Dissemination and Adoption of Soil Fertility Technologies

1. DISSEMINATION AND ADOPTION OF SOIL
FERTILITY TECHNOLOGIES IN KASUNGU
DISTRICT
MSc. Rural Development and Extension
Bunda College, University of Malawi
Hector Malaidza
1

2. Presentation Outline
► Background
► Objectives
► Research Questions
► Conceptual Framework
► Research Design
► Results
► Conclusions
► Recommendations
2

3. Background
• Loss of soil fertility reduces land productivity
(Kanyama-Phiri e t a l. , 2010)
• According to Ngwira ( 2012) decline in soil fertility in
Malawi is caused by:
⇒ lo w a nd ina p p ro p ria te us e o f fe rtiliz e rs
⇒ c o ntinuo us m o no -c ro p p ing
⇒ ina p p ro p ria te us e o f c ro p re s id ue s
⇒ o v e rg ra z ing , a nd
⇒ p o o r la nd m g t p ra c tic e s (Kanyama-Phiri e t a l. , 2010).
3

4. Soil Fertility Technologies (SFTs)
Improves land productivity in Malawi
• Chemical fertilisers:
– widely used in Malawi (Kanyama- Phiri et al., 2009)
– high costs contribute to low crop yields (Winterbottom, 2013)
• Foliar fertilisers (Munthali et. al., 2013)
– Sprayed to crops
• Twin N, Di-Gro
• Rock Phosphate-Tundulu
– combined with legume crops (Phiri et. al., 2010)
4

5. Soil Fertility Technologies (SFTs)
Agroforestry: reported 50 percent increase in maize yield in
farms in Malawi (Winterbottom, 2013)
Conservation agriculture: more than 50 percent increase in
maize yield in systems with crop rotation (Winterbottom, 2013)
IS M Combined use of judicious amounts of mineral fertilizers
F and compost manure, crop residues, leaf litter, lime, or
phosphate rock
According to (Winterbottom, 2013) organic SFTs:
•Increase soil organic matter
•Improve soil structure
•Reduce soil erosion
•Increase water filtration
•Increase efficiency of water use
•Replenish soil nutrients
•Increase the efficiency of nutrient uptake.
5

6. Problem Statement
Soil fertility depletion is a threat to agric.
productivity in SSA (Henao, 2006). In Malawi,
efforts have been made to promote SFTs but
their adoption is still low. There is little
understanding of factors (technological,
institutional, social e.t.c) affecting dissemination
and adoption of the technologies.
6

7. Overall Objectives
To assess dissemination and
adoption of soil fertility technologies
(SFTs) among smallholder farmers in
Kasungu district
7

8. Specific Objectives
• To assess technologies attributes that
influence adoption of soil fertility
technologies-SFTs (compost manure and pigeonpea)
among farmers.
• To identify factors promoting and
constraining dissemination of SFTs.
8

9. Research Questions
• How did ‘technological attributes’
influence adoption of (c o m p o s t m a nure
p ig e o np e a ) SFTs among smallholder
farmers?
a nd
• What were the factors affecting
dissemination of SFTs?
9

10. Methodology
• Study site (purposively selected):
– Kasungu District (Nkanakhothi EPA)
• Study Units
– 9 Service providers (purposively selected)
– 10 Key informants (randomly selected)
– 64 farmers (randomly selected)
10

11. Objective
Type of Data
Data Sources
& Collection
To assess
technologic
al attributes
influencing
adoption of
SFTs.
• Types of compost manure
and pigeon pea technologies
• Service
providers
• Details of technology
attributes: tria bility , o bs e rva bility ,
re la tive a d va nta g e , Re lia bility ,
Co m p a tibility & c o m p le x ity
• Amount of land (ha)
• Adaptations made by farmers
• Perceptions on adaptations
made
(Che c klis t)
• Key
informants
(Che c klis t)
• Farmers
(Que s tio nna ire )
• Personal characteristics:
(e d uc a tio n, kno wle d g e , p e rc e p tio ns ,
live s to c k o wne rs hip e . t. c )
11

12. Objective
Type of Data
To identify
factors
promoting or
constraining
dissemination
of SFTs
• Institutional factors:
►
►
►
►
►
►
Markets
Policy
Collaboration & networking
Collection and use of feedback
Access to information
Knowledge levels
• Social factors:
► Local leadership
► Sharing of info.
► Perceptions on SF problems
► Relationships among members
► E.t.c
Data
Sources &
Collection
• Service
providers
(Checklist)
• Key
informants
(Checklist)
• Farmers
(Questionnaire)
12

13. Conceptual Framework
Adopted from Abebe (2007)
13

14. Results & Discussion
14

15. Technology Attributes influencing adoption of
SFTs
15
15

16. Adoption potential of various SFTs
16

17. Triability
Technology
•Easy to access raw
materials
•Farmers able to follow
recommendations
•Farmers able to make the
recommended heap size
•Required less space
Pigeonpea
Weakness
•Easy to access raw
materials
Compost
manure
Strength
•Labor demanding
•Farmers able to follow
recommendations
•Able use the technology
without start-up training
•Faced challenges with
plant spacing
•Challenged with insect
pest infestation
17

18. Relative Advantage
18

19. Triability
Technology
•Easy to access raw
materials
•Farmers able to follow
recommendations
•Farmers able to make the
recommended heap size
•Required less space
Pigeonpea
Weakness
•Easy to access raw
materials
Compost
manure
Strength
•Labor demanding
•Farmers able to follow
recommendations
•Able use the technology
without start-up training
•Faced challenges with
plant spacing
•Challenged with insect
pest infestation
19

20. Reliability
Paramete Compost
r
manure
Stability
• Uniform results
over the years
(Over time)
Pigeon pea
• Medium duration
varieties stable than
long duration
Adaptability • Performed well in • PP performed poorly
in clay soils
(Across sites) different fields.
• Well adapted to
loam soils unlike clay
(Makande)
20

21. Compatibility
Conflicting
Compost
Manure
Pigeon
pea
Competing
Complementing
• Trashing lethal
material in
compost pits
• Competed on
labour with
other farm
activities
• Complemented
mineral fertilisers
• Supplemented
agroforestry
• Absorbed livestock
litter and kitchen
wastes
• Perceived as a
• Competed on
• Easily integrated to
crop for the poor insecticides and
legume –cereal
fungicides with
cropping patterns
• Livestock
wetland (Dimba)
damage
cropping
• Wildlife browsed
21
on tender leaves

22. Observability
Compost
manure
Pigeon pea
Farmers ability
to learn
YES
YES
through
observation
Observable
• Increased crop yield • Harvested grain
benefits
• Stalks
Focal points
• Widely seen,
• Plots managed
compost heaps set
by fellow
on road sides
farmers
scattered across
22
the study area

23. Experiences Farmers in Using SFTs
Compost
manure
Pigeopea
Complexity/
Challenge
• Rate of application not
effective
• Labour demanding
• Time consuming
• Bulky (Difficult to
transport)
• Lack of reliable water
supply
• High pest infestation
• Not very popular
• Perceived as a crop
for the poor
•
•
•
•
Adaptation
Farmers applied
more compost
Done close to the
fields
Composting in inside
a kho la
Composting with soil
from a collapsed
• Used te p hro s ia to
control insect pests
• Farmers have learnt
various uses of the
crop
23

24. Farmers Experiences in Using SFTs
Compost manure
Pigeon pea
•Poor pod and tuber development •Tender leaves
in groundnuts and cassava
preferred by livestock
and wildlife
taste and watery sweet
•Poor
•Leaves used for
•Thobwa made from millet applied medicinal purposes
o Toothache, mouthwash,
with compost manure gave a
sore-gums, dysentery
poor taste
potatoes
•Strawberries and local mustard
applied with compost manure
gave a poor taste
24

25. Factors facilitating and limiting adoption of
soil fertility technologies
25

26. Institutional Factors promoting dissemination of
SFTs
• Increased government commitment in
promoting soil fertility technologies (SAPP, ASWAP)
• Existence of formal & informal innovation
platform/forums (s ta ke ho ld e r p a ne l, TWG e . t. c )
• Ability of service providers to collect and use of
feedback
• Availability of multiple service providers
• Availability of promising soil fertility
technologies
26

27. Institutional Factors constraining dissemination of SFTs
• Little understanding on problems affecting dissemination of SFTs
• Unavailability of policies to guide promotion of SFTs
• Understaffing of the public extension system
• Poor logistical support to Government extension staff and Lead
Farmers
• Underutilisation of ICT and mass media in disseminating SFTs
• Lack of reliable, localised input and output markets
• Challenges experienced in collaboration and networking
• Overloading lead farmers with tasks
• Poor setting (lo c a tio n) of demonstrations plots
• Low access to good quality seed among farmers
27

28. Social Factors promoting dissemination of SFTs
Positives
• Involvement of local leaders
• Sharing of information in traditional gatherings
• Ability of farmers to make choices on existing
SFTs
• Ability of farmers to share information
Negatives
• Farmers’ inability to see loss of soil fertility
problem
• Poor relationship between local leaders and
28
farmers

29. Conclusions
• Most important attributes influencing adoption are:
– Compost manure: Co m p a tib ility , r/a d v a nta g e ,
o bs e rva bility
– Pigeonpea: Co m p a tibility , c o m p le x ity , o bs e rva b ility
• Dissemination of SFTs is facilitated by:
•
•
•
•
Increased government commitment (ASWAP, SAPP etc.)
Availability of technologies
Existence of multiple service providers
Ability of farmers to make choices and share information
29

30. Conclusions cont…
• Dissemination of SFTs is impeded by:
– La c k o f kno wle d g e o n SFTs a m o ng a nd d e ve lo p m e nt
a nd fa rm e rs
– Una va ila bility o f p o lic ie s to g uid e im p le m e nta tio n o f SFTs
– Und e rs ta ffing o f the g o ve rnm e nt e x te ns io n s y s te m
– Po o r lo g is tic a l s up p o rt to the g o ve rnm e nt e x te ns io n
s y s te m
– Und e r utilis a tio n o f I a nd m a s s m e d ia
CT
– La c k o f re lia ble inp ut a nd o utp ut m a rke ts
– Po o r c o o rd ina tio n, c o lla b o ra tio n a nd ne two rking a m o ng
s e rvic e p ro vid e rs
– I bility o f fa rm e rs to p e rc e iv e lo s s o f s o il fe rtility a s a
na
p ro ble m
– Po o r re la tio ns hip b e twe e n lo c a l le a d e rs a nd fa rm e rs 30

31. Recommendations
• There is a need to take advantage of
– Po s itive a ttribute s influe nc ing a d o p tio n o f SFTs a s we ll a s
– Fa c to rs fa c ilita ting d is s e m ina tio n o f SFTs
Whe n Promoting SFTs
• Understand farmers’ previous experience, modifications
they have achieved and incorporate in promotion
programs
– Be ing a wa re o f fa rm e rs ’ e x p e rie nc e s a nd the ir re a c tio n
31

32. Recommendations cont…
• Increase outreach and extension activities to
enhance increased uptake of SFT through:
– Dire c t invo lve m e nt o f fa rm e rs (PTD, De m o s e tc . )
– Fa c ilita ting fa rm e r to fa rm e r le a rning
– Ex p a nd ing a c c e s s to info rm a tio n (p ro v id e a lte rna tiv e s
s o urc e s )
• Need to develop a policy that can guide promotion of SFTs
– Se rvic e p ro vid e rs in p ro m o ting SFTs s ho uld ta ke p a rt in the
p o lic y fo rm ula tio n p ro c e s s
– The N tio na l A ric ultura l Po lic y (N P) s ho uld c o nta in
a
g
A
g uid e line s o n p ro m o tio n o f SFTs
32

33. Future Research
1. Assess the role of social networks in
dissemination and adoption of soil fertility
technologies.
2. Investigate the effectiveness of collective use of
different extension methods in dissemination of
soil fertility technologies.
33

34. Acknowledgement
s
•
•
•
•
•
Dr D. Kambewa
Dr. C. Masangano
Dr. Kate Wellard
McKnight Foundation
Farmers in
Nkanakhothi (Kasungu
district)
34

35. THANK YOU
35