejane

Makemelo

40%

90%

40%

4,30

Ndlovu

Jacky

10%

90%

30%

4,50

Hlathi

Jabulani

10%

75%

10%

90%

3,70

Sturruman

Nomzwakhe

15%

70%

90%

25%

4,18

Ranqabang

Mapontsho

15%

20%

40%

90%

60%

4,50

Sturruman

Zanzima

15%

60%

90%

45%

4,30

Mapheele

Tsoloane

10%

55%

90%

15%

3,60

5,50

Dihholo

Thabiso

15%

70%

90%

25%

4,16

5,00

Manyala

Mamasoka

100%

90%

3,88

Makaula

MaMbhele

20%

50%

90%

20%

3,70

Mbunjana

Nomakhosazana

10%

90%

45%

4,70

Monkie

Matshezi

100%

90%

45%

4,80

Zondeki

Nolungile

100%

90%

3,88

Thiyane

Patricia

10%

70%

10%

90%

25%

4,10

Ntontela

Vuyelwa

90%

15%

4,10

Moshoeshoe

Kgotso

95%

90%

75%

5,24

Mncwabe

Themba

90%

50%

4,76

Hadebe

Mngankosi

15%

55%

90%

35%

4,20

Mzikayifani

Gcina

90%

35%

4,44

From this table it can be seen that the percentage ground cover at planting was low this season. The percentage

canopy cover achieved by February 2016 (6-8weeks after planting) was also low due to lack for growth which

is further seen in the percentage crop growth column. 0% Growth means total lack of germination and the low

percentages of crop growth indicate that no yields were obtained for these participants. Only 9 out of 23

participants who planted this season realised any yields at all. Weed pressure was high as indicated in the

percentage weed column. A number of farmers neglected to do weeding due to low germination and overall

growth of their crops as they expected no harvests.

When comparing the ground cover and canopy cover with overall growth there is an expectation of finding

similar trends, where good ground and canopy cover is reflected in good growth of the crops. This year, due to

the extreme weather conditions however, these trends have been largely obscured. See the figure below

Figure 8: Comparison of ground and canopy cover scores with crop growth in Matatiele; 2015-2106 planting

season.

The figure below compares the CA scores over three seasons with the maize and bean yields over that period.

The sample size is somewhat small to make definitive conclusions but there is a clear upward trend in yields

with average yields for beans being 0,42t/ha, 0,47t/ha and 0,69t/ha in 2013,2014 and 2015 respectively and

the average yields for maize being 0,66t/ha, 0,87t/ha and 1,37t/ha for the same periods.

These is an equally clear downward trend in theCA scores. It is becoming apparent that using these scores to

base incentives on- or as the basis of a PES (Payment for Ecosystems Services) model, is going to be difficult

given the variances in weather across the years. It is considered that a simpler process for the incentives and

subsidy related criteria needs to be designed. This process will also need to include the social and

organisational criteria, such as group work and savings and should be based on implementation of the CA

principles in cropping practices; such as soil cover crop diversification (inter-cropping and crop rotation) and

inclusion of cover crops.

1 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

nki

Dih

hol

Dzi

Fut

Had

ebe

Hla

thi

Leb

oue

Leb

ueo

kau

nya

phe

ele

unj

ana

cwa

sho

esh

Mzi

kay

ifan

Ndl

ovu

Nke

jan

Nto

ntel

Ran

qab

ang

Stu

rru

Thi

yan

Zon

dek

Ground cover at planting0,03 0,08 0,05 0,04 0,15 0,10 0,02 0,04 0,05 0,02 0,10 0,00 0,04 0,00 0,02 0,10 0,05 0,05 0,15 0,07 0,10 0,03

Canopy cover0,02 0,15 0,15 0,15 0,15 0,75 0,050,20,020,10,10,04 0,02 0,05 0,050,40,050,20,150,70,01

Crop growth0,45 0,25 0,55 0,60 0,35 0,00 0,80 0,00 0,20 0,00 0,15 0,45 0,50 0,75 0,35 0,30 0,40 0,15 0,60 0,35 0,25 0,00

0,00

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

0,50

0,60

0,70

0,80

0,90

scores

Ground and canopy cover compared to crop growth; 2015. Matatiele

Figure9: Comparison of CA trial yields and CA scores over three seasons in the Eastern Cape.

When comparing the CA scores and the VSA scores we were interested to see whether the trends in using these

two sets of scores are still similar to the trends noticed in previous seasons, as shown in the small table below.

CA monitoring

scores

VSA Soil scores

VSA plant scores

Yields (Maize)

Above average

≥7

>28

>15

3-8.9 tons/ha

Average

5-6.9

11-28

7-15

1-2.9tons/ha

Below average

3-4.9

<11

≤1ton/ha

In general these relationships still hold and the scores fall within the same ranges as those presented in this

table.

Beans

2013

Beans

2014

Beans

2015

Maize

2013

Maize

2014

Maize

2015

CA score

2013

CA Score

2014

CA score

2015

Lelatso Thuso0,12 0005

Bulelwa Dzingwa1,61,81,01 3,264,8

Mamolelekeng Lebuoea0,35 1,551,256,55,3

Manyalleng Sikhosana0,16 0,735,9

Matshepo Futhu0,21 0,760,5305,43,6

Thabiso Dihollo0,670,83 0 0,661,84 05,954,2

Tsoloane Mapheele0,16 000,78 065,53,6

t/ha

Yields and CA score comprisons; 2013-2015. Eastern Cape

score1-

Figure 10: Comparison of VSA soil and CA scores for the 2015-2106 planting season in Matatiele.

These scores are all quite low, showing the below average performance of crop growth this year.

Considerations for future cycles

Generally the participation of farmers has been a lot better this season, but hampered by the extreme weather

conditions. The relationship with Lima RDF has been fruitful and cooperative and will be continued into future

seasons. Technically mulching has proved to be a key factor for the success of CA production systems in these

settings and work will continue to improve this practice, as well as other CA principles. Water and soil

conservation works will be included in the fields in future as it is a definite requirement. Work with cover crops

and crop diversification is an ongoing process.

The process will be expanded into southern KZN in future cycles as working under the specific socio-political

environment of the eastern Cape is considered unproductive at present. A focus on working with a limited

number of innovative and interested larger smallholders is envisaged and also the inclusion of working with

mechanised 2-row planters.

nki

Dih

hol

Dzi

Fut

deb

Hla

thi

Leb

oue

Leb

ueo

kau

nya

phe

ele

unj

ana

abe

sho

esh

Mzi

kay

ifan

Ndl

ovu

eja

Nto

ntel

nqa

ban

Stu

rru

Thi

yan

Zon

dek

Average of VSA scores8,0011,011,013,09,006,0014,011,011,09,0011,013,0 11,011,011,09,0011,06,0011,0

Average of CA scores 20154,804,164,803,584,203,705,344,353,703,883,604,704,765,244,444,504,304,104,504,244,103,88

0,00

2,00

4,00

6,00

8,00

10,00

12,00

14,00

16,00

CA and VSA scores

Comparison of VSA and CA scores 2014-2015; Matatiele

Appendix 1: Table. Key activities, outputs and deliverables July 2015- September 2016; planned and actual.

An amount of R41 497,47 remains for August and September 2016. The project will be finalised within the allocated budget.

INVOICES

Milestones/

Outputs

Keyactivities

OUTCOMES/

DELIVERABLES

Budgets Oct2015-Sept2016 OctNovDecJanFebMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugust September

Actual

expenditure per

budget item

Pd grainSA

TOTAL

EXPENDITURE

Farmer

experimentation

Matatiele

Reporting,

documentation,adminis

trationand sundries

Meeting and monthly

reports

Administration and

sundries

R 120000,00 R 10 000,00R 10 000,00R 10 000,00R 9 966,32R 10 600,00R 12 279,60R 29 549,00R8 365,50R11 100,00R 111 860,42

Farmer centred

innovationsystems

(including inputs)

PID plans, awarness and

training, delivery of inputs

and materials

Farmer led

experimentation

R 267607,00 R 37 694,77R 39 310,06R 14 340,73R 21 550,80R 18 250,00R 27 053,00R 8 456,40R 42 884,00R1 143,36R30 000,00R 240 683,12

Innovation platforms

and awareness

Stakeholder meetings,

platform building events

Farmer led

experimentaiton

R 10 000,00R 6 509,28R 4 440,17R 10 949,45

Monitoring and

evaluation, market

based mechanisms,

studentsand interns,

Monitoring forms,

researchoutlines,

workshop notes

Reporting and

Administration

R 142393,00 R 12 383,28R 7 788,96R 4 163,40R 9 525,60R 3 307,22R 2 034,94R 4 374,00R4 374,00R375,00 R 48 326,40

R 540 000,00R60 078,05R 57 099,02R 28 504,13R31 517,12R 44 884,88R42 639,82R40 040,34R51 698,17R 13 882,86R41 475,00R 0,00R 0,00R 411 819,39

Work plan83 008,00R 69 703,00R 32 352,00R R 32 352,00R 46 403,0046 398,00R 36 398,00R 36 398,00R 36 398,00R

R 36 398,00R 36 398,00R 47 794,00 R 383 012,00R 63 395,40R475 214,79

Difference

July remainderR 41 497,37

Jul2015-Sept2015 JulyAugustSeptember October

R40 480,40R38 174,90R51 381,54R130 036,84

106 749,00RR33 916,34R38916,33R33 916,33106749,00R

TOTAL July 2015-Sept 2016646 749,00R

Matatiele Milestones: Farmer Centred Innovation in CA.July 2015-September

2016

Sub- TOTAL:

Appendix 2: Soil health test results for Matatiele; 2015.

AREANAMEDATESAMPLESoilpH

Organic

matter %

CO2-C (ppmC)

Organic C:N

ratio

TotalOrg C

(ppm)

PMN

(potentially

mineralizable

N= avail Org

N)ppm

TotalN

(ppm)

Column G

+inorganic N

available

(kg/ha)

Haney

Test

Trad eval

N (kg/ha)

Differenc

e(Kg/ha)

Financial

valuefor

the

difference

available

(kg/ha)

available

(kg/ha)

Soil

Health

Score

Cover

crop

(legume/

grass)

Matatiele

Jul-15Veld baseline samples5,94,2141,813,2217 16,418,942,451,1241,328R 740,4834,72321,6614,5540/60

Sehutlong Lelatsa ThusoJul-151st year intercrop trial5,63,865,78,9171 19,231,470,3423,74446,6R 834,8066,19337,7911,0150/50

Lelatsa ThusoJul-15

1st year intercrop trial

with cover crop

5,63,8134,1 11,2159 14,257,6128,9182,246,712R 836,95101,70340,9314,9840/60

Lelatsa ThusoJul-151st year control5,73,974,612,9185 14,365,9147,62108,938,752R 694,3346,59337,839,0360/40

Matshepo FutuJul-151st year intercrop trial5,22,347,810,8109 10,111,730,806,724,08R 431,4420,72152,436,5370/30

Matshepo FutuJul-15

1st year intercrop trial

with cover crop

5,32,8141,8 10,7119 11,116,233,948,325,65R 459,5463,17179,3115,630/70

Matshepo FutuJul-151st year control5,42,894,110,1159 15,6 21 47,268,239,09R 700,3547,71257,6012,4450/50

Mamolelekeng LebeouaJul-151st year intercrop trial6,93,2155,69,2213 23,237,884,7824,260,59R 1 085,64332,42507,5821,4410/90

Mamolelekeng LebeouaJul-151st year control6,13,186,31218015 54,2121,5283,637,97R 680,2891,17556,3010,5150/50

Manyalleng SikhosanaJul-15

1st year intercrop trial

with cover crop

5,5 2,5113,29,5130 13,621,748,6116,432,26R 577,9462,72215,7114,5240/60

Manyalleng SikhosanaJul-151st year control62,486,39,111913 18,541,4410,830,69R 549,8453,65232,6211,9650/50

Khutsong TsoloaneMapheeleJul-151st year intercrop trial5,60,816,87,863 8,111,421,5045,615,904R 284,9521,728146,3843,680/20

Tsoloane MapheeleJul-15

1st year intercrop trial

with cover crop

5,9 1,339,87,589 11,817,940,3211,428,92R 518,1652,192147,287,3670/30

Tsoloane MapheeleJul-151st year control6,20,934,77,281 11,3 16 35,7287,628,128R 503,9740,656179,9846,7570/30

Nkau Bulelwa DzingwaAug-151st year intercrop trial4,93,698,18,4133 15,8 45 100,68852,6448,048R 860,8887,024145,0414,5440/60

Bulelwa DzingwaJul-151st year control53,141,512,3120 9,714,130,3528,421,952R 393,3217,80864,6245,5470/30

Appendix 3.1: Focus group discussion outline

Focus Group discussions: July-August 2016

Inputs

1)What did you spend on input costs this year for your trial and normal planting? And in previous years –under

normal weather conditions (Divide them up into small groups to come up with figures if it is hard for

individuals to come up with answers)

2)What did you expect from your trial compared to your usual planting?

3)How do you measure yields?

4)Are you aware of payments for input packages? What do you understand about them?

5)How much do you spend on input costs for 1ha?

6)How do you plan to pay or save for them?

(a)Do cheaper payments/subsidies assist you? ……………………………………………………………………….

(b)How does having cheaper inputs help you?

(c)Does that mean that buying inputs at their normal price is not affordable? ………………………

(d)Does what you get from your production cover cost? .............................................................

(e)Do you know how much you make after you have subtracted input costs?

7)Are you aware that the input subsidies programme is applicable for a certain period of time? (Yes/No)

8)If yes, do you have a plan to buy your own inputs? .................................................................................

Costing

1)Are you a member of a savings group? Yes/ No

2)If, yes how much are your monthly contributions in the group?

3)Do you contribute any funds directly towards the sourcing of the production inputs? Yes/No?

4)If yes, how much?

5)If no, why?

6)What factors determine the contributed amounts towards sourcing of inputs?

7)How does the amount contributed compare to actual cost of production inputs?

a)Is it a predetermined amount? (Yes/No)

b)Is it what savings group members can afford? (Yes/No)

c)Is the amount determined per growing season? Or cost of production inputs in local markets?

(Yes/No)

Yields

1)Did the use of the CA processes improve your yield? (Yes/no)

2)If yes, how has it differed compared to previous seasons?

3)How did you use your yield?

4)Do you store your yield? (Yes/no)

5)If yes, how?

6)If no, what do you do with your yield?

7)What storage issues do you face?

a)How do you deal with them?

b)From harvesting to eating, how much do you think you lose?

c)Would you need assistance on how to do it better?

8)What are your views on joint-storage of yields?

Markets and marketing options

1.Do you sell your yield? Yes/no

a)If yes, where?

b)How much do you sell? How much?

c)If no, why don’t you sell?

2.Do you know or use any local mills? …………………………………………………………………………………………………

3.Is it a good idea to use a local mill?

Drought coping strategies

1.What has been the impact of the drought?

2.Did you plant during the drought? (Yes/No)

a)If yes, what are your adaptation strategies to ease the impact of the drought?

b)How have you tried to deal with drought?

c)Did you change your farming in any way to accommodate for the drought?

3.How did organizations work with you during the drought?

4.How did the CA work during the drought? …………………………………………………………………………………..

Cover crops

1.Did/ do you grow cover crops? (Yes/No)

a)What do you understand about the purpose of cover crops? ………………………………………….

b)Which one grew better? And why? …………………………………………………………………………………

c)Is there anyone still keeping seeds or is it possible to keep seeds?

2.Do you think using cover crops as fodder or as feed a good idea? (Yes/No)

If no why?

Appendix 3.2: GrainSA Conservation Agriculture impact assessment questionnaire; July 2016

GENERAL INFORMATION

Name and surname……………………………………………………….M/F………………………………………..

Area/Village ………………………………………………………………ID No……………………………………..

Years under CA…………………………………………………………Size of trial…………………………………

No of h/h members………………………………………………….No of children………………………………….

Main source of income……………………….No of grants (Pension and child)………, ………..

Member of Saving’s group Y/N…………………Bulk buying group Y/N……………………

Amount saved for inputs……………………………………….

GENERAL CA

After one/two years being involved in this project, how do you feel about CA/No till?

What was your perception about CA before you join this project and what is your perception now?

What are the things you have learnt about CA?

Will you encourage your neighbours to practice CA and show them how to do it?

What change have you observed in you plots ever since it’s been planted CA method? Eg (Positive and negative

– and describe)

1.Erosion

2.Soil Fertility

3.Moisture…

4. Productivity/ yield ……………………………………………..

SOIL HEALTH

Do you know how to identify a fertile/infertile soil?Yes/No

What are the characteristics that you look for to identify a fertile soil?

1.……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

2.……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

3.……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

4.……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

5.……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

By your own observation, has the CA improved the soil fertility in your trail plot?

Yes/No Why? ....

COVER CROPS

Have you planted cover crops? Yes/No……………2015…………………………………2104…………………

If yes, which ones did you plant?

Summer

Tick

Winter

tick

Millet

Black oats

Sunflower

Fodder raddish

Sunnhemp

Fodder rye

Cowpeas

Vetch

Sorghum

How did you plant the cover crops?(In between maize or separate)………………………………………………

Please comment on the growth (Which ones grew well, which did not and why……

Which Cover crops do you prefer and why ?(Food, fodder)

Have you harvested seed from any of the cover crops?( Which ones, estimate amount or yield)

Grazing of summer and winter cover crops? Please explain how this happens

Is there a better way to manage the razing? (Give some ideas)

Cutting and taking to kraals? Or drying and storage for later use? – Please comment on these options

FARMER TRAINING

Has the training (demonstrations and workshops) helped you to increase you knowledge about CA

Yes/No How has it helped ?

Are you able to practice the principles/guidelines of CA training on your own? Yes/No

Why?

Did you follow principles that you learnt from CA training to plant your control plots at planting?

Yes/No Why? Would you want to get some more training about CA? Yes/No

Would you recommend CA training to other community members? Yes/No

Why? ..................................................................................................................................................................

EXPERIMENTAL PLOT QUESTIONS

Please describe which planters you have used and how this has worked for you (MBLI, Matracca, Animal

drawn,.. Haraka) (Incl comments on how to use, how to calibrate, maintenance)

Do the planters work better than the hand hoes Y/N. Please explain why or why not

Based on your observations, are the herbicides/pesticides we have been using before planting effective?

Yes/No Why

Do you know the dangers/disadvantages of herbicides? Yes/No

Do you know how to use herbicides/pesticides? Yes/No

How effective are herbicides compared to hand weeding?

Has it ever happened that herbicides did not work in your plot? Yes/No

Do you know why sometimes herbicides don’t work?

What is the contribution of inter crop in weed control?

Has the number or type of weeds decreased/increased in your tail plot ever since you started planting CA

method? Yes/No

How do you think farmers can improve the method of weeding in No Till plots?

Which maize/bean seed did you like and you have seen more productive? (trad. OPV,Hybrid, GM) Do you know

the differences in these varieties? Yes/No Why?

1.………………………………

2.……………………………….

3.………………………………..

4.…………………………………

5.…………………………………

Which type would you prefer to continue planting?

Do you know how planting all these different types of maize close together affects the seed?

Yes/No

Is the crossing between the different types of maize a problem? Yes/No

If so, what suggestions do participants have about keeping different types of seed pure?

What were the challenges you encountered during the planting season?

What time do you think is conducive to start planting?

How is planting using mixed planting method different from single planting?

Have you observed the benefits of mixed-cropping in your trial plots?

Yes/No Why?

Would you extend mixed cropping to your control plots? Yes/No

Why?……………………………………………

Do you know any other methods of CA planting apart from mix-cropping and have you ever used them? Have

the yields in trial plots improved? Yes/No ,... By how much?

If not what do you think is the problem?

If yes, what do you think has influenced the increased in yields?

CROP GROWTH

What are your perceptions on using generic fertilizer recommendations

Do you use these recommendations on your control plots Y/N…. .. If not, please explain why

Please describe what pest and disease issues you have noticed on the trial plots and what you did to solve these

problems

Have you noticed any differences in crop growth and yields from the first and second years on your trial plots?

(Please describe how crops have germinated and grown this season and compared previous years if you

planted before) Yes/No

Have you wanted to commit to increasing your sizes of land for cropping?Yes/No

Give estimates of how much food there is now compared to previously (maybe in no of people in a household

and how long they can eat form the harvest)

Is it possible to give an indication of what has been sold, some idea of how much and to whom? And the income

you have generated (for both maize and beans)

HARVESTING AND STORAGE:

What is your perception around the harvesting process?

Do you have any suggestions to make it more efficient?

How do you tell whether the maize is dry enough, both for harvesting and later for storage?

Does the present system of storage work well?

What are the problems?

What are some suggestions to make storage more efficient?

Are there problems with mould and fungi as well as pests in the stored maize? Please describe these problems

and how participants deal with these?

Any further thoughts about individual/ joint storage options that would work for participants?

Social issues

LABOUR:

What are the issues with labour with CA as compared to conventional cropping?

Is there a saving in labour? Yes/No

Is it more or less for preparation, planting, weeding etc?

What size of land can one person comfortably work on by themselves?

How has working together in teams worked?

Do you have any suggestions about dealing with some of the problems that may arise with this?

What size land can be hand cultivated, cultivated with oxen drawn planters and what size will need a tractor

drawn planter?

What is the present situation with access to tractors and ploughing, what are the options for using tractor

drawn no till planters?

COSTS:

Do you have an idea of how much inputs costs for 1ha? Yes/No

What inputs do you normally buy?

What inputs do you think you will need to buy as well to ensure that you maize grows better?

How much can you afford to pay? Please give a minimum and maximum range.

For those participants who are saving, how much will you save for your input costs?

EXPERIMENTATION:

Are there other people in the community who want to join in the experimentation?

Yes/No (List)

Can you as more experienced CA participants give advice to newcomers? Yes/No

Can you buy as a group/individually some of the tools and equipment? Yes/No

Is it an idea to have input packs available in the community for sale?Yes/No

Is any individual interested to try and run this as a business, or would they rather do it as a small group?