An ALES researcher and masters graduate have discovered that a tremendous bump in crop yields is possible through conservation agriculture.
In a study of small-holder farming households in Zimbabwe, Henry An and Patrick Ndlovu found that farmers produced 39 per cent more maize using conservation agriculture methods than by conventional farming techniques.
"That yield increase is huge," said An, an ALES agricultural economist in the Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology, who noted that the study has received a considerable number of views since it was published in early 2014.
The study's findings are particularly important information to a food insecure country such as Zimbabwe, where maize yields have significantly declined over the years, due to a combination of land degradation, drought, and challenges in availability and affordability of seed and fertilizer.
Despite relief programs that introduced conservation agriculture there in the early 2000s, it's hard to convince farmers that their yields can be bigger on smaller plots of land, through precision application of seed and fertilizer.
Conservation agriculture advocates disturbing land as little as possible through less tillage, while conventional farming in Zimbabwe involves ox-drawn plows that till relatively larger farming plots.
Previous literature on the benefits of conservation agriculture were mixed, said Ndlovu, the lead author on the study and a masters graduate in agricultural resource economics, now working as an economist with the provincial government. Those earlier studies showed lower yields, or at best, the same yield.
"We show you can be more optimistic than that," said An.
Statistically, the conservation agriculture methods proved to be just as efficient a use of land.
The study shows that farmers used more seeds and fertilizer per hectare under conservation agriculture, but produced more corn on less land.
"There are always trade-offs to consider in any decision and resources are scarce," said An. "In this case, land was the more binding constraint with little to no possibility of increasing farmer land holdings. Therefore, the emphasis was on increasing the intensity of production but in a manner that would disrupt the land the least."
With more maize to sell, the farmers could feasibly afford the extra seeds and fertilizer, said Ndlovu and An.
However the study's research does highlight that conservation agriculture is labour-intensive, because instead of using oxen to till, farmers used hand-held hoes to dig small planting basins. That's a potential barrier to these farmers, said Ndlovu, because some of the farms in the 15 districts of Zimbabwe for which three years of data were examined, belonged to vulnerable households that were female-headed or HIV-affected. For them, labour is a scarce resource.
The study, which was published in Elsevier's Agricultural Systems, has been viewed almost 1,000 times, suggesting very strong and widespread interest in the research.
In a study of small-holder farming households in Zimbabwe, Henry An and Patrick Ndlovu found that farmers produced 39 per cent more maize using conservation agriculture methods than by conventional farming techniques.
"That yield increase is huge," said An, an ALES agricultural economist in the Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology, who noted that the study has received a considerable number of views since it was published in early 2014.
The study's findings are particularly important information to a food insecure country such as Zimbabwe, where maize yields have significantly declined over the years, due to a combination of land degradation, drought, and challenges in availability and affordability of seed and fertilizer.
Despite relief programs that introduced conservation agriculture there in the early 2000s, it's hard to convince farmers that their yields can be bigger on smaller plots of land, through precision application of seed and fertilizer.
Conservation agriculture advocates disturbing land as little as possible through less tillage, while conventional farming in Zimbabwe involves ox-drawn plows that till relatively larger farming plots.
Previous literature on the benefits of conservation agriculture were mixed, said Ndlovu, the lead author on the study and a masters graduate in agricultural resource economics, now working as an economist with the provincial government. Those earlier studies showed lower yields, or at best, the same yield.
"We show you can be more optimistic than that," said An.
Statistically, the conservation agriculture methods proved to be just as efficient a use of land.
The study shows that farmers used more seeds and fertilizer per hectare under conservation agriculture, but produced more corn on less land.
"There are always trade-offs to consider in any decision and resources are scarce," said An. "In this case, land was the more binding constraint with little to no possibility of increasing farmer land holdings. Therefore, the emphasis was on increasing the intensity of production but in a manner that would disrupt the land the least."
With more maize to sell, the farmers could feasibly afford the extra seeds and fertilizer, said Ndlovu and An.
However the study's research does highlight that conservation agriculture is labour-intensive, because instead of using oxen to till, farmers used hand-held hoes to dig small planting basins. That's a potential barrier to these farmers, said Ndlovu, because some of the farms in the 15 districts of Zimbabwe for which three years of data were examined, belonged to vulnerable households that were female-headed or HIV-affected. For them, labour is a scarce resource.
The study, which was published in Elsevier's Agricultural Systems, has been viewed almost 1,000 times, suggesting very strong and widespread interest in the research.