August 16, 2010

Rwanda’s Organic Matter Shortage

Filed under: CoreProgram, Research — Tags: — admin @ 12:13 PM

DSC_0236Throughout our history as farmers, we have relied on organic matter in the form of burned ashes, animal manure, seashells, and plant residues to maintain soil fertility. And although farming systems have undergone tremendous change over the past 10,000 years, organic matter is still the key to long-term soil fertility. Decomposing organic matter provides all essential nutrients to plants, creates the basis for the biological food web in the soil, improves the structure of soil and its capacity to retain air and water, and increases the retention of nutrients from mineral fertilizer.

Here in Rwanda, as the population has grown, more and more land has been taken under the hoe, at the expense of forests, fallow land, and grazing land. In such an intensive system of cultivation, organic matter is continually in short supply. This shortage presents a big challenge for One Acre Fund’s Rwandan farmers.

One strategy to address the shortage is integrated soil fertility management (ISFM), which combines the use of mineral fertilizers with organic matter. These two types of inputs build off one another, substantially improving the efficiency of both inputs as compared to applying either alone. The macronutrients in fertilizer are immediately available to plant roots and they are better conserved due to the retention power of organic matter. At the same time, the large quantities of nutrients in mineral fertilizers lessen the dependence on the already overstretched supply of organic matter, meaning that nutrient reserves in soil are not depleted.

One Acre Fund supplies farmers with mineral fertilizer, and we provide training on composting to produce more organic matter. But even in this context, it is a challenge for many farmers to get their hands on sufficient quantities of plant and animal remains.

One potential solution is cows. Cows are a popular way to produce organic matter in Rwanda, but few of our farmers own cows. There is a common belief, however, that owning a cow is an economical way to create organic matter. Unfortunately, cows are labor- and land-intensive for farmers. They are almost all raised in zero-grazing systems in which farmers must cut and carry grasses directly to their animals. Many farmers cannot grow enough grass for their cows, which makes it necessary for them to collect grass from the small amount of commons that are left, including roadsides and woodlot floors. The cow’s diet is poor in protein and energy, and cows generally underproduce milk.

Another possible solution is agroforestry. Tree roots dig deep into lower soil layers using nutrients that would otherwise be lost, and recycle them back to the soil surface in the form of leaves. One Acre Fund is beginning to trial nitrogen-fixing fodder shrubs, which can be used to produce rich fodder, mulch, and bean poles, while at the same time restoring nitrogen in the soil. Trees can be difficult for many farmers to adopt because of land shortages, but if they plant along field borders and hill contour lines they can work efficiently, especially if maintained at shrub level.

A final potential source of organic matter is human manure. Most waste streams are effectively recycled, except for human manure (humanure), which is deposited in deep pit latrines. While most people prefer to forget about this waste stream, it can be used safely provided proper composting techniques. While on average each Rwandan family does not produce enough humanure to completely cover its organic matter needs, this resource has the potential to save at least a few ares of fertility for per family per year, which is certainly not insignificant.

Integrated soil fertility management, cows, agroforestry, and human manure are imperfect solutions to supply more organic matter to Rwandan soils. One Acre Fund is exploring all four options because even a small increase in organic matter makes a difference for our farmers. In the long term, however, there must be a reduction in the population growth rate and increased opportunities for off-farm income to significantly reduce the strain on organic matter in Rwanda.

June 3, 2010

Measuring Farmer Impact

Filed under: CoreProgram, Research — Tags: — admin @ 5:44 PM

One Acre Fund believes that we must rigorously measure our client impact. But in order to measure impact, we need to understand the lives of our farmers before they join One Acre Fund.

Every May, our monitoring and evaluation department sends its agents out to the field to administer the One Acre Fund Baseline Survey. The survey consists of forty-two questions that range from “How many chickens do you have?” to “What are the 2-3 areas that you plan to spend your savings on in the future?” The answers to these questions are gathered from over one thousand first-time One Acre Fund clients and repeat clients. The data becomes part of a Baseline Survey database, intended to track the demographic and agricultural profile of One Acre Fund clients.

One of the first-time clients our agents surveyed recently was a mother of three named Helen. She lives in a mud house with a pit latrine. She owns one goat, thirteen chickens, and a cell phone. She does not have a formal bank account. Last year, she only harvested 10 bags of maize on ¾ acre of land, not enough to feed her family for the year. Before she harvests this year, she will purchase at least 1 bag (180 pounds) of maize for home consumption. Helen completed primary school, but did not go to secondary school. All three of her children are currently in school.

Gathering data from thousands of farmers like Helen allows One Acre Fund to measure its client impact, but it also adds to the cost of our field operations. Days gathering baseline data are long. Agents begin their day by traveling to village areas, where One Acre Fund field staff help direct them (usually via cell phones) to specific farmer homesteads. There can be plenty of legwork in between interviews—from office to fields, between fields, and between communities. Agents will find themselves motorbikes, bicycles, and matatus (passenger vans) to get from farmer to farmer.

In preparation for executing the surveys, agents practice techniques for efficiently asking questions, and ensuring data integrity. Agents are clued into how to avoid biasing answers (ie, not asking leading farmers to specific answers), and how to recognize honest responses. On average, an agent is able to complete one survey in twelve minutes. This season, more than one thousand surveys were completed over a six-week period, and agents aim to complete five hundred more before the upcoming harvest season.

This season, One Acre Fund’s monitoring and evaluation team integrated new questions into the baseline survey. Embedded within the survey are eleven questions that, once complied, will allow One Acre Fund to measure poverty level using a popular microfinance industry tool called the Progress Out of Poverty Index (PPI). Using this tool helps us measure our income impact, but it also allows us to provide data that can be compared with other financial services institutions.

But our survey allows us to collect a much richer level of data than the PPI. We are collecting information on rates of livestock ownership, access to arable land, and expenditure on agricultural inputs, among other household economic information. Knowing clients’ assets, hunger experience, home expenditures, and income-generating activities will help One Acre Fund continue to offer products and services that provide maximum impact to our farmers. Though measuring our impact with this level of rigor is costly, we believe it is a worthwhile investment in the long-term future of our organization.

March 31, 2010

Thinking About Conservation Agriculture

Filed under: Research — Tags: — admin @ 5:08 PM

_DSC0654Many One Acre Fund farmers must rent oxen-pulled plows in order to prepare their fields for planting.  The cost can be $30 USD or more per acre each year. For our farmers, this is a huge investment, and it is one they choose to make because plowing helps with weed control. However, some agriculture researchers say that plowing has long-term negative consequences for soil health.

What if our farmers didn’t have to pay to plow their fields, could still control weeds, and were making their land more drought resistant? Recently, One Acre Fund started to look at how a movement called conservation agriculture might help us increase and sustain the impact our organization has on farmer income. Conservation agriculture has the potential to help One Acre Fund’s farmers reduce their plowing expenses as well as tend to long-term soil health.

Conservation agriculture, which also goes by names like “no till,” “reduced till,” and “conservation tillage,” has produced a lot of research showing the benefits of elimination and/or reduction of plowing on farmland. Those benefits include increased water retention in soil, increased nutrient retention in soil, decreased run-off from farmland, and more drought-resistant crops. While conservation agriculture techniques are common in Latin America, so far African countries are seeing slow uptake.

Part of the reason for slow uptake in Africa might be the complications of a conservation agriculture farm system. In conservation agriculture, more crops are grown throughout the year because it is necessary to “cover” the farmland with continuous cropping. This constant coverage allows the soil to retain water and suppresses weeds. As crops are harvested, the leftover becomes nutritive and protective mulch for the soil. Over time, this process enriches the soil.

Such a process would present many challenges for One Acre Fund’s farmers. Conservation agriculture is much more complicated than the method our farmers currently use. Most conservation agriculture systems would add three or four crops to tend throughout the year, weeding challenges, and possible increases in disease. To be successful, farmers will have to figure out which crops are appropriate to rotate, and at which times. At the moment, the intercropping of beans with maize is a common practice, and one that can be soil friendly when done correctly.

Farmers will also inevitably have to overcome major weeding problems, either through investing in herbicides or enormous amounts of manual weeding. Finally, farmers will also have to contend with the increase in crop disease that comes with well-mulched soil that is more moist. In most currently running conservation agriculture farmlands, there is also the need to develop or import new machines that don’t quite plow the soil, but “rip” special lines or dig specific types of holes for planting.

Recently, an OAF program associate visited some smallholder farmers in the Nanyuki area of Kenya who have adopted conservation agriculture systems. Most of the benefits of the system were in evidence: Soils were improving, some farmers had recorded increased drought resistance after only three years of conservation agriculture practices, and the crop-rotation style looked like it could boost incomes.  However, the farms clearly required a lot of hands-on technical assistance when problems came up. The farmers also had incomes slightly above the average income of our farmers. They were able to make investments into herbicides and run irrigation projects on their farms, for instance.

Plowing is an ingrained practice for One Acre Fund’s farmers. To stop plowing, farmers will want to see immediate benefits. However, it can take years for farmers to realize environmental and financial benefits from implementing a conservation agriculture system. At One Acre Fund, we are currently thinking about how we could integrate some conservation agriculture practices into our work that would not place an outsized financial burden on our farmers in the first year of implementation. Many of our farmers need to make sure they can grow enough food to feed their families; a system like conservation agriculture will only work if it first ensures basic food security for our farm families.

Powered by WordPress