Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:13:18.226Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

RISK ANALYSIS OF MAIZE-LEGUME CROP COMBINATIONS WITH SMALLHOLDER FARMERS VARYING IN RESOURCE ENDOWMENT IN CENTRAL MALAWI

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2009

B. C. G. KAMANGA ,
S. R. WADDINGTON ,
M. J. ROBERTSON  and
K. E. GILLER
B. C. G. KAMANGA
Affiliation:
Bunda College of Agriculture, PO Box 219, Lilongwe, Malawi
S. R. WADDINGTON
Affiliation:
CIMMYT, PO Box MP163, Mt Pleasant, Harare, Zimbabwe
M. J. ROBERTSON
Affiliation:
CSIRO/APSRU, Wembley 6913, Australia
K. E. GILLER*
Affiliation:
Plant Production Systems, Department of Plant Sciences, Wageningen University, PO Box 430, 6700 AT Wageningen, The Netherlands
*
†Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Using farmer resource typologies, adaptability analysis and an on-farm mother and baby trial approach, we evaluated the production risks of alternative maize-legume crop combinations for smallholder farmers in Chisepo, central Malawi between 1998 and 2002. Production benefits and risks of four soil fertility and food legumes, pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan), groundnut (Arachis hypogaea), tephrosia (Tephrosia vogelii) and mucuna (Mucuna pruriens), intercropped or rotated with maize, were compared by 32 farmers in 4 farmer resource groups (RGs) of different wealth status. The calculation of lower confidence limits was used to determine the production risk of the crops. Alternative crop technologies presented different risks to farmers of different wealth status, and the degree of risk affected their choice of soil fertility management strategy. The better-resourced farmers (RG 1) had larger yields with all crop combinations than the poorly resourced farmers (RG 4). Legumes integrated with maize significantly (p < 0.001) raised maize grain yields by between 0.5 t ha−1 and 3.4 t ha−1, when compared with sole crop unfertilized maize. Fertilized maize was less of a risk for the better-resourced farmers (RG 1 and RG 2), and it yielded well when combined with the legumes. Maize-legume intercrops yielded more and were associated with less risk than the maize-legume rotations. Maize intercropped with pigeonpea was predicted overall to be the least risky technology for all RGs. We conclude that new crop technologies may pose more risk to poorly resourced farmers than to wealthier farmers.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 46 , Issue 1 , January 2010 , pp. 1 - 21
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

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

References

REFERENCES

Adato, M. and Meinzen-Dick, R. (2002). Assessing the Impact of Agricultural Research on Poverty Using the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework. Washington DC, USA: International Food Policy Research Institute.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. M. and Ingram, J. S. I. (1993). Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility: A Handbook of Methods. Wallingford, UK: CABI.Google Scholar
Blackie, M. J., Benson, T. D., Conroy, A., Gilbert, R. A., Kanyama-Phiri, G., Kumwenda, J. D. T., Mann, C., Mughogho, S. and Phiri, A. (1998). Malawi: Soil fertility issues and options: A discussion paper. The Rockefeller Foundation, Lilongwe, Malawi.Google Scholar
Chirwa, E., McCord, A., Mvula, P. and Pinder, C. (2004). Study to inform the selection of an appropriate wage rate for public works programmes in Malawi. National Safety Nets Unit, Government of Malawi, Lilongwe, Malawi.Google Scholar
Fonte, M. (2002). Food systems, consumption models and risk perception in late modernity. International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food 10:13–21.Google Scholar
Foti, R., Rusike, J. and Dimes, J. (2003). Risk diversification opportunities through legumes in smallholder farming systems in the semi-arid areas of Zimbabwe. In Grain Legumes and Green Manures for Soil Fertility in Southern Africa: Taking Stock of Progress. 79–94. (Ed: Waddington, S. R.). Harare, Zimbabwe: CIMMYT.Google Scholar
Giller, K. E. (2001). Nitrogen Fixation in Tropical Cropping Systems, 2nd edn., Wallingford, UK: CABI.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giller, K. E., Misiko, M. and Tittonell, P. (2006). Managing organic resources for soil amendments. LEISA Magazine 22:4.Google Scholar
Government of Malawi (1996). Guide to Agricultural Production in Malawi. Lilongwe, Malawi: Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development (MoALD).Google Scholar
Hildebrand, P. E. and Russell, J. T. (1996). Adaptability Analysis: A Method for the Design, Analysis and Interpretation of On-farm Research Extension. Ames, IA, USA: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Jeffries, D., Warburton, H., Oppong-Nkrumah, K. and Fredua Antoh, E. (1997). Wealth ranking study of villages in peri-urban areas of Kumasi, Ghana. Case Study 6. Reading: Statistical Services Centre, University of Reading Press.Google Scholar
Kamanga, B. C. G. (2002). Understanding the farmers’ agricultural environment in Malawi. Risk Management Project Working Paper 02-02. México D.F., México: CIMMYT.Google Scholar
Kerr, R. B., Snapp, S., Chirwa, M., Shumba, L. and Msachi, R. (2007). Participatory research on legume diversification with Malawian smallholder farmers for improved human nutrition and soil fertility. Experimental Agriculture 43: 437–453.Google Scholar
Kumwenda, J. D. T., Waddington, S. R., Snapp, S. S., Jones, R. B. and Blackie, M. J. (1997). Soil fertility management in Southern Africa. In Africa's Emerging Maize Revolution, 157–172 (Eds Byerlee, D. and Eicher, C. K.). Boulder, CO, USA: Lynne Rienner.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legesse, B. and Drake, L. (2005). Determinants of smallholder farmer's perception of risk in the Eastern Highlands of Ethiopia. Journal of Risk Research 8: 383–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mafongoya, P. L., Bationo, A., Kihara, J. and Waswa, B. S. (2006). Appropriate technologies to replenish soil fertility in southern Africa. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 76: 137–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mpepereki, S., Javaheri, F., Davis, P. and Giller, K. E. (2000). Soyabeans and sustainable agriculture: Promiscuous soyabeans in southern Africa. Field Crops Research 65: 137–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patt, A. (2001). Understanding uncertainty: Forecasting seasonal climate for farmers in Zimbabwe. Risk Decision and Policy 6: 187–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, P. E. and Herrera, M. G. (1989). Cash cropping. food security and nutrition: the effects of agricultural commercialisation among smallholders in Malawi, Final Report to US Agency for International Development Project PDC-0082-G-SS-6213-00, Cambridge, Mass, USA: Harvard Institute for International Development.Google Scholar
Shepherd, K. D., Ndufa, J. K., Ohlsson, E., Sjogren, H., and Swinkels, R. (1997). Adoption potential of hedgerow intercropping in maize-based cropping systems in the highlands of western Kenya: I. Background and agronomic evaluation. Experimental Agriculture 33: 197–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smale, M., and Heisey, P. W. (1997). Maize technology and productivity in Malawi. In Africa's Emerging Maize Revolution, 63–79 (Eds Byerlee, D. and Eicher, C.K.). Boulder, CO, USA: Lynne Rienner.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snapp, S. S. (1998). Soil nutrient status of smallholder farms in Malawi. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 29: 2571–2588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snapp, S. S., Mafongoya, P. L. and Waddington, S. (1998). Organic matter technologies to improve nutrient cycling in smallholder cropping systems of southern Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 71: 187–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snapp, S. S. (1999). Mother and baby trials: A novel trial design being tried out in Malawi. Target, the Newsletter of the Southern Africa Soil Fertility Network 17: 8.Google Scholar
Snapp, S. S., Rohrbach, D. D., Simtowe, F. and Freeman, H. A. (2002a). Sustainable soil management options for Malawi: Can smallholder farmers grow more legumes? Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 91: 159–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snapp, S. S., Kanyama-Phiri, G., Kamanga, B., Gilbert, R. and Wellard, K. (2002b). Farmer and researcher partnerships in Malawi: Developing soil fertility technologies for the near-term and far-term. Experimental Agriculture 38: 411–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waddington, S. R., Sakala, W. D. and Mekuria, M. (2004). Progress in lifting soil fertility in Southern Africa. In Symposium on Nutrient Recycling and Balance in Cropping Systems: Crop Science for a Sustainable Future. 4th International Crop Science Congress, New Directions for a Diverse Planet, 26 September–1 October 2004. Brisbane, Australia. Available online from: http://www.cropscience.org.au/icsc2004/symposia/2/6/1004_waddingtons.htm [Accessed 15 August 2009].Google Scholar
Wellard, K. (1996). Official wisdom and rural people's knowledge: Environmental change in Southern Malawi. Final Report Project R5907. Economic and Social Committee for Overseas Research, Overseas Development Administration, London, UK.Google Scholar
Wendt, J. W. (1993). Evaluation of Mehlich-3 extraction for upland Malawi soils. Chitedze Research Station, Lilongwe, Malawi.Google Scholar