Normal view MARC view ISBD view

Productivity and profitability of maize + groundnut rotations when compared to continuous maize under smallholder management in Zimbabwe

By: Waddington, S.R.
Contributor(s): Chifamba, J [coaut.] | Karigwindi, J [coaut.] | Waddington, S.R.|Murwira, H.K.|Kumwenda, J.D.T.|Hikwa, D.|Tagwira, F [eds.].
Material type: materialTypeLabelBookAnalytics: Show analyticsPublisher: Harare (Zimbabwe) Soil Fert Net|CIMMYT : 1998ISBN: 970-648-006-4.Subject(s): Costs | Economic policies | Groundnuts | Management | Production factors | Small farms | Zimbabwe | CIMMYT | Soil Fert Net | Zea mays AGROVOCDDC classification: 631.45 Summary: We trace the yield and economic performance of a maize + groundnut rotation compared to continuous maize both when inorganic fertilizer is applied to maize and when it is not, under current management by smallholder farmers in Zimbabwe over five years. The aim was to determine whether the yield of groundnut and yield improvements of maize after groundnut are sufficient to justify farmers using the rotation.|We planted the trial at the AGRITEX Training Centre, Domboshava, with farmers at three on-farm sites in Chinyika Resettlement Area, and at three on-farm sites in Chiduku Communal Area and adjacent resettlement areas, mostly on sandy soils. Experimental treatments were: continuous maize (year-after-year) with inorganic fertilizer; continuous maize without fertilizer; maize-maize-groundnut-maize-maize-groundnut rotation with fertilizer on maize; the rotation without fertilizer; continuous groundnut without fertilizer; and a maize-groundnut intercrop (year-after-year) with fertilizer on the maize. Fertilizer practice was from farmer surveys in Mangwende Communal Area. The grain yields from continuous maize without fertilizer declined over the years, at a rate of around 0.1 t ha-1 per year. Averaged over the six on-farm sites the grain yield of maize without fertilizer declined to 0.50 t ha-1 in 1996/97. The maize yield responses to inorganic fertilizer on-farm were highly variable, although under adequate rainfall the responses were moderate (up to 29 kg grain kg N-1).|At Domboshava, with no inorganic fertilizer applied to maize, the inclusion of a groundnut rotation (producing 260 to 355 kg ha-1 of shelled grain) almost doubled the grain yield of the following maize crop (in 1995/96) from 2.46 t ha-1 to 4.61 t ha-1. In plots where inorganic fertilizer was applied to maize, the rotation produced even more additional maize grain yield (an increase of 2.93 t ha-1). Small effects of the groundnut on maize persisted in the second year of maize following groundnut (1996/97).|At two on-farm sites in 1996/97, with inorganic fertilizer the maize grain yields after groundnut were less than yields after continuous maize. Without fertilizer, inclusion of groundnut in the rotation raised maize grain yields at all three on-farm sites by an average of 0.25 t ha-1, but overall yields were only around 0.6 t ha-1.|In a calculation of discounted net benefits (DNBs) for the groundnut and two subsequent years with maize at Domboshava the returns over cash (i.e., seed and fertilizer) costs were greater for the rotation system than for the continuous maize plots, irrespective of whether inorganic fertilizer was applied. However, when labour costs were added the continuous maize plus fertilizer application showed better returns than the rotation, while the returns for the rotation and continuous maize without fertilizer were almost the same.|At the on-farm sites the rotation was far less profitable than at Domboshava, because of the low groundnut yields, little yield improvement for maize following groundnut, and the high labour cost associated with growing the groundnuts. DNBs over cash costs were positive at all sites but were higher for the rotation at only one out of the three sites. For the rotation the DNBs over all costs (including labour valued at a local casual worker wage) were always negative or close to zero. At two sites it was far more profitable to grow continuous maize, especially with fertilizer. Our preliminary findings of the low yield, marginal to zero profitability, and high labour cost of groundnut production support and explain the general trend by smallholder farmers to growing reduced areas of groundnut in Zimbabwe.|Collection: CIMMYT Publications Collection
Tags from this library: No tags from this library for this title. Log in to add tags.
    average rating: 0.0 (0 votes)
Item type Current location Collection Call number Copy number Status Date due Barcode Item holds
Conference proceedings CIMMYT Knowledge Center: John Woolston Library

Lic. Jose Juan Caballero Flores

 

CIMMYT Publications Collection 631.45 WAD (Browse shelf) 1 Available B628739
Total holds: 0

We trace the yield and economic performance of a maize + groundnut rotation compared to continuous maize both when inorganic fertilizer is applied to maize and when it is not, under current management by smallholder farmers in Zimbabwe over five years. The aim was to determine whether the yield of groundnut and yield improvements of maize after groundnut are sufficient to justify farmers using the rotation.|We planted the trial at the AGRITEX Training Centre, Domboshava, with farmers at three on-farm sites in Chinyika Resettlement Area, and at three on-farm sites in Chiduku Communal Area and adjacent resettlement areas, mostly on sandy soils. Experimental treatments were: continuous maize (year-after-year) with inorganic fertilizer; continuous maize without fertilizer; maize-maize-groundnut-maize-maize-groundnut rotation with fertilizer on maize; the rotation without fertilizer; continuous groundnut without fertilizer; and a maize-groundnut intercrop (year-after-year) with fertilizer on the maize. Fertilizer practice was from farmer surveys in Mangwende Communal Area. The grain yields from continuous maize without fertilizer declined over the years, at a rate of around 0.1 t ha-1 per year. Averaged over the six on-farm sites the grain yield of maize without fertilizer declined to 0.50 t ha-1 in 1996/97. The maize yield responses to inorganic fertilizer on-farm were highly variable, although under adequate rainfall the responses were moderate (up to 29 kg grain kg N-1).|At Domboshava, with no inorganic fertilizer applied to maize, the inclusion of a groundnut rotation (producing 260 to 355 kg ha-1 of shelled grain) almost doubled the grain yield of the following maize crop (in 1995/96) from 2.46 t ha-1 to 4.61 t ha-1. In plots where inorganic fertilizer was applied to maize, the rotation produced even more additional maize grain yield (an increase of 2.93 t ha-1). Small effects of the groundnut on maize persisted in the second year of maize following groundnut (1996/97).|At two on-farm sites in 1996/97, with inorganic fertilizer the maize grain yields after groundnut were less than yields after continuous maize. Without fertilizer, inclusion of groundnut in the rotation raised maize grain yields at all three on-farm sites by an average of 0.25 t ha-1, but overall yields were only around 0.6 t ha-1.|In a calculation of discounted net benefits (DNBs) for the groundnut and two subsequent years with maize at Domboshava the returns over cash (i.e., seed and fertilizer) costs were greater for the rotation system than for the continuous maize plots, irrespective of whether inorganic fertilizer was applied. However, when labour costs were added the continuous maize plus fertilizer application showed better returns than the rotation, while the returns for the rotation and continuous maize without fertilizer were almost the same.|At the on-farm sites the rotation was far less profitable than at Domboshava, because of the low groundnut yields, little yield improvement for maize following groundnut, and the high labour cost associated with growing the groundnuts. DNBs over cash costs were positive at all sites but were higher for the rotation at only one out of the three sites. For the rotation the DNBs over all costs (including labour valued at a local casual worker wage) were always negative or close to zero. At two sites it was far more profitable to grow continuous maize, especially with fertilizer. Our preliminary findings of the low yield, marginal to zero profitability, and high labour cost of groundnut production support and explain the general trend by smallholder farmers to growing reduced areas of groundnut in Zimbabwe.|

English

9906|AGRIS 9902|R98-99PROCE

Jose Juan Caballero

CIMMYT Publications Collection

There are no comments for this item.

Log in to your account to post a comment.
baner

International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) © Copyright 2015. Carretera México-Veracruz. Km. 45, El Batán, Texcoco, México, C.P. 56237.
If you have any question, please contact us at CIMMYT-Knowledge-Center@cgiar.org

Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz y Trigo (CIMMYT) © Copyright 2015. Carretera México-Veracruz. Km. 45, El Batán, Texcoco, México, C.P. 56237.
Si tiene cualquier pregunta, contáctenos a CIMMYT-Knowledge-Center@cgiar.org