Ploughs, hoes and cheap herbicides beat weeds in cotton |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Promoting weed management options for cotton-based systems in semi-arid areas of sub-Saharan Africa | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smallholder cotton growers in Zimbabwe now use low-cost techniques to control weeds. In the Zambezi Valley, the rainy season is short and hot. If farmers don't weed promptly and thoroughly, they can lose nearly all their crop. Previously, controlling weeds needed lots of labour for constant weeding. In the Lower Zambezi Valley and South East Lowveld of Zimbabwe, farmers now beat weeds by ploughing before planting, hand hoeing and applying low-cost herbicides - techniques within their means and that save labour. Extension services now routinely advise farmers that this is a good way to deal with weeds and universities teach this system in their courses. Plus, inquiries from South Africa, Mozambique, Tanzania, Uganda, Kenya, Pakistan, Slovenia, Togo and Brazil are pouring in. Project Ref: CPP67:
Research Programmes: The Crop Protection Programme funded the projects which validated the core outputs described in this document. Salaries and facilities for University and field staff of Zimbabwean partner institutions were funded by the University of Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe Government and the Cotton Company of Zimbabwe. Relevant Research Projects: R7474 and R8191
R7474 had three outputs 1) Improved understanding of the impact of weeds in cotton production systems. Research showed that under Zambezi valley conditions, a short hot rainy season, weed control must be initiated two weeks after emergence and continued for at least eight weeks. The method is unimportant, but is dictated by available household supplied or hired resources, in particular labour, draft power and cash. Many farmers plant larger areas than they have the capacity to effectively weed and so suffer considerable yield loss. 2) Validation of three innovative options for reducing the impact of weeds: i) using low cost herbicides either on their own, or ii) integrated with hand hoeing, ox-drawn cultivator or plough and, iii) early winter ploughing. Early winter ploughing was shown not only to reduce weeds but also to conserve moisture, promote earlier crop establishment and increase yields. An alternative option, of no tillage and use of herbicides, to control early weeds did not meet farmer expectations for either weed control or yield. Hand hoeing and ox-cultivator were the lowest cost options, but are not feasible over large areas given labour and draft animal shortages. Option iii) remains low cost, but has practical limitations, in that it can only be used by those with access to draft power and only after a maize crop or fallow. Shortages of labour and draft power make the use of herbicides attractive. Although best suited to those with least labour and draft (the poorest resourced) it does require ready cash and skills for herbicide use to be feasible. It is therefore likely to be used only by those who can access and pay for their use. Integrating herbicides with hand hoe or draft animal weeding offers the best option for most farmers. 3) Promotion and dissemination of findings. In addition to field days, workshops, and papers, "Best Practice Guidelines" for land, preparation, weed management and knapsack sprayer use were prepared for subsequent use by R8191. R8191 outputs included: 1) Development of training and extension material with extension workers and farmers on R7474 and R8191 outputs (Annex 1). 2) Development of a participatory technology development (PTD) process for farmer testing of the alternative weed management practices. This involved farmers and farmer groups facilitated by Government agricultural extension staff and COTTCO, a private sector input supply and marketing company 3) Strengthened capability of participating organisations to use of participatory approaches as well as improved research-extension-farmer-private sector linkages.
The main commodity was cotton grown largely in cotton-maize systems
Outputs from this cluster include:
As such this source could be clustered with the following:
1 Although concerned with cereal based systems this cluster includes a number of elements that will add value to this cotton cluster. 2This work concerned use of draft animals in weeding in cotton in Uganda will add value. 3The need to consider an integrated approach to weeds and other pests in cotton make this a possible cluster partner. 4The important role of draft animals in crop establishment and weed control would ensure this element is not overlooked. How the outputs were validated: R7474 outputs were validated through 1) A number of community workshops reinforced later with a formal survey provided detailed information on farmers' livelihoods, knowledge and practices in cotton production. Most households derived an important part of their livelihoods from cotton with a major constraint to improving productivity being weed management. Maize was also a key crop for food security. Weed species abundance was recorded over 12 sites and the effect of additional weeding on maize and cotton yield were assessed by farmers through paired plot experimentation. In addition a "critical time of weeding trial" was undertaken using a randomised complete block design with three replicates. To attain 90% of the maximum seed cotton yield farmers need to control weeds from three to eight weeks after crop emergence unless prolonged drought spells occur when weeding should last from two to 11 weeks. It was apparent that in many years, especially when rainfall is above average, weeds are an impossible burden and whole fields of both cotton and maize are abandoned with consequent loss of invested capital and labour. Productivity losses from late weeding could be as high as 95% in a wet year and 70% in a dry year. 2) A "mother-daughter" research trial approach ensured farmer involvement in the research process including problem identification, treatment selection, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. This was characterised by two levels of experimentation which included · A researcher-managed mother trial with replicated plots undertaken on land owned by a local school. · Daughter trials undertaken on-farm with participation of 18 farmers, nine of whom had draught power, and nine did not. This included both men and women from a range of age groups and a range of resource categories. This ensured involvement of both those with access to draught animals and those who did not. · Mid-season evaluations were undertaken as a series of field days open to all farmers in the locations where they occurred. Alternative treatments were inspected and farmers' views on the strengths and weaknesses of each noted ensuring farmers evaluation criteria were captured and utilised in the validation process. · At the end of each season after harvest and results had been analysed by researchers, these were presented and assessed by all project partners at especially convened workshops. · Sites provided replication for statistical analysis of on-farm trials. Analysis of treatment effects was carried out using ANOVA with farms nested in different locations as the blocking factor for the on-farm trials. Mean yields were compared by Fisher's protected LSD test. · Special consideration was given to social and economic issues such as input availability and ensuring technology options were available for the least resourced. R 8191 outputs were validated through 3) A PREA process (Annex 2) involved some 400 farmers being members of 20 farmer groups. This was facilitated by 15 extension agents drawn from Government extension, NGO and the private sector in further testing the alternative weed management practices. A farmer field school approach was used where lead farmers from each group provided facilities and tested the new technologies, with others from the same group participating at key stages, learning and trying the technologies on their own farms. A range of technologies was tested including: soil and water management involving reduced tillage, improved use of ploughs and cultivators in crop establishment and weed control and use of herbicides for weed management in combination with hand and draught animal weeding equipment. 4) Project workshops, for discussing the overall approach, technologies tested, communication needs and dissemination materials were held with all partners including farmer representatives. Training and extension material was finalised after input from both farmers and extension agents. Where the Outputs were Validated: Outputs were initially validated on the mother trial and 18 farmers' fields in the Lower Muzarabani District of the Zambezi valley, Zimbabwe, over two seasons, 2000/01 and 2001/2. A further period of validation including promotion activities took place more widely in the Zambezi valley in the Mshumbi Pools, Muhuwe, Muzarabani, Machaya and Hoya villages over two seasons 2002/3 and 2003/4. This region, Zone 19 on Zimbabwe's livelihoods' map, bordering Mozambique supports extensive cotton production with some income from groundnuts and sorghum, supplemented by local, seasonal employment and some goat sales (Zimbabwe vulnerability assessment committee, 2005). All the work was undertaken under semi-arid smallholder rainfed conditions, this area of the Zambezi valley being characterised by a short extremely hot rainfall period where weed growth is particularly rapid and aggressive. The targeted social group was that described as moderate poor, in the definition used by RIU, in that all farmers had some access to land with the potential to improve their livelihoods through increasing cotton productivity. However within this broad category five sub-groups were identified during early workshops with the community. Access to resources varied considerably, in particular to the area farmed, to draught animals and draught animal equipment as well as to savings or credit. Better resourced and comparatively wealthier farmers were not constrained by draught power resources and often had access to inputs on credit through COTTCO. Poorly resourced farmers were constrained primarily by access to draught power and labour with no access to credit or savings. The weed management options relating to resource availability indicates a limited range for poorly resourced farmers (Table 1). Table 1: Land preparation, crop establishment and weed management options available for different farmer resource categories
RG=Resource groups identified locally (RG1=well resourced, RG2=average resources, RG3=poorly resourced, RG4=very poorly resourced) EWP=early winter ploughing, LWP=late winter ploughing, SP=spring ploughing OPFP=Open plough furrow planting, RIP=rip planting. HH=hand hoe The project showed the superiority of an integrated approach to weed management (using a combination of ploughs with and without mouldboard, correctly adjusted equipment, hand hoeing and low cost herbicides) to achieve timely weed control when compared to using a single method of weed control. Farmers cannot rely on weed removal only when they appear, but need to consider timing and method of land preparation as part of an overall weed management strategy. Who are the Users? DFID-Harare held a three-day agricultural research and dissemination workshop and fair in Harare during September 2005. This brought together policy-makers, researchers and field practitioners from the private sector, donor community, and the natural resource sector to consider and discuss DFID-RNNRS programme outputs as well DFID-Zimbabwe's "Protracted Relief Programme". UZ hosted a stand at the fair where dissemination outputs of CPP funded research in Zimbabwe over the past ten years were displayed. A large demand for UZ-CPP and other RNNRS (R7473, R7474, R8191, R7362 and R7085) produced extension and training material could not be met during the workshop. As a result CPP funded the production of a CD, produced by the University of Zimbabwe, Department of Crop Science (Annex 1) for use in training and resource material for extension staff and farmers. UZ have now distributed copies to Govt extension (AREX) and NGOs in an effort to ensure that farmers outside the research areas are able to benefit from the technologies and management practices developed. In addition dissemination material has been made available to farmers, extension NGO and extension personnel that come for short courses (so far the total is 50) and some are using the materials for training and extension within their organizations. In addition UZ and Bindura Universities now use the results from the research in their teaching activities for both under and post graduates and as part of their Outreach programme to farmers. Where the Outputs have been Used: Key extension messages formulated from project outputs are now part of the extension packages routinely used by AREX, COTTCO, and Agricura (input supplier) in their work in promoting the production of cotton in the Lower Zambezi Valley and South East Lowveld parts of Zimbabwe, where similar conditions exist. This includes:
Such messages are now used in many cotton growing areas in Zimbabwe. In addition outputs popularised the notion that recommendations to maximize productivity had to be tailored according to the resource endowments and other characteristics of the household. Current recommendations by the above organizations reflect this with extension and research programmes ensuring that technology options are considered for adoption by different groups according to their resource profiles (primarily labour, draft power, off farm-incomes and technical competence). Scale of current use: During the promotion stage of the project, use by participating farmers was quickly established and we expect farmer-to-farmer extension has continued to promote the technologies, with the exception of herbicides. Rapid price increases and non-availability due to foreign currency shortages have placed herbicides beyond the reach of most farmers. However, since ploughs and cultivators are readily available in most cotton growing areas, their use and integration with crop management to control weeds is being encouraged by extension agents. A lack of resources has however precluded us from quantifying the spread. Policy and Institutional Structures, and Key Components for Success: Outputs were promoted giving attention to both institutional and community issues. This included the involvement of stakeholders in a participatory process, where farmers were able to identify and prioritise the problems with which they were faced. The "mother-daughter" research approach ensured farmer involvement in the research process from the start and included diagnosis of the problem, identification of treatments, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. This process required commitment from both research and extension organisations involving greater emphasis on facilitation and less on teaching and recognition of the key role that farmers must play in the research process. The key partnerships for future promotion was that of farmers with extension agents (Government, NGO and the private sector) whose staff participated and benefited from the training provided and developed the capacity to continue to promote farmer testing and adoption of technologies. Other factors included
Lessons Learned and Uptake Pathways Promotion of Outputs: We are unaware of the detail of promotion activities outside Zimbabwe, other than those mentioned above. However use of the UZ website has ensured that material is available and we are encouraged by the number of enquiries from outside Zimbabwe. In Zimbabwe, pilot scaling-out of the outputs was initially supported by CPP as part of the validation process in the Zambezi valley. This area is fairly typical of many other cotton growing areas of Zimbabwe, where the human and financial capacity of local institutions working with cotton to promote agricultural change is limited [2]. Notwithstanding extension messages in these in cotton growing areas have been promoted by UZ's Crop Science Department within the context of its outreach programme. This has involved farmers, NGO and extension personnel that attended a variety of short training courses not specifically in cotton production [3]. It was hoped that the Cotton Training Centre at Kadoma would also be an important promotion pathway, but as with other institutions in Zimbabwe their capacity has been severely reduced over the past five years. However it still remains potentially an important pathway. [2] These are detailed in Zimbabwe's vulnerability assessments livelihoods maps (2005). [3] Africa 2000, Africare, Biotechnology Trust of Zimbabwe, CAB International. Care International, Care-Mozambique, Care-Zimbabwe, CIMMYT, Department of Food, Family and Nutrition Sciences, FAO, FCTZ, Goal-Zimbabwe, NLWCCDP. Pelum Association, Safire, Seke Rural HBC, Zimbabwe Red Cross, Zvishavane Water Project Potential Barriers Preventing Adoption of Outputs: In Zimbabwe, poverty is presently manifested by the inability of many households to feed themselves and to procure essential goods and services for a productive and healthy life. Given the present political and economic situation many extension agencies, especially AREX are inadequately resourced with insufficient transport and a shortage of funds for the promotion of outputs described in this document. NGO priorities are largely aimed at providing relief feeding to vulnerable households and individuals, working in support of programmes such as DFID-Zimbabwe's "Protracted Recovery Programme". This aims to stabilise food security and protect the livelihoods of vulnerable households. This includes both feeding schemes, assisting with nutrient or vegetable gardens and interventions aimed at stabilising food production through promoting crop diversification and resource efficient farming techniques. This places emphasis on drought tolerant food crops, conservation farming (no tillage, micro-dosing of fertiliser etc), as well as micro irrigation with drip kits, sweet potatoes and cassava promotion and use of forestry products for domestic use. With resources being limited cotton production has not been a priority. Notwithstanding cotton still remains an important export crop, much of which has been historically produced by the smallholder farming sector, and for many households in drought prone areas is an important source of income and food security. However cotton production depends on ready access to inputs and easy marketing. Input availability has declined markedly in recent seasons. This will have limited the pace of adoption. As a result promotion of the technologies beyond what was achieved in the dissemination phase of the projects remains sporadic and ad-hoc. The need to promote the low cost technologies and the dissemination materials is strong but funding for this is currently not available. Given the other priorities of NGOs, the role of the private sector (for instance COTTCO and Agricura) is particularly important. How to Overcome Barriers to Adoption of Outputs: Given the limited resource capacity at local level, it will be essential to harness the private sector to increase the pace of promotion and reach a larger number of communities. This can in part be achieved through i) improving collaboration, networking and partnership between research, extension and the private sector, ii) ensuring partners are adequately resourced, with clearly identifiable roles for which they are accountable and iii) most importantly ensuring that community level organisations are able to play an important role. This will require support and facilitation so that an ongoing process of innovation can be initiated and continued. It also requires that input and output markets are effectively working. Local level field staff can have greatest impact by working with farmer groups through lead farmers selected by each group. This in turn requires facilitation and training in the use of the extension material through an on-going partnership. Given the present limited resources of AREX and the other priorities of the NGO sector, it is likely that the private sector can make the largest contribution. Companies like COTTCO and Agricura are already making a significant contribution to input supply, credit and marketing of cotton and could be encouraged to broaden their training and extension activities. Lessons Learned: Scaling up the benefits of project outputs needs to be considered in at least three phases (Ellis-Jones et al., 2005, Hagmann et al, 1998, Middleton et al., 2004, Gundel et al, 2003). · An orientation and action planning phase, where i) communities are facilitated by extension agents to have a common understanding of their problems, set priorities, agree action plans with targets for problem resolution and productivity increases, together with appropriate indicators, ii) a strategy for ensuring sustainability is developed by stakeholders that ensures resource availability for capacity building, communication, monitoring and evaluation, with role and cost sharing agreements within partnerships. At the same time realistic time horizons for establishing support mechanisms at community level need to be established. · An implementation phase where the capacity of local institutions is improved through training, collaboration, networking and alliances where institutional roles are defined and undertaken. During this stage it is crucial that priority community constraints are addressed using participatory extension approaches that test and demonstrate technology options appropriate for all poverty groupings. Local monitoring and evaluation (M&E) reinforced by appropriate awareness raising and training are essential components. This includes demonstrations, field days, posters and information supplied through private sector input suppliers. In addition those institutions working at community level must be accountable to the communities with which they are working. · A phase that ensures long term sustainability. This requires that communities agree from the outset a timeframe for achieving their goals. In this case local District administrations will need to commit resources to improving local organisational capacity, and the private sector to ensuring farmer access to input and output markets and providing technical support. Although these are essential for ensuring sustainability, they must be established in the implementation phase. · In addition, M&E and impact needs to be assessed using indicators developed at planning stage with mechanisms established to provide feedback on issues and problems as they arise to communities and district administrations. Poverty Impact Studies: No formal poverty impact study or poverty mapping work has been undertaken related to the outputs of this document. However detailed cost benefit analysis was undertaken as part of the validation process and participatory budgeting exercises were carried out with farmer groups during the pilot promotion stage. How the Poor have Benefited (including gender and other poverty groups): The economic cost-benefit analysis, based on results from farmer trials and reported in the R7474 FTR, showed that that the cost of poor weeding to be far in excess of even the highest cost of weeding. Weeding late or missing a weeding incurs yield penalties of up to 95% in a wet year and 70% in a dry year. Even failing to weed for four weeks, a common practice can incur a yield loss of up to 60% of potential yield as the crop competes for moisture and nutrients with weeds. The lowest cost weeding options are an overall herbicide with hand hoeing for those without draft power and a banded herbicide used in conjunction with an ox-cultivator for those with draft power. Participatory budgets indicated both an improvement in quality of the cotton, meaning that higher prices were received, and large savings in labour were possible. Increases in productivity of 70-80% were achieved by farmers. Direct and Indirect Environmental Benefits: The outputs of this cluster include an integrated weed management approach that incorporates many aspects of good land husbandry including improved soil and water management. These give emphasis to environmental protection. The result of improper and dangerous use of pesticides in cotton have been well documented (FAO, 2006), and include dangers for people, animals and the environment. Consequently the outputs in this cluster have included training and extension material on the safe handling and use of all pesticides, not just herbicides. We believe that these can make an important contribution to reducing the adverse effects of pesticides. Adverse Environmental Impacts: Use of herbicides carries with it a degree of environmental risk. However used at recommended doses herbicides registered for use on cotton are much less toxic than many insecticides and have favourable environmental toxicity profiles. It is essential that users are made aware of the potential hazards, such as water contamination from inadvertent spills. The agro-chemical industry has a key role to play in disseminating information on safe use to the agriculture community. Training of pesticide dealers who interact with farmers should be an integral part of promotion of herbicides for weed management in cotton and posters and other training materials produced by CPP projects in Zimbabwe can contribute to this increased level of understanding. Coping with the Effects of Climate Change, or Risk from Natural Disasters: Farmers in cotton growing areas of Zimbabwe are used to living with climatic variability, a situation that is predicted to worsen due to global climate change. Current climate models for a range of atmospheric CO2 estimates suggest an increase in mean annual temperature of 1.9-6.20C in central Zimbabwe by 2080 with 5-18% less rainfall than the 1960-90 average (Hulm and Sheard, 1999). These effects are already reality for farmers, since overall there has been a 5% reduction in rainfall across the country since 1900 with 15% less rainfall than average during the period 1986-1995, almost certainly due to an El Nino event. With more variable and lower rainfall farmers need to manage land to conserve moisture more than ever before and closing the yield gap due to weeds will become an increasing priority to mitigate the effects of climate change. An integrated weed management approach provides a labour efficient opportunity for timely weed control to prevent competition for moisture while inter-row cultivation later in the season can reduce run-off from intense storms. For the wider community enhancing cotton yields through adoption of these and other improved production practices can contribute harvest labour opportunities, particularly important for poor households in years when maize yields are low. References CHIZARURA, L., 2006. Why the global price of cotton is falling. http://www.seatini.org/cotton/globalisationImpact.htm DFID, 2006. Zimbabwe country profile. http://www.dfid.gov.uk/countries/africa/zimbabwe.asp ELLIS-JONES J., SCHULZ S., CHIKOYE D., DE HAAN N., KORMAWA P., and ADEDZWA D., 2004. Participatory research and extension approaches: A guide for researchers and extension workers for involving farmers in research and development. Research Guide 71. International Institute for Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria and Silsoe Research Institute, UK.. FEWS, 2005. Zimbabwe Food Security Update for April 2005. Famine early warning system. http://www.fews.net/centers/?f=zw GÜNDEL S., HANCOCK J., and ANDERSON S., 2001. Scaling-up strategies for research in natural resources management. A comparative review. Chatham, UK. Natural Resources Institute. HAGMANN, J., CHUMA E., MURWIRA, K., and CONNELLY, M. (1999). Putting process into practice: operationalising participatory extension. In ODI Agricultural Research and Extension (AGREN) Network Paper No. 94. Overseas Development Institute, London. http://www.odi.org.uk/agren/papers%20agrenpaper_94.pdf.. HULM and SHEARD, 1999. Climate change scenarios for Zimbabwe. Climate Change Unit, University of East Anglia, UK FAO, 2006. http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPP/Pesticid/Default.htm KROPF, M.J., & LOTZ, L.A. (1992) Systems Approaches to qualify crop weed in weed management. Agricultural Systems 40:265-82 GILL, H.S. (1982) The role of hand and mechanical weed management in the advancing countries. In: Improving weed management. Proceedings of the F.A.O/IWSS Expert Consultation on Improving Weed Management in Developing Countries. F.A.O Rome. pp 17-22. HILLOCKS, RJ. (1995). Integrated management of insect pests, diseases and weeds of cotton in Africa. Integrated Pest Management Reviews, 1, 31-47. LABRADA, R. and PARKER, C. (1994) Weed control in the context of Integrated Pest Management. In: Labrada, R., Casely, J.C. and Parker C. (eds) Weed management for developing countries, F.A.O, Rome. Plant Protection pp 120. MORTIMER, A.M., (1994). The classification and ecology of weeds. Weed management for the Developing countries. FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper 120: 11 - 25. MICHAELA, R.W. (1997) Which way for crop protection weeds in East Central and Southern Africa? Paper presented at the 16th Biennial Weed Science Conference proceedings, Kampala Uganda, 15 - 18 September 1997, pp 1- 4. MIDDLETON T., ANTONIO M.R., ELLIS-JONES J., GARFORTH C., and GOLDEY P. 2002. Best practice guidelines: Scaling-up successful pilot experiences in natural resources management. Report for NRSP Hillsides systems. . MORTIMER, A.M., (1994). The classification and ecology of weeds. Weed management for the Developing countries. FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper 120: 11 - 25. RICHARDS, PVM. (1979) The effects of inter-row weeds and row spacing on cotton yields and maturity. Rhodesia Agricultural Journal, 76, 133-143. RICHES, CR., ELLIS-JONES, J., TWOMLOW, SJ., MASHANGARA, E., DHLIWAYO, HH., MABASA, S. AND CHATIZWA, I. (1998) Participatory development of tillage/weed management practices for maize farmers in semi-arid Zimbabwe: who benefits? Rural livelihoods, empowerment and the environment: going beyond the farm boundary. 15th International Symposium of the Association for Farming Systems Research and Extension. 29 November to 4th December, Pretoria South Africa. SEATINI, 2006. Fate of Cotton Production in Zimbabwe: Zambezi Valley case study. http://www.seatini.org/cotton/index.html SCHWERZEL, PJ. AND THOMAS, PEL. (1971) Weed competition in cotton. PANS, 17, 30-34. THOMAS, P.E.L. (1974) Weed control in cotton. Pesticides, November, 31-33. ZIMBABWE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE, 2005. Zimbabwe Livelihood Profiles. VAC with support from USAID, Famine Early Warning Systems network. http://www.fews.net/livelihoods/index.aspx?pageID=livelihoodsZoneMapsAndProfiles Annex 1: Training and extension materials available in support of outputs described in this document A Guide for farmers on Good Land Husbandry This included a series of 15 booklets concerning i) Introduction to Good Land Husbandry. ii) Soil and Water Management. iii) Soil Fertility. iv) Primary Tillage and Land Preparation. v) What is Important for Good Crop Establishment. vi) Planting Option 1 - Hand Planting. vii) Planting Option 2 - Traditional Third Furrow Planting. viii) Planting Option 3 - Open Plough Furrow Planting. ix) Planting Option 4 - Ripper Planting. x) Weed Management. xi) Conservation Tillage Option 1 - No Till Tied Ridging. xii) Conservation Tillage Option 2 - Low Input Tillage and Weeding. xiii) Alternative Soil and water Conservation Ideas. xiv) Draught Animal Harnessing. xv) Tillage Implements. "Best Practice Guidelines" on
Group Extension Training Guides using Pictures, and Visual Aids for Training Modules
Leaflets for farmers for each training module These draw from material produced in the Guides Five posters on the safe handling and use of pesticides - Poisonous nature of pesticides - Safeguards against pesticide poisoning - Precautions when mixing and spraying pesticides - First-aid measures in case of - Pesticide poisoning - Disposal of pesticide waste and personal hygiene Annex 2: Zambezi Valley PREA programme of activities for 2003-2004 seasons
EA=Extension Agents (AREX, COTTCO, Farmers World, ZFU) Relevant Research Projects,
with links to the
|
For relevant research projects, with links to further information
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
