NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCESDEPARTMENT OF INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT STUDIES.................................MASTER THESIS 30 CREDITS 2008
DRYLANDS ECOFARMING: An analysis on ecological farming prototypes in two Sahelian zones: Koro and Bankass in Mali
Didier Habimana
DRYLANDS ECOFARMING: AN ANALYSIS ON ECOLOGICAL FARMING PROTOTYPES IN TWO SAHELIAN ZONES: KORO AND BANKASS IN MALI
Didier Habimana
(Photo taken by Didier Habimana)
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULLFILLMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTERS OF SCIENCE IN MANAGEMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
DEPARTEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONEMT AND DEVELOPMENT
STUDIES (NORAGRIC)
NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCE
2008
The Department of International Environment and Development Studies, Noragric, is the international gateway for the Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB). Eight departments, associated research institutions and the Norwegian College of Veterinary Medicine in Oslo. Established in 1986, Noragric’s contribution to international development lies in the interface between research, education (Bachelor, Master and PhD programmes) and assignments.
The Noragric Master theses are the final theses submitted by students in order to fulfil the requirements under the Noragric Master programme “Management of Natural Resources and Sustainable Agriculture” (MNRSA), “Development Studies” and other Master programmes.
The findings in this thesis do not necessarily reflect the views of Noragric. Extracts from this publication may only be reproduced after prior consultation with the author and on condition that the source is indicated. For rights of reproduction or translation contact Noragric.
© Didier Habimana, May 2008 [email protected] Noragric
Department of International Environment and Development Studies P.O. Box 5003
N-1432 Ås Norway
Tel.: +47 64 96 52 00 Fax: +47 64 96 52 01
Internet: http://www.umb.no/noragric
Declaration
I, Didier Habimana, declare that this thesis is a result of my research investigations and findings. Sources of information other than my own have been acknowledged and a reference list has been appended. This work has not been previously submitted to any other university for award of any type of academic degree.
Signature………..
Date………
DEDICATION
I personally dedicate this thesis to my parents and siblings, who have given me the inspiration and encouragement to continue with my education at a master’s level.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would first like to thank the department of International Environment and Development Studies (NORAGRIC) at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences, for giving me the opportunity to study at a master’s level and for their financial support. Thanks to the Faculty of Forestry and Nature Conservation of the University of Makerere in Uganda, for the practical fieldwork training which was part of a compulsory course.
I wish to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor Jens Aune for making this thesis a success. I thank him for his professional guidance, criticism, and patience. I also thank him for allowing me the chance to conduct research in Mali.
My gratitude also goes to Cheick O.Traore and to Kalilou Kone for their moral support during my time spent in Mali. Thanks to ICRAF, CARE, PACOB, AID-MALI, the Agricultural Technical Service of Koro, and especially the field agents and technicians for their assistance and activities conducted in villages.
Special thanks to the Kone family who showed me Malian hospitality; I am also gratefully thankful to them for taking care of me during a severe case of malaria.
Big thanks to my family, friends and classmates for their moral support and inspirations.
Finally, I give special thanks to all peasant tests interviewed for this study. I thank them for their time and sacrifices, and for showing me their courage, hard work and dedication in extreme working condition of the Sahelian environment.
ABSTRACT
Farmers in the Sahelian part of West Africa are facing yield-limiting factors affecting household capabilities of securing food security in a rapidly growing population. The main concern in the region is to find potential ways to alleviate the low soil fertility problem in a way that is cost effective, environmentally friendly and making investment opportunities possible. The Ecofarming project developed two types of fertilizer microdosage systems that underwent testing in both mono cropping and intercropping systems. The specific objective of this study was to investigate the present socio- economical situation of farmers involved in the project, study the effects of fertilizer application on crop yields and to evaluate the potential economical gain from adopting these microdosage systems. The study area was in the region of Mopti in Mali. The sampling method used was convenience sampling. Structured questionnaire was employed to collect data. The results show that farmers have all necessary requirements to intensify their agricultural system. In mono cropping, farmers can expect to have good crop yields when adopting the technique of applying fertilizer 15 days after seed planting.
However, this technique has shown to be costly for farmers to adopt, and is economically not suitable at an early stage. Alternatively, a single change application of fertilizer in ratio 1:1 can give a profit of more than 300%. In intercropping farmers can improve their crop yields when adopting the technique of applying fertilizer in ratio 1:1, with soaked seeds of millet intercropped with cowpeas, and pesticide use. However, farmers in Koro were unsuccessful to obtain important yields like their counterparts in Bankass. Farmers in Bankass can obtain 300% benefit from changing from a more traditional farming system to the application of micro-fertilization without the use of any pesticide alone.
Micro-fertilization techniques remarkably increase crop yields, which can help farmers securing their consumption and investment possibilities, and at the same time intensifying their agricultural system.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...V ABSTRACT ... VI TABLE OF CONTENTS ...VII LIST OF TABLES... IX LIST OF FIGURES...X
1 INTRODUCTION ... 1
1.1 BACKGROUND... 1
1.2 RATIONALE... 2
1.3 JUSTIFICATION... 2
1.4 PROBLEM STATEMENT AND HYPOTHESIS... 3
1.5 OBJECTIVES... 3
2 LITTERATURE REVIEW ... 4
2.1 CONCEPT OF ECOFARMING... 4
2.2 SOIL FERTILITY... 5
2.3 MICRO- FERTILIZATION... 8
2.4 SOIL DEGRADATION... 8
2.5 LIVESTOCK MANAGEMENT... 9
2.6 INTENSIFICATION OF SAHELIAN FARMING SYSTEM... 10
3 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA... 13
3.1 GEOGRAPHY... 13
3.2 CLIMATE... 13
3.3 SOIL TYPE... 13
3.4 AGRICULTURE... 15
3.5 LIVESTOCK... 15
3.6 HOUSEHOLD ECONOMY... 15
3.7 SOIL FERTILITY PRESENT SITUATION... 16
4. MATERIALS AND METHODS ... 17
4.1 SAMPLE SELECTION... 17
4.2 SAMPLE SIZE... 17
4.3 DATA COLLECTION... 17
4.4 LIMITATIONS OF THE SURVEY... 18
4.5 DATA EXTRAPOLATION... 18
4.5.1 Mono cropping and intercropping and their harvest procedures ... 18
4.5.2 Calculating into hectare... 20
4.6 DATA ANALYSIS... 20
4.7 ECONOMICAL ANALYSIS... 20
4.7.1 Partial budget ... 21
4.7.2 Dominance analysis ... 22
4.7.3 Marginal rate of return ... 22
5 RESULTS... 24
5.1 HOUSEHOLD AND FARM CHARACTERISTICS... 24
5.1.1 Household characteristics... 24
5.1.2 Farm characteristics ... 25
5.1.3 Chosen technology ... 28
5.2 YIELD CHARACTERISTICS... 29
5.2.1 Differences between the experimental yields and past harvest yields... 29
5.2.2 Differences in treatments and systems for Koro and Bankass ... 30
5.2.2.1 Koro ... 30
5.2.2.2 Bankass ... 32
5.3 ECONOMICAL RESULTS AND ANALYSIS... 35
5.3.1 Partial budget analysis ... 35
5.3.1.1 Inputs costs... 35
5.3.1.2 Labour costs ... 36
5.3.1.3 Partial budget ... 37
5.3.1.4 Variance analysis on net profit benefits of Koro ... 39
5.3.1.5 Variance analysis on net profit benefit of Bankass... 40
5.3.2 Dominance analysis ... 42
5.3.3 Marginal rate of return analysis ... 44
5.3.3.1 Koro ... 44
5.3.3.2 Bankass ... 44
6. DISCUSSION... 46
6.1 HOUSEHOLD AND FARM CHARACTERISTICS... 47
6.2 YIELD CHARACTERISTICS... 49
6.3 ECONOMICAL RESULTS AND ANALYSIS... 49
7. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS... 53
REFERENCES ... 54
APPENDICES ... 58
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1-DESCRIPTION OF TREATMENTS FOR EACH MICRODOSAGE SYSTEMS... 19
TABLE 2-FARMER’S AGE GROUPS... 25
TABLE 3-FARMER’S AGE GROUPS AND GENDER... 25
TABLE 4-PERCENTAGE TABLE SHOWING TYPE OF CROPS SOLD FROM FARMERS’ LAST HARVEST... 26
TABLE 5-FARMER’S PERCEPTIONS ON HOW TO IMPROVE CROP PRODUCTIVITY... 27
TABLE 6-FARMER’S PERCEPTIONS OF MAIN CROP YIELD PATTERNS OVER THE LAST 20 YEARS. ... 27
TABLE 7-AVERAGE PRODUCTION INCREASE AND DECREASE PER FARM OF MILLET OVER THE LAST 20 YEARS IN KORO AND BANKASS... 28
TABLE 8-PERCENTAGES OF SYSTEMS CHOSEN ACCORDING TO FARMER’S GENDER... 28
TABLE 9-AVERAGE LAND SIZE AND LAST HARVEST AVERAGE PRODUCTION. ... 29
TABLE 10-AVERAGE EXPERIMENTAL YIELD OF MILLET OF EACH TREATMENT OF BOTH SITES BY SYSTEM. .. 29
TABLE 11-INDIVIDUAL FARMER’S YIELDS FOR PURE CROPPING WITH VARIANCE ANALYSIS ON TREATMENTS ... 31
TABLE 12-INDIVIDUAL FARMER’S YIELDS FOR INTERCROPPING WITH VARIANCE ANALYSIS ON TREATMENTS ... 32
TABLE 13-INDIVIDUAL FARMER’S YIELDS FOR PURE CROPPING WITH VARIANCE ANALYSIS ON TREATMENTS ... 33
TABLE 14-INDIVIDUAL FARMER’S YIELDS FOR INTERCROPPING WITH VARIANCE ANALYSIS ON TREATMENTS ... 34
TABLE 15-INPUT PRICES REQUIREMENT FOR T3 AND T4 IN BOTH SYSTEMS... 36
TABLE 16-AVERAGE LABOR COSTS PER SYSTEM IN BOTH SITES... 36
TABLE 17-AVERAGE HOURS PER HECTARE SPENT FOR EACH SYSTEM IN BOTH SITES... 37
TABLE 18-TABLE SHOWING THE PARTIAL BUDGET OF BOTH SYSTEMS IN KORO... 38
TABLE 19-TABLE SHOWING THE PARTIAL BUDGET OF BOTH SYSTEMS IN BANKASS... 38
TABLE 20-INDIVIDUAL FARMER’S NET PROFIT FOR PURE CROPPING WITH VARIANCE ANALYSIS ON TREATMENTS... 39
TABLE 21-INDIVIDUAL FARMER’S NET PROFIT FOR INTERCROPPING WITH VARIANCE ANALYSIS ON TREATMENTS... 40
TABLE 22-INDIVIDUAL FARMER’S NET PROFIT FOR PURE CROPPING WITH VARIANCE ANALYSIS ON TREATMENTS... 41
TABLE 23-INDIVIDUAL FARMER’S NET PROFIT FOR INTERCROPPING WITH VARIANCE ANALYSIS ON TREATMENTS... 42
TABLE 24-DOMINANCE ANALYSIS TABLE OF MICRODOSAGE WITH PURE CROPPING IN KORO... 43
TABLE 25-DOMINANCE ANALYSIS TABLE OF MICRODOSAGE WITH INTERCROPPING IN KORO... 43
TABLE 26-DOMINANCE ANALYSIS TABLE OF MICRODOSAGE WITH PURE CROPPING IN BANKASS... 43
TABLE 27-DOMINANCE ANALYSIS TABLE OF MICRODOSAGE WITH INTERCROPPING IN BANKASS... 43
TABLE 28-MARGINAL RATE OF RETURN TABLE FOR KORO AND BANKASS... 45
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1-NUTRIENT CYCLE... 7
FIGURE 2-POPULATION DENSITY AND AGRICULTURAL INTENSIFICATION... 11
FIGURE 3-ANNUAL PRECIPITATION OF MALI... 14
FIGURE 4-PLOT OF YIELD VERSUS TREATMENTS FOR MONO CROPPING,KORO... 30
FIGURE 5-PLOT OF YIELD VERSUS TREATMENTS FOR INTERCROPPING,KORO... 31
FIGURE 6-PLOT OF YIELD VERSUS TREATMENTS FOR MONO CROPPING,BANKASS... 33
FIGURE 7-PLOT OF YIELD VERSUS TREATMENTS FOR INTERCROPPING,BANKASS... 34
FIGURE 8-POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTION OF AGRO-ECOLOGICAL TECHNIQUES WITH THE USE OF MICRO- FERTILIZATION... 46
FIGURE 9-SOCIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS AND POVERTY... 47
FIGURE 10-POTENTIAL AGRICULTURAL INTENSIFICATION... 48
FIGURE 11-CRITERIA THAT PLAYS A ROLE IN FUTURE ADOPTION OF TECHNIQUES... 50
FIGURE 12-MICRO-FERTILIZATION CAPABILITY... 52
1 INTRODUCTION
In this section I will present the introduction into five different parts. These parts will look into the background information, its rationale and justification, the problem statement and finally all objectives of this study on: “Drylands Ecofarming. An analysis on ecological farming prototypes in two Sahelian zones: Koro and Bankass in Mali”
1.1 Background
Before arriving to the Sahelian regions of Mali, my notion of the Sahel was attached with the inevitable expansion of the Saharan desert, the irreversible damages of the soil leaving barren land, and the worsening of living conditions in communities who base their survival on agriculture. Upon my arrival, I was to discover the potential efforts put in these regions from the local government, the NGOs, to the local communities to fight desertification and soil degradation through implementation of various projects and the supplying of agricultural extension work.
These projects try to counteract main environmental issues such as erosion, and low soil fertility. The main emphasis is on improving the soil quality of the region since it is highly linked to the socio-economical situation of local people living in these areas (Cullet2004). Main crops grown in the region are usually drought resistant, but with unpredictable rainfall and erratic precipitation patterns, peasants often find themselves in critical situations. There have been cases of failed technology practises that did not improve farmer’s productivity, which eventually led to more scepticism among some local communities (Kone et al. 2004).
Sahelian peasants are highly adaptive to their environment using indigenous technology passed down from passed generations, to ensure an environmental friendly use of resources; in order to increase overall productivity and reduce effects of erosion (Kaya et al. 2005; Kone et al. 2004).
The Ecofarm prototypes in Mali are initiated to help vulnerable farmers combat food insecurity, and to develop alternative techniques in the field of horticulture, agriculture, and livestock management. These techniques are complementary tools, to strengthen farmers’ indigenous techniques in order to counteract the effects of low soil fertility (Kaya et al. 2005).
1.2 Rationale
An exponential increase of population in areas where resources are already scarce may have detrimental effects on drylands ecosystems (Boon 2004; De Pauw 2006). The fast growing population in rural areas, increases food demand. This has lead to an increase of livestock holdings, land expansion, encroaching natural resources and reducing traditional fallow systems necessary for soil fertility, crop- and fodder production (Jayne et al. 1989; Kaya et al. 2005; Powell et al.1993; Kaya et al. 2000). That is why it is necessary to find alternative agro-ecological farming techniques, which not only increases local food production, but also assures a sustainable means of production capable of reducing soil degradation (Altieri, 2007).
Agro-ecology, according to Altieri (2007), is a science concerned with both socio- economical and environmental agricultural process to improve crop production, soil conservation, and to increases the rate of return to investment helping farmers out of poverty. Through yield and economic analysis of local farmers’ potential earnings, this study will show the possible contributions of agro-ecology in the improvement of livelihood of people living in the Sahel regions of Mali.
1.3 Justification
Agro-ecological projects have given important and successful results, when it comes to increasing important food crops of poor peasants, especially in environmentally difficult places (Altieri, 2007). Evaluating the ecofarm, prototype project will help understand the potential benefits that farmers could reap if the new farming techniques disseminated on a larger scale. This study will contribute to ongoing agro-ecological research in drylands, for the improvement of peasant livelihood and food security.
1.4 Problem statement and hypothesis
Climate, rainfall distribution, topography and soil composition are important determinants in understanding agro-ecological diversity in drylands (De Pauw 2006). The problem is that people living in the Sahel are mostly complaining about the erratic rainfall patterns and low soil quality, drastically affecting their crop yields and livelihood.
The hypothesis of this study will be to look into the agro-ecological technical systems offered by the eco-farming project; whether these techniques improve farmers’
production yields, household income and food security in areas most susceptible to drought.
1.5 Objectives
The Ecofarming project's main goal in the Sahel regions of Mali is to improve soil fertility. The importance of repairing soil damages may improve agriculture and livestock production, lead to better household income, food security, nutrition, and biodiversity.
There are three main objectives in this research:
1. The investigation of household and farm characteristics of farmers 2. Studying the effect of fertilizer application on crop yields
3. The investigation of potential economical gain from adopting microdosage systems
2 LITTERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Concept of Ecofarming
Ecofarming is an agricultural development system, which permits farmers to use efficiently their available resources in order to increase productivity, sustain household needs in food, reverse land degradation and minimize crop yields fluctuations (Kotschi et al. 1989)
The first concept of Ecofarming first originated in Germany. They found that it was possible to apply agricultural practices in an ecological and organic way. The Ecofarming project conducted in Mali allows farmers to use fertilizer and pesticide in an amount that is not harmful to the environment. The main purpose of the use of chemicals is to improve soil quality. The main concern of Ecofarming is to increase crop yields in an environmentally sustainable way. That is why the spread of such practices could be beneficial to small-scale farmers in developing countries, faced with challenges such as population growth, climate change, poor market infrastructure, low purchasing power and inputs availability (Kotschi et al. 1989).
The important characteristics in Ecofarming techniques are categorized as “vegetation design, use of biological symbionts, green manuring, mulching, composting, integrated plant protection and integration of livestock and/or aquaculture.” (Kotschi et al. 1989, p 10) Key Ecofarming techniques mentioned here are:
Vegetation design: It is the incorporation of both multiple cropping and agroforestry into a farming system. Multiple cropping allows two or more crops to be grown simultaneously or in sequence, which improves the protection of soil from evaporation and erosion, increases crop yields and lowers production risks. Agroforestry allows the protection of agricultural land from erosion, insures water balance and nutrient cycling.
Biological symbionts: It is the incorporation of leguminous species helping bacteria’s or fungi with the fixation of nitrogen in the soil.
Green manuring: It is the incorporation of green manure crops grown in a balanced crop rotation. This allows a production of large amounts of biomass that can fix large quantity of nitrogen to the soil.
Mulching: the covering of top layer soil with organic or inorganic matter; this protects the soil against erosion and evaporation.
Composting: the controlled decomposition of both animal and plant wastes for the increase quality production of humus, which helps maintain nutrients within the farm system.
Integrated plant protection: the incorporation of methods, which reduces the dependency of chemical pesticides.
Integration of livestock: It is the incorporation of animals in a farming system for the provision of organic fertilizer, and for the use in land preparations.
2.2 Soil fertility
Soil fertility, according to Troeh and Thompson (2005), is all processes involved in the creation of nutrient pool in the soil, from the mineralization of organic matter and of the weathering of minerals, capable of supplying plants and crops with nutrients for their development and growth.
The most important soil nutrients are composed of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium, found on the topsoil layer. Weischet et al (1993) describes this topsoil layer as the
“solum”, where “humus” contributes in changing organic matter into inorganic matter through a “mineralization” process. They also look at three determining property factors that are important in understanding the ecological aspect of the soil:
The reserve of primary minerals: these minerals found near the “Parent rock” deep in the soil, which after chemical weathering becomes the plants first source of nutrients absorbed by their roots.
The organic matter: these substances decompose to produce plants second source of nutrients. Through a process of “humification” and “mineralization”, organic matter converts into inorganic matter, which plants roots takes up.
The cation exchange capacity: This is a property of the soil, which involves the prevention of valuable nutrients leaching further down into the soil. This process then goes through “electrostatic attraction” where the positively charged cations stick to the negatively charged soil particles.
Weischet et al (1993) states the importance of the humification and mineralization processes in soil fertility, which depends on the annual availability of organic matter and of its decomposition rate. They further explain that the higher the mineralization process there is in the soil, the lower the presence of humus will be found, and vice versa. The rate in which the soil is capable of changing organic matter into inorganic depends on factors of soil acidity, climate, and of its quality.
Since crops and plants take up nutrients from the soil, Troeh and Thompson (2005) mentions that most of the soil nutrients looses its contents with the removal of these crops and plants in each harvest, and that little is returned back to the soil as organic matter;
this process is explained as the breaking of nutrient cycle. Troeh and Thompson (2005) emphasises the use of fertilizers to compensate the soil loss of nutrients, namely of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. This process as depicted in figure 1:
Figure 1: Nutrient cycle
Source: Troeh and Thompson (2005)
According to Frangenberg (2007), agriculture production is conditioned by the availability of nutrients in the soil, and of the protection of nutrient cycle, which is made vulnerable when more is taken out than put in within a farming system. He goes further by saying that the application of fertilizers and manure, with good farming methods not only increases productivity but also improves soil quality. However, he also adds that there is a need to understand the exact requirements of fertilizer use, to prevent soil damage and to apply it with good agricultural practices. He also talks about preventing erosion effects from adopting techniques that allows farmers to reduce the tillage to a minimum.
In the Sahelian regions of West African, reduced levels of phosphorus and nitrogen in sandy soils have negatively affected crop yields of main crops such as millet and sorghum (Buerkert et al. 2001). Fertilizer application can be very beneficial for increasing crop yields in places where soil fertility is low and when erosion is prevalent (McIntire 1986, cited in Buerkert et al. 2001). Buerkert et al. (2001) explains further by saying that applying fertilizer locally gives remarkable plant growth, but can ultimately
PLANT
SOIL
MINERALS
Uptake SOIL ORGANIC MATTER
Fixation Weathering Mineralization AVAILABLE
NUTRIENT POOL
Leaching and Erosion
Fertilization Harvest
lead to a bad harvest caused by “rapid water depletion in the dense root zone around the placed fertilizer.”
2.3 Micro- fertilization
Micro-fertilization is the application of small amount of fertilizer to increase crop yield (Aune et al.2007). They have two micro-fertilizer technologies that involve the application of phosphorus fertilizer of 0.3 g per pocket in a ratio of 1:1 with seeds, and of 6g of fertilizer per pocket. Their results show that the technology involving the application of fertilizer of 0.3 g per pocket is more economically efficient and demands low labour requirements. From these technologies, they have shown that it is possible to increase yields by applying small amount of fertilizer and that micro-fertilization should be supplemented with alternative ways of maintaining soil fertility that simulates the natural processes of humification and mineralization.
The recycling of crop residues - which is transformed into organic matter, and the fertilization of the soil, seems to be positive ingredients that sustains soil fertility (Aune et al, 2007; Troeh and Thompson, 2005; Frangenberg, 2007). Micro-fertilization according to Aune et al (2007) can be farmers’ best starting point to increase crop yields.
2.4 Soil degradation
For years, land degradation in drylands was associated with man made activities to the environment. However, a new paradigm shift gives us a better understanding of the problematic in which it entails. According to Øygard et al (1999), land degradation is not a result of poor land management as depicted in old paradigm, but of climate change especially in the changing rainfall pattern over the years, and of the loss of biodiversity from expending agricultural land.
Juergens (2006) identifies land degradation with several processes important for scientific understanding of dryland resources concerning soil, biodiversity, water, climate change and human interaction with nature. It is these resources, which needs the most attention in finding solution against land degradation. These processes mentioned as:
Soil related degradation: the loss of important nutrients in the soil, which decreases soil fertility and breaks down the nutrient cycle.
Biodiversity related degradation: the loss of biodiversity through overexploitation of agricultural land and through vegetation cover shifts to agriculture.
Climate related degradation: the increase in temperature and the reduction and erratic rainfall patterns.
Human interactions with nature related degradation: population pressure encroaching on local resources.
Soil degradation is one form of land degradation where the soil looses its nutrients contents. According to Conacher (2006), soil degradation is a principle understood by looking at the soils biological, chemical and physical properties:
Biological related degradation: When the soil is no longer able to provide nutrients or retain water, it is an indication that the soil is poor in humus.
Chemical related degradation: When the soil experiences chemical imbalances such as increase in acidity, salinity and sodium, it brings about loss of soil structure and erosion making it difficult for plants to uptake nutrients in the soil.
Physical related degradation: When the soil has lost its topsoil properties or has become hard.
2.5 Livestock management
Having animals in a farming system is not only seen as a physical asset used in time of need, but a resource that can provide organic matter needed to increase soil fertility (Savory, 1999; Kotschi et al, 1989; Powell and Williams, 1993; Williams et al, 2000).
Farmers can incorporate their livestock management into their cropping system, through
what Savory (1999) calls “crop rotation”, where farmers plant fodder type plants where their livestock can graze and at the same time deposit manure which in turn helps to increase the soil’ fertility. He also adds that feeding livestock with crop residuals, weeds, and household food waste ensuring the cycle of nutrients into the farming system.
The incorporation of livestock and crop systems, according to Powell and Williams (1993), could be beneficial to farmers living in the Sahel regions of West Africa where there is a known problem of low soil organic matter (S.O.M.). Livestock manure increases the soil organic matter and improve water-holding capacity.
Herders in the Sahel as Powell and Williams (1993) explains, usually lead their livestock herds to grazing areas away from the homestead, and rely on wells for water, resulting in a accumulation of manure and urine in places which are not suitable for agriculture. An alternative to this problem would be to provide fodder to livestock without having to take them to grazing areas far off, and by transporting manure droppings onto the fields. This usually means feeding them with roughages or with forages rich in carbohydrates, allowing an enrichment of organic mater that would increase nutrient efficiency and productivity of sandy soils.
2.6 Intensification of Sahelian farming system
Farmers in the Sahel regions are aware of the benefits of adopting mixed farming; this is a good approach to intensify agriculture (Williams et al, 2000; Harris, 1996). Williams et al (2000) describes this intensification as increasing agricultural inputs such as labour, in order to increase the output of agriculture land per unit area according to its farming- and livestock production. It is this kind of intensification that secures not only the economical and production progress of farmers, but make sure that the nutrient cycle within the system is unbroken.
When intensifying a farming system, it is also important for farmers to adopt ways of production that is sustainable to avoid any interruption of nutrient cycle through soil degradation (Williams et al, 2000).
According to Harris (1996), population density plays an important role in the intensification of a farming system. A high number of people living within a system increase the availability of labour. An increase of labour force due to high population density creates a positive crop –livestock system, where the combination of farming and pastoralism gradually intensifies (Boserup 1965, cited in Harris, 1996). This assures a crop- and fodder production within a farming society.
Harris (1996) shows the interaction of population density and agriculture intensification:
Figure 2: Population density and agricultural intensification
Source: Harris (1996)
Figure 2 shows that with higher population density, the average length of fallow period declines but the labor input constantly increases. In other word as the density
increases, so will be the need to increase food production in a farming system that naturally relies on soil nutrients, which are here overexploited. Intensifying the farming system, as shown in the figure, cannot be successful on its own in a growing population and is therefore low. When introducing both crop and livestock into a system there is an increase of crop residue use, which helps increase soil fertility per hectare from animal manure in a gradual way. This tends to provide quality fodder, increasing the Tropical
Intensification
Level CROP & LIVESTOCK
INTEGRATION
Crop residue use
High
Labour use
CROP & LIVESTOCK
INTERACTION
FARMING TLU/ hectare
PASTORALISM
Average length of fallow period Low
Low High
Population density
Livestock Unit (TLU) per hectare allowing higher livestock production. The result of integrating both crop and livestock is a higher agricultural intensification. Crop residues will be in sufficient quantity to satisfy fodder needs for livestock and at the same time provide increasing crop yields for the farmers.
In accord with the benefits of intensifying agriculture in semi-arid areas in West Africa, Williams et al (2000) mentions the presence of constraints and difficulties due to the absence of good institutions, policies and infrastructures and the prevalence of risks, that can hamper processes for integration of crop and livestock systems. These risks are mostly of climatic and economical nature, which can be solved by farmers diversifying their economical activities by using locally adopted seeds, incorporating mix farming and intercropping. Farmers should also have dispersed fields as a security measure against erratic rainfall patterns. Investment and saving are other risk preventive measures farmers can adopt, of income derived from surplus grain storage or accumulated livestock.
The intensification of farming system would not only secure the nutrient cycle of the system but also allow farmers to store surplus grains from their harvests in order to sell them at a more favourable time, allowing them to invest more in their farming activities (Harris, 1996).
3 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA
3.1 Geography
This study conducted in two out of the eight administrative units of the region of Mopti situated within the Sahelian belt, called Koro and Bankass.
Koro is located between 14° 6’ 0 latitude and 3° 11’ 0 longitude. It borders with Burkina Faso to the East, and with the administrative unit Bankass to the South West. The three communes chosen in Koro were Madougou, Barapireli and Diankabou.
Bankass is located between 14° 4’ 0 latitude and 3° 52’ 0 longitude. It also borders with Burkina Faso to the South, and with the administrative unit Koro to the North East. The three communes chosen in Bankass were Bankass, Baye and Diallassagou.
3.2 Climate
In the Sahelian belt, the dry seasons are long and the rainy seasons are short with unpredictable patterns. The average annual precipitation for Koro and Bankass is above 750 mm; there is also a seasonal variability in rainfall in these areas. Differences for rainfall can explain farmers’ differences in crop production in, for example, a same district.
3.3 Soil type
The soil type mostly found in the area is sandy and clayey. Soil moisture is an important factor for plant development, which in turn helps increase crop yields in drylands agriculture.
The topography of the Sahelian zone, where Koro and Bankass are located, named the Gondo-Mondoro. It lies between 200 to 300m above sea level South East of the Dogon Plateau (Coulibaly 2003).
Figure 3– Annual precipitation of Mali
3.4 Agriculture
Agriculture is the most important, and in most cases the only activity assuring household subsistence in food. The important crops grown in the region are millet, groundnuts, cowpeas, sorghum, and sesame. Of the mentioned crops, millet has a capability to endure long periods of drought and in places with erratic rainfall patterns. It is a staple food high used to make porridges and bread. Cowpeas and groundnuts are also drought resistant and grown as nutritional complements to millet and sorghum.
Agricultural activities usually start at the beginning of the rainy season, in mid July.
These activities involve land preparations and planting. Usually farmers do their planting after rainfalls. From the end of October to the start of November, farmers are busy harvesting their crops, which can take place over two months. Between the planting and harvesting periods, farmers also conduct weeding activities.
The most important complaints or problems farmers face in this area are the sudden stop of rainfall and low soil fertility. The increasing population growth and insufficient cultivable areas (Boon 2004) could explain the low soil fertility.
3.5 Livestock
Farmers in the area keep cattle, sheep, goats, donkeys and poultry. These animals provide manure. Donkeys reared for transportation purposes, and the cattle for milk products.
Farmers are experiencing lack of sufficient fodder due to overexploitation of grazing areas. This has been a major reason for conflicts between sedentary agriculturalists and semi nomadic pastoralists in the region, especially when their livestock graze and brows everywhere including on farmers’ plots - divagation is still a common problem.
3.6 Household economy
Farmers rely heavily on agriculture for survival although they may sell some cash crops, such as cowpeas or groundnuts, for income. When a surplus of important crop such as millet occurs, its sale depends on the size of the household. In times of need, the sale of some ruminants for money is common for instance for the repayment of debts.
The rearing of animals for sale is a common livelihood strategy adopted by farmers, which involves the fattening of male goats by feeding them with crop residuals. Farmers may obtain good prices during high festivities at the end of the year.
There are no financial credits given to farmers in the area since they lack collateral.
Farmers complained about this saying that it would greatly help them in the purchasing of fertilizer, and other agricultural inputs, and even help them to diversify their livelihood strategies by rearing goats for example. Some farmers are members of local organisations where they collect a sum of money distributed rotationally to members. Women have greatly benefited from this, helping them with their empowerment.
Rural-urban migration is very common in the region. Young men and head of households usually practice this in search for money, to help their family left behind in rural areas when there are no farming activities taking place. They usually come back to help especially during the harvest period. The incomes brought back from the urban areas are very helpful to their families, especially in time of needs.
3.7 Soil fertility present situation
Farmers usually plant their crops early in the season in order to take advantage of the early flux of plant nutrients.
There are more nutrients removed from the soil in each harvest, than nutrients that returns to the soil. The planting of leguminous fodder crops on larger scale is not possible, and livestock owned by the farmers usually graze outside the farming area, loosing valuable organic matter. Powell and Williams (1993) also adds the loss of vegetation cover in some area leaves the soil exposed to the sun, increasing the evaporation and erosion rate, resulting in the decline of soil fertility.
4. MATERIALS AND METHODS
4.1 Sample selection
The sampling process already done by a non-governmental organization (CARE), since they had a list of all farmers involved with the ecofarm prototypes in Koro and Bankass handed out to me upon my arrival to Mopti. Villages’ selection was according to their past performances and on their membership to local associations or structures such as the O.E.R.N. or G.M.J.T. Village chefs had the task to select farmers who they knew were hard working, and who could perform various tasks involving the project. These farmers then summoned to village meetings, received presentations of various activities of the project. The selected farmers had to have the means and capabilities to adopt one of the activities offered.
The numbers of farmers selected were three per village. The project operated in three municipalities in both the communes of Koro and Bankass. For each municipality, three villages took part, making 27 farmers for each site.
4.2 Sample size
For this study, I was concerned with farmers who adopted agricultural systems involving microdosage techniques of either mono cropping or intercropping. Out of the 54 farmers who already listed as peasant tests, I picked all 37 farmers (16 farmers from Koro and 21 from Bankass) who choose to try out the microdosage activities. The sampling technique used was convenient sampling.
4.3 Data Collection
The data collection using was a closed ended questionnaire. Respondents, who were head of household, received a set of questions about their socio-economical situation, their current agricultural system, and on the adopted agricultural techniques tested on their fields. Through out the first few interviews the questionnaire underwent changes; due to irrelevancy, some questions from the questionnaire underwent reformulation and some
excluded. NGO agents helped me with translating and interpreting answers given by the farmers into French, since the questionnaire was in French. Agents working in the district of Bankass received questionnaires in order to assist me with the data collection, since I was not able to travel to Bankass due to logistical constraints.
4.4 Limitations of the survey
Some questions in the survey were left untouched due to the fact that some farmers could not answer when they were asked for example about last years harvests of different cultures or about household consumption. There were some interviewed farmers who gave little input (who did not say much) because of neighbours interrupting and answering for them. There were also situations in villages where farmers, who were about to be interviewed on the same day, were all present during an interview given that it was supposed to be individual interviews; at the end of the day most of the answers were more or like similar for some questions.
When it came to intercropping, farmers that harvested cowpeas mixed all cowpeas results - from the different treatments, into one bole, thinking that the end-result was insignificant. Maybe they did not understand that the yields would later be used for yield estimations. This has led into the non-inclusion of most cowpeas results in this study.
4.5 Data extrapolation
In this study, all quantitative data from experimental plots underwent metric conversion into hectare since farmers had to test the new techniques on a small parcel of their cultivated fields. This gives us an approximation about results that farmers would have got if they had applied the techniques on a larger area. In order to understand the procedure of metric conversions used in this study it is important to know the requirements of both pure cropping and intercropping.
4.5.1 Mono cropping and intercropping and their harvest procedures
The total experimental plot per farmers was 0.5 ha of land, divided into four treatment parcels measuring each 0.125 ha. Before the harvest period, extension workers gave clear explanations to farmers on how they should harvest the experimental plots, and harvest
procedures were to be performed exactly as they were instructed to, in order to have correct and reliable data information about the yields of each experimental treatment.
For those who employed the mono cropping system, they were instructed to take the square harvest of each treatment parcels. Each square had 100 poquets of pearl millet (10 poquets x 10 poquets) in an area measuring 12.5m x 12.5m.
For those who choose intercropping, the harvest of the contents of both millet and cowpeas, in an area measuring 12.5m x 25m of each treatment parcels went as instructed.
Farmers separated the grain yields of each treatment parcels as instructed, to store it in a safe place for the extension workers to weigh later on after the harvest.
There were no biases in the choice of harvest squares since it was already decided upon between the extension workers and the farmers during the planting period.
Table 1 - Description of treatments for each microdosage systems
Treatments Mono cropping Intercropping
T1 No treatments applied: Simple cropping of traditional millet: traditional
T2 Millet seeds soaked Intercropping of millet before planting and cowpeas
T3 Application of fertilizer Intercropping with in a ratio of 1:1 soaked seeds +
application of fertilizer ratio 1:1
T4 Application of 2g of T2 + T3 with the fertilizer per poquets, application of 15 day after planting pesticide
4.5.2 Calculating into hectare
The ideal measurement of land area is the hectare for this study. Since the experimental harvested plots for mono cropping measure 0.01562 ha each; the yields multiplied by 10000 m2 and then divided by 156.6 m2.
The experimental harvested plots for intercropping measure each 0.03125 ha - the yields multiplied by 10000 m2 and then divided by 312.5 m2.
4.6 Data analysis
All obtained data was analysed using descriptive statistics, variance with the help of statistical packages SPSS and MINITAB.
To look at whether there are significant differences in mean yields and net profits benefits between treatments from both, pure cropping and intercropping - within Koro and Bankass, a statistical program used was MINITAB.
I used the Two-Way ANOVA analysis tool, which allowed me to look at levels of significance between treatments and systems, for yields and net benefits of each site. All levels of p-value, which are less than 5%, show significant levels of variation, more so if the p-value is less than 1%.
4.7 Economical analysis
For this study, I used the partial budget analysis for the investigation of systems most beneficial to farmers in terms of economical gain from adopting the types of techniques offered by the project. This analysis done in stages, starting from the calculation of gross benefits, total costs that varies, was to look at the partial budget of each system. This followed by a dominance analysis of the different treatments. Finally, the calculation of the marginal rate of return helped me to look at the best possible beneficial treatment changes.
4.7.1 Partial budget
By subtracting the average total variable cost from the average gross benefits of each treatment, the calculation of the partial budget was calculated.
The average gross benefit calculated by multiplying the averages of each treatment, depended on the system and site of the regions kilogram prices of millet and cowpeas.
Millet was sold at 100 FCFA and cowpeas at 202 FCFA in 2007. According to the Agricultural Technical Service of Koro, the prices of millet and cowpeas undergo fluctuations during a year. These prices correlated with the total production of millet and cowpeas, explains the differences in prices found in different communes in the area.
Having said this, the prices of millet and cowpeas used in this study reflected the average prices found in the six communes in Koro and Bankass during the time of my stay in the region of Mopti.
The total costs that vary between the different treatments are inputs costs and labour costs; input costs attached with phosphate fertilizer price of 283 FCFA per kg, and the Caïman pesticide bag of 400 FCFA. According to the director of the Agricultural Technical Service of Koro, the prices of fertilizer and pesticide, unlike the prices of millet and cowpeas, have not changed and remained stable throughout the year. I estimated the requirements of fertilizer for T3 to be 5 kg per hectare in both systems.
However, for the mono cropping system I estimated 13 kg of fertilizer in T4 application per hectare. I also estimated two bags of pesticide per hectare.
Labour cost was set at 1000 FCFA per person per day. Depending on the number of persons used for labour in activities involving land preparations, seeding application of fertilizer and pesticide and weeding from each farmer, I was able to estimate the average labour used by each farmer, for each treatment. The data collected would later on help me to assess the average labour cost per system and by site for treatments T3 and T4, by multiplying the number of persons employed by 1000 FCFA (table 16).
Farmers also gave the time spent on the different activities for each treatment parcels measuring each 1250m2. From these data, I was able to estimate the hours spent per hectare of each farmer test, and give the average time for each site. Calculations was first done by multiplying the average time of each treatment parcels by 10000 m2, and then by dividing it with 1250 m2. The sum is then divided by two, giving a representation of the time spent, of more than one individual working on the fields. (Table 17)
4.7.2 Dominance analysis
Looking at the net benefices of each treatment is not enough to evaluate the economical gain of the farmers adopting new techniques. There is a need to analyse each treatment by looking at their costs and ranking them from the least costly to the most expensive.
When ranking, if we come across a treatment which has a higher average total costs that vary and at the same time has lower average net benefit than the previous treatments, this treatment according to the CIMMYT (1988), becomes dominated and will be ruled out when calculating the marginal rate of return. The advantage of this method is to rule out any treatment that is not beneficial in the experiment, which makes it possible to calculate the marginal rate of investment of treatments that are beneficial to the farmers.
4.7.3 Marginal rate of return
According to CIMMYT (1988), the sole purpose of calculating the marginal rate of return is to look whether local farmers are able to regain all of their investments from their obtained profits. It also shows us how big a marginal rate can be from changing treatments, which could helps us make special recommendations.
The calculation of marginal rate of return has to be on treatments which are not dominated (CIMMYT, 1988). Let say we want to calculate the marginal rate of return from treatment X to Y. We subtract the net benefits of treatments Y from X, and the sum, divided by the subtracted sum of the total cost of Y from X. Here is the formula:
MRR = (By – Bx) / (Cy – Cx) MRR = Marginal Rate of Return B = Benefits
C = Total costs
5 RESULTS
In this section I will present the results into diffent parts. Firstly on households and farm characteristics, secondly on the yields patterns, and thirdly on the economics of adopted systems.
5.1 Household and farm characteristics
This study looks at 37 households who volunteered to adopt agro-ecological techniques to improve crop production, in a farming system highly dependent on rain availability in an area closely located to the Sahara desert.
5.1.1 Household characteristics
In this study area, I came across many households that consist of one family head with one or more wives, their children and in some case with other family members all living together as an extended family unit. In a household, head of household are responsible for on average 20.8 people. The positive effect of having a large family is that it contributes to the family’s field labor. However, the down side of it is food shortages when their food stock goes empty. There is an average hunger period of 3 months, usually 4 to 5 months after a harvest. Assuring food security in an area with erratic rainfall is something that head of households are concerned about, especially when there is an average of 5.76 children under the age of 5 years in each family unit.
Of the 37 head of households, 26 answered to have no other income generating activity outside of agriculture, which represent 70 %. Out of the same number, 40% have said to have no formal education, and 75% do not even have access to credits or loans. It is these indicators, size of household, number of months with food shortages, access to credit, off-farm income and formal education, which gives us an overview of the socio- economic conditions, which explains the current situation of peasants living in drylands.
The men and women interviewed are all over the age of 35 years. 32.5 % are in the group
Table 2- Farmer’s age groups
Age groups Number Percentage % 35 to 40 8 21.6 40 to 50 10 27 50 to 60 12 32.5 60 to 70 5 13.5 70 > 2 5.4
Table 2 shows us that most of respondents are middle aged. There were 10 women interviewed and 27 men. Table 3 also shows that 60% of women are between the ages of 50 to 70.
Table 3 – Farmer’s age groups and gender
Age groups Males Females 35 to 40 7 1 40 to 50 9 1 50 to 60 9 3
60 to 70 2 3 70 > 0 2
Total 27 10
5.1.2 Farm characteristics
The peasants interviewed in this study have an average land size of 13 hectare, which they use to cultivate millet, sorghum, as main crops for subsistence, and other crops such as groundnuts, sorrel and cowpeas. The average production from last harvest in 2006 was 4273 kg. All of the respondents have said to possess livestock and animal traction is highly used during field preparations.
In order to differentiate the peasants who are well off, farmers who are able to sell parts of their own production are economically well off.
Crops partially sold are usually millet, cowpeas and groundnuts. In both sites, there are 15 individuals, representing 40.5% of all respondents, who are not able to sell any of these crops. This means that they are not able to produce enough surpluses to sell, thus continuing living in extreme poverty. Nevertheless, for the remainder 22 local farmers, they were able to sell on average 9.67% of their total harvest production. The crop which is least sold are groundnuts followed by millet.
Table 4 – Percentage table showing type of crops sold from farmers’ last harvest Millet Cowpeas Groundnuts
Percentages sold 13.5% 59.4% 10.8%
Percentages not sold 86.5% 40.6% 89.2%
Table 4 shows that farmers that are able to sell some of their crops mostly prefer to sell cowpeas since millet production assures the subsistence consumption of households. The same applies for groundnuts, which are usually households’ main source of protein.
These results reinforces the idea that people, regardless of climatic differences, will always try to find new ways of adapting to their environments for physical and economical survival(Adams, 2004).
All of the 37 farmers interviewed, named in a hierarchal fashion what they thought to be the best way to improve their crop production.
Table 5- Farmer’s perceptions on how to improve crop productivity Farmer’s perceptions Responses in % Manure application 43.2 Fertilizer application 24.3 Land preparations 18.9
Rainfall 5.4 No idea 5.4
Crop diversification 2.7
Table 5 shows that 43 % of respondents thinks highly of manure application as the main way to improve productivity. This explains the potential availability of organic matter from their livestock and of herds from transhumant pastoralists. The peasants also prefer fertilizer, but it is not always affordable for most of them or is available in insufficient quantity. Only 5.4% of respondents see rainfall as an important factor; this explains that the majority of local farmers are adapted to the harsh environment, and are trying to cope with the existing rainfall.
Respondents were also asked about the patterns of main crop yield variations through out the last 20 years, whether it has increased or decreased over the years.
Table 6- Farmer’s perceptions of main crop yield patterns over the last 20 years.
Farmer’s perceptions Responses in % Too young to say 10.8 Decreased 54.1 Increased 32.4 No idea 2.7
Table 6 shows that over 50% of respondents agree that there has been a decrease in yields over the last 20 years. They link this problem with the irregularities of rainfall, crop diseases (Striga), pest invasions and decreasing soil quality over the years. The 32.4% of those who responded that there has been an increase, link this with the availability of fertilizer and the manure from moving herders.
When asked about the quantity of millet that had increased or decreased over the years, I received different answers from the respondents corresponding to their sites. Out of 13 respondents capable of recollecting past yield patterns in Koro, only six of them could give estimation in kilograms; five answered that there was a decrease and one answered that there was an increase. In Bankass out of the 19 respondents who were able to recollect past yield patterns, only seven of them could not give estimation in quantities;
three answered that there was a decrease and nine answered that there was an increase.
Only one respondent could not recollect past yields patterns.
Table 7 – Average production increase and decrease per farm of millet over the last 20 years in Koro and Bankass
Average value Decrease in kg Increase in kg Koro 3480 2600 Bankass 2400 2567
5.1.3 Chosen technology
In this study, farmers had a choice between adopting one of the two agro-ecological farming systems offered by the Ecofarm project. The first involves the microdosage with mono cropping (millet or sorghum), and the second the microdosage using intercropping of either millet or sorghum with cowpeas. 54.1% of both genders chose the microdosage with mono cropping while 45.9% chose the other alternative.
Table 8 – Percentages of systems chosen according to farmer’s gender
Microdosage with Microdosage with Gender mono cropping in % intercropping in % Male 66.6 33.3 Female 20 80
Table 8 shows us that 80% of women preferred to adopt the system involving intercropping, while nearly 70 % of men chose the system involving mono cropping.
