Mwalwanda AB, Ajayi OC, Akinnifesi FK, Beedy T, Sileshi G, G. Chiundu 2011 Impact of
Fertilizer Trees on Maize Production and Food Security in Six Districts of Malawi, World
Agroforestry Centre, Lilongwe, Malawi
JULY 2011
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................4
PREFACE ...............................................................................................................................................................5
ACRONYMS AND ABREVIATIONS USED ......................................................................................................6
Definition of terms ..................................................................................................................................................7
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................8
JUSTIFICATION FOR THE STUDY....................................................................................................................9
Research Gap ......................................................................................................................................................9
OBJECTIVE .......................................................................................................................................................9
METHODOLOGY ...............................................................................................................................................10
Study sites and sampling ...................................................................................................................................10
Data collection ..................................................................................................................................................11
Questionnaire survey ....................................................................................................................................11
Statistical Design and data analysis ..................................................................................................................12
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...........................................................................................................................13
Description of respondents ...............................................................................................................................13
Maize grain yield comparison between fertilizer tree users and non users ......................................................13
Effect of plot management on maize grain yield ..............................................................................................13
Frequency of plot management types ...........................................................................................................13
Maize grain yield (kgha-1) correlations .............................................................................................................15
Fertilizer Application rate (kgha-1) ...................................................................................................................15
Fertilizer trees management types and maize grain yield .................................................................................16
Area specific comparison of Maize grain kg ha-1after selected fertilizer trees.................................................18
Maize grain yield and Gliricidia ...................................................................................................................18
Maize grain yield and Tephrosia...................................................................................................................18
Maize grain yield and Sesbania sesban .........................................................................................................18
Maize grain yield and Faidherbia albida .......................................................................................................18
Maize grain yield and Pigeon peas ...............................................................................................................19
Plot sizes versus plot management ...................................................................................................................19
Maize seed rate (kg ha-1) versus plot management type ...................................................................................20
Maize grain yield (kg ha-1) and location ...........................................................................................................20
Maize grain yield (kgha-1) disaggregated by gender of farmer and location ....................................................21
Maize grain yield (kg ha-1) disaggregated by gender of household head .........................................................23
Plot sizes disaggregated by type of plot management, location and gender of household head ......................23
Plot size and gender ......................................................................................................................................23
Land ownership and gender ..........................................................................................................................23
Respondents’ perception on impact of fertilizer trees on maize yield ..............................................................24
1|Page
Respondents’ (fertilizer tree users) use of bumper maize yield ........................................................................24
Effect of previous crop on maize grain yield (kg/ha) .......................................................................................25
CONCLUSION .....................................................................................................................................................26
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ....................................................................................................................................26
REFERENCES .....................................................................................................................................................27
APPENDIX ...........................................................................................................................................................28
Appendix 1 Questionnaire for the study ...........................................................................................................28
Appendix 2 Respondents of the survey ............................................................................................................33
2|Page
List of figures
Figure 1 Map of Malawi showing pilot districts for AFSP ..................................................................................10
Figure 2 Possible interactions of factors determining maize yield for the study ..................................................12
Figure 3 Frequencies of plot management types ..................................................................................................14
Figure 4 Mean mineral fertilizer application (kgha-1) for conventional versus tree legume intercropping ..........15
Figure 5 Frequency of most dominant fertilizer tree management types among the fertilizer tree users .............16
Figure 6 Fertilizer trees intercropped with Maize under different management types versus plot sizes ..............17
Figure 7 Maize grain yield (kg/ha) versus common fertilizer tree management types ........................................17
Figure 8 Comparison of maize grain yield (kg/ha) across locations for different fertilizer trees .........................18
Figure 9 Average land sizes (hectares) among respondents for different plot types ............................................19
Figure 10 Maize seed rate used (kgha-1) versus plot management type ...............................................................20
Figure 13 Maize grain yield (kg/ha) in study districts as affected by type of plots ..............................................21
Figure 13 Mean plot sizes (hectares) as related to gender of farmer, type of plot management and location .....23
Figure 14 Frequencies for land ownership based on household head gender as related to location and type of
plot management ...................................................................................................................................................24
Figure 15 Fertilizer tree users' prioritization of bumper maize yield ...................................................................25
Figure 16 Estimates of grain yield (kg/ha) as influenced by previous crop .........................................................25
3|Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
World Agroforestry Centre in Malawi with its partners implemented a four year (2007-2010) pilot project in
Agroforestry with financial support from Irish Aid. The project known as Agroforestry Food Security
Programme (AFSP) was being piloted in 11 districts spread within 8 Agricultural Development Divisions
(ADDs). The overall programme purpose is to combine sound science, effective partnership and responsive
scaling up approaches with informed policies that will help to increase food security and income, and improve
livelihood opportunities for rural communities in Malawi, through accelerated adoption of fertilizer trees and
fruit tree portfolios.
The programme has been focussing on four Agroforestry options; fertilizer trees, fruit trees, fodder trees and
fuel wood trees.
To determine the impact of fertilizer trees on maize production and food security among its users, a study was
conceived to assess comparative performance of maize (focussing on grain yield) under different species of
fertilizer trees and different areas. The study also compared two broad maize production systems; conventional
(use of mineral fertilizer and or unfertilized maize) with intercropping maize with fertilizer trees.
This report is a synthesis of a survey results that involved randomly selected smallholder farmers from six
districts in Malawi who have either been using fertilizer trees or not as intercrops with maize to boost soil
fertility. The objective of the survey was to compare maize grain yields between users and non users of the
fertilizer trees and also to compare the maize grain yield from maize intercropped with different types of
fertilizer trees.
This study was conducted during the 2009/10 growing season and involved 240 randomly selected farmers
from 6 of the 11 districts in Malawi.
The survey results showed that use of fertilizer trees enhanced maize grain yields over those who did not use
fertilizer trees. Maize grain yields from plots intercropped with fertilizer trees were over two times more than
sole cropped maize without any fertilizer. Overall, fertilizer tree users obtained 1.4 times more maize grain than
non users. More grain yield translates into more food security (longer periods of household food availability)
among the participating farmers as maize is a staple food crop for most Malawian households.
The study also showed that users of fertilizer trees preferred pigeon pea ( Cajanus cajan) to other types of
fertilizer tree species; Tephrosia (Tephrosia candida), Gliricidia (Gliricidia sepium), Sesbania (Sesbania
sesban) and Faidherbia (Faidherbia albida)respectively among the dominant fertilizer trees species as
intercrops with maize. However, Gliricidia sepium influenced highest maize grain yields followed by Tephrosia
and Pigeon Peas.
4|Page
PREFACE
Through the Agroforestry Food Security Project and other similar projects implemented in earlier years in
Malawi, different fertilizer tree germplasm have been provided to smallholder farmers as to popularize best bet
fertilizer trees for intercropping with maize. Fertilizer trees have proven to be beneficial in improving maize
productivity for resource constrained smallholder farmers. However, availability of quality germplasm has been
one of the challenges in their use by smallholder farmers.
World Agroforestry Centre with its partners has been championing promotion of fertilizer trees among
smallholder farmers. As such, it has been providing quality germplasm of different species suitable for different
agro-ecologies. This was deliberate as farmers have different preferences to a range of fertilizer tree species and
also the performance of the trees varies in different agro ecologies vary. The most dominant fertilizer trees that
were provided for maize intercropping to boost soil fertility were; Gliricidia sepium, Tephrosia candida,
Sesbania sesban, Cajanus cajan, and Faidherbia albida.
The study on impact of fertilizer trees on maize production and food security provided an opportunity to get
first hand testimonies from smallholder farmers on their experiences with maize production particularly use of
fertilizer trees.
The study provided information on farmers’ perceptions, practices, in maize production and in soil fertility
management. This report dwells more on comparisons between users of fertilizer trees and non users with
respect to maize production. It provides key information on maize grain yield across the study locations
differentiated by various attributes.
Professor Festus Akinnifesi
Regional Coordinator
Southern Africa, World Agroforestry Centre
5|Page
ACRONYMS AND ABREVIATIONS USED
AFSP
BNF
CEC
CISANET
DAES
DAHLP
EPA
GPS
LRCD
MK
MoAFS
MT
NACAL
NSO
RDP
WAC
6|Page
Agroforestry Food Security Programme
Biological Nitrogen Fixation
Cation Exchange Capacity
Civil Society Agriculture Network
Department of Agricultural Extension Services
Department of Animal Health and Livestock Development
Extension Planning Area
Geographical Positioning System
Land Resources Conservation Centre
Malawi kwacha
Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security
Metric Tonne
The National Census of Agriculture and Livestock
National Statistics Office
Rural Development Project
World Agroforestry Centre
Definition of terms
Estimated maize grain yield
Estimated mineral fertilizer applied
Fertilizer tree users
Non users
7|Page
Maize grain yield harvested based on farmers’ estimation
Fertilizer quantities applied estimated by farmers
Farmers currently using fertilizer trees in their farms to improve soil fertility for at
least one year
Farmers who have never used and/or are not presently using fertilizer trees in their
maize farms
INTRODUCTION
Maize (Zea mays) is the staple food crop in much of Malawi, and the cropping system is dominated by this
crop. Maize accounts for 60% or more of cropped area in Malawi (Kumwenda et al. 1996). Food security in
resource-poor households is critically linked to the productivity and sustainability of maize-based cropping
system.
Table 1 Relative importance of staple food in diet of Malawi (2003)
Commodity
Per capita
consumption
(kg/person/year)
Daily Caloric
intake
(kcal/person/day)
Share of caloric intake (%)
Maize
133
1154
54
Cassava
89
161
7
Potato*
88
163
8
Others
647
31
Total
2125
100
*FAO data combine Potato and Sweet Potato
Source: FAO, 2009a
One of the identified challenges in maize production in the small holder sector is low soil fertility (Swift et al.
2007). Increasing human population has led to continuous cropping on same pieces of land often in maize
monoculture without allowing regeneration of soil fertility through traditional systems such as natural bush
fallows. High costs of mineral fertilizers preclude resource poor smallholder farmers from using them to
replenish soil fertility.
The availability of maize is so crucial that Malawi government subsidizes mineral fertilizers for small holder
farming families targeting food crop production. However, the financial sustainability of the Fertilizer Input
Subsidy Program is questioned due to its high cost to the national budget.
However, fertilizer use alone is inadequate to alleviate the physical and biological degradation of soil. Besides,
fertilizer response is very low on already degraded soils (Sileshi et al., 2009). Even if fertilizer is readily
available, if the land is not managed properly (through addition of organic inputs and conservation practices)
fertilizers will not be used by the crop efficiently as much of it will be lost though leaching and soil erosion.
Hence, more sustainable soil fertility management practices such as fertilizer tree systems that recapitalize soil
organic matter, which plays a vital role in the maintenance of healthy soil biological, physical and chemical
properties.
In the last 20 years the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) has been promoting Agroforestry as a sustainable
farming practice for resource poor farmers in Malawi. Studies on effect of leguminous trees and herbaceous
legumes on maize yields have shown positive increase over unfertilized maize and natural fallows (Sileshi et al.
2008). On station experiments on effect of leguminous trees intercropped with maize have similarly shown
significant increase in maize productivity (Akinnifesi et al. 2007).
World Agroforestry Centre with government partners such as Department of Agriculture Extension Services
(DAES), Land Resources Conservation Department (LRCD), Department of Animal Health and Livestock
Production (DAHLP, has been implementing an Agroforestry project funded and supported by Irish Aid
through the Irish Embassy between 2007 and 2011. The project, Agroforestry Food Security Programme
(AFSP) is implemented in eleven districts spread through eight agro ecological zones in Malawi. The project’s
8|Page
goal is to improve food security, incomes and livelihood opportunities for rural communities in Malawi. The
project, among other interventions focuses on the fertilizer tree system as one best bet farming practices
suitable for resource constrained farming families to ameliorate degraded soils.
JUSTIFICATION FOR THE STUDY
Research Gap
There is no doubt about high variability of maize productivity among small holder farmers owing to different
levels of field management as well as variability due to different geophysical characteristics. To compare and
quantify maize yield under smallholder farming situation in Malawi who have used leguminous fertilizer trees
in their maize based farming systems with those that are not using fertilizer trees (hereafter called non-users)
under different social economic as well as agro ecological zones can provide further evidence1 on whether or
not leguminous fertilizer trees have had a positive effect on maize yield. Use of fertilizer trees in maize based
farming systems under smallholder farming is low as the intervention is relatively strange to most small holder
farmers in much of Malawi and inherent constraints exist associated with the cropping system under
smallholder farming conditions. Among other constraints to use of fertilizer trees, smallholder farmers lack
permanent land tenure rights, incidences of bush fires and browsing of trees by livestock (Ajayi and Kwesiga,
2003) after harvest of main crops such as maize. Assessment of impact of fertilizer trees on maize production
and food security would generate additional information to enhance Agroforestry scaling up
strategies/opportunities among smallholder farmers.
The study was conceptualized to provide an opportunity of identifying and quantifying some of the multiple
factors that impinge on maize productivity under Agroforestry.
This being the final year of implementation of AFSP, tracking project impact on increasing food security with
respect to set impact indicators will guide decisions on evaluation. Apart from a possible evaluation study to be
commissioned from which comprehensive information on impact of AFSP will be collected, estimated maize
yield data will provide some indirect information on early project impact on food security.
We proposed to quantify the average grain yield of maize from farmers’ fields both using fertilizer tree systems
and non-users. The rationale was to compare maize grain yield across the districts participating in AFSP and
quantify if there is a significant improvement in maize yield attributable to fertilizer tree system. Our
hypothesis is that farms using fertilizer trees will have higher maize grain yield than those who are not using.
OBJECTIVE
The main objective of conducting this study was to assess the impact of fertilizer trees on maize yield and
household food security.
The study was conceptualized to provide specific information on:
 The proportion of maize yield difference attributed to different fertilizer trees
 Profiling of households using fertilizer trees and those not using
1
Particularly under small holder agriculture sector
9|Page
METHODOLOGY
Study sites and sampling
The study was conducted in six districts as shown in figure 1 and Appendix 2. The six districts were selected
from eleven districts which are participating2 in Agroforestry Food Security Programme (AFSP). The 2009/10
growing season in Malawi was affected by widespread erratic rainfall pattern characterized by dry spells. The
dry spells also caused delays in out planting of nursery based fertilizer trees such as Gliricidia sepium and
Sesbania sesban. These districts were judiciously selected because there were comparatively more Agroforestry
adopters who embraced fertilizer trees for periods of more than three
Figure 1 Map of Malawi showing pilot districts for AFSP
2
Out of the 11 districts
10 | P a g e
growing seasons and because of observed relative success of fertilizer trees growth and development despite
dry spells and erratic rainfall regime experienced during the 2009/10 growing season.
AFSP was also being implemented in either one or two EPAs per district in the 11 districts across the country.
Twenty farmers’ fields using and ten non-user farmers’ fields were randomly3 selected per EPA. Pair-wise
comparison was done for user household so that on each farm yield was compared for maize with and without
fertilizer trees. The total number of respondents was 240 (Table 2 and 3).
The study was designed to sample equal numbers of male and female farmers for participating and nonparticipating households but this was not possible due to insufficiency of respondents from data sources.
Data collection
Questionnaire survey
Data was collected using a structured questionnaire (Appendix 1.) from both participating farmers, hereinafter
referred to as users and non-participating farmers hereinafter referred to as non-users. These farmers were
randomly selected4 from lists of 100 farmers participating and 100 non participating farmers from each EPA.
There was further screening and replacement of respondents’ in the study areas where respondent was deemed
unsuitable for the study. Major criteria for replaced respondents:
 Unavailability of respondent during time of questionnaire administration
 Respondents applied other organic manures to their maize crop apart from fertilizer trees
 Respondent could not recall estimated quantities of inputs and maize outputs from his/her field
All respondents’ maize fields’ areas were measured using Geographical Positioning System (GPS) device by
perimeter survey. The areas were used to calculate estimated maize grain yield (kg ha-1), estimated maize
seeding rate per hectare and estimated mineral fertilizer applied (kgha-1).
The questionnaire comprised the following sets of questions (see Appendix 1 for a complete copy):







Basic household information
Household income sources
Household composition
Household prioritization of yield and income from Agroforestry plots
Description and history of each specific farmer’s plot
Soil type (as described by farmers themselves) and fertilizer use
Maize inputs used and outputs obtained from the farmers’ plots
Maize grain yield harvest was estimated by the farmer including maize that was harvested green or otherwise
before the final harvest.
Secondary data on maize yield crop estimates and total monthly rainfall was collected from study areas for two
seasons; 2008/9 and 2009/10 seasons.
The study was conceptualized to show interactions as shown in figure 2 below:
3
Using random numbers, lists of 100 farmers for both fertilizer tree users and non users from each EPA were used to select the first 20 users and 10 non users farmers
per EPA to be used as sample size
4
Use of random numbers
11 | P a g e
multiple interactions to be studied
Socio-economic
factors
Fertilizer
Tree user
Species of
fertilizer tree
Location
(Agro ecology)
Non user
Maize Yield
Figure 2 Possible interactions of factors determining maize yield for the study
It is expected that among fertilizer tree users, there is diverse knowledge and practices in utilization of fertilizer
trees that in turn may have different effects on maize production. We also expect that different agro zones
would influence differently growth and development of both the fertilizer trees and maize crop. Existing socioeconomic conditions among both users and non users would also contribute to differences in abilities and
potentials in management of the maize crop and leading to variations in maize yield, which would affect the
socio-economic conditions of the farmers in succeeding years..
Statistical Design and data analysis
The study adopted an unbalanced randomized complete block design after noting the difficulty of getting
optimal or planned sample sizes for all study sites in the final data set.
Data collected was analyzed using SAS (Littel, R.C. et al. 2006) for general descriptive statistics and Analysis
of Variance for means of maize yields.
The information from analysis only gives indication of likely impact of the fertilizer trees on maize yield
because of limitations of the field sampling technique5 deployed as well as the limited years the project has
been on the ground.
5
Particularly on quantities of input and outputs were estimated by respondents
12 | P a g e
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Description of respondents
The study involved 240 respondents from 9 extension planning areas 6 from six districts of which 52.9% (127)
were females while 47.1% (113) were males. Of the respondents, a total of 161 (67.1%) were fertilizer tree
users or participating farmers and 79 (32.9%) were non fertilizer tree users. A majority of households
representing 81.7% (196) were male-headed while 18.3% (44) were female-headed. The households’ size had a
mode of 6 and mean of 5.91. The level of education among the interviewees was generally primary school level
(67.9%). Most of the sampled households (87.9%) received trainings related to Agroforestry and farming
practices and only 12.1% did not receive such training. A majority of respondents (79.6%) have non-farm
income as in contrast with (20.4%) households who did not have any non-farm income.
Maize grain yield comparison between fertilizer tree users and non users
The results showed very significant differences (p<0.0001) in maize grain yield between fertilizer tree users
and non users. Overall the mean maize grain yield from fertilizer tree users was 2481 kg ha-1 while from non
users was 1723 kg ha-1. Fertilizer tree users therefore had 1.4 times more maize grain translating into more
months of food availability (food security) at the household.
Effect of plot management on maize grain yield
The study further subdivided the two groups of farmers interviewed (fertilizer tree users and non users) into
four general cultural practices7 for maize production, these: maize without fertilizer application8, maize with
fertilizer application, maize intercropped with fertilizer trees and maize with combined use of mineral fertilizers
and fertilizer trees as intercrops. This study compared means of total maize yield9 per hectare for mean maize
grain yield across all observations. These means were very highly significant (p<0.0001) across all
observations attributed to type of cultural practices for maize production.
There were also very significant differences among means of total maize grain yield for each of the general
cultural practices (Table 2).
Frequency of plot management types
The commonest maize plot management type among respondents was conventional type of maize production
(46%), where farmers rely on mineral fertilizers, followed by combined use of mineral fertilizers and fertilizer
trees (30%), intercropping maize with fertilizer trees (16%) and the least common maize plot management type
was unfertilized maize (8%). The relatively higher percentage of farmers opting for conventional maize
growing over intercropping with leguminous fertilizer trees underlines the importance farmers attach to mineral
fertilizers and that despite the cost, they find mineral fertilizer to be more convenient. This study has shown
that there are relatively fewer farmers practicing Agroforestry in form of intercropping maize with fertilizer
trees. Despite evidence showing that Agroforestry is a sustainable farming system, many farmers still practice
conventional farming. Similar observations were made by Snapp et al (1998) who noted challenges farmers
face with Agroforestry as including; high establishment costs, resource competition and delayed benefits
(Snapp et al. 1998).
6
In Thyolo, two EPAs (Thyolo Central and Matapwata) were combined as each could not provide adequate number of required respondents
Common maize production systems among the respondents
8
Or negligible amount applied (≤5kgha-1)
9
The respondents’ estimated sum of all maize harvested including green maize
7
13 | P a g e
Maize alone
8%
Maize + Fertilizer +
Fert. trees
30%
Maize + Fertilizer
46%
Maize + fertilizer
trees
16%
Figure 3 Frequencies of plot management types
Table 2 Comparison of means of total maize yield at harvest (kg ha-1)
Plot Management
Frequency
Mean
Standard Error
Maize without fertilizer
36
1322
220.33
Maize with fertilizer
213
1736
118.95
Maize with fertilizer trees
72
3053
359.8
Maize with fertilizer trees + fertilizer
135
3071
264.31
The yield difference between maize with fertilizer trees and Maize with both fertilizer trees and mineral
fertilizer was negligible indicating fertilizer trees had stronger influence over mineral fertilizers in contributing
to maize yield. Maize grain yield from plots with fertilizer trees had 1.8 times more yield than maize from plots
that only received mineral fertilizer. Under ideal10 or full mineral fertilizer application this may not be the case
as maize grain yield after full fertilizer application gives more maize grain yield than where only coppicing
fertilizer trees are used as noted in a study of comparative literature indicating evidence of impact of green
fertilizers on maize production by Sileshi et al. (2009). In their study, the yield difference between unfertilized
maize and maize with full fertilizer application was higher than yield difference between maize with coppicing
fertilizer trees and maize that was unfertilized. However, under resource-poor smallholder farming scenario,
variability of field management and in particular general sub optimal rates of fertilizer application may give
comparatively lower response to mineral fertilizer application. Under such conditions, soil fertility
improvement through fertilizer trees is likely to provide a higher net increase in nutrients additions from
mineralization of high quality biomass, nutrient recycling from lower soil depths that maize roots may
otherwise not access as well as biological nitrogen fixation (BNF) that translates into higher maize
productivity. Apart from BNF, fertilizer trees also improve soil organic matter that in turn improves moisture
and nutrient holding capacity of soils. In our study, mean maize yield from unfertilized maize was half that
from maize intercropped with fertilizer trees. This is consistent with results from a study by Sileshi et al. (1999)
where maize yields were higher with intercropping with coppicing green manure legume crops than from
unfertilized maize.
The results showed high variability (standard errors) of mean maize grain yield for maize intercropped with
fertilizer trees. This could be because there was wide variability of management of the trees, variability in
growth and development of the trees in different districts that in turn had different impacts on maize growth
10
Under small holder conditions mineral fertilizer applications is generally sub-optimal (Waddington, S.R. and Heisey, P.W. 1997)
14 | P a g e
and development. As with conventional maize production, mineral fertilizers application to maize intercropped
with fertilizer trees showed reduced yield variability.
Maize grain yield (kgha-1) correlations
The following variables had positive correlations at P<0.0001 with overall maize grain yields per hectare as
follows:
Table 3 Maize grain yield and correlations
Factor
Rate of fertilizer application
Rate of maize seed application
Green maize harvested
Maize grain yield at harvest (discounting green maize)
Sample size
455
456
456
456
% Correlation
23
46.6
36.7
97
There was also a negative correlation (29.7%) between maize grain yield and plot size. This could be because
of low productivity in smallholder production system. As land size increases, the efficiency in use of inputs
such labour and mineral fertilizers were reduced. The average land holding was 0.28 ha with the individual
household’s maximum and minimum land holding sizes of 3.2 ha and 0.00089 ha respectively.
Fertilizer Application rate (kgha-1)
Mineral fertilizer application kg/ha
There were very significant (p<0.0001) differences among means of quantities of estimated mineral fertilizers
applied to maize in all observations. This study showed that overall farmers made substantial savings (53.2%)
on quantities of mineral fertilizers when they intercropped maize with fertilizer trees as they substantially
reduced quantities of mineral fertilizer applied unlike under conventional system 11. This gives evidence that
farmers are aware of the positive contribution of fertilizer trees to nutrient needs of their maize crop.
80
75.79
70
60
50
35.47
40
30
20
10
0
Maize + Fertilizer
Maize + Fertilizer
+ Fert. trees
Comparison of conventional and intercropping system in fertilizer use
Figure 4 Mean mineral fertilizer application (kgha-1) for conventional versus tree legume intercropping
11
Monoculture maize that mainly rely on mineral fertilizers
15 | P a g e
Fertilizer trees management types and maize grain yield
The study revealed that three fertilizer trees species are the most predominant among the five types of fertilizer
trees that were intercropped with maize across all the six study districts among sampled adopter farmers (Table
4 and figure 5). These are Pigeon peas, Tephrosia and Gliricidia. Pigeon pea was the most favoured possibly
because it has multiple benefits such as food, cash crop apart from its organic fertilizers.
Table 5 Fertilizer tree management types with mean plot sizes and grain yield (kgha-1)
Fertilizer tree management
Frequency
Plot Size (ha)
Maize kg/ha
Gliricidia No fertilizer
15
0.12563
3153.82
Gliricidia + fertilizer
27
0.09467
3569.66
Tephrosia No fertilizer
21
0.14752
3170.31
Tephrosia + fertilizer
27
0.125
2887.09
Sesbania No fertilizer
5
0.12306
2163.91
Sesbania + fertilizer
4
0.10997
4784.99
Faidherbia No fertilizer
1
0.18227
548.62
Faidherbia + fertilizer
6
0.50651
1872.49
Pigeon pea No fertilizer
22
0.15275
2273.91
Pigeon pea + fertilizer
52
0.19173
2711.42
Others No fertilizer
2
0.09211
1160.13
Others + fertilizer
5
0.22482
2440.23
Gliricidia + Pigeon pea + No fertilizer
2
0.07463
11758.48
Gliricidia + Pigeon pea + fertilizer
2
0.05349
9255.34
Tephrosia + Pigeon pea + fertilizer
6
0.22547
1985.99
Gliricidia + Tephrosia + fertilizer
3
0.31895
4124.39
Tephrosia + Pigeon pea + No fertilizer
2
0.08475
6636.71
Tephrosia + Others + No fertilizer
1
0.18375
2503.43
Gliricidia + Faidherbia + fertilizer
2
0.2001
1775.32
Pigeon pea + Sesbania + No fertilizer
1
0.1349
2816.9
Tephrosia + Sesbania + fertilizer
1
0.16803
6427.61
60
Frequency
50
40
30
20
10
0
Gliricidia No
fertilizer
Gliricidia + Tephrosia No Tephrosia + Pigeon pea Pigeon pea +
fertilizer
fertilizer
fertilizer
No fertilizer
fertilizer
Dominant maize + fertilizer tree intercropping systems
Figure 5 Frequency of most dominant fertilizer tree management types among the fertilizer tree users
16 | P a g e
Mean plot sizes (hectare)
The study also noted that among the fertilizer trees, Pigeon pea intercropped with maize had larger plot sizes
allocated than Tephrosia and Gliricidia intercropped with maize respectively (Figure 6). This further confirms
the greater importance farmers in this study attach to Pigeon peas as a fertilizer tree.
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
Gliricidia No Gliricidia + Tephrosia Tephrosia + Pigeon pea Pigeon pea +
fertilizer
fertilizer No fertilizer fertilizer No fertilizer fertilizer
Dominant maize + fertilizer tree intercropping systems
Figure 6 Fertilizer trees intercropped with Maize under different management types versus plot sizes
It was also interesting to note from the study that despite the farmers’ preference of Pigeon pea over the other
fertilizer trees, Gliricidia sepium was outstanding in influencing higher maize grain yields followed by
Tephrosia and Pigeon peas (Figure 7). Application of mineral fertilizers to intercropped maize with fertilizer
trees improve maize grain yields slightly particularly for farmers who used Gliricidia and Pigeon peas across
the locations (figures 7-8).This may be attributed to insignificant amounts as well as highly variable amounts
used of mineral fertilizers applied among the farmers who used fertilizer trees.
Maize grain yield (kg/ha
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Gliricidia No
fertilizer
Gliricidia +
fertilizer
Tephrosia No
fertilizer
Tephrosia + Pigeon pea No Pigeon pea +
fertilizer
fertilizer
fertilizer
Dominant maize + fertilizer tree intercropping systems
Figure 7 Maize grain yield (kg/ha) versus common fertilizer tree management types
17 | P a g e
Lilongwe
Mzimba
Machinga
Thyolo
Mulanje
Salima
10000
9000
Maize grain yield (kg/ha)
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
GliricidiaNo fertilizer
With fertilizer
Tephrosia
No fertilizer
With fertilizer
Pigeon peas
No fertilizer
With fertilizer
SesbaniaNo fertilizer
With fertilizer
Fertilizer trees management
Figure 8 Comparison of maize grain yield (kg/ha) across locations for different fertilizer trees
Area specific comparison of Maize grain kg ha-1after selected fertilizer trees
Maize grain yield and Gliricidia
The study revealed that maize grain yields from plots with Gliricidia sepium without mineral fertilizers were
highest in Thyolo and Mulanje but where fertilizers were added, Maize grain yield was highest in Salima
followed by Lilongwe (figure 8).
Maize grain yield and Tephrosia
Maize grain yields from Tephrosia plots without mineral fertilizer were variable. Salima had highest grain
yields followed by Mulanje and Thyolo respectively. However, where mineral fertilizers were applied the grain
yield were somewhat stable (small variation) across the study sites with Mzimba producing higher maize grain
yield followed by Lilongwe and Salima (figure 8).
Maize grain yield and Sesbania sesban
Generally most farmers who intercropped their maize with Sesbania sesban applied mineral fertilizers except
for two farmers in Lilongwe. Maize grain yields from plots intercropped with Sesbania were highest in Salima
although it was only a single farmer followed by Lilongwe (figure 8).
Maize grain yield and Faidherbia albida
The study noted that generally maize grain yields were comparatively lower under plots with Faidherbia albida.
Grain yields were highest from Salima followed by Mzimba district (figure 8).
18 | P a g e
Faidherbia
No fertilizer
With fertilizer
Maize grain yield and Pigeon peas
The study found that intra district variation in maize grain yield was not very wide between non fertilized and
fertilized plots intercropped with Pigeon peas. However, grain yields were markedly higher in Salima followed
by Lilongwe (figure 8).
Plot sizes versus plot management
There were very significant differences (p<0.0001) across all respondents in average plot sizes for different
maize plot management types. Conventional system of maize production were allocated more land (≥0.35
hectares) compared to either intercropped system with fertilizer trees or a system of combining both fertilizer
trees and mineral fertilizers (≥0.15 hectares). Since respondents were smallholder farmers, more land allocation
to maize is a rational choice to maximize their maize food output. The dominance of the conventional
production of maize may also be a reflection of previous overemphasis by agricultural extension agents on use
of mineral fertilizers and hybrid seed for maize production (Mtawali, 1993)
Maize + Fertilizer +
Fert. trees
16%
Maize +
fertilizer trees
14%
Maize alone
34%
Maize + Fertilizer
36%
Figure 9 Average land sizes (hectares) among respondents for different plot types
19 | P a g e
Maize seed rate (kg ha-1) versus plot management type
There were very significant differences (p<0.0001) across all respondents in means of maize seed rate (kg/ha)
and seed rate very significantly influenced maize grain yield (kgha-1). Except for maize plots that received
mineral fertilizers, the other plot management types had relatively very high estimated seed rate applications
possibly due to resupplying of seed due to failure to germinate or establish under zero fertilizer level or where
there was intercropping with fertilizer trees. Farmers probably had preferential treatment on their plots with
fertilized maize over other plot management types. Better crop management may also have entailed better
optimization and selection of seed input type. It should also be noted that the seed rates were based respondents
estimations as such there was possibility of either over estimation or otherwise.
60
maize seed rate (kg/ha)
50
40
30
20
10
0
Maize alone
Maize + Fertilizer
Maize + fertilizer trees
Maize + Fertilizer + Fert. trees
Maize plot manegement type
Figure 10 Maize seed rate used (kgha-1) versus plot management type
Maize grain yield (kg ha-1) and location
Maize grain yield (kg ha-1) variations were less with mineral fertilizer applications across the six locations but
variation was marked where maize was sole cropped without fertilizer, intercropped with fertilizer trees or
combination with mineral fertilizers. This may be partly due to a) diversity of agronomic practices such
planting patterns, times, maize seed selection, etc and b) variations in fertilizer tree performance across the
locations due to genotypic variations in adaptability to geophysical conditions. In this study there were no
farmers who practiced maize monoculture without fertilizer in Thyolo perhaps underlying the severe land
pressure by humans due to high population density that makes intercropping as the best choice in maximizing
productivity of land. Figure 11 shows the general picture of maize grain yield in the study districts as affected
by type of plot management.
20 | P a g e
Maize alone
Maize + mineral fertilizer
Maize + fertilizer trees
Maize + fertilizer trees + mineral fertilizer
4500
4000
Maize grain yield (kg/ha)
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Lilongwe
Mzimba
Machinga
Thyolo
Mulanje
Maize grain yield (kg/ha) in different districts as affected by type of plots
District
Figure 11 Maize grain yield (kg/ha) in study districts as affected by type of plots
Maize grain yield (kgha-1) disaggregated by gender of farmer and location
In general, maize grain yield was higher for male farmers than female farmers for all the four types of plot
management (figure 13). This may be because of resource entitlement disparities between male and female
farmers where generally male farmers dominate in controlling financial resources as well as land which directly
influence production abilities.
21 | P a g e
Salima
Maize alone
Maize +mineral fertilizer
Maize + fertilizer trees
Maize + fertilizer trees + mineral fertilizer
6000
5000
maize grain yield (kg/ha)
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
District and gender of farmer
Figure 12 Mean grain yield (kg/ha) as influenced by type of plot management, gender of farmer and location
22 | P a g e
Maize grain yield (kg ha-1) disaggregated by gender of household head
There were no consistent patterns in maize grain yield attributed to gender of household head for three plot
management types except where mineral fertilizers only was applied. In plots where mineral fertilizers only
were applied, maize grain yield was generally higher for male headed households than female headed
households. This may be because such male headed households tend to have at their disposal more resources
for production such as labour and opportunities for non farm income that enhances efficiency of maize or crop
production.
Plot sizes disaggregated by type of plot management, location and gender of household
head
Plot size and gender
The survey results show that male headed households generally have larger pieces of land than female headed
households for all plot management types across all the sites although the distinction in plot sizes based on
gender was not very clear for maize plots with both fertilizer trees and mineral fertilizers (figure 14).
Land ownership and gender
The study also observed male domination in land ownership across all the study areas and for all for all plot
management types (figure 15). Male dominion was very apparent in Mzimba and Lilongwe districts. In the
former, the status perhaps reflects patriarchal culture prevalent in the area. However disparity in land ownership
between male and female headed households is minimal for Mulanje and Thyolo districts perhaps underlying a
matriarchal society predominant in the two districts. Our findings are also consistent with NSO (2007) that
reported dominion of males over females in both land sizes owned and number of plots owned under
smallholder sector being operated by male operators as household heads.
Maize alone
Maize +mineral fertilizer
Maize + fertilizer trees
Maize + fertilizer trees + mineral fertilizer
1.8
1.6
Mean plot sizes (hectare)
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
District and gender of farmer
Figure 13 Mean plot sizes (hectares) as related to gender of farmer, type of plot management and location
23 | P a g e
Maize alone
Maize +mineral fertilizer
Maize + fertilizer trees
Maize + fertilizer trees + mineral fertilizer
60
Frequency of land ownership
50
40
30
20
10
0
District and household head gender
Figure 14 Frequencies for land ownership for household head gender as related to location and type of plot management
Respondents’ perception on impact of fertilizer trees on maize yield
It was interesting to note that a majority of fertilizer tree users (97%) gave a positive perception of impact of
the fertilizer trees on maize yield. This was based on pair-wise comparisons12 over the period of adoption of the
fertilizer trees.
Respondents’ (fertilizer tree users) use of bumper maize yield
Respondents’ major use of bumper harvest from maize intercropped with fertilizer trees was to ensure
household had adequate food reserves. This is based on summation of two related categories of responses.
These; 22% of respondents retained the bumper harvest for later consumption and 30% of respondents
consumed more maize. Household food security is the overriding rationale for keeping surplus maize grain
yield. Extra maize yield also act as cash income source (25% of respondents) and therefore augmented
household income.
12
Each fertilizer tree user compared maize yield between sole cropped and intercropped maize with fertilizer trees
24 | P a g e
Other
uses
of
extra
cash
10%
Exchanged for farm inputs (slashers,
hoes, fertilizer etc)
13%
Sold to obtain cash
25%
Eat more often than before
30%
Food lasts longer
22%
Figure 15 Fertilizer tree users' prioritization of bumper maize yield
Effect of previous crop on maize grain yield (kg/ha)
The results show that maize after Tobacco gave highest grain yield. Most farmers apply mineral fertilizers to
Tobacco hence there is residual effect of the mineral fertilizers on maize.
5000
4500
Maize Yield kg/ha
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Maize
Groundnuts
Cassava
Tobacco
Pigeon peas Vegetables
Beans
Previous fallow type
Figure 16 Estimates of grain yield (kg/ha) as influenced by previous crop
25 | P a g e
Millet
Other
Natural
fallow
Not
applicable
CONCLUSION
Under smallholder farming system, fertilizer trees have been perceived in this study to substantially enhance
maize yield and therefore positively improve household food security among farmers who intercrop their maize
crop with them. Under smallholder farming situation where access of mineral fertilizers is a challenge because
of cost, use of fertilizer trees offers alternative soil improving organic fertilizer and sustainable production
system.
Fertilizer tree use is still very limited among smallholder farmers in Malawi despite the obvious benefits in
yield improvement. Even among those few farmers who have embraced the fertilizer trees in their maize based
farms, the proportion of maize crop intercropped with the fertilizer trees is negligible.
It is recommended that further studies on farm use of fertilizer trees among smallholder farmers be done
focusing on underlying challenges associated with utilization of the fertilizer trees and also to have more
empirical studies on effects on soils as well as maize performance.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We sincerely thank the Irish Aid for the financial support in implementing the Agroforestry Food Security
Programme. We would like to thank all our partners for the good collaboration during implementation of the
project.
We thank the farmers who allowed our team of enumerators to interview them to share their experiences of onfarm maize production with or without fertilizer trees and other related information. I am also grateful to the
enumerators, data entry clerks, government field extension workers who supported the survey in many ways. I
am very indebted to the team of ICRAF Malawi scientists who provided their invaluable input in analyzing the
data collected and subsequently in the write up of the research report.
26 | P a g e
REFERENCES
Ajayi, O.C. and Kwesiga, F., 2003. Implications of local policies and institutions on the adoption of improved
fallows in eastern Zambia. In: Agroforestry Systems, 59: pp 327-336.
Akinnifesi, F., W. Makumba, G. Sileshi, O. Ajayi, and D. Mweta. 2007. Synergistic effect of inorganic N and P
fertilizers and organic inputs from Gliricidia sepium on productivity of intercropped maize in Southern
Malawi. Plant and Soil 294:203-217.
FAO
(Food
and
Agriculture
Organization).
2009a.
FAO
Food
balance
sheet.
http://faostat.fao.org/site/368/default.aspx#ancor.
Littel, R.C., G.A. Milliken, W.W. Stroup, R.D. Wolfinger, and O. Schabenberger. 2006. SAS for Mixed
Models, Second Edition SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.
Kumwenda, JD.T., S.R. Waddington, S.S. Snapp, R.B. Jones, and M.J. Blackie. 1996. Soil Fertility
Management Research for the Maize Cropping Systems of Smallholders in Southern Africa: A Review.
NRG Paper 96-02. Mexico, D.F.: CIMMYT
Mtawali, K.M. 1993. Current status of and reform proposals for agriculture: Malawi. In: Agricultural reforms
and regional market integration in Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe, ed. A. Valdes and K. MuirLeresche. Washington, D.C. International Food Policy Research Institute.
National Statistics Office, 2007. The National Census of Agriculture and Livestock.
School of oriental and African Studies (SOAS), Wadonda Consult, Oversees Development Institute and
Michigan State University. 2008. Evaluation of the 2006/7 Agricultural Input Supply Programme,
Malawi: Final Report. London School of Oriental and African Studies; March 2008.
Sileshi G., Akinnifesi F.K., Ajayi O.C., Place F. (2008) Meta-analysis of maize yield response to planted fallow
and green manure legumes in sub-Saharan Africa. Plant and Soil 307:1-19.
Sileshi G, Akinnifesi FK, Ajayi OC, Place F. 2009. Evidence for impact of green fertilizers on maize
production in sub-saharan Africa: a meta-analysis. ICRAF Occasional Paper.
Snapp, S.S. , Mafongoya, P.L. , and Waddington , S. 1998. Organic Matter Technologies for Integrated nutrient
Management in smallholder cropping systems of southern Africa. In: Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment. pp185-200.
Swift M.J., Shepherd K.D. (Eds) 2007. Saving Africs's Soils: Science and Technology for Improved Soil
Management in Africa. Nairobi: World Agroforestry Centre.
Waddington, S.R., Heisey, P.W., 1997. Meeting the nitrogen requirements of maize grown by
resource-poor farmers in southern Africa by integrating varieties, fertilizer use, crop
Management and policies. In: Edmeades, G.O., BaÈnziger, M.,Mickelson, H.R., PenÄaValdivia, C.B. (Eds.), Developing Drought and Low N-Tolerant Maize. Proc. Symp.,
CIMMYT, El BataÂn, Texcoco, Mexico D.F Mexico, 25±29 March 1996.
27 | P a g e
APPENDIX
Appendix 1 Questionnaire for the study
Name of farmer: ___________
Identification number: ________________
Village: ___________________
Section:____________________________
EPA: _________________________
District: ____________________________
Date of interview: Day ____Month_____
Name of enumerator________________
Section A: (complete this section once for each household)
A1.
Basic household information
Information required
Response
Code
1=Agroforestry farmer
2=Non agroforestry farmer
a. Type of farmer
b. Total number of years of experience with
fertilizer trees
AFSP:________
CIDA:________
TARGET :____
Other:________
c. Have you had any training on agroforestry or
other related agricultural practices in the last 3-4
years?
1st:
__________
d. Please name them (rank with the most important 2nd : ________
3rd:
first)
__________
4th:
__________
e. Gender of interviewee
f. What is the gender of the head of your
household
Write the number of years for
each project
1=No 2=Yes
1=Agroforestry
2=Conservation agriculture
3=Compost making
4=Manure farming
5=Soil & water conservation
1=Female
2=Male
1=Female
2=Male
g. Age of farmer (actual years)
1=None at all
2=Primary school
3=Secondary school
4=Post secondary
5=Others (specify)
h. Level of formal education of farmer
A2.
Household income sources
a. Do you have any type of non-farm
income?
Type of off-farm income
b. Tell me these sources or off-farm
 Ganyu
income
 Small-scale business/trading
28 | P a g e
1=No
2=Yes
Average income from this
source per month (MK)
 Artisans- bicycle & radio repairs,
brick making, mat etc
 Seasonal contract
 Remittance from outside
A3.
Household Demography
What is the total number of persons in your household? ___________________________
How many of these are male and female?
Male: _______
Female: _____
Please tell me the composition of these individuals based on the following table
Category
Number
each
category
in Fully
Schooling
engaged
in
fulltime
farm work
Too young/ too old to
participate in farm
work or school
a. Male
b. Female
A4.
Use of extra maize yield or income from AF plots
Type of information
Response Code
1=Yield from AF plot is higher
a. Please compare the maize yield from your
2= Yield from AF plot is lower
AF and non- plots?
3=Same / No difference
b. In your opinion, what do you think is
responsible for this?
c. Who makes the decision on how to use the
extra maize yield or income obtained from
AF plots?
d. What do you do with the extra maize yield
and/or cash obtained in AF plots?
29 | P a g e
1=Soil fertility is better in AF plot
2=Soil moisture is better in AF plot
3=Weeds are less in AF plots
4=Due to the type of seeds planted
5=..
6=…
1=Myself
2=My husband
3=My wife
4=The Chief
5=…
1=Sold to obtain cash
2=Eat more often than before
3=Gave out to friends and relations
4=Food lasts longer
5=Exchanged for household items
(clothes, bowls, etc)
6=Exchanged for farm inputs (slashers,
hoes, fertilizer, etc)
7=Pay medical bills
8=Pay children school fees /uniforms
9=Buy or develop plot of land
10-Renovate existing family house
11=Marry new spouse
12=Buy transport (bicycles, bike, etc)
13=Buy new clothes for self or family
Section B: (complete this section for EACH PLOT cultivated by the household)
B1.
Description and history of each specific plot
Name of farmer: ____________________
Identification number: ________________
Plot code: _________________________
Type of information
Response
Code
a. Description of plot
Maize with….
1=Fertilizer tree only
2=Fertilizer tree + mineral fertilizer
3=Mineral fertilizer only
4=No fertilization at all
b. What is the size of this plot?
Measure field with GPS and give
answer in square meters
c. Type of fertilizer trees planted
in the plot
10=Gliricidia, NO fertilizer
11=Gliricidia + fertilizer
20=Tephrosia, NO fert
21=Tephrosia + fert
30=Sesbania, NO fert
31=Sesbania + fertilizer
40=Faidherbia, NO fert
41=Faidherbia + fert
50=Pigeon pea, NO fert
51=Pigeon pea + fert
60=Others, NO fert
61=Others +fert
Plot 1
Plot 2
Plot 3
Plot 4
d.
Did you apply mineral
fertilizer in this fertilizer tree
plot?
e. Which year did you establish
the fertilizer tree plot?
f. Which year did you incorporate
biomass into the plot?
g. How many times did you
incorporate biomass in this
plot during the season?
1=No 2=Yes
Put the year
2008/09, etc
directly,
2001/02,
Put the year directly, 2001, 2008, etc
1st biomass: _____
h. When did you make the
biomass incorporations in this
plot?
1=January
2=Feb
3=March
4=April
5=May
6=June
2nd biomass: _____
Indicate the number of years between
establishment and incorporation of
biomass
i. How old were the trees before
incorporating them in this Plot 1 Plot 2 Plot 2 Plot 4
plot?
j. What is the situation of the
growth (quantity & quality of
biomass) when you were
incorporating them?
k. What crop(s) did you plant in
30 | P a g e
7=July
8=August
9=Sept
10=Oct
11=Nov
12=Dec
1=Very good/Good
2=Fair / Average
3=Poor/bad
Crop1
Plot 1
Plot 2
Plot 3
Plot 4
1=Maize
10=vegetables
the plot in the previous year
before you embarked upon
establishing fertilizer trees in
the plot?
2=Groundnut
3=Rice
4=Cassava
5=Tobacco
6=Sunflower
7=Cotton
8=Pigeon pea
9=Banana
Crop 2
Crop 3
11=sweet potato
12=Beans
13=Sorghum
14=Millet
15=Irish potato
16=Pumpkin
17=beans
18=other crops
Crop4
B2.
Soil type and use of fertilizer
Type of information
Response
Plot 1
Plot 2
Code
Plot 3
Plot 4
a. What is the dominant soil type in
your plot?
1= Poor
2= Average
3= Good
b. What is the fertility status of the soils
in your plot?
c. Did you apply mineral fertilizer in
this plot during the season?
d. How many times did you apply the
mineral fertilizer in the plot?
1=No 2=Yes
1=All applied at once
2=Split and applied on two different
times (Basal and top dressing)
1=Compound NPK
2=Urea
3=CAN
4=Others
(specify)
____________________
e. What is the type of fertilizer used?
f. What is the quantity of fertilizer
applied?
B3.
Maize inputs used and output obtained from the plot
Type of information
Response
a. What is the estimated size of your Plot 1 Plot 2 Plot 3
plot?
b. What type of maize seeds did you
plant?
c. What is the source of maize seed
that you planted?
d. Was the seed mentioned in (b)
planted in the entire plot or part of
the plot only?
e. What is the quantity of maize seeds
planted in the plot?
f. When did you plant the maize
seeds?
31 | P a g e
1=Sandy soil (Mchenga)
2=
Red soil (Katondo)
3= Dark clayey soil (Makande) 4=
Others
Convert all quantity given in local
units to Kg equivalents
Code
Plot 4
Note the area/size given by farmers
and convert to hectare
1=Local
2=Improved/hybrid
3=Composite
1=Recycled
2=Purchase
3=Subsidy
4=Gift
1=Entire plot
2=A section of the plot only
Convert response to Kg
1=Late November
2=Early December
3=Late December
4=Early January
5=Late January
6=Early February
g. Did it become necessary to replant
your plot with maize e.g., due to
mid-season drought?
h. How many times did you weed the
plot during the season?
i. What is the total quantity of maize
that farmers estimated that s/he
obtained from this plot?
j. What is the quantity of maize that
you harvested green (i.e. before the
maize is dried)
k. What is the total amount of maize
grain harvested from this plot this
year?
l. Based on your estimation, how
many months will this amount of
maize be able to feed all the
members of your household?
1=No 2=Yes
Indicate the number of times
Get the quantity from farmers and
convert to Kg
Get the quantity from farmers and
convert to Kg
Important: Get the weight in
local units (bags, ox carts, etc)
and later convert to KG
Obtain the estimate from the farmer
Plot 1
Plot 2
Plot 3
Plot 4
Give the estimated value of this in
MK or provide the quantity and
convert to MK value
Wood
m. List ALL the other types of nonmaize grain products that you got
from this plot
Mushroom
Seeds
32 | P a g e
Appendix 2 Respondents of the survey
Table 1 Number of respondents of the survey disaggregated by location and gender of household head
District
Lilongwe
EPA
Chigonthi
Gender of
Household head
Female
Emsizini
4
19
7
26
3
1
4
18
8
26
3
1
4
17
9
26
4
2
6
16
8
24
0
1
1
20
9
29
Female
5
1
6
Male
9
7
16
Female
2
0
2
Male
4
2
6
Female
5
5
10
15
5
20
6
1
7
14
9
23
161
79
240
Female
Female
Male
Zombwe
Female
Male
Machinga
Nanyumbu
Female
Male
Thyolo
Matapwata
Thyolo centre
Mulanje
Thuchira
Male
Salima
Tembwe
Female
Male
Grand totals
33 | P a g e
Nonadopter
3
Male
Mzimba
Adopter
Grand
Total
1
Male
Mpingu
Type of farmer
Table 2 Number of respondents of the survey disaggregated by location and gender of
Interviewee
District
Lilongwe
EPA
Chigonthi
Mpingu
Mzimba
Emsizini
Zombwe
Machinga
Nanyumbu
Gender of
Household head
Female
Matapwata
Thyolo centre
Mulanje
Thuchira
Tembwe
13
Male
10
4
14
Female
13
4
17
Male
11
5
16
6
5
11
Male
13
4
17
Female
14
5
19
Male
7
6
13
Female
9
6
15
11
4
15
Female
6
6
12
Male
4
0
4
Female
8
2
10
Male
2
2
4
11
6
17
9
4
13
17
7
24
3
3
6
161
79
240
Female
Female
Female
Male
Grand totals
34 | P a g e
Nonadopter
6
Male
Salima
Adopter
Grand
Total
7
Male
Thyolo
Type of farmer