International Centre for development
oriented Research in Agriculture
Soil Research Institute - Council for
Scientific and Industrial Research
Sedentary Farming Systems Project
Kwame Nkrumah University of
Science and Technology
COMBINING MECHANISATION WITH CONSERVATION
AGRICULTURE IN THE TRANSITIONAL ZONE OF
BRONG AHAFO REGION, GHANA
Working Document Series 108
Ghana – 2003
COMBINING MECHANISATION WITH CONSERVATION
AGRICULTURE IN THE TRANSITIONAL ZONE OF
BRONG AHAFO REGION, GHANA
Eric Owusu Adjei
Stephen Hill Mends Aikins
Philip Boahen
Khem Chand
Inder Dev
Min Lu
Vagharshak Mkrtumyan
Shanthi D. Samaraweera
Amare Teklu
This report is a product of team work with equal contribution from
the authors whose names are listed in alphabetical order
International Centre for development oriented Research
in Agriculture (ICRA)
P O Box 88, 6700 AB, Wageningen
The Netherlands
Sedentary Farming Systems Project (SFSP)
P O Box 473, Sunyani,
Ghana
CSIR-Soil Research Institute
Academy Post Office, Kwadaso, Kumasi,
Ghana
Agricultural Engineering Department, School of
Engineering, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science &
Technology, Kumasi,
Ghana
ABSTRACT
The development of the agricultural sector is a key element in the Poverty Reduction Strategy of Ghana
since this sector alone accounts for 60 percent of Gross Domestic Product and employs 65 percent of the
work force. However, the majority of Ghanaian farmers still practises shifting cultivation, using traditional
hand tools and burning for land preparation. The slash and burn system is responsible for a gradual soil
degradation and declining soil fertility, increasing the dependency on external inputs such as mineral
fertilisers. The tedious fieldwork and low returns to labour make agriculture unattractive to the youth,
resulting in migration to the urban centres. The exclusive use of disc implements by farmers using tractor
services has resulted in soil degradation and multiplication of noxious weeds. Conservation Agriculture
(CA) is seen as a practice that reduces soil erosion sustains soil fertility and reduces production costs. On
the other hand, mechanisation of agricultural production is seen as the missing link and a pre-condition for
the development of agro-based industries in Ghana.
The main research questions that the team analysed were: What type of tillage system is to be promoted,
what is the appropriate level of mechanisation, and what organisational set-up is most suitable?
In order to capture the diverse farming systems in the transitional zone of Brong Ahafo Region, Sunyani
and Nkoranza Districts were selected for this study. The Agricultural Research for Development (ARD)
procedure designed by ICRA as a problem solving approach was used to guide the team in the research
process. The data were collected through focus group interviews, key informant interviews and various
PRA exercises with 297 farmers in Sunyani District, 398 farmers in Nkoranza District, and 72 tractor
owners and/or operators.
The team concludes that CA helps in improving soil productivity, increases soil moisture conservation,
reduces the fallow period necessary, enhances timeliness of operations, reduces labour input and gives
higher returns. The team confirms that conservation agriculture is ecologically sound, socio-economically
viable, and technically feasible to promote in the transitional zone of Brong Ahafo Region. Regarding the
appropriate level of mechanisation and organisational set up, the team concludes that:
•
•
•
•
•
Hand tool technology remains the main level of technology for CA, but improved hand tools are
available that reduce drudgery, save labour/time and minimise soil degradation.
Engine power is suitable on flat to gentle topography, on plots cleaned of stumps and stones, and on
plots larger than 0.4 ha.
The Public-Private Mechanization Service Centre set-up is a model that is suitable for Brong Ahafo
Region, if the necessarysupport services are available and if existing farmer based organizations are
used.
The Private Tractor Service Organization model can be used where associations of farmers and
service providers are well organized, having a controlling mechanisms for the service organizer.
Use of farmer-based organizations, community approach, and strengthening and use of the National
Conservation Agriculture Team were some of the measures suggested for promoting Mechanized
Conservation Agriculture.
i
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The ICRA Ghana team 2003 wishes to express its sincerest gratitude to the International Centre for
Development oriented Research in Agriculture (ICRA), the Netherlands, and to the Sedentary Farming
Systems Project and the German Technical Co-operation (GTZ/SFSP), Sunyani, Ghana for providing
funding for the study. In addition, the team is profoundly grateful to GTZ/SFSP for contributing
administrative services and making available the use of various facilities including residential, conference,
and office accommodation, transport, and library. The team has great pleasure in acknowledging with
deep gratitude Dr. Heinz Loos of GTZ/SFSP for initiating the study, for his unfailing interest and
enthusiasm in the research, and for his sound advice and kind help. The team would like to thank Ms. Rita
Weidinger of GTZ /SFSP for her great assistance and suggestions throughout the period of the study. The
team is also grateful to Mr. Atta Agyepong of GTZ/SFSP/MoFA, Sunyani for his contributions.
Furthermore, the team is glad to recognise the support provided by the staff of GTZ/SFSP during the
period of the study, especially Mrs Irina Sobol, Ms Mary Mamah, Ms Evelyn Gyamfi, Mr. Kwabena
Adomako Osei-Frimpong, Mr. Wilson Ankra, Mr. S. K. Obeng, Mr. James Bekoe, Mr. Arthur Hanson,
Ms Cecilia Adoma Yeboah, Ms Gloria Osei-Frimpong, and Ms Christiana Amoako.
The team’s appreciation goes to its reviewer Mr. Juan Ceballos-Müller (Anglophone Programme Coordinator of ICRA) for his excellent, insightful, inspiring and systematic guidance throughout the study
period. The team is particularly grateful to him for his encouragement, constructive criticism, and valuable
suggestions.
The team is profoundly thankful to the Director of Soil Research Institute (SRI), the Council for Scientific
and Industrial Research (CSIR) and to the Head of the Agricultural Engineering Department, Kwame
Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), for providing scientists to compliment the
work of the team. The team is indebted and deeply grateful to the Crops Research Institute (CRI/CSIR) for
their support and for making available their Conference Centre for the initial, mid-term, and final
workshops.
The team is happy to acknowledge all members of the monitoring team for their valuable criticisms and
suggestions. Particular thanks are due to Dr. J.A. Bakang (Agricultural Economics Department of
KNUST), Dr. S.K. Agodzo (Agricultural Engineering Department of KNUST), Mr. B. Ohene Antwi
(SRI), Dr. Harrison Dapaah (CRI), Mr. J. Nketia Berchie (CRI), Mr. P. Osei-Bonsu (CRI), Mrs. Marjatta
Eilittä (CIEPCA), Mr. Agbeko , Mr. Duut Nelson, Mr. Puplampu, and Mr. T. Asare Baffour from MoFA
for their valuable time spent with the team.
Appreciation is expressed to MoFA for kindly providing valuable assistance to the team. Recognition is
given to the Regional Director of Agriculture, Mr. Philip Titriku, for his help. The team is also grateful to
the following District Directors for their great assistance: Mr. A.K. Owusu (Sunyani), Mr. Homidas,
(Nkoranza), Mr. K. Forjour (Techiman) and Mr. Asante Krobea (Wenchi). Special thanks go to all the
District Development Officers (DDOs) and Agricultural Extension Agents (AEAs) in Sunyani and
Nkoranza Districts for helping during field data collection.
Credit is given to the 695 farmers in the Sunyani and Nkoranza Districts for kindly and patiently
discussing issues and helping the team to find answers on how to combine mechanisation and soil
conservation. Sincere grateful thanks are due to the tractor owners and operators associations at Chiraa,
Nkoranza, Wenchi and Techiman for generously presenting themselves to be interviewed.
The team would also like to thank the management and staff of South Ridge Hotel. Special mention is due
Mr. Charles Adu Gyamfi (Manager), Issac Atanga Kwabena (Chef) Mr. Samuel Samuel Adu Gyamfi,
Kofi Kumi, Kwame Anoga, Dominic Kologa Ali, Kojo Abass, Atia A. Zakaria, Samuel Aguyire and Eric
Adjei Frimpong.
iii
iv
THE ICRA 2003 GHANA TEAM
Name: Eric Owusu Adjei (Local Counterpart)
Date of birth: 14th August, 1962
Discipline: Agronomy
Institution: CSIR-Soil Research Institute
Position: Scientist
Address: Academy Post Office, Kwadaso, Kumasi, Ghana
Telephone: +233 -51- 50353/ 50354
Fax:
+233- 51- 50308
E-mail: [email protected]
Name: Stephen Hill Mends Aikins (Local Counterpart)
Date of birth: 30th October, 1959
Discipline: Agricultural Engineering
Institution: Kwame Nkrumah University of Science &
Technology Kumasi,
Position: Lecturer
Address: Agricultural Engineering Department, School of
Engineering, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science &
Technology Kumasi, Ghana
Telephone: +233 (0)51 60242
Fax:
+233 (0)51 60137
E-mail:[email protected]
Name: Philip Boahen
Date of birth: 18th June, 1974
Discipline: Agricultural Economics/Agronomy
Institution: Sedentary Farming Systems Project (SFSP)
Position: Resource Person, Conservation Agriculture
Address: GTZ-SFSP P.O. Box 473, Sunyani. Ghana
Telephone: +233-61-27376 or 25472 (M. +233-24-254891)
Fax:
+233-61-27376
E-mail: [email protected] , [email protected]
v
Name: Khem Chand (PhD)
Date of birth: 10th March, 1970
Discipline: Agricultural Economics
Institution: Central Arid Zone Research Institute
Position: Senior Scientist
Address: CAZRI, RRS, Pali-Marwar-306401, India
Telephone: +91-2932-256098, +91-2932-256962
Fax:
+91-2932-256098
E-mail: [email protected] , [email protected]
Name: Inder Dev (PhD)
Date of birth: 21st November, 1968
Discipline: Agronomy
Institution: Indian Grassland, Fodder & Agroforestry
Research Institute (IGFARI)
Position: Scientist
Address: Regional Research Centre, IGFARI, CSK HPKV
Campus, Palampur (H.P) 176 062 India
Telephone: +91-1894-233676
Fax:
+91-1894-233063
E-mail: [email protected]
Name: Min Lu (PhD)
Date of birth: 2nd April, 1969
Discipline: Agronomy and Rural Development
Institution: Jilin Agricultural University, Agronomy Dept.
Position: Lecturer
Address: Agronomy Department, Jilin Agricultural
University, 130118 Chang Chun City, China.
Telephone: +86-431-4515062(H); +86-13086898129(M)
Fax:
+86-431-4510971
E-mail: [email protected],
[email protected]
vi
Name: Vagharshak Mkrtumyan
Date of birth: 8th May, 1972
Discipline: Agric. Engineering
Institution: Small Enterprise Funds (SEF), World Vision
Armenia
Position: Senior Agricultural Credit Officer
Address: SEF International, N. Adonts 1/3, Sisian, Armenia
Telephone: +374-830–5501/6601
Fax:
+374–1-283490
E-mail: [email protected]
Name: E. Shanthi D. Samaraweera
Date of birth: 2nd February, 1968
Discipline: Animal Science
Institution: Veterinary Research Institute
Position: Development Officer
Address: Farming Systems Division, Veterinary Research
Institute, P.O. Box 28, Gannoruwa, Peradeniya, Sri Lanka
Telephone: + 94 – 8-388311/388312/387376/388539
Fax:
+ 94 – 8-388125/386144
E-mail: [email protected] , [email protected]
Name: Amare Teklu Habtesellasie
Date of birth: 1st August, 1969
Disciplines: Biology, Natural Resource Management
Institution: South Nations, Nationalities & People Regional
State Food Security & Pastoral Area Development
Coordination Office
Position: Agriculture & natural resource interventions
coordinator
Address: Awassa, P.O.Box: 1019, Ethiopia
Telephone: +251-6-204696
Fax:
+251-6-205366
E-mail: [email protected]
vii
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract
Acknowledgements
The 2003 ICRA Ghana team
Table of contents
List of boxes
List of tables
List of figures
List of acronyms
Executive Summary
i
iii
v
ix
xiii
xiii
xiv
xv
xvii
A. INTRODUCTION
1. Problems and objectives of the study
1.1 Problem “out there”
1.2 Research problem
1.3 Objectives of the study
1.4 Focus of the study
1.4.1 System of interest
1.4.2 Justification for the choice of the study area and target group
2. Brief description of the study area
2.1 Location
2.2 Agro-ecological zones
2.2.1 Semi-deciduous forest zone
2.2.2 Forest savannah transition zone
2.2.3 Guinea savannah zone
2.3 Soil types
2.4 Farming systems
2.4.1 Cash crops and poultry based farming systems
2.4.2 Food crops farming systems
2.5 Cultivation practices
2.6 Land tenure
B. METHODOLOGY
1. The ARD procedure
1.1 The ARD procedure as a problem solving approach
1.2 Organising the team
1.3 Defining the system of interest
1.4 Identifying strategies
1.5 Formulating plans
2. Methods and tools for data collection and analysis
2.1 Secondary data collection and analysis
2.2 Reconnaissance survey
2.3 Introductory workshop
2.4 Primary data collection and analysis
2.5 Feedback sessions with monitoring group
2.6 Feedback sessions with stakeholders
2.7 Final workshop
1
1
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
8
9
10
11
13
13
13
13
14
14
15
16
16
ix
C. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
1. Differentiating tillage systems
1.1 What is soil tillage?
1.2 Conventional tillage with hand tools
1.3 Conservation agriculture with hand tools
1.4 Conventional tillage with disc plough
2. Factors influencing choice and adoption of different tillage systems
2.1 Ecological factors
2.1.1 Climatic factors
2.1.2 Soil factors
2.1.3 Farming system
2.2 Socio-economic factors
2.2.1 Land tenure system
2.2.2 Farm size
2.2.3 Access to knowledge and information
2.2.4 Labour input
2.2.5 Access to credit, inputs and markets
2.2.6 Cost of production
2.2.7 Investment in machinery
3. Mechanising conservation agriculture
3.1 Levels of mechanisation
3.1.1 Hand tool technology
3.1.2 Animal draught power
3.1.3 Engine power technology
3.2 Equipment/implements suitable for conservation agriculture
3.2.1 Options for land preparation
3.2.2 Options for planting
3.2.3 Options for weeding (weed control)
3.3 Conditions for engine powered technology in conservation agriculture
3.3.1 Gentle topography and the absence of obstacles on the field
3.3.2 Land tenure system and size of land holdings
3.3.3 Choice of tractors
3.3.4 Organisational set-up
3.3.5 Agricultural services
3.3.6 Markets for farm produce and farm access roads
3.3.7 Research, development and extension
3.3.8 Policy support
x
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
21
23
23
24
24
24
25
25
26
26
26
26
26
27
27
28
28
38
44
45
45
45
45
46
46
47
47
47
D. RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. What type of tillage system is to be promoted in the Transitional Zone of Brong
Ahafo Region?
1.1 Potentials and limitations of current conventional tillage systems with hand
tools (CTHT)
1.1.1 Potentials
1.1.2 Limitations
1.2 Potentials and limitations of conventional tillage systems with tractor disc
plough (CTTDP)
1.2.1 Potentials
1.2.2 Limitations
1.3 Ecological factors favouring/constraining the adoption of conservation
agriculture (CA)
1.3.1 Ecological factors favouring the adoption of CA
1.3.2 Ecological factors constraining the adoption of CA
1.4 Socio-economic factors favouring/constraining adoption of conservation
agriculture (CA)
1.4.1 Importance of land tenure system and farm size for adopting CA
1.4.2 Labour input
1.4.3 Access to information
1.4.4 Cost and benefits of maize production with reference to different tillage
systems
1.4.5 Access to credit, inputs and markets
1.5 Collaboration and linkages among stakeholders
1.6 Summary and conclusions
1.6.1 Characteristics of the three tillage systems identified
1.6.2 Potentials and limitations of conventional tillage systems
1.6.3 Factors favouring and/or constraining adoption of CA
1.6.4 Conclusions
2. What is the appropriate level of mechanisation for the Transitional Zone of Brong
Ahafo Region?
2.1 Current level of mechanisation
2.1.1 Land preparation
2.1.2 Planting
2.1.3 Weeding (weed control)
2.1.4 Cost and returns from tractor operations
2.2 Equipment/implements for combining mechanisation with conservation
agriculture
2.2.1 Proposed implements for land preparation
2.2.2 Proposed implements for planting
2.2.3 Proposed implements for weed control
49
49
49
49
49
50
50
50
52
52
54
56
56
58
59
59
61
62
65
65
66
67
68
71
71
72
73
74
74
77
77
77
78
xi
2.3
3.
Technological options for combining mechanisation with conservation
agriculture
2.3.1 Short term, low investment options
2.3.2 Long term, high investment options
2.3.3 Comparative socio-economic analysis of different implements proposed
2.4 Summary and conclusions
2.4.1 Short term, low investment options
2.4.2 Long term, high investment options
What organisational set-up is most suitable for MCA in the Transitional Zone of
Brong Ahafo Region?
3.1 Current organisational set-up
3.1.1 Tractor operations
3.1.2 Current models of mechanisation services
3.2 Proposed organisational models
3.2.1 Public-private mechanisation service centres
3.2.2 Private Tractor Service Organization
3.2.3 Recommendations to support mechanisation centres
78
78
81
83
85
85
85
86
86
86
87
88
88
91
92
REFERENCES
97-99
ANNEXES
Annex 1
Terms of reference for SFSP, CRI, KNUST, SRI, MOFA and ICRA joint
field study in the Brong Ahafo Region of Ghana
Annex 2
Research plan
Annex 3
Time table for activities (13 weeks)
Annex 4.1
Cost and returns from tractor operations, June, 2003 (¢ per year), New
tractor (1000 hrs with shed and insurance)
Annex 4.2
Cost and returns from tractor operations, June, 2003 (¢ per year), Old tractor
(600 hrs with shed and insurance)
Annex 4.3
Cost and returns from tractor operations, June, 2003 (¢ per year), Old tractor
(600 hrs without shed and insurance)
Annex 4.4
Cost and returns from tractor operations, June, 2003 (¢ per year), Old tractor
(800 hrs with shed and insurance)
Annex 4.5
Cost and returns from tractor operations, June, 2003 (¢ per year), Old tractor
(800 hrs without shed and insurance)
Annex 4.6
Cost and returns from tractor operations, June, 2003 (¢ per year), Old tractor
(1000 hrs with shed and insurance)
Annex 4.7
Cost and returns from tractor operations, June, 2003 (¢ per year), Old tractor
(1000 hrs without shed and insurance)
Annex 4.8
Calculation of fuel and oil cost
Annex 4.9
Operational charges per hour to cover all fixed and variable costs (New
tractor)
Annex 5
Rich picture
101
102
xii
107
111
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
122
123
LIST OF BOXES
A.1 Current situation in Ghana
A.2 System of interest (focus of the study)
D.1 Characteristics of the three tillage systems identified in Sunyani and Nkoranza
Districts
D.2 Main implements used in the three tillage systems identified in Sunyani and
Nkoranza Districts
D.3 Potential and limitations of conventional tillage with hand tools (CTHT)
D.4 Potential and limitations of conservation agriculture (CA)
D.5 Potential and limitations of conventional tillage with tractor disc plough (CTDP)
D.6 Ecological factors favouring and/ or constraining adoption of CA
D.7 Importance of land tenure systems for farmers to adopt CA
LIST OF TABLES
A.1 Initial farm typology
C.1 Options for land preparation
C.2 Tillage implements and percentage of surface residue lost with each operation
C.3 Overview of options for planting
C.4 Weed control
D.1 Ecological factors favouring and/or constraining the adoption of conservation
agriculture (farmers’ perception)
D.2
Average maize yields in different tillage systems in Sunyani and Nkoranza
Districts
D.3 Land tenure system in Sunyani and Nkoranza Districts
D.4 Farmers’s preference for different tillage practices as a function of the land
tenure system in Sunyani District
D.5 Farmers’s preference for different tillage practices as a function of the land
tenure system in Nkoranza District
D.6 Farmers’ preference for different tillage practices as a function of the land tenure
system and farm size in Nkoranza District
D.7 Cost-Benefit analysis of maize production under three tillage systems for
9 Communities in Sunyani District and 12 Communities in Nkoranza District
D.8 Linkage matrix showing how stakeholders collaborate on Conservation
Agriculture and mechanization
D.9 Implements used for land preparation, planting, and weed control in the
Transitional zone of Brong Ahafo Region
D.10 Level of mechanisation of soil tillage in Sunyani and Nkoranza districts
D.11 Cost and returns from tractor operations (June, 2003)
D.12 Land preparation implements for mechanised conservation agriculture in Sunyani
and Nkoranza districts
D.13 Planting implements for mechanised conservation agriculture in Sunyani and
Nkoranza districts
D.14 Weed control implements for mechanised conservation agriculture in Sunyani and
Nkoranza districts
D.15 Minimum tillage with herbicide application (manually operated)
D.16
D.17
Minimum tillage with cover crops and herbicide application (manually operated)
Minimum tillage with herbicide application (engine power operated)
1
3
65
65
66
66
66
67
67
4
28
32
38
44
52
53
56
57
57
58
61
64
71
71
76
77
77
78
79
79
80
xiii
D.18
Minimum tillage with cover crops and herbicide application (engine power operated)
D.19 Minimum tillage with herbicide application (high engine power)
D.20 Minimum tillage with cover crops and herbicide application (high engine power)
D 21 Comparative analysis of time and costs of operations with proposed implements
per ha (June 2003)
LIST OF FIGURES
A.1 Field study area
B.1 The 4 phases of the ARD procedure
B.2 ARD phase 1 – Organising the team
B.3 ARD phase 2 – Defining the system of interest
B.4 ARD phase 3 – Identifying strategies
B.5 ARD phase 4 – Formulating plans
B.6 Field data collection and feed back sessions (a)
B.7 Field data collection and feed back sessions (b)
C.1 Compressed air sprayer
C.2 Controlled droplet applicator (CDA)
C.3 Typical boom sprayer-3 point mounted
C.4 Chisel plough
C.5 Sweep plough
C.6 Ridger
C.7 Conservation tillage implements
C.8 Principle of a no-till machine
C.9 Main devices of no-till implements for (a) residue cutting (b) furrow opening and
seed placement (c) seed covering (d) pressing the furrow
C.10 Hand-held brush cutter
C.11 Various types of surface profiles for row crop planting
C.12 Auto-feed jab planter
C.13 Rotary injection hand-pushed planter
C.14 Hand pushed seed drill
C.15 Hand seeder
C.16 Puck hand drill
C.17 Cecoco hand direct seeder
C.18 Row crop planter (maize planter), Unit planter
C.19 Wheel mounted weed wiper
C.20 Sweep tine implement
D.1 Tractor ploughing charges (cedi/hectare) from 2000 to 2003
D.2 Average labour (man days) used on a hectare of land (Maize production)
D.3 Field data collection and feed back sessions (c)
D.4 Field data collection and feed back sessions (d)
D.5 Tractor disc plough
D.6 Disc harrow (Half in transport position and half in working position)
D.7 Hoe and cutlass
D.8 Model of a Public-Private Mechanization Service Centre (PPMSC)
D.9 Model of a Private Tractor Service Organization (PTSO)
D.10 Composition of National Conservation Agriculture Team (NCAT)
xiv
81
82
82
84
4
8
9
10
12
13
17
18
29
30
31
33
33
34
35
35
36
37
39
40
41
41
42
42
43
43
44
45
51
59
69
70
72
73
74
90
91
94
ACRONYMS
AEA
AEcD
AEnD
AED
AESD
AESD
AgSSIP
ARD
B/A
BAC
BSFC
CA
CDA
CI
Cons.THT
CRI
CrSD
CSD
CT
CTDP
CTHT
DADU
DAES
DAT
EPT
FAO
FBO’s
FCDP
GOAN
GPRS
GTZ
ha
HTT
ICRA
ITTU
Kg
KNUST
KW/KWh
MA
MAID
MCA
MoFA
NCAT
NDPC
NGOs
Agricultural Extension Agent
Agricultural Economics Department
Agricultural Engineering Department
Agricultural Extension Directorate
Agricultural Engineering Services Directorate
Agricultural Extension Services Directorate
Agricultural Services Sub-sector Investment program
Agricultural Research for Development
Brong Ahafo
Business Advisory Centre
Break Specific Fuel Consumption
Conservation Agriculture
Control Droplet Applicator
Compression Ignited
Conventional Tillage with Hand Tools
Crops Research Institute
Crops Science Department
Crops Services Directorate
Conservation Tillage
Conventional Tillage with Disc Plough
Conventional Tillage with Hand Tools
District Agricultural Development Unit
Directorate of Agricultural Extension Services
Draft Animal Technology
Engine Power Technology
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations
Farmer-Based Organizations
Food Crop Development Project
Ghana Organic Agriculture Network
Ghana Poverty Reduction Strategy
German Technical Cooperation
hectare
Hand Tool Technology
International Center for Development Oriented Research in Agriculture
Intermediate Technology Transfer Unit
Kilogram
Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology
Kilowatt/Kilowatt hour
Mechanized Agriculture
Management AID
Mechanized Conservation Agriculture
Ministry of Food and Agriculture
National Conservation Agriculture Team
National Development Planning Commission
Non Governmental Organizations
xv
NK
PPMSC
PTD
PTSO
Qty
RADU
RB
RELC
REFC
RPM
RTTC
RTTU
SARI
SAT
SFSP
SI
SOM
SRI
SSI
TCP
TO
TOA
TOR
TV
UDS
UGFCC
ULV
USD
VIP
WB
WFI
xvi
Nkoranza
Public Private Mechanization Service Center
Participatory Technology Development
Private Tractor Service Organization
Quantity
Regional Agricultural Development Unit
Rural Banks
Research Extension Linkage Committee
Research, Extension and Farmer Committee
Rotation per Minute
Regional Technology Transfer Center
Regional Technology Transfer Unit
Savanna Agricultural Research Institute
Sinapi Aba Trust
Sedentary Farming System Project
Spark Ignited
Soil Organic Matter
Soil Research Institute
Semi Structured Interview
Technical Cooperation Project
Tractor operators
Tractor Owners Association Agricultural Engineering Services
Terms of References
Television
University of Development Studies
United Ghana Farmers Co-operative Council
Ultra Low Volume
Dollars of United States of America
Village Infrastructure Project
World Bank
Wenchi Farm Institute
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The development of the agricultural sector is a key element in the Poverty Reduction Strategy of
Ghana. The economy of Ghana depends on agriculture, which accounts for 60 percent of the
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and employs 65 percent of the work force. In addition,
agriculture contributes to 50 percent of exports (Loos, 2001). However, the majority of Ghanaian
farmers still practise shifting cultivation and fire for land preparation. Hand hoe, cutlass, and
dibbler (stick) are the main planting tools used in the Brong Ahafo Region. The labour intensive
production method limits the area under cultivation and is responsible for severe yield losses due
to untimely performed operations such as planting, weeding, harvesting, transport, and storage.
The slash and burn system is responsible for a gradual soil degradation and a declining soil
fertility, increasing the dependency on external inputs such as mineral fertilisers. The tedious
fieldwork and low returns to labour make agriculture unattractive to the youth. The result is
migration of the youth from rural areas to urban centres. Tractor services are available in some
parts of the country, particularly in the Savannah and Transitional zones. These tractor services
are used mainly for soil tillage, transport of produce, and shelling of maize. However, the
exclusive use of disc implements has resulted in soil degradation and multiplication of noxious
weeds such as spear grass (Imperata cylindrica).
Conservation agriculture is seen as a practice that reduces soil erosion, sustains soil fertility,
reduces production costs, and makes services affordable to small-scale farmers. On the other
hand, mechanisation of agricultural production is seen as the missing link and a pre-condition for
the development of agro-based industries in Ghana.
The main research questions that the team analysed were:
1. The type of tillage system to be promoted?
2. The appropriate level of mechanisation?
3. The organisational set-up that is most suitable?
The specific objectives of the study were:
1. To identify and characterise the prevailing land preparation techniques and their potentials
and limitations
2. To identify the factors (technical, social, economic and organisational) that constrain or
favour the adoption of conservation agriculture (CA) by farmers
3. To identify technological options for combining mechanisation with conservation agriculture
4. To identify ways of organising viable mechanisation services
5. To make recommendations for follow-up activities for the promotion of mechanised
conservation agriculture
In order to capture the diverse farming systems in the Brong Ahafo Region, Sunyani and
Nkoranza districts were selected for this study. Both districts fall in the transitional zone of Brong
Ahafo region. The team recognized that the way farmers prepare their land, plant their crops and
control weeds have substantial impact on soil fertility and yields. Anticipating that different types
of farm practices also requires different solutions; the team developed a farm typology,
xvii
differentiating the tillage systems practised under different land tenure arrangements. Based on
secondary information, reconnaissance survey, introductory workshop, meetings with agricultural
extension officers (AEAs) and farmers, the team identified 9 farm types for further analysis.
The Agricultural Research for Development (ARD) procedure designed by ICRA as a problem
solving approach, was used to guide the team in the research process. A number of participatory
methods and tools were used for data collection and analysis to achieve the objectives of the
study. Introductory, mid-term and final workshops were organised to verify the focus of the study
and to confront the team’s findings with the stakeholders and get feed back from them. In
addition, the team had feedback sessions with the SFSP and the monitoring group. The data were
collected through focus group interviews, key informant interviews and various PRA exercises
with 297 farmers in Sunyani; 398 farmers in Nkoranza district and 72 tractor owners and
operators. Key informants’ included the Agricultural Engineering Services Directorate (AESD),
the Crops Services Directorate (CSD), and the Directorate of Agricultural Extension Service
(DAES).
What type of tillage system is to be promoted?
About 71% and 42% of farmers were observed to practise conventional tillage with hand tools
(CTHT) in Sunyani and Nkoranza Districts, respectively. About 29.4% of farmers interviewed in
Sunyani and 29.9% in Nkoranza Districts have been found to practise conservation agriculture
(CA) using only herbicides (glyphosate) for land preparation, a combination of glyphosate and
cover crops (Mucuna and Cannivalia) or only cover crops. In Nkoranza District about 29% of
farmers interviewed practise conventional tillage with disc ploughs (CTDP). In order to answer
the first research question on the type of tillage system to be promoted, the team analysed
characteristics, potentials and limitations of different tillage systems as well as factors influencing
the choice and adoption of conservation agriculture. It was observed that slash and burn (CTHT);
slash and use of herbicide with or with out cover crops (CA); slash and burn and disc plough
(CTDP) were the main characteristics in relation to land preparation differentiating the three
tillage systems in Brong Ahafo Region. Except for the use of disc ploughs in CTDP for land
preparation, hand hoe, cutlass, dibbler, and knapsack sprayer were the common implements used
for land preparation, planting and weeding.
Improved soil productivity, timeliness of operations, reduction of the fallow period, and reduced
operational costs were some of the potentials identified in CA in comparison to other tillage
systems. The cost-benefit analysis for maize production in three tillage systems shows that in
comparison to CTHT, the use of human labour decreased in CA by 24% and in CTDP by 32%
due to reduction in labour in slashing of vegetation and weed control. The total cost per ha of
maize production was higher (+20%) in CTDP than in CTHT, due to the costs for tractor services
(disc ploughs) and due to the comparatively high expenditure on fertilizers. The production per
ha increased by 45% in CTPD and by 24% in CA as compared to CTHT. The higher production
observed in CTDP was partly due to better plant population per unit of area and to a higher
application of fertilizers. The higher production in CA was partly due to better soil fertility,
control of weed population, and higher fertilizer use. The net return per ha was 145% higher in
CA and 168% higher in CTDP as compared to CTHT due to better productivity of maize. The
differences in the price of maize sold immediately after harvest and maize sold 4 to 5 months
after the harvest was very high, and ranged from ¢50,000 to ¢140,000 per 100 kg (June 2003).
xviii
The influence of the Sedentary Farming System Project (SFSP) in disseminating conservation
agriculture with other stakeholders was identified. The types of interaction amongst stakeholders
identified were joint training, joint research, technical service, joint planning, finance or funding
and policy development with research institutions, NGOs and MOFA on conservation
agriculture.
The team concludes that CA helps in improving soil productivity, increases soil moisture
conservation, reduces the fallow period necessary, enhances timeliness of operations, reduces
labour input and gives higher returns. The team confirms that conservation agriculture is
ecologically sound, socio-economically viable, and technically feasible for promotion in the
transitional zone of Brong Ahafo Region.
What is the appropriate level of mechanisation?
The team analysed the current level of mechanisation for land preparation, planting and weeding
in the Brong Ahafo region in order to propose a level of mechanisation suitable for the area. The
cutlass, hoe and dibbler were the main farming tools used for land preparation, planting and
weeding. These tools are hand operated and require high manual labour as power source. This is
a limiting factor for farmers to increase cultivable area.
Equipments/implements for combining mechanisation with conservation agriculture were also
identified. It was, therefore, proposed that cutlass, hand hoe, CDA sprayer, chisel plough, tractor
mounted slasher, motorised hand slasher, ridger, jab planter and Knapsack sprayers are suitable
for the study area.
The profitability of the current mechanisation services was evaluated (figures in ¢ refer to June
2003) and the team came up with the following results:
•
•
•
•
•
The cost of one hour of tractor operation for ploughing and transportation was ¢ 93405 for a
new tractor and ¢ 100,760 for an old tractor, assuming 1000 hours of operation in a year.
The net returns from an hour of operation were ¢ 26,595 for a new tractor and ¢ 16,535 for an
old tractor, which corresponds to ¢ 26.6 million and ¢ 16.53 million for a year.
The analysis indicated losses of ¢ 18000 per hour for owners who were operating their
tractors less than 600 hours per year.
A new tractor needs to operate at least 289 hours, an old tractor at least 465 hours in a year to
achieve the break-even point.
For land preparation, farmers need 75 hours/ha to slash the vegetation with a cutlass. In
comparison, if farmers would use a knapsack or motorised sprayer, they would save 92% and
95% labour time respectively. Using a knapsack or motorised sprayer, would save the farmer
¢ 44323 (22%) and ¢35722 (18%) respectively, regardless whether he owns the implement or
hires it. In this cost analysis, the opportunity costs of family labour has been considered.
xix
•
•
If tractor services are available for slashing and disc ploughing, farmers would be able to save
98% and 97% operational time per ha respectively. Using a tractor mounted slasher would
save the farmer ¢ 53000 (26%) per ha. But on the other hand, using a disc plough would
increase the costs by ¢97000 (48%).
For planting, farmers need 30 hours to plant i.e. one ha of maize with a cutlass and dibbler. In
comparison, if farmers would use a jab planter, a hand pushed seed drill and a rotary injection
hand pushed planter, they would save 25%, 50% and 80% labour time, respectively. Using a
jab planter, would save the farmer ¢ 25277 (32%) and using a rotary injection hand pushed
planter would save the farmer ¢ 57999 (24%) per ha.
The team proposed several technological options for combining mechanization with conservation
agriculture, differentiating between short-term, low investment options and long- term, high
investment options::
Short-term, low investment options:
Option 1: Minimum tillage with herbicide application (manually operated)
Option 2: Minimum tillage with cover crops and herbicide application (manually
operated)
Estimated total investment required for options 1 or 2 = ¢ 703,000
Option 3: Minimum tillage with herbicide application (engine power operated)
Option 4: Minimum tillage with cover crops and herbicide application (engine power
operated)
Estimated total investment required for options 3 or 4 = ¢3,103,000
Long-term, high investment options:
Option 1: Minimum tillage with herbicide application (high engine power)
Option 2: Minimum tillage with cover crops and herbicide application (high engine
power)
Estimated total investment required for options 1 or 2 = ¢120,900,000
Based on the presented analysis the team concludes:
•
•
Hand tool technology remains the main level of technology for CA, but improved hand tools
are available that reduce drudgery, saves labour/time and minimises soil degradation
Engine power is used on flat to gentle topography, on plots cleaned of stumps and stones and
on plots bigger than 0.4 ha. Where hardpans exist under CA, a tractor-mounted chisel plough
is needed every three years to break up the hardpans.
What organizational set-up is most suitable?
The team concludes that
•
•
xx
The Public-Private Mechanization Service Centre (PPMSC) set-up is a model that is suitable for
Brong Ahafo Region, if the necessary support services are available and if existing farmer based
organizations are used.
The Private Tractor Service Organization (PTSO) model can be used where associations of farmers
and service providers are well organized, having a controlling mechanisms for the service organizer. .
To be able to organize viable mechanization service centers, the following support services are
recommended by the team:
•
•
Government support the import of required implements and consider indirect subsidies.
MOFA provides organizational and technical advisory support .
- Training on group dynamics and management for farmer’s groups
- Training tractor operators on sound tillage practices
- improve decision making process, accountability, transparency etc of service centres
• Contract private sector, farm implement factories and agro-chemical companies to deliver
implements and inputs e.g. Mechanical Lloyd, Dizengoff
• Broaden scope of network, involve more relevant institutions in research (AESD, KNUST,
CSD, CRI, SRI, DAES etc)
• Involve local manufacturers, farmers and operators in testing of conservation tillage
implements and other tools
Finally the team proposed the following strategies to further promote Mechanised Conservation
Agriculture:
•
•
•
Use of Farmer-based organizations (FBOs) for Mechanisation services
Use of community approach in promoting the proposed technological options
Strengthen and use of National Conservation Agriculture Team (NCAT) for promoting MCA.
xxi
PART A
INTRODUCTION
1
Problems and objectives of the study
1.1
Problem “out there”
In line with the Poverty Reduction Strategy of Ghana the development of the agricultural
sector is a key element. In Ghana, agricultural sector contributes 60% to domestic product,
65% to employment and 50% to exports. Increase in agricultural production and productivity,
and the subsequent introduction of agro-based industries are seen as the engine for economic
growth, creation of employment opportunities and generation of more income.
However, the majority of Ghanaian farmers still practises shifting cultivation and bush
burning for land clearing. Simple tools like hoe, cutlass (machete) and stick (dibbler) are the
main planting implements in the Brong Ahafo Region. The labour intensive production
methods limit the area that can be cultivated and are responsible for severe yield losses due to
untimely performed operations such as planting, weeding, harvesting, transport and storage.
The slash and burn system is responsible for gradual soil degradation and declining soil
fertility, increasing the dependency on external inputs such as mineral fertilisers. The tedious
fieldwork and low returns to labour make agriculture increasingly unattractive for the youth,
resulting in outmigration from rural areas.
Box A.1:
Current Situation in Ghana
• Bush burning for land
clearing, frequent uncontrolled
fires
• Mainly utilization of hand
tools for land preparation Æ
drudgery
• Labour shortage for field
operations, out-migration of
youth
• Use of draught animals limited to the Northern Regions
•Tractor services not timely available and mostly run
uneconomically
• Partial mechanisation resulting in weak links of production chain,
e.g. untimely weeding, harvesting Æ yield losses
• Use of disc implements Æ soil degradation, noxious weeds
2
• Increasing costs for tractor services (within 1 year >100%)
Source: Loos (2001)
Mechanization services are available in some parts of the country, especially in the Savannah
and in the Transitional Zones. The use of draught animals for land operations is mainly
limited to the northern part of the country. Tractors are mainly used for soil tillage and
transport of produce and maize shelling. Tractors use exclusively disc ploughs and this has
resulted in soil degradation due to erosion, rapid organic matter decomposition and
multiplication of noxious weeds such as Imperata cylindrica. Further, tractors services are not
timely available and bad roads and poor maintenance increase the costs for these services.
The limited services result in late planting, yields reduction, delayed harvesting and increased
post harvest losses. One result of mechanisation is the fact that more areas are being planted
1
in a short period of time, which then makes timely weeding with hand tools not possible
anymore.
Conservation agriculture is seen as a practice that reduces soil erosion, sustains soil fertility,
and reduces production costs, making inputs and services affordable to small-scale farmers.
But on the other hand, mechanisation of agricultural production is seen as the missing link
and one of the pre-conditions for the development of agro based industries in Ghana.
1.2
Research problem
With regard to the situation described above, a concept is needed that combines both
conservation agriculture and mechanisation. Mechanised conservation agriculture is expected
to:
•
•
•
•
•
enhance the production of sufficient quantities and quality of produce
provide for efficient field transport and subsequent post harvest services (shelling,
chipping, drying) at local level
arrest soil erosion, making it agronomically sustainable
reduce production cost making it economically affordable and viable, and
enhance small-scale farmer accessibility to machinery services and different technological
options for production
In this context, basically three questions are important:
1. What type of tillage system is to be promoted?
2. What is the appropriate level of mechanisation?
3. What organisational set-up is most suitable?
1.3
Objectives of the study
To answer the above three research questions, the objectives to be achieved by this field study
in Brong Ahafo Region were formulated as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
To identify and characterise the prevailing land preparation techniques and their potentials
and limitations
To identify the factors (technical, social, economic and organisational) that constrain or
favour the adoption of conservation agriculture (CA) by farmers
To identify technological options for combining mechanisation with conservation
agriculture
To identify ways of organising viable mechanisation services
To make recommendations for follow-up activities for the promotion of mechanised
conservation agriculture.
The emphasis of the field study was to analyse in-depth mechanised conservation agriculture,
to propose strategies to realize this, and to, together with representatives of all institutions
involved in the field study, formulate follow-up activities, including research needs. The field
study was expected to stimulate feedback between the stakeholders, increase dissemination of
study findings and increase the sense of ownership of the results through workshops and
frequent interactions between the team and stakeholders in the region.
2
1.4
Focus of the study
1.4.1
System of interest
Based on a context analysis of the problem from the point of view of the different disciplines
in the team and from initial discussions with all stakeholders present at the introductory
workshop (see Annex 5), the team demarcated the system of interest (focus of the study) as
follows:
Box A.2:
System of Interest (focus of the study)
What are the potentials and limitations of the
conventional tillage systems?
What are the factors that favour
or constrain the adoption of CA?
What technological options and organisational set-up is
suitable to promote MCA?
The main focus of the study was therefore on how to combine and promote conservation
tillage with mechanization. It was agreed that the study would only focus on land preparation,
planting and weeding operations.
1.4.2
Justification for the choice of study area and target groups
In order to capture the diverse nature of the farming systems in the Brong Ahafo Region,
Sunyani and Nkoranza Districts were selected for the purpose of this study. Both districts fall
in the transition zone, however Sunyani District is more towards forest zone and less towards
savannah, whereas Nkoranza is more towards savannah and less towards forest. Sunyani
District has an undulating topography (slopes 5-10%) and as a result, less tractor (disc)
ploughing is practised. Most farmers in this district practise CA (use herbicides, cover crops
etc). In contrast, Nkoranza District has gentle slopes (0-2%) and thus a much higher level of
mechanized (tractor - disc plough) land preparation. It was expected that the two selected
districts would provide information on how to combine CA with mechanization.
The team recognized that the way farmers prepare their land, plant their crops and control
weeds have substantial impact on soil fertility and yields. Anticipating that different types of
farm practices also requires different solutions, the Team developed a farm typology,
differentiating the tillage systems practised under different land tenure arrangements.
3
Based on secondary information, reconnaissance survey, introductory workshop, meetings
with agricultural extension officers (AEAs) and farmers, the team identified 9 farm types
(table A.1). How the field operations affect soil fertility and yields is analysed in Part D,
Chapter1.
Table A.1:
Initial farm typology
Family
land
CTHT
Type 1
Hired land Hired land
(cash)
(share
cropping)
Type 3
Type 2
CA
Type 4
Type 5
Type 6
CTDP
Type 7
Type 8
Type 9
2
Brief description of the study area
2.1
Location
The Brong Ahafo Region is the second largest region in the country with an area of about
39,560 km2. It is located 7◦-8◦ north of the equator, with an altitude of less than 300 m a.s.l. in
the central/western part of the country.
Figure A.1:
Field study area
Source: Zchekel et.al. (1997)
4
The region consists of 13 districts and has a population of about 2.0 million people with a
population density of 50.5 persons/ km2 of which 70% is engaged in agriculture.
Approximately 73% of the population live in the rural areas and farming is the major
economic activity, in which 53% of the households are male headed and 47% are female
headed. The region is a major food producing area in the country. This region is the largest
producer of yams in Ghana, the second largest producer of cassava and the third largest
producer of maize and plantain (Zchekel et.al., 1997).
2.2
Agro-ecological zones
With reference to the climatic conditions and vegetation type Brong Ahafo Region covers
three major agro-ecological zones viz., semi-deciduous forest zones, forest savannah
transition zones and guinea savannah zone (Zschekel et al., 1997), that are described below.
The region has a variable topography, having undulating land (5-10% slopes) in the south,
and a predominantly flat land in the north (0-2% slope). Valley basins tend to be wide and
generally far apart, thus leaving extensive areas ideally suited to mechanized cultivation, from
a topographical point of view.
2.2.1 Semi-deciduous forest zone
The semi-deciduous forest zone covers about 30% of the region’s total land area and is
predominant in the southwest part of the region. This zone experiences a bimodal rainfall
regime with the peaks between the end of March and July and also from September to
October. The total annual precipitation is about 1500 mm. The semi-deciduous forest is
characterized by scattered patches of more or less dense forest, that have been depreciated
from valuable timber species through ongoing logging. The remnants are often single trees
under which agricultural cultivation of various crops is widely established. Particularly in the
forest zone, a large number of cocoa plantations is established. Beside these, there are vast
areas covered with secondary vegetation such as elephant-grass (Pennisetum purpureum); a
common weed of the area called “Acheampong” (Chromolaena odorata), among many
others. These weeds are mostly successors of extensive agriculture (bush fallow) producing
large amounts of easily inflammable organic matter, which is often the source of far spreading
bush-fires in the dry season (Amanor, 1993).
2.2.2
Forest savannah transition zone
This forest savannah transition zone covers about 26% of the total land area in the central part
of the region and receives about 1300 mm rainfall. Major and minor seasons less pronounced
as compared to semi deciduous forest zone. Narrow belts of forests on hill summits with a
mosaic of Guinea savannah on slopes are the main vegetation types. The forest interfluve of
the zone is characterised by narrow bands of forest areas particularly in valleys and hill
summits and savannah grassland mainly on the slopes. A combination of forest and savannah
plant species are found in this area including Kyaya senegalensis, Anogeissus leiocarpus
(Kane), Lannea kerstingii, Andropogon gayanus and A. tectorum. Guinea savannah species
like Bridelia ferruginea, Combretum fragrans, Burkea africana etc. are found higher up the
grassy slopes (Amanor, 1993).
5
2.2.3
Guinea savannah zone:
This zone occurs in the northern section of the region and covers about 44% of the land area.
The guinea savannah zone has a uni-modal rainfall regime that lasts from May to October.
This is followed by a long dry season from November to April with an annual rainfall of
about 1100 mm. The predominant vegetation type in the savannah area is wooded guinea
savannah. The vegetation is generally open with an undergrowth of grasses. Grassland species
like Andropogon species (Southern Gamba grass), Imperata cylindrica (Spear grass),
Rottboellia exaltata etc. can be found in combination with sparsely distributed trees like
Danielia oliveri (Sanya). The grasses constitute a major weed problem in this area (Amanor,
1993).
2.3
Soil types
Soils in the districts of the Brong Ahafo Region differ a lot and each type has distinct
characterictics. This influences the cropping pattern a lot. According to a baseline survey on
farming systems done in the Brong Ahafo Region (Zchekel et.al., 1997) soil characteristics in
general vary from well drained with high organic matter content in the forest area, to poorly
drained with low organic matter content in the savannah belt. The soils of the semi-deciduous
forest zone belong to the group Forest Ochrosols. These soils are well drained with relatively
high organic matter content (2%) concentrated in the topsoil. Soils of the forest savannah
transition zone belong to the Savannah Ochrosol group. These are well drained, porous,
friable and loamy soils with low organic matter content as compared with the Forest
Ochosols. Soils of the Guinea savannah transition zone in the north belong to the groundwater
laterite group classified as Alfisols. These soils are poorly drained with much lower organic
matter content still.
2.4
Farming systems
According to the baseline survey of SFSP, at least two major categories of farming systems
can be differentiated with reference to their managerial and organizational set up and
respective to resources such as invested capital and available land.
2.4.1
Cash crops and/or poultry-based farming system
Farmers are market oriented and mainly produce cash crops, such as vegetable (tomatoes /
garden egg / cabbage / pepper). They are often farmers with other origin than the Brong
people, living in the surrounding of urban centres or along the border with Ivory Coast, where
they can find a regular market for their perishable products. They often settle at places where
good infrastructure in terms of roads is available and where transport is facilitated. A majority
of these farmers are tenant farmers, operating on smaller acreages. Resources respective to
land and investments into inputs or assets are financed mainly from the revenues of their
products. The relevant skills are mainly acquired from their own experience or other farmers
and partly from the Extension Service.
Farmers who have livestock mainly have poultry or at times also pigs. They operate often on
a capital basis originating from other sources than agriculture. Often they are retired officers
with a pension to maintain their living, or businessmen investing in farming. The influx of
capital enables them to make use of rather cost intensive structures to maintain the stock of
animals and to provide adequate feed.
6
2.4.2
Food crops farming system
Farmers in this group grow mainly crops for home consumption. However, some of the
produce is sold in the market.. They rely mainly on the production of staple food crops such
as maize, cassava, and yam.
The availability of capital in these farms is in general very limited. Rarely there is another
source of income than that from agriculture. Livestock like small ruminants (sheep / goats) or
poultry are kept normally in small numbers mostly under extensive conditions.
2.5
Cultivation practices
Bush fallowing (shifting cultivation) is the prevalent method of cultivation. Sometimes prior
to a fallow, the farmer no longer weeds the last crop but continues to harvest amid the weeds.
A succession of re-growth vegetation including bushes and young trees progressively restores
fertility of the soil. Besides the factor of declining soil fertility, the decision to abandon a
parcel of land to fallow is based on factors as prevalence of pests and diseases, difficulty in
controlling weeds and declining yields (this may be a consequence of the two factors above).
2.6
Land tenure system
Customary land tenure arrangements prevail in the region. The communal land tenure systems
and family land tenure arrangements are the predominant forms of land tenure being
practised. Land ownership is normally held by the ruling families of the original settlers.
Indigenous people, both men and women, have user rights to family land and generally do not
hire land.
Farmers have usufructuary rights on family land In this system, the land holder has the right
to bequeath land and give out land on contractual basis. Children can inherit land from parents
in which case a piece of land is shared. Land can also be rented for cash or on a
sharecropping basis. The common terms used in share cropping are abunu (produce is shared
equally) for yam and cassava and abusa (two-third to tenant and one-third to land lord) for
maize.
The other system is communal land tenure, in which land belong to the community. The
paramount chief is the custodian of land and controls its allocation to the farmers. This land
can not be leased or sold by individuals. In general, specific features of land tenure may cause
barriers to long-term investments on the land. The family land system of tenure may lead to
fragmentation of holdings whereas communal system tends to undermine individual
responsibility over long term maintenance of a given farm land and more emphasis is placed
on shifting cultivation. In the renting systems of tenure, the temptation to over-utilise the land
to obtain maximum benefits in the limited time period is immense.
7
PART B
METHODOLOGY
1
The ARD procedure
1.1
The ARD procedure as a problem solving approach
The team followed the ARD procedure designed by ICRA, which is a flexible, pragmatic
sequence of activities that guide interdisciplinary and inter-institutional teams from an
identified rural development problem to concrete proposals to address this problem via the
steps of systems analysis and joint planning with the stakeholders involved.
Figure B.1:
The 4 phases of the ARD procedure
I
Organizing the Team
II
Defining the System
of Interest
iteration
Problem requiring
collective action
iteration
III
Identifying Strategies
Report
IV
Formulating Research
Plans
Research
Proposals
The starting point is an initial definition by the client or initiating institution of the problem to
be addressed, and the formation of an interdisciplinary and inter-institutional team to address
the problem. In the present study, the ICRA team was comprised of four agronomists, one
from India, China, Ethiopia and Ghana each, one livestock researcher from Sri Lanka, one
soil scientist from Ghana, two agricultural engineers, one each from Ghana and Armenia, and
one agricultural economist from India. This team composition made the ICRA team also an
intercultural team, a unique aspect in itself.
The first phase of the procedure is for the team to set up its procedures and define its expected
outputs and work plan. The team then identifies individuals or social groups with an interest
in the problem ("stakeholders") and, based on the perspectives of these stakeholders and their
own analysis, defines the problem in the wider development context. The team thus learns to
see the problem as the result of the functioning of a broadly defined system, and to identify with the participation of all relevant stakeholders - those elements of this system that need to
change in order to address the problem.
The relevant sub-system formed by these elements is then further analysed, again with
stakeholders, to identify potential improvements to solve the problem and strategies to realise
these. Approaches used combine an analysis of agro-ecological, social and economic
perspectives.
8
These analyses result in a definition of alternative future scenarios affecting both the problem
as well as the appropriateness of alternative strategies of different stakeholders to address the
problem under different scenarios. The team discusses alternative scenarios and risks of
various strategies with the different target groups of beneficiaries and other stakeholders.
Together they negotiate the choice of a realistic combination of strategies of all the
stakeholders and define the activities and the research that needs to be done to realise these
strategies. This leads to a list of research activities that is then prioritised.
The final step is the formulation of convincing research and development proposals for the
options with highest priority and a strategy to get funding for these.
The ARD procedure distinguishes yet combines elements of fact finding and analysis with
participatory analysis and decision making. The required analysis involves the integration of
professional/scientific and indigenous/local knowledge; by itself, neither of these two types of
information is sufficient. This knowledge can come from previously published data,
individual or group interviews, participatory exercises such as mapping, model building or
matrix ranking etc. Judgements have to be made about the relevance and reliability of all the
information required and collected.
Participation of rural people in decision making is never total and never easy: increasing the
degree of participation of others inevitably involves a loss of control by the team (over
direction, time frames). Power differences within societies mean that certain actors are heard
and have more influence than others.
At almost all stages in the procedure, different methods and tools are used to gather and
analyse information (This part, Chapter 2), and how the tools are used affects the degree of
participation of other actors in the process. At each step of the procedure therefore, the team
has to decide on the methods and related tools that will best provide the information required,
or make the best decision, given the manpower, financial resources and time available.
1.2
Organising the team
Successful teamwork is difficult to achieve. To be able to work together, the team organised
itself first. For the team to be efficient, clear planning, roles, rules of conduct, and agreed
mechanisms of decision-making were defined (Figure B.2).
Figure B.2:
ARD phase 1 – Organising the team
Establishing team procedures
Clarifying team objectives
and Formulating work plan
Problem
requiring
collective
action
Phase II
9
The team needed to know which tasks should be undertaken in common, and which should be
allocated to individual team members or subgroups based on disciplinary expertise and skills.
The team also needed to know how these tasks could be coordinated. Clear planning required
the team to develop a good understanding of the problem statement and of the output that
SFSP is expecting at the end of the process (Figure B.1). The team discussed it’s
understanding of these and the work plan in two introductory workshops with SFSP and other
stakeholders, and adjusted these before moving on to Phase 2. The team also agreed with
SFSP and main stakeholders how and when to consult on progress and involve them in
decision making on the further direction of the study.
The team started Phase 1 at ICRA in Wageningen before leaving for Ghana and got initial
feedback on research and work plans from ICRA staff and three other ICRA teams that were
preparing their own field studies. At the end of this Phase 1 the team had achieved the
following outputs:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
1.3
The team was composed, mandates defined, and resources made available
The teamwork procedure was established and the team agreed on it
The methodology the team would follow was established (Chapter 2, this part)
The problem was clearly stated and the expected outputs clearly defined (common
understanding between SFSP, main stakeholders and team) (Chapter 1, part A)
The work plan was formulated and approved by SFSP (Annex 2)
A mechanism for monitoring of the study by SFSP and for consultation with the
stakeholders was operational.
Defining the system of interest
In this phase, the team looked at policy issues, institutional issues and other macrodevelopments in and outside agriculture that may have an influence on the problem and on
attempts to solve it. The team also identified possible stakeholders and interviewed them to
gain an insight into the different perceptions of the problem, visualizing them as a "rich
picture" (Annex 5) or part of a broader problem.
Figure B.3:
ARD phase 2 - Defining the system of interest
Phase I
Identifying “macro
trends”
Putting the problem
in a development
context
Identifying
stakeholders
Integrating stakeholders’
perspectives of the
problematique
Defining the
system of interest
iteration
iteration
Phase III
10
The team then demarcated the "system" that needed to change in order to address the problem
as defined with SFSP and main stakeholders in Phase 1. This so-called "system of
interest"(Chapter 1.4, Part A) was the focus of analysis in Phase 3. The output of Phase 2 was
the demarcation of a system of interest that is holistic enough to contain all the elements
needed for the change. At the same time, it needed to be focussed enough for the team and
stakeholders to be able to analyse it in enough depth in Phase 3. It also needed to be focussed
enough for SFSP and main stakeholders to manage the change by implementing the strategies
resulting from the analysis in Phase 3. The latter requirement implied that the system of
interest had to be within the mandate of SFSP and within the control of the stakeholders.
The system of interest represents the thematic boundaries of the team’s investigations. As
such, it embodies stakeholders’ concerns and was defined by them. The components that
eventually made up the system of interest were a process of negotiation between the team,
SFSP and other stakeholders. The team facilitated this process of negotiation in a way such as
to ensure that the problem was effectively addressed.
The process of defining the system of interest was done with the help of visualisation
methods. These are useful communication devices to show relationships between components
and reveal complementarities and contradictions between those chosen by different
stakeholders.
The delineation of the system of interest in itself was a necessary condition but not enough for
the team to design and carry out the work plan. The team used the system of interest as a
framework to formulate specific research questions which the study would try to answer.
At the end of this phase, the team had achieved the following outputs:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
1.4
A context analysis of the problem from the point of view of the different disciplines in
the team and from the stakeholders involved (a description of how the wider “macro
trends” influenced the problem)
A redefinition or further elaboration of the problem defined in Phase 1, as seen from the
different perspectives of the various stakeholders involved with the problem and of the
team
A demarcation of the ‘system of interest’ that the team would analyse in more detail in
Phase 3 to identify potential strategies to deal with the redefined problem
A central question for the study, which the analysis of the system of interest is supposed
to answer (Annex 3)
Secondary questions, the answers to which contribute to answering the main central
question (Annex 3)
Potential answers (hypotheses) for each of the analytical perspectives to focus the
fieldwork (Annex 3)
Identifying Strategies
In Phase 3 of the ARD procedure the team involved stakeholders in the analysis of the
‘system of interest’ defined in Phase 2 and in the identification of the changes needed to
address the problem. The team used its expertise to help stakeholders identify strategies that
would bring about the desired changes, under different scenarios.
The team distinguished different types of stakeholder (typology) who are affected in different
ways by the problem. These different types of stakeholder would need to adopt different, but
11
mutually concerted strategies to bring about the desired changes. It was anticipated that these
different types of stakeholder also required different ‘products’ from research and
development to facilitate the implementation of their respective strategies.
The desired changes in the system of interest, concerted strategies to bring these about and the
criteria to distinguish the different types of stakeholders progressively emerged from the
analysis of the system of interest from various analytical perspectives. The three main
perspectives were ecological, social and economic. The analysis from each of these
perspectives took place simultaneously and continuously refocused the analysis from the
other perspectives in an iterative process (Figure B.4). The relative importance of each of
these analytical perspectives was dependent on the problem and on the usefulness of each in
terms of finding possible solutions.
Figure B.4:
ARD phase 3 – Identifying strategies
iteration
Phase II
iteration
Targeting research to
specific groups
Ecological
analysis
Social
analysis
Economic
analysis
Identifying scenarios and
strategies
Phase IV
Report
The integrated analysis of the system of interest resulted in the following outputs at the end of
this phase:
1.
2.
3.
A typology of stakeholders who are affected differently by the problem or require
different strategies to address the problem. (Chapter 1.4, Part A)
A definition of what changes are needed in the system of interest to address the problem,
based on an integrated analysis from the ecological, social and economic perspectives.
(Part D)
This report detailing the analyses and outputs of Phases 1-3 of this ARD procedure
These outputs of Phase 3 were then discussed with SFSP and other stakeholders, and further
adjusted, before the team moved on to Phase 4. This discussion was combined with the
launching of Phase 4 in the form of a session with all stakeholders to list the knowledge,
information and technologies that could facilitate the implementation of the adopted
strategies. This session also helped to identify who, both in and outside the system of interest,
12
possessed this knowledge/ information/ technologies, how stakeholders could access and
exchange these and how research organisations could collaborate with stakeholders to further
develop this knowledge, information or these technologies.
1.5
Formulating Plans
In this last phase of the ARD procedure, the team involved stakeholders in defining what
contributions each could make to implement the strategy that was defined in Phase 3. The
result was a list of development and research activities needed to realise the strategy (Figure
B.5).
Figure B.5:
ARD phase 4 – Formulating plans
Phase III
Identifying and Prioritising activities
Formulating plans
Research
Proposals
Finally the outputs of the entire ARD-procedure were discussed in a final workshop with
SFSP and all other stakeholders needed for concerted action, and the proposals were further
adjusted before submitting them to SFSP and all other involved stakeholders, including
funding agencies.
2
Methods and tools for data collection and analysis
2.1
Secondary data collection and analysis
The various reports related to conservation agriculture and mechanization available within
SFSP project, MOFA and districts office of Sunyani and Nkoranza were collected and
analyzed. The main purpose was to search the potential answers for the research questions of
the field study (Annex 2). The team critically analyzed all reports and got valuable
information on technical, ecological and economic factors related to conservation agriculture
and mechanization. After analyzing the secondary data the team identified the info gaps
remaining to answer the research questions.
2.2
Reconnaissance survey
A brief reconnaissance survey of the Sunyani and Nkoranza Districts in Brong Ahafo Region
was conducted. A local scientist from MOFA, who is also part of the District Conservation
Agriculture (CA) team, accompanied the group during this survey. The aims of the survey
were to familiarize the team with the region’ farming systems, reconcile reality with the
13
impressions gathered from secondary data and to obtain additional information that could
further develop the farm typology.
2.3
Introductory workshop
Prior to the introductory workshop a meeting was held with GTZ and MOFA staff at SFSP
office, Sunyani. The team presented its understanding of the problem. After the discussion,
Techiman District was replaced by Nkoranza District for data collection. The introductory
workshop was held at CRI, Kumasi during April 23-24, 2003. The participants attended the
workshop were from the different National research institutions, other GTZ projects,
University in Kumasi and MOFA. Dr Heinz Loos, Project leader, SFSP presented the
background of study and ICRA team presented its understanding of the research problem and
research plan for the field study. The main objectives of the workshops were to:
• Confront the stakeholders with the team’s understanding of the problem
• Present the proposed field study plan to obtain feed back
• Develop the initial typology and define together with participants the criteria for selecting
communities in the selected districts
• Have a better understanding of the various stockholder’s interests and objectives in
conservation agriculture and mechanisation.
2.4
Primary data collection and analysis
Sunyani and Nkoranza Districts were selected for the present study since these differed in
terms of topography, adoption of conservation agriculture, and level of mechanisation. The
AEAs and other officials from MOFA were consulted for finalising the list of communities to
be visited. A total of 21 communities were selected from Sunyani (09) and Nkoranza (12) for
the purpose of field data collection. The method of purposive sampling was used to ensure
that the selected communities differed, based on the different tillage systems in use. It was
also to ensure that the communities were geographically well distributed over the district.
The communities visited in Sunyani District were Chiraa, Tanom, Walapenwa, Timber
Nkwanta, Adoe, Jainso, Sereso, Yahima and Abesim. In Nkoranza District, Domeabra,
Bonsu, Sikaa, Dweneho, Ayerede, Donkro Nkwanta, Bonte, Dromakese, Nkwabeng, Akuma,
Mpem and Jerusalem communities were visited. Three different categories of farmers
practising CTHT, CA and CTDP in the various communities were selected and interviewed.
A total of 297 and 398 farmers were interviewed in Sunyani and Nkoranza, respectively.
In addition, 72 tractor owners, operators and repair shop owners from Chiraa, Nkoranza,
Wenchi and Techiman were also interviewed. Key informant interviews were also conducted
with subject matter specialists from MOFA and SFSP.
The main purpose of primary data collection was to have a better understanding of the
different tillage systems, viz. conventional and conservation tillage, in both selected districts
and to verify the information received from secondary sources. In this, the potentials and
limitations of the different tillage systems, and the factors that constrain the adoption of
conservation agriculture and mechanisation, were discussed in detail with farmers. Farmers’
suggestions on potential solutions to their problems were taken into account. Information was
also gathered on the status of tractor operations, machinery repair facilities and organizational
issues related to tractor operations both at farmer and tractor owners/ operators level. The
following tools were used to gather primary data:
14
a. Semi-Structured interviews (SSI): This method was used with focus groups and key
informants viz. farmers, tractor owners, operators, machinery repair shop owners to discuss
ideas, issues and to get their perceptions and experiences related to the problem. The process
allowed free exploration of ideas in a participatory approach.
b. Ranking and scoring: This method was used to get the farmers perception on adoption of
different tillage systems in relation with land tenure, size of land holdings and other relevant
factors. The different systems of renting/ sharing land were identified with the active
participation of farmers. Farmers themselves indicated their preference for different tillage
systems using visualization.
c. Labour calendar: This tool was used to understand the labour use for various farm
operations in different months of the year. Farmers themselves indicated the months/ period
when they had high demand for labour.
d. Cash calendar: This tool was used to know the comparative requirement and availability of
cash in different months of the year.
e. Livelihood analysis: Using visualisation farmers indicated the contribution of different
enterprises in earning their livelihood. In this exercise different enterprises prevalent in the
study area were visualised on flip charts. Farmers allocated scores to different enterprises in
relation to their importance for food security and cash income. Information was collected
through focus group discussion and key informants interviews.
The information gathered from the farmers and others viz. tractor owners, operators, and
repair shop owners were compiled for all the communities visited in Sunyani and Nkoranza
Districts. The sub groups working on different subject matters were given the compiled
information for further analysis to get answers for specific research questions.
f. Stakeholders Analysis: The identification of stakeholders started already in the preparatory
phase of the field study in Wageningen with the analysis of secondary data sources. The list
of stakeholders was verified and updated with the help of workshop participants during the
introductory workshop. The team members interviewed different stakeholders to understand
their objectives, roles and interests with regard to the issues related to conservation agriculture
and mechanisation. The stakeholders’ objectives and interest matrix (Chapter 3, Part D)
developed during the analysis assisted in identifying relevant organizations to be targeted for
implementing the identified strategies.
2.5
Feedback sessions with monitoring group
A monitoring group was setup in the beginning of the study comprising researchers from CRI,
SRI, and staff from KNUST, MOFA and GTZ to monitor progress of the team and provide
support as and when needed.
The team interacted with the monitoring group members, updated them on the findings of the
field study so far, and got feed back for improvement of the study.
15
2.6
Feedback sessions with stakeholders
Feed back sessions were organised with different stakeholders especially with the tractor
owners, operators, machinery repair and maintenance service providers, as well as with the
farmers to confront them with the findings. The Team confronted the stakeholder with the
different technological options and organizational models proposed. The conclusions on the
tillage system to be promoted in the region were also discussed with farmer groups as well as
other stakeholders.
2.7
Final workshop
All stakeholders present during the introductory workshop were invited to the final workshop.
Individuals or organisations that had been consulted during the field work, were also invited.
The aim of the workshop was to obtain feedback regarding the field study finding, decide on
follow-up activities and foster a sense of ownership of the study to the side of the
stakeholders. Comments and suggestions that evolved during the discussions were
incorporated in the final version of the draft report.
16
Figure B.6: Field data collection and feedback sessions (a)
First meeting with monitoring group in
Sunyani
Visit to CA farmer in Sunyani
Demonstration of Jab planter to CA
farmer in Sunyani district
Introductory Workshop in Kumasi
Interview with farmers in Sunyani district
Interview with settler farmers in Sunyani
district
17
Figure B.7: Field data collection and feedback sessions (b)
Interview with tractor operators in Chirra,
Sunyani
Use of scoring method to indicate
preference for tillage practices in Sunyani
Meeting with District Director and AEAs
in Nkoranza
Interview with farmers in Nkoranza
Use of scoring method by farmer to
indicate preference in Nkoranza
Multipurpose use of tractors
18
19
PART C
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
1
Differentiating tillage systems
1.1
What is soil tillage?
Soil tillage has been defined as the operation of implements through the soil to prepare
seedbeds and root beds, control weeds, aerate soil, and cause faster breakdown of organic
matter and mineral to release plant nutrients (Unger, 1984)
Different types of soil tillage can be distinguished, based on the criteria used and also based
on the purpose of the categorization. For the purpose of this study, three different types of
soil tillage were identified based on the different land preparation, planting and weeding
techniques practised in the study area. The three soil tillage types distinguished are:
• Conventional Tillage with Hand Tools (CTHT),
• Conservation Agriculture (CA), and
• Conventional Tillage with Disc Plough (CTDP).
1.2
Conventional tillage with hand tools (CTHT)
CTHT involves slashing and burning of the natural vegetation with simple hand tools like
cutlass and hoe. Depending on the cropping system, the soil is tilled manually using a cutlass
to sow seeds and also to plant seedlings or using the hoe in making mounds or ridges for
planting.
Operational convenience, less capital investment and timeliness in the performance of farm
operations have been identified as some of the advantages of this tillage systems. However,
rapid decline in soil fertility and productivity as well as soil erosion have been observed to be
associated with this system.
1.3
Conservation agriculture with hand tools (CA)
CA is defined as a system of cultivation that involves minimal soil disturbance and maintains
at least 20% crop residue cover on the soil surface. This cover helps to minimize soil erosion,
hence preserving the soil structure as the soil is moved less. Consequently, CA can be
described as any tillage sequence that reduces soil or water loss relative to conventional
tillage. It is often a form of non-inversion tillage that retains protective amounts of crop
residue of the soil surface.
The GTZ Sedentary Farming Systems Project (SFSP) in its bid to promote CA in the Brong
Ahafo Region of Ghana has adopted and promoted conservation practices such as no-burning,
slash mulching, use of herbicides (Glyphosate), improved short fallow using Mucuna and
Canavalia, proper crop rotation and intercropping with legumes in addition to minimum
tillage and direct planting of improved varieties.
For the purpose of this study, CA will be confined to the use of minimum tillage practices
through the use of herbicides and also the maintenance of soil cover through cover cropping
(using Mucuna and Canavalia) and crop residue management associated with slash mulching.
19
Conservation agriculture leads to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Reduced soil erosion by water
Reduced water run-off
Increased water infiltration and storage
Reduced evapotranspiration
Prevention of overheating of the soil surface enhancing seed germination
Build up of soil organic matter
Improved aggregate stability and soil structure with increased bulk density
Deepening of rooting horizon through earthworms and deep rooting of green manure
plants
More abundant soil life – earthworms and arthropods loosen the top soil, incorporate
surface organic matter, and stabilize the soil surface with stable soil organic excretions
The cumulative effect of the above has led to improved productivity of farmlands enabling
farmer to continuously and sustainably crop the same piece of land for a long period of time
(FAO, 2001).
1.4
Conventional tillage with disc plough
This involves the use of a tractor mounted disc plough to till the land in preparing seedbed for
a given crop. The disc plough is used to turn the soil followed by disc harrowing, in some
cases. The degree of disturbing soil in this tillage system is higher than in the two tillage
systems above. This leads to enhanced soil erosion, declining soil fertility and rapid
decomposition of organic matter, resulting in soil degradation, thereby increasing the
dependency on external inputs such as mineral fertilizers (Loos, 2001).
2
Factors influencing choice and adoption of different tillage systems
The selection of a tillage system for a particular situation depends upon ecological, socioeconomic, and organizational factors. No factor is entirely independent of the others; however
each factor is discussed here in relation to its influence on choice and adoption of different
tillage systems.
2.1
Ecological factors
Climatic factors, soil factors, farming system, and cultivation methods are some of the most
important ecological factors influencing choice and adoption of different tillage systems, that
are described here under:
2.1.1
Climatic factors
The climatic factors that have a major influence on selection of tillage system are rainfall,
temperature, length of growing season, radiation and wind. Radiation balance and wind
direction and speed although have significant influence on choice of a tillage system but for
the purpose of study in the Brong Ahafo Region, its influence is less pronounced.
20
Rainfall
The amount and distribution of rainfall are most important factors influencing the choice and
adoption of different tillage system. In the regions where rainfall amount and distribution is
deficient, the prime requisite for the tillage operation is to conserve adequate moisture in the
soil for favourable plant growth and development during the crop growth period. In such
areas a tillage system that enhances water infiltration and suppresses subsequent evaporation
is desirable. It is also important to maintain or reduce soil erosion to tolerable levels. Tillage
operations that maintain or reduce soil erosion to tolerable levels are essential. In areas where
excess water is a problem, drainage may be required as a part of overall tillage system.
Temperature
In warm climatic zones, where low temperatures are seldom occurring, lower temperatures
under surface residues in summer, or at any time in extreme cases, may beneficially influence
crops growth during hot periods (Allen et al., 1975; Rockwood and Lal, 1974).
Length of the growing season
The length of the growing season of a crop is influenced by the timely availability of soil
moisture for land preparation and planting. Tillage systems used for manipulations of soil
temperature help in planting a crop earlier, thus extending the growing period. Conservation
tillage allows for timely planting and as a result it increases the length of growing season,
whereas in conventional tillage with hand tools and disc ploughs farmers start ploughing or
plough a second time only after the onset of the rains.
The tilling methods are responsible for severe yield losses due to untimely performed
operations such as planting, weeding and harvesting. Often it is difficult for farmers to
accomplish agricultural activities at the required time due to inefficiency of traditional
implements, unavailability of labour, and unavailability of timely tractor services.
Conservation tillage, especially zero tillage, reduces waiting time for field operations after
rains because of better soil structure and increased water infiltration.
2.1.2
Soil factors
Soil factors that are essentially important for the selection of tillage systems include soil
slope, texture, depth, density, soil organic matter content, and drainage. In all cases, tillage
selection based on soil factors should consider the interacting effects of the climatic zone and
crops to be grown.
Topography
On nearly level land or on gently sloping soils, many tillage systems provide the desired
conditions and effectively conserve the soil and water resources. Land levelling permits the
use of almost any type of tillage method or sytem. With increasing slope, the number of
tillage methods decrease. A conservation tillage system that maintains surface residues is best
suited for water erosion control on sloping soils when other supporting practices are not used
(Unger, 1984).
21
Soil texture and structure
Soil texture has a major influence on a soil’s susceptibility to erosion and, therefore n
selection of tillage systems for controlling wind and water erosion on soils of all surface
textures (Harrolds and Edwards, 1972; Unger and Wiese, 1979). Effective control of water
erosion on soils of all textures, when few or no surface residues are present, usually depends
on the use of supporting practices such as contouring, terracing, strip cropping and crop
rotations in conjunction with the tillage system (Unger, 1984).
Soil structure builds up slowly and improvement depends highly on soil type and climate, as
well as on the tillage methods. Light sandy soils that are prevalent in the semi- arid tropics of
West and Southern Africa tend to compact and might need renewed sub-soiling after a couple
of years (Berry, 2000). Soil structure improves (as a result of improved bulk density) under
CA, especially under zero tillage. Stable soil aggregates are formed, which do not break down
easily under the impact of rains. Crust formation, soil surface run off and soil erosion are
reduced. More deep reaching macro pores are formed, which assures water infiltration and
aeration.
Soil depth
Selection of a tillage system based on soil depth is mainly based on the depth to an hard layer
(e.g. bed rock) or the depth to a layer that would contribute undesirable substances (sand,
gravel, rocks, high calcium materials, saline or alkali materials or strongly acidic materials) to
the tillage zone if mixed with that layer (Unger, 1984).
Soil organic matter
Soil organic matter (SOM) constitutes a key element of tropical soils, especially of light,
sandy soils with low content of swelling and shrinking clay minerals. The management of
SOM is therefore the core issue of sustainable soil management. It is difficult to keep a
sufficiently high level of SOM under tropical conditions. Soil aversion, thereby increasing
soil aeration, accelerates this process as it enhances decomposition of organic matter. In order
to manage the soils in a sustainable way, tillage operations have to be reduced or even better
stopped completely to restore SOM.
Maintenance and building up soil fertility
According to Steiner (2002) proper application of CA practices provokes a number of effects,
which helps to overcome soil degradation and to slowly improve soil quality. The better the
ground cover and the less the soils are disturbed the more pronounced effects like reduced soil
erosion by wind and water; reduced water runoff, increased water infiltration and storage,
reduced evaporation, prevention of overheating of the soil surface affecting seed germination,
build-up of soil organic matter, improved aggregate stability and soil structure, deepening of
rooting horizon through earthworms and roots of deep rooting green manure plants, and more
abundant soil life (earth worms and Anthropods loosen the top soil, incorporate surface
organic matter, stabilise the soil surface with stable soil organic excretions).
22
Soil moisture
Drought in many cases is not the result of too little rain but of too much run off. A good
ground cover slows down the speed of the flowing water. Together with a higher soil
aggregate stability, soil erosion is decreased. No precious soil (especially fine clay and
organic particles) and plant nutrients are lost. A good groundcover or mulch reduces the
losses of moisture by evaporation and soils do not dry so quickly (Unger, 1984).
Soil life
Tillage operations disturb the soil life. Soil organisms are suddenly exposed to the sun, heat
and drought. The number of soil biota decreases rapidly and builds up only slowly during the
growing season. Under zero tillage and to a lesser extent minimum tillage soil life is not
disturbed. The soil cover helps to create a more stable environment and the organic matter
serves as food for the soil biota. Soil biota improves the soil structure (Unger, 1984).
Application of herbicides might affect soil life negatively, but as data from eco-toxological
analyses and observations suggests that application of glyphosate and their metabolites do not
have any negative effects.
2.1.3 Farming system
Adoption of a different tillage system at farm level is associated with lower labour and farm
power inputs; more stable yields and improved soil quality. In farming system the choice of a
crop to be grown and farm size and cultivation methods are some of the most important
factor.
Tillage-induced soil differences such as soil water content, weed control, aeration, rooting
depth and soil fertility result in differential crop responses. Because crops differ in their
requirements relative to such tillage-induced conditions, a tillage system providing a
particular condition would be the most appropriate for a given crop. Tillage systems that
provide a specific soil conditions for a particular group of crops include: (1) a deep, loose root
zone for tuber and root crops; (2) a uniform, finely granulated seed bed for small seeded crops
requiring precision planting, and (3) a trash free surface for short-statured crops for which
trash would interfere with harvesting operations or lower crop quality (e.g. vegetables and
cotton, Unger, 1984). Rotational cropping is of great benefit, because it has positive effects on
the soil fertility due to combined effects on physical, chemical, and biological properties of
the soil. The introduction of different crops with different root systems and rooting depths
improves soil structure, its permeability, and porosity.
The extent of land clearing and preparations required and the conditions required by a crop
decides the tillage practice. If the type of crop needs a fine tilt and weed free environment,
farmers would not choose conventional tillage. However, the cultivation method depends
upon the type of crops to be grown, type of soil conditions and climatic conditions, which
ultimately influences the choice and adoption of different tillage practices.
2.2
Socio-economic factors
The choice and use of a particular tillage system is influenced by interaction of different
social-economic factors. Prominent among these are: Land tenure system, land size,
educational status of the farmers, access to information, access to credits, labour availability,
23
contribution to household food security, access to inputs, power source and cost and
availability, cost of production, capital (wearing of equipment) and residential status.
2.2.1
Land tenure system
The settlement of farmers at one place has important implications on access/ control over
resources and long term investment decisions on the farm. This may have important
implications for the development of regenerative technologies. The land tenure system gives
settlers usufructuary rights with little or no time constraints in their family or communal land.
The case of a migrant may be different; the constraint of short-term tenancies presents
particularly difficulties for long term developments, such as soil conservation and soil fertility
improvement on the farm land. A migrant with short stay on the land will be unwilling to
invest capital and labour in practices of which the effect can only be realized after a period of
time.
Farmers are not likely to invest in a land to which long term access is not secured. If it is a
family land system, i.e. land belongs to a farmer, investment in the form of soil fertility
improvement, erosion control and other appropriate soil conservation measures is justified.
The hired land, especially when it is rented only for 1 or 2 years is a constraining factor for
adoption of any soil improvement programme. The reason may be the justified fear that the
land lord claims the land back when soil fertility has distinctly improved and crop production
has increased. The temptation to over-utilise the land to obtain maximum benefits in the
restricted time period is immense in short-renting systems. In case of share-cropping the land
lord will not claim back the land because he will also have advantage of increased production.
2.2.2
Farm size
Size of the land holdings influences the choice and adoption of different tillage system.
Farmers with small of land holdings tend to adopt CTHT and CA. Farmers with large size of
land holdings (commercial land holdings), however, have a tendency to adopt CTDP in case
services are available and land is suitable for tractor disc ploughing.
The land size has a direct implication on the time available for soil improvement practices. A
smallholder with limited resources will be more interested to adopt CA to improve soil
fertility and acquire stable crop yields and food security for his family.
2.2.3
Access to knowledge and information
Basic education is required to understand the new knowledge and to implement the practices
according to the field situations. With regard to CA techniques, basic education is important
for handling of equipments like spray machines for herbicides or application of other
chemicals, for decision making on appropriate crops to be grown, rotations, record keeping,
costing of each operations and items etc.
CA practices involves critical decision making with regard to investment on purchase of
inputs and equipments, selection of appropriate technologies and implements for tillage,
herbicide application, selection of cover crops and mulching techniques etc and all these
requires some managerial capacity for weighing the different options, timely decisions on
selection of suitable methods, merits and demerits different crop rotation systems etc is an
essential in CA.
24
With fast changes in technology, farmers have to be creative to develop the system further in
order to save time and labour, improve yield and economic returns. This could be a factor that
decides the rate of adoption of CA by farmers.
The means of technology transfer is an important factor for adoption of the CA technique as it
makes farmers aware of the available options, and also provides the procedures and possible
solutions to the constraints in applying the technique under the field conditions. The biggest
challenge a farmer has to face in the transition to the CA system is related to control of weeds
and good knowledge of herbicides and their application. Further, the information on cover
crops and their profitability, how they fit into the different crop rotation systems and effect
soil fertility, are essential for the dissemination of the cover crop technology among farmers.
Apart from knowledge, a mental change of technicians, extensionists and researchers to move
from soil-degrading tillage operations to sustainable production systems like zero tillage is
necessary to also obtain a change in the attitude of farmers to successfully implement CA
techniques.
2.2.4
Labour input
Labour resource available is one of the most important factors in agriculture production. It has
an effect on timeliness of operation, production cost and net income. Three kind of labour viz.
family, hired and communal labour exist in the Brong Ahafo Region. The majority of the
farmers depend on hired labour for land clearing, planting, weeding, and harvesting
operations. High cost and shortage of labour during critical time were important production
constrains recorded especially for weeding and harvesting (Zschekel et. al., 1997).
The gender specificity of labour for agricultural operations generally depends on the culture
and traditions in different geographical locations. In Brong Ahafo Region, men are solely
responsible for land clearing, spraying of agro-chemicals, Threshing and processing are
mainly the responsibilities of the females. All other operations such as planting, fertilization,
weeding, harvesting, storing and marketing of produce are done jointly by both men and
women (Bonsu, 2001). In addition to participating in farm activities, household work like
cooking, looking after children, fetching water etc., also are the main responsibility of the
female farmer. She also engages herself in extra-farming activities like trading and processing
of farm produce to raise additional income. Therefore, the extent to which CA will be
capable to reduce labour cost is an important factor affecting the adoption of minimum tillage,
cover crops and other CA techniques. It may also help in reducing the workload of female
labour, improving labour productivity resulting in more opportunities to earn money in offfarm activities.
2.2.5
Access to credit, inputs and markets
The capital availability and access to credit is an important factor in acquiring basic inputs
required for adoption of a technology. In 2001, 35.8% of the population in Brong Ahafo
Region, was below the poverty line (Ghana poverty reduction strategy, 2001) and that makes
them virtually unable to purchase the equipments and other inputs required for adoption of a
new technology. The CA techniques involves purchase of new equipment necessary for
direct planting, spraying equipments, inputs such as herbicides, fertilizer and other
agrochemicals. The rigid conditions of bank loans and lack of collateral are important factors
that limit farmers’ access the institutional credit. The high cost of farming inputs has a
significant impact on cash demand of farmers during the farming season.
25
The access to critical inputs, especially seeds of appropriate types of cover crops, herbicides,
and spraying machines, is a pre-requirement for practising CA. The availability of leguminous
cover crops seed as Mucuna and Canavalia is an important factor for farmers to adopt CA.
The market opportunities for a particular crop are an important factor for deciding what crop
to cultivate or not. More than 90% of the farmers in Nkoranza dispose of their produce
through middlemen (Development plan-Nkoranza, 2002). This more or less compels them to
sell their produce often at low prices quoted by the middlemen. So before introduction of any
new crop in the system, especially cover crops for CA, its marketing opportunities and
acceptability by the farmers are important.
2.2.6
Costs of production
The decision on adoption or use of any new technology has cost implications. If the change
suggested is helpful in reducing production cost per unit of output, it is more likely to be
adopted by farmers. A technology suggested, however superior it may be, if it does not have
economic gains, farmers will not be encouraged to adopt it.
2.2.7
Investment in machinery
The timely availability of mechanised services depends on the availability of a sufficient
numbers of tractors and other implements. The owners of tractors and machinery require
sufficient cash to invest in proper maintenance and operation of machinery services. Every
machine has its economic life after which it has to be replaced by new one. To replace a
tractor and other machinery requires a huge investment, which has to be supported by a well
organised institutional finance system with favourable terms and conditions for repayment of
loans.
3
Mechanising conservation agriculture
3.1
Levels of mechanisation
Agricultural mechanisation derives its power from three main sources, viz. human, animal,
and mechanical power. These power sources give rise to three broad levels of agricultural
mechanisation technology classified as
• hand-tool technology (HTT),
• draught animal technology (DAT) and
• engine-power technology (EPT) (Odigboh, 1999).
3.1.1
Hand tool technology (HTT)
HTT is the simplest and most basic level of agricultural mechanisation. HTT refers to tools
and implements which use human muscle as the power source (Gifford, 1992). Unfortunately
human labour is limited in power output but many agricultural operations demand higher rates
of power for work.
The use of manual labour is a drudgery and limits timeliness of operations including land
preparation and planting (Aikins, 2000)
26
3.1.2 Draught animal technology (DAT)
Draught-animal technology refers to a wide range of implements, machines, and equipment
used in agriculture that are powered by animals such as oxen, donkeys, horses, or camels
(Gifford, 1992).
The main shortfalls of this technology are:
• There is low performance capability as compared to mechanical power, thus, timeliness of
operation is diminished.
• Animals cannot always be controlled for rendering precise planting and cultivation
operations. It also becomes difficult to provide enough power for ploughing new land,
heavy soils and heavy sod or weeds.
• Animal draught power depends on care and provision of adequate quality feed.
3.1.3 Engine Power Technology (EPT)
Engine-power technology refers to the highest level of mechanisation commonly used in
agriculture. It takes many forms including a wide range of tractor sizes that are used as mobile
power for field operations and transport, or as stationary power for many different machines;
engines or motors using petrol, diesel, or electricity to power threshers, mills, irrigation
pumps, grinders and other stationary engines; and self propelled machines for production,
harvesting and handling a wide variety of crops (Gifford, 1992).
Mechanical engine power can enable a farmer to become a director of almost unlimited
power. Engine power is, however, capital intensive and requires good management and
specific technical skills.
Land preparation can be done more thoroughly and in less time. Heavy and otherwise difficult
soils can be ploughed satisfactorily. Operations can be done more timely in order to meet
optimum planting dates. Better weed control and inter-row cultivation is possible. Engine
power is also used efficiently for stationary operations such as threshing and processing.
Disadvantages of engine power technology are the need to import the equipment, thus using
foreign exchange making it expensive. Tractors might undesirably displace labour, adding to
labour that may already be unemployed. Repair and maintenance of complex engines and
machinery is a problem. Operational skills are often underdeveloped and operational supplies
and services for fuel and lubricants are expensive
27
3.2
Equipment/implements suitable for conservation agriculture
3.2.1
Options for land preparation
Table C.1:
Overview of options for land preparation
Hand Tool
Technology
Engine Power
Technology
Implement
Cutlass
Hand Hoe
Knapsack Sprayer
CDA Sprayer
Tractor mounted slasher
Chisel Plough
Sweep Plough
Disc Plough
Ridger
Power Tiller for Slashing
Motorised Hand Slasher
Hand Tool Technologies
Hand Sprayers
Hand sprayers are ideally suited to apply small quantities of pesticides. They can be used to
spot spray or to treat areas that are hard to reach.
(a)
Compressed air sprayer
The compressed air sprayer is usually a hand-carried sprayer with a capacity of 4–12 dm3.
Pesticides and water are proportioned according to label instructions and placed in the airtight
tank. Air pressure in the tank is increased with the built-in pump until spray is freely delivered
when the control valve is opened (Fig. C1). This type of sprayer typically has a shoulder strap
or hand grip for the operator. The nozzle and control valve are manipulated by the free hand
and directed toward the target pest. As nozzle output begins to diminish, the air pressure must
be recharged by operating the air pump. Most hand sprayers do not have a pressure regulator
to maintain constant application pressure.
However, models that do have this feature can apply a lower and more uniform rate which is
more environment-friendly.
28
Figure C.1:
(b)
Compressed air sprayer
Knapsack Sprayers
This type of sprayer is limited to about 15–20 dm3 capacity. A larger size becomes
uncomfortable for the operator. The spray tank is fashioned so that it can be carried on the
operator’s back being secured by straps as with a backpack–hence the name. The pump is
mounted inside the tank and operated by one hand that moves a pumping handle up and down
to produce nozzle discharge as noted. The nozzle and control valve are handled by the
alternate hand and the spray directed toward the target. Most operators find these units quite
acceptable to use, but as with any hand sprayer, the discharge rate and walking speed are
critical components for a predictable application rate.
(c)
Battery-operated Hand Sprayer
Battery-powered controlled droplet applicators (CDA) use a spinning disc type of atomizer to
produce a uniform droplet size. These units are suitable to apply concentrates and ultra low
volume (ULV). Thus the amount of material that must be carried by the operator is greatly
reduced. The droplet size is inversely proportional to the disc RPM.
Higher RPM reduces the droplet diameter. The units are lightweight, easy to use and usually
powered with common flashlight dry cells; the batteries being positioned in the handle (Fig.
8). These sprayers are limited to treating small areas and their cost, battery expense and low
work capacity may restrict their use.
29
Figure C.2:
Controlled droplet applicator (CDA)
Engine Power Technology
Engine Power Sprayers
(a)
Small Motorized Sprayers
Some small sprayers have all the components of large sprayers but are mounted on a small
cart or wheelbarrow. Tanks are usually 60–120 dm3 capacity. Typically they are propelled
manually or pulled by a small tractor. A small engine, 3–4 kW, provides power for the pump
and agitation system. This greatly increases their capacity over hand-operated sprayers, but
their small size still makes them unsuitable for general field use. Most models have an
adjustable nozzle on a hand gun; others may include a small boom with multiple nozzles.
(b)
Boom Sprayers
These sprayers usually are low pressure units and are the principal type used for field
spraying. Fig. C.3. Tanks and booms may be mounted on tractors or trucks, designed as
trailered units, powered and pulled by a tractor, or even self-propelled. The pumps are usually
roller, centrifugal or diaphragm pumps. Tank capacity may range from 200–4000 dm3. Booms
may range in length from 8–36 m. Boom height must be easily adjustable from 30–180 cm
above the target to insure good nozzle performance and spray pattern overlap. Some booms
are self-levelling to reduce travel undulation and provide more uniform application.
Tandem axle wheel arrangements or large diameter wheels also are used to smooth out travel
and improve application uniformity over rough ground. Booms are sometimes referred to as
wet, where spray fluid is carried to the nozzle inside the boom structural members, or dry,
with the spray material carried to the nozzles by connecting hoses.
30
Figure C.3:
Typical boom sprayer-3 point mounted
The spacing of the nozzle on the boom may range from 20–150 cm depending upon the type
of nozzle and its application.
Slasher
Slashers can be divided into rotary slashers and cutter bars. The former cut the forage by
means of impact forces, whereas the latter employ a shearing action. Both types can be either
self-propelled or tractor-powered. The former are generally machines of small size, whereas
the larger machines also perform other functions, such as conditioning.
Small walking slashers, which represent the first step of agricultural mechanization, are selfpropelled; they adopt single action cutter bars no wider than 1–1.5 m. Slashers can be
mounted to the tractor: at the rear, i.e. the simplest, most economical and therefore most
frequently-used solution; in the mid, no longer commonly used, because it requires special
mounting kits; at the front, which is gaining popularity because front three-point linkages are
now available on many modern tractors. This last solution has the advantage of better control
of the machine and superior manoeuvrability. However, it also requires complex hitching
systems capable of disengaging or raising the implement in case of impact with an obstacle.
Rear- or mid-mounted slashers have the bar connected only on one side: hence they can easily
incorporate a breakaway feature, which allows the bar to pivot rearward to clear an
obstruction without damage. The principles of operation of cutter bar slashers can be divided
into: those with an oscillating knife and fixed finger bar; and those with dual-oscillating
elements. In the former type, a simple, consolidated and reliable solution, the cutting element
consists of a fixed part (bar with guards, fingers, or teeth) and a moving part (the cutter blade,
composed of many knives). The limit is speed, no greater than 5–7 km/h.
The need to obtain higher working speeds (8–9 km/h), cleaner cutting, and reduced vibrations
led to the development of Slashers with dual oscillating knives, or with an oscillating knife
and finger bar. The latter is more robust and better suited for cutting crops close to the
ground, whereas dual oscillating knives—more vulnerable because unprotected by guards—
31
should not come into contact with the ground. There are also different solutions for rotary
Slashers, whose cutting element can rotate on a horizontal or vertical axis. Those with a
horizontal axis of rotation are now falling into disuse due to their poor cleanness of cutting.
Slashers with a vertical axis of rotation are very popular due to their high working speed (10–
12 km/h), robust construction and low maintenance requirements, but require more energy
than cutter bars.
Disc Plough
The disc plough is equipped with individually mounted revolving concave steel disc blades. It
cuts and inverts a layer of soil, thereby burying most of the surface residues and pulverizing
the soil. The blades of the disc plough are attached to the frame at an angle to the line of
travel. The purpose is to ensure proper penetration and soil displacement. Disc ploughs are
equipped with one or more discs with a diameter corresponding to the intended working depth
(Godwin, 1990).
In operation the disc plough turns a furrow slice to one side with a scooping action. The usual
size of the disc blade is about 610 mm, and these will turn a furrow 250–300 mm wide
(Culpin, 1982). The disc plough requires less draught force than a mouldboard plough
operating at the same working depth. Also, it disturbs less volume of soil than the mouldboard
plough operating at the same working depth. Compared to the mouldboard plough, the disc
plough is more suitable for use in hard-dry soils, sticky soils, hardpans, highly abrasive soils,
and in soils containing heavy roots. The disc plough is particularly useful for rapid breaking
up of stubbles where there is a large amount of crop residue. Table 2 gives details of various
tillage implements and the corresponding surface residues. The disc plough is usually
designed to operate at speeds between 5 and 8 km/h. (Godwin, 1990).
Table C.2:
Tillage implement and percentage of surface residue lost with each
operation
Tillage implement
Mouldboard plough
One-way-disc plough (0.60 to 0.66 m discs)
One-way-disc plough (0.46 to 0.56 m discs)
Tandem or offset disc
Power disc
Field cultivator (0.41 to 0.46 m sweeps)
Chisel Plough (50 mm chisels, 0.3 m apart)
Mulch treader (spade-tooth)
Mulch Treader (Spike-tooth)
V- Sweeps
Residue lost (%)
100
50
40
50
60
20
25
25
30
10
Source: Godwin, (1990)
Chisel plough
Chisel ploughs are heavy tool carriers with high-clearance tines usually spaced 0.3 m apart.
They can be equipped with 50-mm chisels up to 0.5-m shovel sweeps. Multiple rows of
staggered curved tines are mounted either rigidly, with spring cushions, or with spring or
hydraulic resets. Interchangeable sweep, chisel, spike or shovel tools are attached to each tine.
In operation, the chisel plough loosens and partially inverts the soil. In addition, it aerates the
32
soil, and kills weeds. The chisel plough kills the weeds by severing the weak roots and drying
out the soil surface. There is a reduction of about 25 per cent of the soil surface residue with
each operation. This system aids soil moisture retention and erosion control (Godwin, 1990).
Figure C.4:
Chisel plough
Different chisel type tools (a) straight, (b) chisel share, (c) diamond pointed, (d) twisted
share, (e) duck foot shares, (f ) sweep, ( g ) stubble share; winged shares: (h) non mixing, (i)
mixing; Harrow and cultivator tines: (k) rigid, (l) spring tine, (m) reinforced tine.
Sweep plough
Sweep ploughs are used extensively in stubble mulch fallow systems to achieve maximum
water retention of surface residues. Sweep ploughs are heavy structured implements equipped
with V-sweeps that range from 0.75 to 2.0 m in width. The most common width of V-sweeps
is 1.5 to 1.8 m. The blade of the sweep ranges from 0.15 to 0.2 m in width, with about a 37
degree pitch for soil lift. The angle of V-blade ranges from 60 to 100 degrees. Wide angled
sweeps penetrate the soil better, but shedding of weed roots and residues is a problem that
frequently requires a lower angle. On machines of more than 3.6 m in width, each sweep is
usually flexible for uniform tillage. To prevent clogging of the standards in heavy residues or
in bunchy residues, rolling coulters at least 0.6m in diameter are necessary ahead of the
standards (Godwin, 1990).
Figure C.5:
Sweep plough
33
The major problem of the sweep plough is incomplete weed killing. For maximum weed
control, tilling should be done on a hot day and in a soil that is dry enough to crumble. Under
most conditions, speeds above 8 km/h are necessary to get enough turbulence in the soil for
weed control. In stubble, sweeps are normally operated just enough to pass under the crown
of the plant, usually at a depth of 70 to 100 mm. Improved weed control can be obtained by
adding attachments such as a treader unit, flex-tine unit, rod-weeder or underground harrows.
With sweep ploughs surface residues can be reduced about 10% on each tillage operation.
Ridger
Ridging ploughs are usually employed in the cultivation of root crops. They are also used
where the employment of tied-ridging is considered useful for increasing water availability to
crop roots and controlling soil erosion.
Figure C.6:
Ridger
Motorised hand slasher
This type of slashers can be used to harvest crops from small plots but also for clearing rough
grass, bushes and cane fields, clearing ditches and removing small tree branches.
What implements to use?
Typical machines for reduced tillage are chisels, wing-tine cultivators, and, to a certain extent,
animated rotating implements or disc harrows. Chisels and other forms of cultivators loosen
the soil without turning it, leaving residue at the surface. According to the tool used, they may
mix residues to a certain extent into the top layer or they may leave the soil unmixed. If
crumbling is not sufficiently fine, seedbed preparation may be necessary.
Furthermore, it is possible to reduce the tillage depth (3–10 cm), which will reduce the
amount of moved soil and thus, considerably, energy requirements. To reduce the amount of
work for tillage, it is possible to combine several steps of tillage in one machine (Fig. C.7).
34
Figure C.7:
Conservation tillage implements
(1) semi-mounted wing-tined cultivator (mixing type) combined with distributing discs, crumbling
roller and drilling machine, (2) chisel plough, (3) wing-tined cultivator combined with tine rotor,
roller and drilling machine).
Under conservation tillage systems, planting is made directly in an essentially unprepared
seedbed, even if some tillage is done to create a small initial seedbed for the seedling.
Figure C.8:
Principle of a no-till machine
Sowing and fertilizing equipment in no-till systems must be able to handle residue, penetrate
hard soil, regulate the working depth, cover seeds and give sufficient soil-seed contact. For
these reasons, the no-till seeding and planting equipment must be heavier and stronger than
35
conventional equipment. In some cases, conventional equipment can be converted to a no-till
machine, although specific machines are advisable (Fig. C.8).
Figure C.9: Main devices of no-till implements for (a) residue cutting (b) furrow
opening and seed placement (c) seed covering and (d) pressing the furrow
The basic action that must be performed by a no-till machine consists of residue and soil
cutting, furrow opening, seed and fertilizer placement, and covering. Rear, front or side
wheels are often used to regulate the working depth and to ameliorate seed-soil contact and to
limit water losses. Weed and pest control has to be done chemically. Disc coulters are
commonly used for cutting crop residue (Fig. C.9).
Fluted and rippled discs give good soil disturbance, but require more weight and slower speed
than smooth discs. In extreme soil and residue conditions, the use of a powered disc is
required. There are different furrow openers (Fig. C9.b). Single and double discs are more
adapted to soft or moist soils or for large amounts of residue. Contrarily to discs, chisel and
hoe openers push the residue aside and disturb the soil more. But they are more sensitive to
plaguing in loose residue. In hard soil, point openers perform better than hoe openers because
they disturb the soil less and produce smaller aggregates. The runner opener is adapted more
for row-crop planters. Wide flat press wheels are not recommended for no-till because they
are sensitive to soil roughness and wet conditions. The sweep opener is more suitable for the
air seeder, which needs usually some stubble cleaning for successful work. When the press
wheels are not sufficient to cover the seeds, special devices are used (Fig. C.9.c). A pair of
angled wheels is efficient in closing seed furrow but it needs more clearance between the
rows than the other press wheel types (Fig.C.9.d). Nowadays, several direct drills are
combined with fertilizer and pesticide applicators. To avoid germination damage, fertilizers
generally are applied besides or below the seed rows.
Major costs are affected by machinery and herbicides. For maize production, the results are
summarized below:
36
• Ridge-till and no-till are the most profitable systems in different soil types.
• In all cases mulch-till systems (fall chisel, disc or field cultivator) are more profitable than
fall plough but not as good as ridge-till and no-till.
• In poorly drained soil, ridge-till is more profitable than no-till. Slopes higher than 4%
favour no-till systems.
Time requirements can be reduced by 65% and 43% when replacing conventional tillage with
zero tillage and reduced tillage, respectively. At the same time, energy requirements can be
reduced from more than 90 kWh/ha for conventional tillage to about 60 and 10 kWh/ha,
respectively, for reduced and zero tillage system (Stout and Chezel, 1999).
Figure C.10: Hand-held brush cutter
37
3.2.2
Options for planting
Crop planting operations may involve placing seeds or tubers in the soil at a predetermined
depth, random scattering or dropping of seeds on the field surface (broadcasting), or setting
plants in the soil.
Table C.3:
Overview of options for planting
Hand Tool Technology
Engine Power Technology
Implement
Jab Planter
Dibbler
Cutlass
Hand Hoe
Rotary Injection Hand Pushed Planter
Hand Pushed Seed Drill
Hand Seeder (Netherlands)
Puck Hand Drill
Cecoco Hand Direct Seeders Type CK-AD)
Row crop Planter
Tractor Mounted Direct Planter
Seeders and planters are essential for the reproduction of crops. Their function is metering
and placing of seeds or plants or of parts thereof in the soil. Thus, seeders are used for
generative reproduction, whereas planters aid in vegetative propagation. Seeders and planters
are either used as solo machines or in combinations with preceding soil cultivating machines.
In some cases, combinations with fertilizing equipment also are common.
Seeders
Generally, seeders comprise one or several hoppers, which contain the seeds of metering
parts, and of equipment for seed placement in the soil. The metering either aims at equal
spacing of the seeds or is restricted to feeding a stream of seeds into a conveying tube. The
former case can be defined as precision seeding, whereas for the latter case, the term bulk
seeding might be appropriate. Since in most cases the seeds are placed in a row, the
definitions of precision drilling as well as bulk drilling make sense.
Precision drilling is used mainly for rather widely spaced crops, such as corn, beans, sugar
beets and sunflower. With closely spaced crops, precision drilling is too expensive and
therefore bulk drilling common.
Planters
Planters are used for vegetative reproduction of crops. Either parts of plants or whole small
plants are put into the soil. Potato tubers can be regarded as parts of plants. On the other hand,
with paddy rice, cabbage, and trees it is customary to put into the soil whole small plants,
which grew up under a transparent cover in garden beds or in greenhouses.
The term transplanting seems appropriate for this method of establishing a crop.
38
Planting may be done on flat surface of a field, in furrows, or on beds, as illustrated in Figure
C.11.
Figure C.11: Various types of surface profiles for row-crop planting
Furrow planting (or lister planting) is widely practised in semiarid conditions to protect the
young plant from wind and blowing soil.
Bed planting is often practised in high-rainfall areas to improve surface drainage.
Flat planting generally predominates where natural moisture conditions are favourable.
Machines that place the seed in the soil and cover it in the same operation create definite
rows. If the rows or planting beds are far enough apart to permit operating machinery between
them for inter-tilling or other cultural operations, the result is known as a row-crop planting;
otherwise, it is considered to be solid planting.
With appropriate planting equipment, seeds may be distributed according to any of the
following methods or patterns.
•
•
•
•
Broadcasting (random scattering of seeds over the surface of the field).
Drill seeding (random dropping and covering of seeds in furrows to give definite rows).
Precision planting (accurate placing of single seeds at about equal intervals in rows).
Hill dropping (placing groups of seeds at about equal intervals in rows).
In regards conventional and conservation agriculture, the planting systems are different.
Minimum tillage or zero tillage planting systems include strip tillage, the “no-tillage” system
(which is actually narrow-strip tillage or inserting seed through the mulch), lister planting,
till-and-plant combinations following ploughing or other primary tillage, and planting in
wheel tracks immediately after ploughing.
39
Hand operated jab planter
In large scale operations the no-till technique requires a special planter (seeder) to insert the
seed through the mulch covering an untilled field. This operation calls for a considerably
increased draught from the tractor and the high power requirement of no-till planters is clearly
inappropriate for adaptation to the circumstances of the small scale farmer in Ghana. Hand
operated jab planter automatically meters seeds and injects it through the mulch to the
required depth and at a precise spacing with very much lower expenditure of energy. Instead
of cutting a continuous slit in the soil, into which seed is dibbled by the tractor drawn planter,
the hand held tool provides a slot only in which the seed is inserted.
Figure C.12: Auto-feed jab planter
Rotary injection hand-pushed planter
This is a hand-pushed unit; a seed hopper channels seed towards a selector wheel which is
positioned at centre of planting wheel which meters seed from the hopper to the planting
spades. As each spade reaches the ground it penetrates the surface and then opens, releasing
seed to the correct depth. Different wheels can be used for different seed types and spacing.
The unit can also be tractor-mounted and can be used in rough operating conditions. The work
rate is 4 hours/ha.
40
Figure C.13: Rotary injection hand-pushed planter
Hand pushed seed drill
This is a very simple hand-pushed seed drill, used for single row sowing of grain and
vegetable seeds in dry conditions. The work rate is 0.4 ha/day.
Figure C.14: Hand pushed seed drill
Hand seeder
This manual seeder may be used as a drill or as a precision seeder, and can handle a range of
seed types. For single-row drilling, the seed is discharged by a rotary brush and regulated by
an adjustable drilled disc. For precision seeding a range of sprocket-type metering wheels are
provided, giving alternative seed spacing of 200, 250, 300, 400, 600 or 1200 mm. In both
modes, the seed flow is constantly visible to the operator. The seeder is mounted between a
steel land wheel and a cast iron furrow press-wheel. Adjustments include seeding depth and
row-marker position.
41
Figure C.15: Hand seeder
Puck hand drill
This manual row seeder is designed for small quantities of vegetable and grain seeds. A
hopper is mounted between a pair of land wheels and its outlet is controlled by a cord on the
push handle.
Figure C.16: Puck hand drill
Cecoco hand direct seeders (Type CK-AD)
These light and compact two-row seeders can be operated either in wet field conditions (Type
CK-AW) or in dry conditions (Type CK-AD) by one person. The difference between the two
models is that for dry field working the sleds are replaced with furrow-opening coulters.
A wide variety of seeds and grain may be sown. Seed spacing is determined by adjusting the
brush metering system. Seed is supplied from twin two-litre hoppers. A separate fertilizer
attachment is available for the dry-land model. Seeding width is 300 mm.
42
Figure C.17: Cecoco hand direct seeders
Row crop planter (Maize planter)
Most row crop planters are adaptable to a variety of crops by merely changing seed plates,
hopper bottoms, or some other elements of metering device. The seed metering device on a
unit planter is usually driven from the press-wheel, but in some cases is driven by a gauge
wheel or by double-disc openers.
Pull type or mounted maize planters are available for small acreages. Most pull-type planters
can plant 4, 6 or 8 rows, covering widths as great as 6 m. Row spacing is adjustable but the
space required by the carrier wheels may limit the minimum uniform spacing.
Figure C.18: Row-crop planter (Maize planter), Unit planter
Tractor mounted direct planter
This is a planter used for planting through mulch. Where there is significant presence of
mulch, it becomes difficult to use some conventional row crop planters in planting through
the mulch. Tractor mounted direct planters are therefore employed for direct planting through
the mulch after using herbicide for land clearing.
43
3.2.3
Options for weeding (weed control)
Table C.4:
Weed control
Hand Tool Technology
Engine Power
Technology
Implement
Knapsack Sprayer
Cutlass
Hand Hoe
Weed Wiper
Boom Sprayer
Motorised Knapsack Sprayer
Tractor mounted weeder/ Sweep tine implement
CDA Sprayer
Weed Wiper
This is a wheel-mounted, multi-wick wiper, with the wicks threaded in and out of the wiper
bar. It is hand pushed, using a T-handle fitted with a herbicide flow-control button. The
standard 1 m long wiper bar can be interchanged with 450 mm or 600 mm bars for inter-row
weeding.
Figure C.19: Wheel-mounted weed wiper
Tractor-mounted weeder/ Sweep tine implement
This implement is similar in appearance and operating characteristics to chisel ploughs, but
are of much lighter construction. They are designed mainly for eradication of small weeds.
The tines are generally spaced 150 to 230 mm apart in a staggered pattern. They normally do
not operate effectively in crop residues because of the close spacing of the tines.
44
Figure C.20: Sweep tine implement
3.3
Conditions for engine powered technology in conservation agriculture
3.3.1
Gentle topography and absence of obstacles on the field
For safety reasons it is important that the farmland on which the tractor and implement will
operate is level or gently sloping. De-stumping of farmland is necessary for the smooth
operation of tractors and the associated implement. Where the land is not de-stumped, the
tractors and the implements are likely to breakdown.
3.3.2
Land tenure system and size of land holding
The system of land tenure is an important determinant of the level of mechanisation that is
appropriate and of the types of mechanisation inputs that are appropriate within each level.
The land tenure system, that is, whether the farm is operated by the owner, by cash renting, or
by share cropping arrangement, affects mechanisation s. If a tenant operates a farm, he or she
may be reluctant to invest in higher levels of mechanisation and might not be willing to
properly de-stump fields in the face of uncertainty.
Even in case there are no social constraints such as land tenure, the size and shape of fields
are important in considering mechanisation with tractors. This is because humans and animals
can manoeuvre well in a relatively small area and may still achieve an acceptable level of
output efficiency. The type of mechanical power that can be efficiently used, however, is
determined by farm and field size and shape. Two-axle tractors can be used efficiently in
larger fields only, and generally the larger/longer the field, the higher the efficiency (Gifford,
1992).
3.3.3
Choice of tractors
There is a wide choice of tractors and implements on the market. The price, performance,
specification and after-sales service, however, differ from one tractor/ implement to the other.
The operations carried out with the tractor also differ from one farm to the other. Matching
tractor and implement is very important so as not to overload or under utilise the tractor
engine. The choice of tractor/ implement may involve price bargaining, technical
45
specification, economic, social, environmental and psychological factors (Gifford, 1992).
There is therefore the need for advisory service to be provided in the selection of tractors.
3.3.4
Organisational set-up
Farmer Associations
It is necessary for farmers to form and belong to a group which can be in a form of
association. This would enable farmers to have a common voice, identify common problems
and find suitable solutions to their problems at the right time. The formation of farmer groups
or associations would enable farmers to access credit, which will help them to finance various
operations such as land preparation, planting and weeding. In addition, such organization
would enable farmers to have easy access to inputs such as training, improved seeds and agrochemicals including fertiliser, herbicides and pesticides. To remain functional, farmer groups
or associations, however, require good leadership, accountability, and transparency.
Tractor operators association
Tractor operators need some form of organization to be able to provide for timeliness of
agricultural field operations. This would also enable tractor owners and operators to have a
common voice, identify common problems and find suitable solutions to their problems at the
right time. However, good leadership, proper accountability and transparency are needed to
remain functional.
Potential for multi-farm deployment
Tractors and their associated implements are capital intensive. Because of investment cost,
there must be a high annual utilisation rate to make the use of tractor and implement cost
effective. This can be achieved by multi-farm use of the machinery not only for land
preparation but also for planting, fertiliser application, weed control, harvesting, shelling,
threshing, and transport.
3.3.5
Agricultural services
Availability of spare and replacement parts
The availability of good spare parts at reasonable prices is very important for the maintenance
and repairs of tractors and implements, which is necessary for the sustenance of the
machinery. A reasonable stock of spare and replacement parts would have to be made
available at either at the local area or from mobile shops.
Maintenance and repair service
Maintenance and repair facilities and services for tractors and implements, in sufficient
quality and capacity are pre-requisite for sustainable maintenance of agriculture machinery.
Tractors and implements will require regular maintenance throughout their economic life and
the quality of service available affects the frequency and duration of breakdowns, that,
especially during peak periods, have negative economic implications. Thus, the reliability of
the tractor and implement depend, to a great extent, on the availability and quality of services.
This requires trained mechanics, and sometimes sophisticated tools and devices (FAO, 1990).
46
Tractor operator training
In order to avoid breakdown of machinery due to abuse, bad customs or habits and
insufficient maintenance and service work, tractor operators need good training. For the
successful operation of tractor and implements, operators need to know:
1.
2.
3.
4.
How to operate machinery efficiently with least damage (working speed, choice of gear,
etc.)
The limitations in terms of speed, power, safety etc.
How to carry out maintenance work
Soil and water conservation techniques
To achieve these skills, training programmes and courses must be provided. Frequent
breakdowns, reduced economic life, an increase in costs, and accidents are the penalties for
neglecting the training of operators (FAO, 1990).
Availability of farming inputs
The timely availability of farming inputs is vital for mechanised agricultural operations.
Improved seeds, fertiliser, herbicides, insecticides etc need to be available to the farmer at
reasonable prices at the right place and time.
3.3.6
Markets for farm produce and farm access roads
The availability of markets for farm produce is important for increased crop production. Good
farm access roads enable the transport of farm produce from the farm to the market.
Furthermore, good prices of farm produce serve as a motivating factor for increased crop
production. High prices of crop outputs influence the amount and type of production inputs to
be used.
3.3.7
Research, development and extension
There is the need for organised testing of both imported and locally produced machinery to
ensure that its construction is sound and can work under local conditions. There must be a
continuous exchange of information with farming communities on research findings and the
needed changes to equipments.
Research, development and extension linkages are essential for effective technology transfer,
testing and use in farming communities.
3.3.8
Policy support
Credit and subsidy
In order for mechanised agriculture to be successful, it is vital for farmers to have easy access
to credit on favourable terms. The process of credit acquisition for agricultural purposes
should not be bureaucratic.
47
To encourage increased crop production, there is also the need for government to subsidise
various inputs such as fertiliser, herbicides, insecticides, and farm machinery and implements
to make them more affordable to resource poor farmers.
Import of tractors
Too many types of tractors create problems later as it complicates maintenance and spare
parts acquisition. Some tractors have proven not to be durable. Hence the government policy
should therefore aim at the importation of tractors and implements most suitable for the local
environment rather than the importation of any model or type of agricultural tractors and
implements.
The long-term needs of the farmers should be recognized. In the provision of loans or grants
for the bulk purchase of tractors, also the long-term need for maintenance and repair of
tractors and implements, which are vital to the efficient use of the machinery, should be
considered and money be set aside for it (Moens and Siepman, 1984). Also support
arrangements will have to be made for sustainable machinery use and for effective training of
manpower at all levels.
Investment in agriculture
Poverty is one of the main problems of rural communities. Increased employment is a key
requirement for alleviating rural poverty. There is the need for public investment in the rural
areas. Areas for consideration include crop processing and crop storage to absorb increased
food production that may be due to mechanized conservation agriculture.
48
PART D
RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1
What type of tillage system is to be promoted in the transitional zone of Brong
Ahafo Region?
1.1
Potentials and limitations of current conventional tillage systems with hand tools
(CTHT)
1.1.1. Potentials
As described in Part C (Chapter 1), this tillage system involves the use of simple hand tools
like the hoe and cutlass to slash and burn the vegetation for land preparation, planting and
weeding. About 71% and 42% of farmers were observed to practise conventional tillage with
hand tools out of 297 and 398 interviewed farmers in Sunyani and Nkoranza Districts,
respectively. This tillage system is the most prevalent form of land preparation among farmers
in Brong Ahafo Region, with hoe and cutlass as the dominant implements used. (SFSP, 2000)
Need for little capital investment
The interviewed farmers responded that investments in tillage implements are minimal. In
Sunyani District alone, the contribution of family labour towards land preparation, planting
and weeding is about 52 % of the total labour used.
Accessibility
According to the respondents, the uses of simple implements associated with this system are
easily accessible and do not require much effort or time to learn. In addition, the management
of this tillage system, especially land preparation techniques, doesn’t require additional skills.
The farmers interviewed, especially women, do not have access to resources for the
acquisition of different types of agricultural implements and rather use hoe and cutlass. The
implements are accessed from local market or artisans and are easily maintained or repaired.
1.1.2
Limitations
Soil degradation
Almost all interviewed farmers using this tillage system in both districts qualitatively
(difficult for farmers to express quantitatively) revealed that continuously practising this
tillage system has resulted in the continuous decline of soil fertility and yield during the last
ten years. Besides this, interviewed farmers in the study area revealed that forest cover has
declined in the region due to shifting cultivation and continuous bush fires.
SFSP (2000) reported that the decline in yield levels in this tillage system is compensated by
practising shifting cultivation. The consequences are further destruction of the natural
resources base and growing poverty among small farmer population. Boa et al (2003),
reported that the purpose of burning in the traditional tillage system is to get rid of excess
vegetation that hampers planting as well as seedling emergence. According to Joe (2003),
when burning, most of the organic carbon and sulphur are lost in the burning process in the
49
form of gases. Slash and burn farming practices, especially the burning of crops residues and
fallow vegetation, intensive hoeing or ploughing and lacking restitution of organic and plant
nutrients, results in soil degradation (Steiner, 2002). The degradation in the soil structure
results in the formation of crusts and in compaction, that eventually leads to soil erosion,
which results in drastically lower yields (Unger, 1984).
Drudgery and ineffective implements
All farmers interviewed practising this tillage system revealed that the hoe, cutlass and dibbler
were ineffective, affecting their health, as the implements force them to bend their waist.
These implements are labour intensive and demands tremendous energy, which result in
physical strain, specifically for children and women (Osei-Bonsu, 2001).
Delayed field operations
The farmers interviewed stated that field operations are often delayed due to inefficiency of
the implements. Farmers are unable to expand the sizes of their available cultivable land,
resulting in low production.
1.2
Potential and limitations of conventional tillage systems with tractor disc plough
(CTDP)
This system is prevalent in Nkoranza District, and it was observed that out of 12
communities, nine communities practise slash and burn and then plough their land with
tractor disc plough for land preparation. As to the model/types of tractors Ford, Massey
Ferguson, Swaraj, Same, Zeto and Shangai are available to farmers, but their average age is
estimated to be about 30 years. From the total number of 398 interviewed farmers, 29%
practise this tillage system.
1.2.1
Potentials
Timely land preparation and maximize land use
The interviewed farmers revealed that they use tractor disc plough to complete land
preparation within a short period of time and to reduce drudgery. This facilitates the
timeliness of the subsequent agricultural operations and allows use of multiple cropping
systems.
1.2.2
Limitations
Soil degradation
Soil degradation is the main problem associated with the use of tractor disc plough, according
to interviewed farmers. A number of farmers have observed the removal of the topsoil from
their farms over a period of time. The soil is ploughed to the extent of complete inversion.
Ploughing along the slope, improper plough adjustments, too deep ploughing, harrowing and
pulverisation expose the soil to wind and run-off. Exclusive use of tractor disc ploughs has
resulted in soil degradation and has increased farmers’ dependency on mineral fertilizer
(Loos, 2001).
50
High operational costs
All farmers would like to use tractor services. They mentioned high operational costs,
however, as the main impediment. According to tractor operators, in the 2003 the fuel cost
has increased by 100%. The price of diesel (June 2003) is 17,500 ¢/gallon, which is double
the price of diesel in 2002. As a consequence, the service price charged for ploughing has
increased from ¢ 200,000 in 2002 to ¢ 300,000 per hectare in 2003 (Figure D.1).
With respect to the use of tractor for tillage, the major problems are availability of capital,
suitable land, fields of sufficient size, and returns on the investment (Unger, 1984). It is a
serious challenge for small-scale farmers to own agricultural machineries and to make a
transition from labour intensive cultivation to a tractor tillage system. Apart from increases in
the fuel price, the availability of and the expensiveness of spare parts are also main reasons
for escalation of tractor services costs.
Figure D.1:
Tractor ploughing charges (¢ /hectare) from 2000 to 2003
Ploughing charges per hectare
350000
Cedis
300000
250000
Year 2000
200000
150000
Year 2001
Year 2002
100000
Year 2003
50000
0
Ploughing charge per hectare
Source: British-American Tobacco Company-Wenchi (June 2003) Personal information
Poor technical know-how
Interviewed tractor operators indicated that most of them have no appropriate knowledge on
proper operation of field implements. Tractor operators and mechanics are not sufficiently
acquainted with required knowledge and skills to provide appropriate service and
maintenance.
Land fragmentation, soil surface, and topography
Increasing population pressure and customary land tenure system has led to land
fragmentation, reducing the size of the land holdings, making them unattractive and
uneconomic for tractor disc ploughing services.
Interviewed tractor operators as well as farmers pointed out that tree stumps in fields and too
steep slopes hamper the use of tractors and implements in the field.
51
1.3
Ecological factors favouring or constraining adoption of conservation agriculture
1.3.1
Ecological factors favouring adoption of CA
About 29.4% of farmers interviewed in Sunyani District and 29.9% in Nkoranza District have
been found to practise conservation agriculture using herbicides (glyphosate) for land
preparation, glyphosate and cover crops (Mucuna and Cannivalia) or only cover crops.
According to (Loos, 2001), minimum tillage with cover cropping contributes to soil
conservation and supplementation of deficient nutrients. Bonsu (2001) observed that this
system maintains its productive potential of soil over an extended period of time and gives
rise to minimal soil, water and nutrient losses.
Improved soil productivity
About 55% and 41% of the interviewed farmers practising conservation tillage in Sunyani and
Nkoranza Districts respectively observed that improving the soil fertility helps in improving
crop yields (Table D.1). Farmers practising conservation agriculture achieved were able to
achieve higher maize yields.
Table D.1:
Favouring
factors
Ecological factors favouring and/or constraining the adoption of
conservation agriculture (farmers’ perception)
Factor
Improved soil productivity
Continuous crop land use
Soil moisture conservation
Reduced soil erosion
Weed suppression
Constraining
factors
Lower soil surface
temperature
Slightly low yield (1st year)
Germination of seed (1st year)
Rodents and snakes
Poor viability of Mucuna
seeds
Bush fire
Unavailability different cover
crops
Additional knowledge needed
52
District
Sunyani
Nkoranza
Sunyani
Nkoranza
Sunyani
Nkoranza
Sunyani
Nkoranza
Sunyani
Nkoranza
Sunyani
Nkoranza
Sunyani
Nkoranza
Sunyani
Nkoranza
Sunyani
Nkoranza
Sunyani
Nkoranza
Sunyani
Nkoranza
Sunyani
Nkoranza
Sunyani
Nkoranza
No. of farmers
48
47
44
43
52
62
63
92
55
82
38
57
44
38
38
46
12
20
34
27
33
39
17
20
36
48
% farmers
55.
41.
51
36
60
52
72
77
63
69
44
48
51
32
44
39
14
17
39
23
38
33
20
17
41
40
The total number of conservation tillage farmers interviewed in Sunyani District is 87 whilst in
Nkoranza, it was 119.
The data presented in table D.2 reveal that in Sunyani District maize yields were 19%
(without fertilizer) and 27% (with fertilizer) higher in CA as compared to CTHT.
Table D.2:
Average maize yields in different tillage systems in Sunyani and Nkoranza
Districts
District
Tillage system
Sunyani
CTHT
CA
CTHT
CA
CTDP
Nkoranza
Yield (Kg/ Acre)
Without fertilizers With fertilizers
680
900
810
1140
630
840
740
1020
720
1260
In Nkoranza District it was observed that in CA there was an increase of 17% in maize yield
without fertilizer and 21% with fertilizer compared to CTHT. Higher yields as a result of
conservation tillage is consistent with the results obtained elsewhere as reported by the FAO
(2001), that also reports increased yields (double or even sometimes triple).
The increased soil fertility could be attributed to the improved chemical, biological and
physical soil properties as a result of e.g. addition of nitrogen by leguminous cover crops in
the cropping system (Amado et al., 1998). Additionally, soil phosphorus contents may
increase. Increases to about 30% of soil phosphorus are reported depending on the type of
cover crop (Calegari and Alexander,1998). Also, soil acidification may be reduced in the
topsoils, in which most soil organic matter accumulates (Burle et al,1997). Increased soil
organic matter resulting from decomposed crop residues plays an important role in the
formation and stabilization of soil aggregates through connecting the organic polymers and
the inorganic surfaces with polyvalent cations, thereby improving the soil structure. A strong
relationship also exists between soil carbon content and aggregate size. Castro Filho et al,
(1998) found an increase in soil carbon content under zero tillage resulting in a 134% increase
in aggregates larger than 2 mm and a 38% decrease in aggregates of less than 0.25mm,
compared to conventional tillage.
Continuous cropland use/ reduced fallow
The sustainable increased yield obtained in CA over a period of time (e.g. 3-5 years in
Sunyani District and 2-3 years in Nkoranza District) enabled farmers to continuously crop the
same piece of land without leaving the land fallow. Data presented in table D.1 reveal that
about 51% (Sunyani) and 36% (Nkoranza) of interviewed farmers have been continuously
cropping the same land as a result practising CA, thereby reducing the area of land left under
fallow within the communities.
Soil moisture conservation
The vegetative soil cover produced as a result of cover cropping and crop residue
management ensures efficient soil water conservation for plant growth and development.
About 60% and 52% (Table D.1) of the interviewed farmers in Sunyani and Nkoranza
Districts respectively revealed that CA practices helped in conserving soil moisture which in
53
turn resulted in improved crop growth and development, ensuring sustainable crop yields,
even during unfavourable climatic conditions such as dry spells.
Reduced soil erosion
Farmers agree that CA practices helps in reducing soil erosion by way of providing mulch
cover to the surface. Table D.1 shows that 60% of the farmers interviewed in Sunyani District
and 52% in Nkoranza District are of the opinion that CA helps in reducing soil erosion. The
vegetative mulch cover on the soil surface provides adequate protection to the soil from the
impact of rain drops as well as reduces runoff on the soil surface. As a result, soil erosion
may be reduced to a level below the regeneration rate of the soil and the groundwater
resources may be maintained or even enhanced (Derpsch 1997). CA also contributes to wider
environmental benefits such as improved management of soil and water resources from farm
to watershed levels through less flooding, better recharge of groundwater resource, improved
water quality and reduced siltation effects downstream (Derpsch 1997).
Weed suppression
According to 63% (Sunyani) and 69% (Nkoranza) of the interviewed farmers, the use of
herbicides for land preparation combined with the presence of mulch from cover crop
residues on farmlands suppressed the growth of weeds and reduced the time and energy spent
on weed control (Table D.1).
Weeding accounts for more than 60% of the time spent on the land (Wijewardene, 1978). Use
of pre- and post-plant herbicides in zero-tillage in Ghana required only 15% of the time
required for seedbed preparation and weed control as compared to the use of a hand hoe only.
Lower soil surface temperatures
Data presented in Table D.1 reveal that 44% (Sunyani) and 48% (Nkoranza) of the farmers
confirm that CA, as a result of protective mulch cover on the soil surface helps in the
maintenance of lower soil surface temperatures, thereby creating a more favourable microenvironment for the germination and growth food crops and also the development of soil
organisms. In CA, with time, soil fauna takes some functions of traditional soil tillage, which
is loosening the soil and mixing the soil components (FAO, 2001). In addition, the increased
biological activity creates a stable soil structure through accumulation of organic matter.
1.3.2
Ecological factors constraining adoption of CA
Slightly lower crop yield during the first year of adoption
During the first years of adopting CA practices, 51% (Sunyani) and 32% (Nkoranza) of
farmers interviewed mentioned that there is a slightly lower maize grain yield during the first
year in comparison to CTHT (Table D.1). However, during the subsequent years of adoption
there was sustainable increase in crop yields.
54
Poor germination of seeds
About 44% of farmers interviewed in Sunyani and 39% from Nkoranza revealed that planting
of crops through the thick mulch is cumbersome, especially in the first year (table D.1).
Farmers also confirm that very high volumes of soil cover impede germination of the main
crop and affect plant population, thereby affecting productivity.
Rodents and snakes
About 14% of the interviewed farmers in Sunyani and 17% (table D.1) of farmers in
Nkoranza expressed concern that cover crops sometimes serve as hiding places for pests such
as rodents, that destroy crops, and also for reptiles like snakes that make field operations
dangerous.
Poor viability of Mucuna seeds
About 39% of farmers interviewed in Sunyani and 23% from Nkoranza complained about
poor viability of Mucuna seeds supplied to them (table D.1). They observed that the poor
viability of the seeds reflected in poor germination as well as poor establishment of the cover
crops in the field resulting in ineffective suppression of weeds.
Bush fires
Some farmers in Sunyani (38%) and Nkoranza (33%) remarked that sometimes their fields of
dried Mucuna cover catch fire easily from nearby slash and burn fields, resulting in the
destruction of the mulch cover on their plots (table D.1).
Unavailability of different cover crops
Farmers using Mucuna as cover crop observed that harvested Mucuna seeds were not edible
and had no market value. About 37% and 50% of the interviewed farmers using cover crops
in Sunyani and Nkoranza respectively expressed their concern about the unavailability of
other cover crops with similar qualities as Mucuna but with some economic value (table D.1).
Additional knowledge needed
About 40% of the interviewed farmers expressed the need for more knowledge to successfully
integrate the different components associated with the adoption of minimum tillage with
herbicides and cover crops (table D.1). Relevant knowledge in the selection of herbicides,
selection and timely incorporation of cover crops, control of rodents and other pests were
some of the skills required by farmers practising CA in Sunyani and Nkoranza Districts.
55
1.4
Socio-economic factors favouring and/or constraining adoption of conservation
agriculture
1.4.1
Importance of land tenure system and farm size for adopting CA
Land to cultivate can be obtained in different ways. Three categories were identified in
Sunyani and Nkoranza Districts. These are:
• Family land
• Hired land (cash)
• Hired land (share cropping)
Farmers who use family land for crop production have user rights to the land through
inheritance (via the family) or through gifts. These farmers can lease or rent out this land to
other farmers.
In the hired land (cash) category, farmers pay in cash for the use of land and land is being
rented for a short period only, mostly between 1-3 years. In some cases, written contracts are
made and legal advice sought. After expiration of the contract, the land is handed back to the
owner or a new contract drawn. The former is mostly the case as they leave the land for
fallow.
In the share cropping category the land owner (normally referred to as the landlord) allocates
a portion of land to a farmer (known as the tenant) to cultivate. The farmer does not pay any
cash in advance and the landlord does not provide any input for production. After harvest, the
produce is shared based on agreed percentages. One-third of the produce is given to the land
owner and two-thirds is given to the tenant. This system, which is predominant in all the
communities visited, is known as the Abusa system and is mainly used for maize cultivation.
Another system mentioned is the Abunu system where harvest is shared on a 50% basis. This
is mainly used in yam and cassava cultivation.
Out of 297 farmers interviewed in Sunyani District, 52% indicated working on their own land,
9% have cash renting arrangements, whereas the remaining 39% has a share cropping tenancy
arrangement. In all 9 communities visited in Sunyani District, some form of cash renting
exists but a fixed amount is paid to a local government representative and the chief of the
community (table D.3).
Table D.3:
Land tenure system in Sunyani and Nkoranza Districts
Land tenure system
Sunyani
District
Nkoranza
District
Total
Family land
Hired land
(cash)
Hired land (share
cropping)
155 (52%)
26 (9%)
116 (39%)
297 (100%)
161 (41%)
76 (18%)
161 (41%)
398 (100%)
In Nkoranza District, however, 41% of 398 farmers interviewed work on their own land, 18%
hire land on cash basis whereas the remaining 41% have share cropping arrangements.
Farmers mentioned lack of credit and low income level as a reason for not hiring land on a
cash renting basis.
56
In both districts it was observed that most of the farmers practising share cropping have
migrated, mainly from the Northern regions (Northern, Upper East, and Upper West
Regions). In all communities visited in the two districts, the migrant farmer population was in
the range of 65 to 80%.
Farmers farming their own land showed a clear preference for CA practices (table D.4). For
farmers hiring land, however, an important factor determining whether or not they may adopt
CA is the duration of the hiring period of the land. Farmers with share cropping arrangements
scored CA practices high, because their landlords encourage them to practise CA, as the latter
expect an increase in their share (one third) of the harvest crop.
Table D.4:
Farmers’ preference for different tillage practices as a function of the land
tenure system in Sunyani District
Preference for CTHT
Preference for CA
**
********
1 year
***
*******
2-5 years
**
********
>5 years
2-5 years
**
***
********
*******
>5 years
***
*******
Family land
Land tenure
system
Hired land
(cash)
Hired land
(share
cropping)
Total number of farmers in Sunyani is 67
In Nkoranza District, where farmers have access to tractor ploughing services, farmers who
hire land for a short period (1 year) expressed preference for CTDP. Only if these farmers
would be able to hire land (cash) for 2 or more years, they would be willing to switch to CA.
This does not apply for all farmers hiring land with share cropping beyond 5 years. Out of this
group of farmers, some would prefer CTDP instead of CA, if tractor services would be
available.
Table D.5: Farmers’ preference for different tillage practices as a function of the land
tenure system in Nkoranza District
Family land
Hired
1 year
land
2-5 years
Land tenure (cash)
>5 year
system
Hired
1 year
land
2-5 years
(Share
>5 years
cropping)
Preference
for CTHT
Preference
for CA
Preference for
CTDP
**
***
***
*******
**
****
*
*****
***
****
******
****
******
**
******
**
**
*****
***
Total number of farmers in Nkoranza is 145
57
Table D.6:
Farmers’ preference for different tillage practices as a function of the
farm size in Nkoranza District
Land tenure system
Family
Land
1-2
years
Hired
Land
3-5
years
>5
years
Preference for
CTHT
Farm
size
(acres)
Preference for
CA
Preference for
CTDP
<4
***
*******
4-15
****
*****
*
>15
***
*****
**
<4
**********
4-15
*******
***
>15
****
******
<4
****
******
4-15
*****
****
*
>15
****
***
***
<4
**
********
4-15
*
******
***
***
*******
>15
Total farmers in Nkoranza = 145
Farmers owning land showed preference for CA (Table D.6). With increasing farm size, some
of the farmers would use tractors, if available. Among the farmers hiring land for a short
period of time and with less than 4 acres, none of them would consider CA. If the hiring
period increases, farmers with less than 4 acres would switch to CA. In case also the farm size
increases, more farmers would use tractor services, if available.
1.4.2
Labour input
CTHT is a labour-intensive farming practice, and a main limiting factor to increasing
productivity due to untimely performed farm operations. Farmers using CTHT are not able to
increase the area under cultivation due to limited available labour force. Collected labour data
regarding maize cultivation in Sunyani and Nkoranza Districts indicated 24% and 32%
decrease in labour use in CA and CTDP respectively, in comparison to CTHT (Figure D2).
This reduction in labour use in CA and CTDP was mainly due to less labour required for land
preparation and weeding operations.
58
CA reduces their workload for female farmers, who, in addition to all household activities (cooking,
looking after children, fetching water etc) also have to spend considerable time on farm operations,
especially planting, weeding and harvesting.
Figure D.2:
Average labour (man days) used on a hectare of land (Maize production)
Labour use in diferent tillage systems (Maize production)
100
90
90
80
69
70
Man days/ha
61
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
CTHT
CA
CTDP
Tillage system
1.4.3
Access to information
A clear difference in the level of knowledge on CA among farmers in Sunyani and Nkoranza
was observed during the study. Farmers in Sunyani, who have been exposed to SFSP
activities for the last 5 years, have a better knowledge on CA than farmers in Nkoranza.
Information transferred from farmer-to-farmer on herbicides and cover crops was found to be
an important source of dissemination of information in CT as well as in CTDP. Some farmers
had acquired a better understanding on the different field operations through trainings and
were capable of sharing their experiences with their colleagues. This was the main source of
technology transfer for about half of the farmers in 6 out of 12 and 4 out of 9 communities
interviewed in Nkoranza and Sunyani Districts respectively.
Dealers selling agrochemicals sometimes provided information on the application of
herbicides, their effect on plants, and application procedures. This, however, does not involve
a formal extension process.
59
1.4.4
Cost and benefits of maize production with reference to different tillage systems
The economic data collected refers to maize in CTHT, CA and CTDP. The results are
presented in Table D.7.
The team draw the following conclusions:
•
•
•
•
In comparison to CTHT, human labour decreased in CA by 24% and in CTDP by 32%
due to reduction in labour in slashing of grasses and controlling weeds.
The total cost per ha of maize production was higher (+20%) in CTDP than in CTHT,
due to expenses for using tractor services (disc plough) and comparatively high
expenditure on fertilizers.
The production per ha increased by 45% in CTPD and by 24% in CA as compared to
CTHT. The higher production observed in CTDP was partly due to better plant
population per unit of area and more use of fertilizers. The higher production in CA was
partly due to better soil fertility, control of weed population and higher fertilizer use.
The net return per ha was 145% higher in CA and 168% higher in CTDP compared to
CTHT due to better productivity of maize.
Farmers practising CA were using herbicides for clearing the grasses and weeds and in some
cases not burning the grass after slashing. In all three tillage systems farmers were using
fertilizers in maize cultivation, but the quantity used was comparatively higher in CA and
CTDP. The yield per ha observed in CTHT, CA and CTDP was 2.18 tons, 2.70 tons and 3.15
tons, respectively. The variation in maize prices over the year is high. Prices of maize varied
from ¢50,000 per 100 kg when sold immediately after harvesting, to ¢140,000 per 100 kg
when sold 4 to 5 months after harvesting (June 2003).
60
Table D.7:
Cost-Benefit analysis of maize production under three tillage systems
(calculated per ha) for 9 Communities in Sunyani and 12 Communities in
Nkoranza Districts
Tillage systems
Criteria
Unit
Land rent
¢
Ploughing charges
¢
Seed
qty (Kg)
CTHT
value (¢)
CA
CTDP
125000
125000
125000
0
0
300000
24
25
25
85000
92250
92275
4
5
7
478333
628438
894318
0
4.08
2.28
0
90
234375
69
(-23.61)
118410
61
(-31.94)
1222395
814063
981023
113333
120938
194773
149583
157500
205228
2048643
2.18
2047563
2172563
(-0.05)
2.7
(+24.14)
2486025
2611025
(+20.12)
3.15
(+44.83)
80-90%
80-90%
80-90%
1200000
1200000
1200000
qty (50 kg
Fertilizer
bags)
value (¢)
Herbicide
qty (liters)
value (¢)
Labour
man-days
value (¢)
Machine shelling
costs
¢
Transport costs
¢
Variable costs
¢
Total costs
¢
Yields
tons
Qty sold
%
Price
¢/ ton
Gross returns
¢
2173643
3240000
3780000
1067438
1168975
Net return
¢
436358
(+144.62)
(+167.89)
Note: Figures in parenthesis indicate how CA and CTDP differ from CTHT in labour input, total costs
of production, yields, and net returns
1.4.5
2610000
Access to credits, inputs and markets
The farmers in all communities and also the tractor owners reported problems in acquiring
loans from the bank. The main problem mentioned was a high level of bureaucracy in the
banking system. It takes 5 to 6 months to get loans approved. Farmers’ and tractor owners’
only possibility is then to take loans from private money lenders at exorbitantly high interest
rates. Farmers generally need loans to buy seeds, fertilisers, herbicides, and for paying wages
of hired labour. Tractor owners require loans to purchase new tractors and implements, but
also to repair and maintain them.
61
Women dominate the marketing chain from the producer to the retailer. The produce is sold at
the farm-gate and only in few cases it is taken directly to the nearest market for sale. Due to
loan repayments but also due to poor storage facilities most of the farmers have to sell their
produce immediately after harvesting when prices are lowest (maize prices in June 2003
ranged from ¢50,000/100kg at harvest time to ¢180,000/100kg 6-8 months after harvest).
1.5
Collaboration and linkages among stakeholders
Stakeholders identified during the introductory workshop were clustered into research,
extension services, projects/NGOs and service providers. These were further discussed with
GTZ-SFSP and MOFA to identify the key stakeholders related to the problem under
discussion. These stakeholders might also be needed to implement any development strategies
formulated. The stakeholders are presented as follows:
Research
•
Savanna Agricultural Research Institute (SARI)
•
Crops Research Institute (CRI)
•
Soil Research Institute (SRI)
•
Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST)
o Agricultural Engineering Department (AED)
o Agricultural Economics Department (AED)
o Crops Science Department (CrSD)
Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MOFA) – Extension services
•
Agricultural Extension Directorate (AED)
•
Agricultural Engineering Services Directorate (AESD)
•
National Conservation Agriculture team (NCAT)
•
Regional Agricultural Development Unit (RADU)
•
District Agricultural Development Unit (DADU)
Projects and NGOs
•
German Development Cooperation (GTZ)
•
Sedentary Farming Systems Project (SFSP)
•
German Development Service (DED)
•
Management AID (MAID) – Tamale
•
Ghana Organic Agriculture Network (GOAN) – Kumasi
Service providers
•
Technical
•
Regional Technology Transfer Unit (RTTU)
•
Local fitting shops
•
Private input suppliers
Financial
•
Rural Banks (RB)
•
Sinapi Aba Trust (SAT)
62
Training
•
Business Advisory Centre (BAC)
•
Wenchi Farm Institute (WFI)
•
Don-Bosco Vocational Institute
Community-based organizations
•
Farmer-based organizations (FBO’s)
•
Tractor Owners Association (TOA)
Stakeholder linkage analysis was done to assess the level of collaboration. The criteria used to
assess the linkages and interaction amongst stakeholders were: Frequency and intensity of
contact, awareness of and/or involvement in activities on CA, one way or two way contact,
and presence of formal and/or informal interaction.
The types of interaction identified included joint training, joint research, technical service,
joint planning, finance or funding and policy development.
The SFSP, DADU and RADU had most interaction. This is because the SFSP conducts
trainings with RADU on CA for DADU. Technical and financial support is also given to
DADU for the implementation of CA techniques. National directorates (AESD, DAES and
CSD) work through RADU and DADU.
Another form of organizational linkage identified was the one between SFSP, CRI, SRI, and
SARI. In this linkage, joint research on the screening of cover crops and identifying suitable
cropping systems is being conducted. Staffs of these research institutions are involved in a
contract research but the findings are shared formally through technical meetings, such as
workshops and annual general meetings. Recently, SFSP has been admitted into the Soil
Science Society, a body that manages and disseminate research findings from member
institutions such as KNUST, SRI, and CR.
The linkage between SFSP and KNUST was also seen to be strong. In this, a research on
suitable implements for CA is being conducted together with the Agricultural Engineering
Department of the Faculty of Agriculture. The Crop Science Department is also involved in
research on CA.
However, a weak linkage was identified between SFSP-CSD and AESD. Meanwhile, these
stakeholders are very important regarding mechanization and conservation agriculture.
There is collaboration between SFSP, MAID and GOAN on cover crops research and
promotion.
63
Table D.8:
Organizations
SFSP
CRI
SRI
DADU
RADU
FAO
CSD
AESD
KNUST
SARI
WFI
TOA
GOAN
MAID
ACDEP
SFSP
CRI
SRI
DADU
RADU
FAO
CSD
AESD
KNUST
+++
+++
++++
++++
++
+
+
++
++
++
+
++
+++
++
+++
+
+
++
++
+
+++
+++
++
++
++
+
++
+
+
++
++
++
+++
++
+
++
+
++++
+
+++
+++
+
+
+++
++
++
+++
-
+
+++
++
+
++
+
++
-
+++
+++
+++
++
+
+
++
+
+++
+
++
+
+
+
+
+
++
+
++
+:
++:
+++:
++++:
-:
64
Linkage matrix showing how stakeholders collaborate on Conservation
Agriculture and mechanization
weak linkage
normal interaction
strong linkage
very strong linkage
no linkage or relationship
+
+++
-
SARI
+
+++
+++
WFI
TOA
GOAN
MAID
+
+
++
ACDEP
1.6
Summary and conclusions
1.6.1
Characteristics of the three tillage systems identified
Box D.1:
Characteristics of the three tillage systems identified in Sunyani and
Nkoranza Districts
CTHT
CA
CTDP
Land
preparation
Slash and burn
Slash, use of
herbicides
Slash, burn & disc
plough
Planting
Hand tools
Hand tools
Hand tools
Weeding /
weed control
Hand tools
Hand tools and use Hand tools and use
of herbicides
of herbicides
Box D.2:
Main implements used in the three tillage systems identified in Sunyani
and Nkoranza Districts
CTHT
CA
CTDP
Land
preparation
Hand hoe, cutlass
Hand hoe, cutlass, and
knapsack sprayer
Disc plough, disc
harrow and knapsack
sprayer
Planting
Hand hoe, cutlass
and dibbler
Hand hoe, cutlass, and
dibbler
Hand hoe, cutlass,
and dibbler
Weeding /
weed control
Hand hoe, cutlass
and knapsack
sprayer
Hand hoe, cutlass and
knapsack sprayer
Hand hoe, cutlass
and knapsack sprayer
65
1.6.2
Potentials and limitations of conventional tillage systems
Box D.3:
Potentials and limitations of conventional tillage with hand tools (CTHT)
Potentials
Limitations
Don’t need additional skills
Soil fertility decline
Accessible implements and
need low investment
Drudgery and high cost of
labour
Control pests and venomous
animals (snake and rodents)
Untimeliness of operations
Box D.4:
Potentials and limitations of conservation agriculture (CA)
Potentials
Limitations
Improved soil fertility
Needs initial investments
(Herbicide and sprayer)
Timeliness of operations
Requires knowledge on
components of CA
Reduced operational costs
(labour)
Pest infestation
Reduced fallow periods
Box D.5:
Potentials and limitations of conventional tillage with tractor disc plough
(CTDP)
Potentials
Limitations
Timely land preparation
Soil degradation
Increased land under cultivation High operational (tractor service)
costs
Opportunity to crop in both
seasons
Lack of technical know how of
tractor operators
Land fragmentation
Undulated topography & stumps
66
1.6.3
Factors favouring / constraining adoption of CA
Box D.6:
Ecological factors favouring and constraining adoption of CA
Favouring factors
Constraining factors
Improved soil productivity
Continuous crop land use
Soil moisture conservation
Reduced soil erosion
Weed suppression
Lower soil surface temperature
Slightly low crop yield (1st year)
Poor germination of crop seeds (1st year)
Rodents and snakes
Poor viability of Mucuna seeds
Bush fire
Unavailability of different cover crops
Additional knowledge required
Socio-economic factors
Box D.7:
Importance of land tenure systems for farmers to adopt CA
Land
tenure Duration
Preference
Preference
Preference
system
for CTHT
for CA
for CTDP
Family land
Long term access **
********
Hired land
(cash)
1 yrs.
2-5 yrs
> 5 yrs.
Hired land
(Share
cropping)
☼☼
☼☼☼☼☼☼☼
***
*******
☼☼☼
☼☼
**
********
☼☼☼
☼☼☼☼
**
********
☼☼☼☼
☼☼☼☼☼☼
☼☼☼☼☼☼
☼☼
***
*******
☼☼☼☼
☼☼☼☼☼☼
***
******
☼☼
☼☼☼☼☼
☼
☼☼☼☼☼
☼☼☼
1 year
2-5 yrs
> 5 yrs.
☼☼
☼☼☼
* Scoring by farmers in Sunyani District
☼ Scoring by farmers in Nkoranza District
Cost Benefit analysis of different tillage system:
• In comparison to CTHT, the use of human labour decreased in CA by 24% and in CTDP
by 32% due to reduction in labour in slashing of vegetation and weed control activities.
• The total cost per ha of maize production was higher (+20%) in CTDP than in CTHT.
The production per ha increased by 45% in CTPD and by 24% in CA as compared to
CTHT.
• The net return per ha was 145% higher in CA and 168% higher in CTDP compared to
CTHT due to better productivity of maize.
67
Collaboration and linkages among stakeholders
The influence of SFSP in disseminating conservation agriculture with other stakeholders was
identified. The types of interaction amongst stakeholders identified were joint training, joint
research, technical service, joint planning, finance or funding and policy development with
research institutions, NGOs and MOFA on conservation agriculture.
However, a weak linkage was identified between SFSP-CSD and AESD. Meanwhile, these
stakeholders are very important regarding the promotion of mechanization and conservation
agriculture in Ghana.
1.6.4
Conclusions
It is evident from the analysis presented in this chapter that CA helps in improving soil
productivity, increases soil moisture conservation, reduces fallow period, enhances timeliness
of operations, reduces labour input and gives higher returns.
Based on this whole analysis, the team confirms that conservation agriculture is ecologically
sound, socio-economically viable and technically feasible for the promotion in transitional
zone of Brong Ahafo Region.
68
Figure D.3: Field data collection and feedback sessions (c)
Agric. Machinery Repair Service Centre in
Interview with tractor owners in Nkoranza
Nkoranza
Old tractor waiting for maintenance in
Nkoranza
Tractor with disc plough in Nkoranza
Visit to CA field at Sunyani Military
Barracks
Agric. Machinery repair service providers
and spare parts dealers in Nkoranza
69
Figure D.4: Field data collection and feedback sessions (d)
Interview with Agricultural machinery
repair service providers in Nkoranza
Intermediate workshop in Kumasi
Presentation of results to monitoring
group before final workshop
Final Workshop at CSIR/CRI, Kumasi
Final Workshop, Kumasi
ICRA team with alumni and reviewer in
final workshop, Kumasi
70
2
What is the appropriate level of mechanization for the Transitional Zone of
Brong Ahafo Region?
2.1
Current level of mechanisation
The cutlass, hoe, and dibbler are the main farming tools in use for land preparation, planting
and weeding in the Brong Ahafo Region of Ghana. These tools are hand-operated and require
a high availability of manual labour. This is a limiting factor for farmers in expanding their
cultivated land. Due to the practice of slash and burn or due to disc ploughing for land
preparation, interviewed farmers as well as organizations and projects supporting agricultural
development in this area, observed gradual land degradation and declining soil fertility. This
was the reason to look for appropriate tillage systems that could decrease soil degradation and
gradually increase soil fertility.
The technology used by interviewed farmers in Nkoranza and Sunyani Districts for land
preparation, planting and weed control is shown in table D.9.
Table D.9:
Hand Tool
Technology
Engine
Power
Technology
Implements used for land preparation, planting, and weed control in the
Transitional zone of Brong Ahafo Region
Land Preparation
implement
Hand Hoe
Cutlass
Knapsack Sprayer
Disc Plough,
Disc Harrow
Planting implement
Hand Hoe
Cutlass
Stick
Does not exist
Weeding/ Weed
Control implement
Hand Hoe
Cutlass
Knapsack Sprayer
Motorized Knapsack
sprayer
None of the farmers interviewed uses animal traction. Currently, only 5% of the croplands in
Ghana is fully mechanized (Osei- Bonsu, 2001).
The use of tractor disc ploughs in 12 communities in Nkoranza and 9 communities in Sunyani
administrative Districts is shown in table D.10.
Table D.10:
Level of mechanisation of soil tillage in Sunyani and Nkoranza Districts
Level of mechanisation / district
Conventional tillage with hand tools
Conservation agriculture with hand tools
Conventional Tillage with tractor disc plough
Sunyani (%)
66
34
0
Nkoranza (%)
40
32
28
The average power of tractors available in Brong Ahafo Region ranges between 25 and 50
kW. The main makes of tractors in the area are: Massey Fergusson, Universal, Ford, Swaraj,
Shanghai, and Zeto.
71
2.1.1
Land preparation
Soil preparation is usually the first task in crop production, undertaken to achieve a variety of
basic interrelated objectives such as seedbed preparation, weed control, soil and water
conservation, soil compaction amelioration, etc.
Shifting cultivation and slash and burn practices are still the prevailing cultivation methods in
Brong Ahafo Region of Ghana. To clear land from bushes some farmers apply herbicide
(Glyphosate) without slashing the vegetation, or slash the vegetation and then apply herbicide.
If vegetation is high or there are stumps in the land, farmers burn the vegetation, or slash the
vegetation and then burn it. The implement used for slashing is the cutlass. After clearing the
land few farmers plough their lands with tractor disc ploughs and then use the cutlass to open
soil for seedbed. Others prepare the soil for seedbed without ploughing.
The 3 disc plough is being used. According to farmers and tractor operators, the tillage depth
of a disc plough fluctuates from 18 to 25 cm. The diameter of the discs is 65 to 75 cm.
Generally, farmers decide on the depth of ploughing, but some tractor operators do not keep
the necessary ploughing depth due to tree stumps or roots in the land. Some farmers
mentioned that they are requiring from the tractor operators to not plough in the same
direction as it was ploughed last time, in order to conserve the soil. To control erosion on
sloping land, tractor operators basically plough across the slope. Disc ploughs does not need
an overload protection as the discs can roll over obstacles. As the discs have no landside or
slip heel, all vertical and horizontal forces perpendicular to the direction of travel must be
taken up by the tractor or by guiding wheels. With a disc plough the quality of inverting and
crumbling the soil is lower than with the mouldboard plough, and some amount of organic
residue may be left on the surface of the soil.
Figure D.5:
Tractor disc plough
Less than 1% of farmers interviewed uses harrows to complete the ploughing process. The
harrows are used for crushing the clods, levelling the loosened surface layer and provoking
light compression on the disturbed layer. Mainly medium harrows with less than 80 kg/disc
and 16 (8 + 8) discs are being used.
72
Figure D.6:
Disc harrow (half in transport position and half in work position)
The hoe is used in land-forming operations such as ridging and mounding. Farmers
interviewed described the reason of continuation of slash and burn practises due to more
height of grass and tree stamps existence on the surface of the land and also because of land
infestation with snakes and other insects.
About 35% of farmers interviewed from Sunyani District and 31% from the ones in Nkoranza
District used herbicides to clean their land. The implements used for spraying herbicide are
knapsack sprayers, both manual and motorized ones. For one acre (0.4 ha) of land, 1.5-2.5
liter of chemical is needed for knapsack sprayer. Farmers prefer manually operated knapsack
sprayers because the motorized ones consume more chemicals to spray the same surface of
land, because of a high spraying pressure.
2.1.2
Planting
Crop planting operations may involve placing seeds or tubers in the soil at a predetermined
depth, random scattering or dropping of seeds on the field surface (broadcasting), or setting
plants in the soil.
The hand hoe, stick (dibbler), and sometimes the cutlass are the most versatile tools used by
farmers in Brong Ahafo Region in planting cereals, root crops, and vegetables. With these
implements, the farmer uses his judgment and experience to place the seeds or to plant
materials at optimum depths and with an appropriate spacing within and between rows.
Mainly traditional implements used for land preparation, the hoe and cutlass, are used for
planting. Most farmers plant large seeds by placing a set number in hills, mounds, or ridges.
In shifting agriculture, holes are dug at randomly with a hoe in cleared land and burned over.
In general, only the ground around the hill, an area with a diameter of 15 to 20 cm, is tilled.
Some root crops like yams, coco yams, and cassava are planted in mounds. The soil is
laboriously piled in heaps 30 to 60 cm high and about one meter apart, by use of the hoe. The
73
seed-tube is inserted 15 to 20 cm. below the top of the mound and the mound is often capped
with a large clod to help control erosion.
Planting of cereals (maize, sorghum) and legumes (beans and groundnuts) is done with the
cutlass and the stick (dibbler). The dibbler is made from a tree branch and the tip of the
dibbler is sharpened using a cutlass. When the area to be planted is limited (less than 1 ha) the
dibbler is used for drilling the seed. The introduction of cash crops gradually persuades
farmers to adopt row-planting. Extensive use is made of ridges for planting groundnuts, yams,
maize, and vegetable crops. The ridges are made with the hand hoe. Generally, 5 to 10 seeds
are planted in each hole, about 70 to 100 cm. apart. Tie-ridging is also practised to some
extent to conserve moisture and prevent run-off.
Figure D.7:
Hoe and cutlass
Hand Hoe
2.1.3
Cutlass
Weeding (weed control)
Weed control in Brong Ahafo Region is mainly being done with the hoe and cutlass. Farmers
interviewed applied less herbicides for weed control than for land clearing. The implement
used for spraying herbicide for weed control is the same as for land clearing: knapsack
(manually operated or motorized) sprayer.
2.1.4
Cost and returns from tractor operations
Tractor services are mainly available for ploughing, transportation of goods, and maize
shelling. In Nkoranza District tractors are used for all three operations, but in Sunyani tractors
are only being used for transportation and maize shelling. The undulated topography in
Sunyani makes tractor ploughing difficult.
The tractors used are very old (up to 35 years) and they are not timely replaced with new ones
due to lack of institutional credit facilities.
The team calculated the costs and returns for tractor operations. Two calculations were done,
one for a new Massey Fergusson tractor, one for an old tractor of the same make.
74
For the cost and return analysis of tractor operations, an initial investment of ¢ 230 million
was assumed for a new tractor, and ¢ 110 million for a 10 year old tractor, in both cases
including a new disc plough and a trailer. Tractor owners do not invest in housing (shed for
the tractor) and do not pay insurances. The team, however, took these expenditures into
account in the calculations.
The average annual use of tractors varies from 600 to 1000 hours, as tractors are often for
lengthy periods not used due to absence of repair services and suitable spare parts. But even
when these services are available, many tractor owners need credits to pay for repairs and
maintenance, to which they do not have access either. To account for this, the team calculated
costs and return, considering 600 hrs, 800 hrs and 1000 hrs of operations of a tractor in one
year.
The real annual interest rate of 10% was used for the present analysis, following similar
calculations done by the Ghana land and water management project (Anonymous, 1995).
The Team came up with the following results (for details see Annexes 4.1 – 4.9):
•
•
•
•
The cost of one hour of tractor operation for ploughing & transportation was ¢ 93405 for a
new tractor and ¢ 100,760 for an old tractor, assuming 1000 hours of operation in a year.
The net returns from an hour of operation were ¢ 26,595 for a new tractor and ¢ 16,535
for an old tractor, which corresponds to ¢ 26.6 million and ¢ 16.53 million for a year.
The analysis indicated losses of ¢ 18000 per hour for those owners who were operating
their tractors less than 600 hours per year.
A new tractor needs to operate at least 289 hours, an old tractor at least 465 hours in a
year to achieve the break-even point.
Even though these figures show that disc ploughing is profitable, institutional credits need to
be available at easy terms and conditions to finance the huge investment of ¢230 Mill for a
new tractor or ¢110 Million for an old tractor.
75
Table D.11:
Cost and returns from tractor operations (June, 2003)
Data
Initial investment
New
Unit
Old tractor with shed & insurance
tractor
Old tractor without shed & insurance
million ¢
230
110
110
110
110
110
110
hours
1000
600
800
1000
600
800
1000
%
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
¢
93,405
137,685
116,110
103,465
133,093
112,710
100,760
¢
112,086
165,222
139,332
124,158
159,712
135,252
120,912
charges/ hr
¢
120,000
120,000
120,000
120,000
120,000
120,000
120,000
Profit/ loss per hour
¢
26,595
-17,685
3,890
16,535
-13,093
7,290
19,240
Profit/ loss per year
million ¢
26.6
-10.61
3.11
16.53
-7.86
5.83
19.24
hours
289
-
555
465
-
484
405
Tractor operation/
year
Real interest rate
Operational cost/ hour
Operational cost+20%
profit
Actual operational
Break-even point/ year
76
2.2
Equipment/implements for combining mechanisation with conservation
agriculture
The team assessed which implements would be suitable for combining mechanisation with
conservation agriculture for both Sunyani and Nkoranza Districts. Each of the implements
was assessed for its suitability for different crops under the different terrain conditions
(topography) in Sunyani and Nkoranza Districts. The team also considered the farm size, as
some of the proposed implements are only economically viable when they are operated on
large plots.
2.2.1
Proposed implements for land preparation
Table D.12: Land preparation implements for mechanised conservation agriculture in
Sunyani and Nkoranza Districts
Farm Size Topo
Im plem ent for land
preparation
H
T
E
P
<4
Cutlass
Hand Hoe
Knapsack Sprayer
CDA Sprayer
Tractor m ounted slasher
Chisel Plough
Sweep Plough
Disc Plough
Ridger
Power Tiller for Slashing
M otorised H and Slasher
applicable
2.2.2
4-15 >15
Crop
F G S M Y V
not applicable
Proposed implements for planting
Table D.13: Planting implements for mechanised conservation agriculture in Sunyani
and Nkoranza Districts
Implements for planting
Farm Size Topo Crop
<4
4-15 >15
F G S MY V
Jab Planter
Dibbler
Cutlass
H
T
Hand Hoe
Rotary Injection Hand Pushed
Planter
Hand Pushed Seed Drill
Hand Seeder (Netherlands)
Puck Hand Drill
Cecoco Hand Direct Seeders
Type CK-AD)
Row crop Planter
E
P Tractor Mounted Direct Planter
applicable
not applicable
77
2.2.3
Proposed implements for weed control
Table D.14: Weed control implements for mechanised conservation agriculture in
Sunyani and Nkoranza Districts
Implement for weed
control
Land
Size
<4
415
Topo Crop
>1
5
F G S MY V
Knapsack Sprayer
Cutlass
H
T
Hand Hoe
Weed Wiper
CDA Sprayer
Boom Sprayer
E
P
Motorised Knapsack Sprayer
Tractor mounted weeder/
Sweep tine implement
applicable
2.3
Technological
agriculture
options
for
not applicable
combining
mechanisation
with
conservation
The technological options analysed by the team have been categorised into options in which
mechanised conservation agriculture is already possible in the short term (only requiring
minimum additional investment) and into option in which mechanised conservation
agriculture is possible only in the long term (requiring high initial investments).
2.3.1
Short term, low investment options
Option 1: Minimum tillage with herbicide application (manually operated)
Under this option, cutlass is used to slash the vegetation. After a re-growth of the vegetation
(2 weeks), herbicide is applied, using knapsack sprayers or the Control Droplet Applicator
(CDA). This is followed by planting directly through the mulch layer with a jab planter,
without burning the mulch layer. Weed control is done with herbicide (glyphosate), applied
with either a knapsack sprayer or a CDA. Important conditions to observe include the use of
clean water for herbicide application to maximize its effect (Table D 15).
Investment required
Investment:
Price of knapsack or CDA sprayer
Price of jab planter
Price of cutlass
Estimated total investment required:
78
¢ 503,000
¢ 170,000
¢ 30,000
¢ 703,000
Table D.15
Minimum tillage with herbicide application (manually operated)
Field operation
Land Preparation
Planting
Weeding/ Weed
control
Implements
Crops
Cutlass for slashing,
followed by
herbicide
application with
CDA or Knapsack
sprayer
• Maize
• Cowpea
• Soya bean,
Jab planter
• Other row
crops
CDA or Knapsack
for herbicide
application
Conditions
• Suitable for farm sizes less
than 1ha
•
•
•
•
•
•
The use of clean water for
herbicide application
No burning of residues
Safe application of
herbicide.
Use of recommended type
and quantity of herbicide.
Suitable for areas of low
level of mechanization
(Sunyani District)
With soils having hard pans,
chisel plough may be used
as and when necessary
Option 2: Minimum tillage with cover crops and herbicide application
(manually operated)
This option is similar to option 1 with the only difference that a cutlass is used to slash the
biomass of an already established cover crop (Mucuna or Canavalia). If the cover crop
establishment is not good and weed lead is observed after slashing, a herbicide is applied
using a knapsack sprayer or the Control Droplet Applicator (CDA). This is followed by
planting directly through the mulch with a jab planter, without burning the mulch. Weed
control is done using herbicide (glyphosate), applied with either a knapsack sprayer or CDA.
One important condition is a proper land tenure system. With rented land, at least 3 years of
access to the land are required to establish and benefit from the cover crops (Table D.16) and
to make farmers adopt the system.
Table D.16
Minimum tillage with cover crops and herbicide application
(manually operated)
Operations Implements
Land
Preparation
Planting
Weed
control
Cutlass for slashing
established cover crops,
followed by herbicide
application with CDA or
Knapsack sprayer
Jab planter
CDA or Knapsack for
herbicide application
Crops
•
•
•
•
Maize
Cowpea
Soybean,
Other row
crops
Conditions
•
Suitable for farm sizes less than 1ha
•
The use of clean water for herbicide
application
No burning of residues
Suitable on family land or rented land
with long term access (at least 3 years)
Safe application of herbicide. Use of
recommended type and quantity of
herbicide.
Suitable for areas of low level of
mechanization (Sunyani District)
With soils having hard pans, chisel
plough may be used as and when
necessary
•
•
•
•
•
79
Option 3: Minimum tillage with herbicide application (engine power operated)
Under this option, a motorized hand slasher is used to slash the vegetation. After a re-growth
of the vegetation (2 weeks), a herbicide is applied using knapsack sprayer or the Control
Droplet Applicator (CDA). This is followed by planting directly through the mulch with a
Rotary Injector Hand Pushed Planter (RIHPP), without burning the mulch. Weed control is
done using herbicide (glyphosate), applied with either a knapsack sprayer or CDA (Table
D.17).
Table D.17
Minimum tillage with herbicide application (engine power operated)
Operations
Land Preparation
Planting
Implements
Crops
Motorised hand
slasher for slashing,
followed by
herbicide
application with
CDA or Knapsack
•
sprayer
•
•
Rotary Injector
•
Hand Pushed
Planter (RIHPP)
Conditions
•
Suitable for farm sizes
between 1-6ha
•
The use of clean water for
herbicide application
No burning of residues
•
Maize
Cowpea
•
Soybean
Other row
crops
•
Weed control
CDA or Knapsack
for herbicide
application
•
Safe application of
herbicide. Use of
recommended type and
quantity of herbicide.
Can be used under
undulating topography
With soils having hard pans,
chisel plough may be used
as and when necessary
Option 4: Minimum tillage with cover crops and herbicide application
(engine power operated)
Under this option, a motorized hand slasher is used to slash an already established cover crop.
Herbicide is applied using a knapsack sprayer or the Control Droplet Applicator (CDA) to
control any weed re-growth before planting. Planting is then done directly through the mulch
with a Rotary Injector Hand Pushed Planter (RIHPP), without burning. Weed control is done
using herbicide (glyphosate), applied with either knapsack sprayer or CDA (Table D.18).
80
Table D.18
Minimum tillage with cover crops and herbicide application
(engine power operated)
Operations
Implements
Land
Preparation
Motorised hand slasher
for slashing of
established cover crop,
followed by herbicide
application with CDA
or Knapsack sprayer
Planting
Rotary Injected Hand
Pushed Planter (RIHPP)
Crop
•
•
•
•
Conditions
Maize
Cowpea
Soybean
Other row
crops
•
Suitable for farm sizes between 1-6ha
•
The use of clean water for herbicide
application
No burning of residues
Suitable on family land or rented land
with long term access (at least 3
years)
Safe application of herbicide. Use of
recommended type and quantity of
herbicide.
Can be used under undulating
topography
With soils having hard pans, chisel
plough may be used as and when
necessary
•
•
•
•
Weed control
CDA or Knapsack for
herbicide application
•
Investment required
Investment:
Price of knapsack or CDA sprayer
Price of RIHPP
Price of Motorised hand slasher
Estimated total investment required:
¢ 503,000
¢1,600,000
¢1,000,000
¢3,103,000
2.3.2. Long term, high investment options
Option 1: Minimum tillage with herbicide application (high engine power)
This option makes use of a high level of mechanization where a tractor mounted slasher is
used to clear vegetation before herbicide application. Herbicide is applied using a boom
sprayer after weed re-growth. This is followed by planting directly through the mulch with a
tractor-mounted direct planter, without burning the mulch. Weed control is done using
herbicide (glyphosate), applied with a motorized sprayer (Table D.19). Important conditions
to observe include gentle to flat topography and well de-stumped fields.
81
Table D.19
Minimum tillage with herbicide application (high engine power)
Operations
Land Preparation
Planting
Implements
Crops
Slashing with
tractor mounted
slasher followed by
herbicide
application with
• Maize
Boom sprayer
• Cowpea
• Soybean
• Other row
Direct planter
crops
Conditions
• Suitable for farm sizes more
than 6ha
•
•
•
•
•
Weeding/ Weed
control
Motorised sprayer
for herbicide
application
•
The use of clean water for
herbicide application
No burning of residues
Safe application of
herbicide.
Use of recommended type
and quantity of herbicide.
Suitable for areas with flat to
gentle topography
(Nkoranza District)
Proper de-stumping of fields
Option 2: Minimum tillage with cover crops and herbicide application
(high engine power)
A tractor-mounted slasher is used to clear biomass of already established cover crop (Mucuna
or Canavalia) during land preparation. Herbicide is applied using boom sprayer after weed regrowth. This is followed by planting directly through the mulch with tractor-mounted direct
planter, without burning. Weed control is done using herbicide (glyphosate), applied with a
motorized sprayer (Table D.20). Important conditions to observe include gentle to flat
topography and well de-stumped fields. A long-term access to rented land (at least 3 years)
for establishment of cover crops is important.
Table D.20
Minimum tillage with cover crops and herbicide application
(high engine power)
Operations
Land Preparation
82
Implements
Crops
Slashing with
tractor mounted
slasher followed by
herbicide
application with
•
Boom sprayer
•
•
•
Planting
Direct planter
Weeding/ Weed
control
Motorised sprayer
for herbicide
application
Maize
Cowpea
Soybean
Other row
crops
Conditions
• Suitable for farm sizes more
than 6ha
• The use of clean water for
herbicide application
• No burning of residues
• Suitable on family land or
rented land with long term
access (at least 3 years)
• Safe application of
herbicide.
• Use of recommended type
and quantity of herbicide.
• Suitable for areas with flat to
gentle topography
(Nkoranza District)
• Proper de-stumping of fields
Investment required
Investment:
Price of motorised sprayer
Price of direct planter
Price of tractor (10 years old)
Price of slasher
Estimated total investment required:
¢ 3,900,000
¢25,000,000
¢80,000,000
¢12,000,000
¢120,900,000
2.3.3. Comparative socio-economic analysis of different implements proposed
The economic data collected refers to costs and time of field operations (land preparation and
planting) using different implements proposed by the team. The team did the following
calculations:
•
•
•
For land preparation, farmers need 75 hours/ha to slash the vegetation with a cutlass. In
comparison, if farmers would use a knapsack or motorised sprayer, they would save 92%
and 95% labour time respectively. Using a knapsack or motorised sprayer, would save the
farmer ¢ 44323 (22%) and ¢35722 (18%) respectively, regardless whether he owns the
implement or hires it. In this cost analysis opportunity costs of family labour have been
considered.
If tractor services are available for slashing and disc ploughing, farmers would be able to
save 98% and 97% operational time per ha respectively. Using a tractor mounted slasher
would save the farmer ¢ 53000 (26%) per ha. But on the other hand, using a disc plough
would increase the costs by ¢97000 (48%).
For planting, farmers need 30 hours to plant i.e. one hectare of maize with a cutlass and
dibbler. In comparison, if farmers would use a jab planter, a hand pushed seed drill and a
rotary injection hand pushed planter, they would save 25%, 50% and 80% labour time,
respectively. Using a jab planter, would save the farmer ¢ 25277 (32%) and using a rotary
injection hand pushed planter would save the farmer ¢ 57999 (24%) per ha.
The team draw the following conclusions:
•
•
•
The analysis done shows that farmers can save considerable labour time and costs, if they
use the proposed implements
Saving labour time in land preparation and planting offer farmers a wide range of
opportunities to increase their income. They could cultivate more land in the same time or
undertake other farming and off-farm activities.
The proposed implements for land preparation and planting reduce the cost of production
for farmers and their net returns/ha are increased (based on calculations for 1 ha of maize).
83
Table D 21:
Comparative analysis of time and costs of operations with proposed implements per ha (June 2003)
Operation/ Implement
Labour input
Manual
hours
Land preparation
(Slashing)
Cutlass
75
Slasher
Land preparation
(Spraying)
Knapsack
Cost of herbicide
Herbicide+ Application
cost
Motorised sprayer
Tractor
hours
1.25 (-98%)
6 (-92%)
Investme
nt
required
(¢)
Labour/
operation
costs
(¢)
30000
200000
12000000
150000
503000
12000
Maintenance
costs
Variable
costs
(¢)
(¢)
0
559
4 (-95%)
Depreci
ation
Interest
Total
200000
3000
0
3000
203000
150000
0
0
0
150000
12559
145000
559
559
1118
13677
145000
(¢)
3900000
12000
1926
13926
1926
1926
3852
149500
Herbicide+ Application
cost
Land preparation (Disc
plough)
Planting
2.5 (-97%)
Cutlass and dibbler
Hand pushed seed drill
Rotary injection hand
pushed planter
Total
costs
158677
Cost of herbicide+ Fuel
Jab planter
Fixed costs
Cost saving
(¢)
53000 (-26%)
44323 (-22%)
17778
149500
300000
167278
35722 (-18%)
300000
-97000 (48%)
30
30000
75000
0
75000
3000
0
3000
78000
20-25 (25%)
15 (-50%)
6 (-80%)
170000
48000
1181
49181
2361
1181
3542
52723
25277 (-32%)
NA
1600000
30000
12000
NA
2667
NA
14667
NA
2667
NA
2667
NA
5334
NA
20001
NA
57999 (-74%)
NA: Figures were not available
84
2.4
Summary and conclusions
The summary of the different technological options is presented below:
2.4.1
Short term, low investment options
Option 1: Minimum tillage with herbicide application (manually operated)
Option 2: Minimum tillage with cover crops and herbicide application (manually operated)
Estimated total investment required for options 1 or 2 = ¢ 703,000
Option 3: Minimum tillage with herbicide application (engine power operated)
Option4: Minimum tillage with cover crops and herbicide application (engine power
operated)
Estimated total investment required for options 3 or 4 is: ¢3,103,000
2.4.2
Long term, high investment options
Option 1: Minimum tillage with herbicide application (high engine power)
Option 2: Minimum tillage with cover crops and herbicide application (high engine power).
Estimated total investment required for options 1 or 2 = ¢120,900,000
Based on the presented analysis the team concludes:
Hand tool technology remains the main level of technology for CA, but improved hand tools
that reduce drudgery, save labour/time, and minimise soil degradation are available
Engine power is used on flat to gentle topography, on plots cleaned of stumps and stones, and
on plots bigger than 0.4 ha. Where hard pans exist under CA, a tractor-mounted chisel plough
is needed every three years to break them.
85
3.
What organizational set-up is most suitable for MCA in Brong Ahafo Region?
3.1
Current organisational set-up
3.1.1
Tractor operations
After visiting four tractor owners and operators associations (in Techiman, Chiraa, Wenchi
and Nkoranza), the following was concluded:
Management
The associations exist but are not functioning or not working well. In the case of Techiman
Association, members meet during ploughing season to decide on charges. Members have to
pay a membership fee to run the association. In addition to this, each member pays the cost
equivalent to ploughing one acre (June 2003 ¢120,000/ acre) into the central account. The
money collected on this account used to support owners who require a loan from the
association. The interest rate charged is 24% per year. Sometimes tractor owners plough a
field on a credit basis for farmers whenever a request emanates from a farmer association or
from farmers that work in a group.
Owner-operator relationship
There is no formal agreement or contract between owner and operator. About 90% of the
owners employ an operator for tractor operations. For the resolution of conflicts between an
operator and owner, another tractor operator or owner acts as a mediator. At present, the only
controlling mechanism for owners is to send somebody with his operator to the field. In the
Techiman Association the leaders of the association help in resolving the conflicts.
Fixation of ploughing charges
Tractor owners and the entire association follow the charges fixed by the Tobacco Company
operating in the area. The other criterion is the price of fuel. The present ploughing charge in
Wenchi and Techiman is ¢120,000 per acre (June 2003). The criteria determining the plough
charges are fuel price, labour cost, maintenance and spare parts cost, and the profit margin.
Training of operators
Generally, owners give personal advice on the safety of tractor use based on their own
experience. The owners use their own experience and knowledge also to train operators.
Sometimes MOFA also organises training programmes on tractor maintenance for tractor
owners and operators. This training is conducted annually but no training has been conducted
this year (2003) even though the cropping season had already started. All operators have a
truck driving license but only 10% has a real tractor operation license.
A visit to the British American Tobacco Company at Wenchi to find out how tractor operators
are recruited and trained revealed a number of criteria for recruiting operators. The
prospective operator is expected to be able to read and write. He must be able to attach,
detach and adjust implements. The applicant should also be sociable, especially in dealing
with farmers. The driving license is mandatory for all tractor operators.
86
The training is arranged with Mechanical Lloyd, a company dealing with Massey Ferguson
tractors in Accra.
Financing tractor purchase
More than 60% of the tractor owners buys a tractor from Kumasi but sometimes also from
Techiman. They have personal contacts with dealers of second-hand tractors and negotiate
flexible terms and conditions for payment. Generally, half of the amount is paid before the
tractor is given to the owner and the rest is paid in agreed, stipulated instalments. The
payment is agreed such that during the ploughing season more money is paid to the dealer
whereas less money is paid in the off-season. Obtaining a loan from a bank (institutional
finance) to buying a tractor is very difficult. Banks require collateral i.e. leasing of a
permanent property like a house and this house has to be in a city. Banks do not accept houses
in farming communities or small towns as its value is likely to be low.
Organization of services to farmers
At present, farmers approach tractor owners directly who in turn give them at least three days
notice. The demand for tractor services during land preparation is higher than the supply of
these services. Owners serve farmers that have large fields first.
About 90% of tractor owners in Wenchi, Nkoranza and Techiman provides services for
ploughing operations in addition to other services like transport. If services are being provided
within a community, implements are attached to the tractor, but if the tractor has to travel
within a 30 km radius, the implement is loaded onto a trailer.
Only in few cases farmers have taken the decisions to plough together at the same time. In
most cases, farmers request for tractor services individually. If there is a large distance to the
fields, tractor owners wait for more farmers or for more land to be cultivated before offering
their services. For a small piece of land they will travel a long distance. Sometimes farmers
approach operators in the field and request for their tractor services. On average, about 3 to 8
acres of land can be ploughed in a day, if fields are close together. If fields are scattered the
maximum number of acres of land that can be ploughed per day is about 5.
Repair services
Owners take decisions regarding the repair of their tractor. If spare parts are not available
locally, owners themselves travel to Kumasi to purchase them. The decision regarding
maintenance depends on the intensity of ploughing and other operations such as shelling and
transport. In case of ploughing, engine oil may be changed every two weeks. In Techiman, the
owners reported that one-third of tractor revenues is being spent on their. However, they
could not give any figures.
3.1.2
Current models of mechanisation services
Individual Farmers and Tractor Operators
This model is the most common at this time in Brong Ahafo Region. Individual small-scale
farmers cannot afford to buy their own tractors and therefore they hire services from tractor
owners for ploughing, transport, and maize shelling. In some cases, the tractor owners have
87
formed associations to streamline the hiring charges. The recipient farmers are largely
unorganized. The tractor operators (drivers) are often untrained in the use of the implement,
which leads to frequent breakdowns and poor quality of work (Loos, 2001).
Nucleus Farmer / Outgrower Scheme
Large or commercial farmers favour this model, since they can expect Government’s support.
The commercial farmer is given machinery and equipments and is expected to offer a
complete set of services to the surrounding outgrower farmers, from input supply to
ploughing, planting, harvesting, transporting, marketing etc. The government sometimes
provides subsidies and incentives to farmers through this scheme (Loos, 2001). This model
only exists in the Ofuman Project in Wenchi District.
There is a danger of inadequately passing on the possible subsidies and incentives provided
by Government. The partnership also seems very biased if the outgrowers fail to organize
themselves strongly. There could be danger of dependency from the nucleus farmer (feudal
system, Loos, 2001).
Private Mechanization Service Centres
Loos (2001) proposes to analyse the German “Machinery ring” and to find out if it could be
applicable to Ghanaian conditions. The model works as follows:
A circle (association) consists of farmers and service providers (private tractor owners)
covering a certain area. All members pay dues and are represented in an Advisory Board to
agree on conditions for service and hiring charges. General meetings are held to provide
transparency of the cash flow. The centre is run by an employed manager (often partly
subsidized by the Government). Hiring and rendering of services to member farmers is
facilitated and managed by the centre that also handles claims. Any Government support to
private tractor owners is also channelled through the centre.
Besides land preparation and planting other services could be offered gradually, e.g. pest- and
weed control, harvesting, transportation, processing (shelling, chipping, drying). Member
farmers need to be organized for clustering and de-stumping of fields to facilitate use of larger
machinery and to reduce costs of operation.
The centre could also, at a later stage, render specialized extension services to members and
could play a role in facilitating credit, input supply, purchase of spare parts, and processing
and marketing (the “Raiffeisen” concept).
The only constraint to this model is that it is less likely to receive support from government
and other donors if labelled purely private. Therefore, a concept of Public-Private Partnership
(PPP) seems to have better prospects of being implemented.
3.2
Proposed organisational models
3.2.1
Public-Private Mechanization Service Centres (PPMSC)
The team developed the idea of the “German Machinery ring” further, including one new
component: public sector involvement.
88
Different from the previous model, in this model:
• there is private and public sector involvement,
• private entrepreneurship is maintained, ensuring better management of the centre,
• service providers and recipients are organized in one association, making extension,
research and training efficient,
• all services and possible Government support can be channelled through the centre,
• there is transparency of conditions and contracts are made between all parties.
Composition of the mechanisation service centres
Farmer representatives: These are at least 2 to 5 farmers from different communities that
represent the entire farming community within a particular zone. They are elected by the
farmers to represent their interests in the centre. Contracts from different farming
communities are channelled through these representatives, with the help of the Agricultural
Extension Agent (AEA).
Tractor owner(s) or private investor(s) (entrepreneur): These are private individuals who
own the machinery and associate equipments. An investor may be a private investor who may
also be government assisted.
Service centre manager: He is employed by the tractor owners to manage the service
provision to farmers. He is paid from the profit of the centre and is held responsible for
inefficient running of the centre. He receives the hiring services job and in turn gives this job
to the operators after preparing the contract. Additionally, he can facilitate the acquisition of
spare parts for repair of the machinery by linking with relevant agents.
Advisor or facilitator from MOFA: This can be an agricultural extension agent in the
operational area or a special advisor from the engineering directorate. He is supported by
government in terms of salary and allowances. He facilitates discussions and agreements
between all stakeholders (tractor owners, operators, farmers and government), and organizes
training courses.
Machinery operators: These are contracted by the owners to work for them for an agreed fee.
Their salaries are paid monthly. They will be commissioned to provide services (ploughing,
transport, shelling etc) to farmers after an agreement between farmers and owners, through
the centre manager, has been finalized and a contract is produced. He then works according to
a copy of the contract given to him. His work on farmers’ field can also be facilitated by the
AEA.
Government: The Government is not part of the circle or association that manages the centre
but outside the system. All kinds of support including inputs, spare parts, advisory services,
financial support, research and extension can be channelled through the centre. This process
can also be facilitated by the advisor to the centre.
Mode of operation
Communities requiring specific services submit a demand in a written form, with the help of
AEA. This is then given to the centre through the farmers’ representatives to finalize a
contract with the centre. This process may be facilitated by the advisor where necessary. After
89
a contract is made with the community by the tractor owners or the centre manager, the
tractor operators are commissioned to provide the services to the community according to the
contract. This requires farmers in the community to organize themselves before submitting a
request.
Figure D.8:
Model of a Public-Private Mechanization Service Centre (PPMSC)
Public-Private Mechanization Service Centre (PPMSC)
Tractor owners or
other private
investors
Tractor
operators
Advisor or facilitator
(MOFA)
Centre
manager
Farmers’
representative
Legend
Service requisition
Spare parts and
maintenance unit
Training
unit
Farmers in communities
(end users)
Facilitation
Government
Input
Service delivery
Discussing this model with tractor owners and operator associations revealed that, at present,
a tractor owner has a personal relation with farmers and arranges his services privately. This
is a point of concern. The other point of concern is the fact that communication in the peak
season is problematic. This is because during the peak season only few tractors are seen in the
main town, only for fuelling; otherwise they are busy in the fields, in the farming
communities. Whereas some associations (particularly Wenchi) think the centre manager
should be a tractor owner for financial reasons, others (especially Techiman) prefer to have a
neutral person to ensure transparency of allocation of services to the different tractors. In all,
the choice of a centre manager was seen as an important issue in organizing mechanization
services.
90
It was suggested that spare parts and repair units, as well as training units should be organized
alongside.
All associations visited indicated that this model, if in operation, will improve service
delivery and increase agricultural production. There is the fear, however, that there is no
market to absorb this excess production.
3.2.2
Private Tractor Service Organization (PTSO)
This model exists in some parts of the study area, particularly at Chiraa in Sunyani District.
Here, there is a service organizer whom farmers contact for service requisition. He then
contacts service providers to deliver the services to the farmers. He is paid a commission by
the service providers, sometimes after the service has been delivered and money has been
collected from farmers. This is very common in maize shelling operations.
After discussing this model with the tractor owners and operators in Techiman and Wenchi
Districts, they expressed the fear of favouritism by service organiser to owners who are close
to him. There is also the fear of exorbitant high charges by the service organisers.
Service managers with operators may cheat tractor owners by reporting less land ploughed
than actually ploughed, and this will be loss to the owner.
Figure D.9:
Model of a Private Tractor Service Organization (PTSO)
Private Tractor Service Organization (PTSO)
Tractor
owners
Service
organizer
Service requisition
Tractor
operators
Farmers in communities
(end users)
Service delivery
91
3.2.3 Recommendations to support mechanization centers
To be able to organize a viable mechanization service centers, the following support services
are recommended:
Financial support
Difficult access to credit, especially for investments related to agriculture, has been one of the
constraints to private sector development. Interest rates are high and repayment arrangements
are sometimes not favourable to borrowers. However, a number of opportunities exist that can
facilitate a Public-Private Partnership. There is a huge drive from the Ghana government to
support private sector development and for this reason a special ministry has been created.
This provides a great opportunity to encourage private entrepreneurs to invest in
mechanization services. The following facilities have been identified for such a partnership:
Agricultural Services Sub-sector Investment Programme (AgSSIP): This programme has
objectives to remove drudgery and improve upon production methods through increased
mechanization/engineering technologies. It also aims at making affordable tools of higher
quality and implements for increased production readily available, as well as at developing
local capacity for fabricating quality tools and implements (AgSSIP Logical Framework,
2000).
Village Infrastructure Project (VIP): This project supports rural water, rural transport
infrastructure, and institutional strengthening and capacity building. It has funds to support
groups with loans. The support is in two categories: public goods and private goods. Public
goods are sub-projects that are owned by national or local government though they benefit
entire the community or the general public. Private goods are facilities owned and managed
by individuals. User rights are limited to owners.
Ghana Poverty Reduction Strategy (GPRS): Under programme objective B.1 (volume II)
aimed at modernizing agriculture, GPRS has a budget for supporting agricultural
development. The programme seeks to increase inputs and services for production, while
promoting the establishment of agri-business. This is to be done through the Ministry of Food
and Agriculture (MOFA) (GPRS, 2001).
Technical Cooperation Projects (FAO): The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has
funds up to $400,000 to support pilot measures such as PPMSC. This is known as technical
cooperation projects (TCP), and different countries in Africa have benefited from it.
Institutional support
Government could ease and support the import of required implements and consider subsidies
to acquire implements and spare parts. Government could encourage Agricultural Banks to
provide medium term loans to selected entrepreneurs for the purchase of machinery and
implements. These could be channelled through the service centres.
92
MOFA to provide organizational and technical advisory support to service centres and
member groups.
•
•
•
Training on group dynamics and management for farmer’s groups
Training tractor operators on sound tillage practices
Improve decision making process, accountability, transparency etc of service centres
Private sector, farm implement factories and agro-chemical companies should be contracted
to deliver implements and inputs e.g. Mechanical Lloyd and Dizengoff Ghana Limited.
Support from research
•
•
•
Building on experience of MCA from other countries and adapting it under local
conditions
Involve local manufacturers, farmers and operators in testing of conservation tillage
implements and other tools
Planning sessions at the beginning of each year with all stakeholders (farmers, extension,
projects/programmes, NGOs, international organizations etc.)
In order to promote mechanised conservation agriculture in Ghana, the following strategies
are recommended:
Use of farmer-based organizations (FBOs)
Under AgSSIP, formation of farmer-based organizations (FBOs) has been highlighted. The
FBOs are to be used as a point of entry in any technology transfer. These FBOs can be
targeted for promotion of any technology or organization of mechanization services.
Use of community approach in technology promotion
Land tenure problems could be addressed by using a community approach in technology
introduction or promotion. In this, land owners and users are involved in the process. Once
properly informed, land owners will see the need to invest in their land, either by themselves
or when they rent out their land. Conflicts arising from land use can be addressed by both
owners and users once identified. This will also give a good forum to resolve other conflicts
regarding use of common resource.
Use of National Conservation Agriculture Team (NCAT)
NCAT is a working group consisting of representatives from:
• MOFA (Crop Services Directorate – CSD, Agricultural Engineering Services
Directorate – AESD and Directorate of Agricultural Extension Services – DAES),
• research (Crop Research Institute – CRI, Savanna Agricultural Research Institute –
SARI, and the Soil Research Institute – SRI),
• Universities (Agricultural Engineering Department of Kwame Nkrumah University of
Science and technology – KNUST, University of Development Studies – UDS),
• international organizations (World Bank – WB, Food and Agriculture Organization –
FAO, German Development Cooperation – GTZ), and
• other projects and companies (Food Crop Development Project – FCDP, Monsanto
and Research Extension Linkage Committee – RELC).
93
Figure D.10: Composition of National Conservation Agriculture Team (NCAT)
National Conservation Agriculture Team
AESD
CSD
WB
GTZ
REGIONAL
COORDINATOR
DAES
FAO
NCAT
MONSANTO
UDS
FCDP
KNUST
RELC
CRI
SRI
NCAT meets once or twice a year to exchange information and experiences. However, there
is no good coordination of this working group as roles and responsibilities are not well
defined. Hence, there is the need to have a common approach or plan for working together. At
the moment, FCDP provides funding for the activities of this group. There is the need to agree
on protocol arrangements for the working group. It is expected that NCAT would be able to
develop a strategy or action plan to promote CA systems.
Information sharing sessions
Seminars, workshops, symposiums, and colloquia can be used to share information and
experience regarding Conservation Agriculture, sustainable mechanization services, and good
tillage practices. This can be organized quarterly or mid-yearly, depending on activities
implemented, to present experience and findings on alternate CA systems. This will make
available rich experiences of successful CA systems known to others to improve their work.
Study tours
Farmer field days, demonstrations and community cross visits have been identified as one of
the means to promoting sound tillage practices and CA systems. This can be done in close
consultation with FBOs. These tours can be organized mid-season and/or at the end of the
season to give farmers the chance to evaluate different systems.
Mainstreaming technology promotion with MOFA activities
Some organizations who do not share their experience with MOFA also leave with their
experience at the end of programmes or projects. In other words, they start with their
experience and end or leave with their experience. To be able to maximize the impact of any
development effort, mainstreaming of activities into MOFAs programmes will not only
94
necessary but it will ensure sustainability and minimize duplication of efforts. Commodity
working groups can be used in mainstreaming. Under the AgSSIP, commodity or subject
matter working groups have been formed to be “one step windows” for farmers and traders to
get information about that commodity or in a particular subject area.
95
96
REFERENCES
Agricultural Services Sub-sector Investment Programme (AgSSIP), 2000. Logical Frame
Work, pp. 55.
Aikins, S. 2000. Animal drawn implement development for land preparation and moisture
conservation. MPhil thesis, Cranfield University, UK.
Allen, R.R., Musick, J.T., Wood, F.O. and Dusek, D.A. 1975. No till seeding of irrigated
sorghum double cropped after wheat. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 18: 1109- 1113.
Anonymous, 1995. Ghana Land and Water Management project, Dept. of Crop Services,
Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Ghana.
Amado, T. J. C., Fernandez, S. B. and Mielniczuk, J. 1998. Nitrogen availability as affected
by cover crop and tillage systems in southern Brazil. Journal of soil and water
conservation, 53(3): 268-271.
Amanor, K.S. 1993. Weeding on the Forest Edge. ILEIA Newsletter Volume 11 ( 3): pp12.
http://www.ileia.org/2/11-3/11-3-12.htm (Accessed 7th April, 2003)
Berry, 2000. A guide to no till crop production in Kwazulu- Natal. In: No till club KwazuluNatal. Howick, South Africa.
Boa, K. 2001. Sustainable agricultural mechanization through conservation tillage.
Machinization of agriculture- Missing link to agro processing; Workshop at crop
research institute, Kumasi, Ghana, 19th-20th December- 2001.
Boa, K. A., Osei-Bonsu, P. Manu-Adueing, J., Ahiable, S., Descous, M., Barfour, T. A. and
Asante, B. A. 2003. Conservation tillage in Ghana: the dissemination of no-till
technology among small-scale farmers; progress to date and future prospects.
Bonsu, M. 2001. Conservation agriculture in Ghana. A country report prepared for FAO
regional office for Africa, Accra. (Dept of soil science, School of Agriculture,
University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana.)
Burle, M. L., Mielniczuk J. and Focchi, S. 1997. Effect of cropping systems on soil chemical
characteristics, with emphasis on soil acidification. Plant and Soil 190: 309-317.
Calegari, A. and Alexander, I. 1998. The effects of tillage and cover crop on some chemical
properties of an oxisol and summer crop yield in southwestern Parana, Brazil.
Advances in Geo-Ecology 31: 1239-1246.
Castro Filho, C. Muzilli O. and Podanoschi, A. L. 1998. Estabilidade dos agregados e sua
relação com o teor de carbono organico num Latossolo roxo distrofico, em função de
sistemas de plantio, rotações de culturas e metodos de preparo das amostras. Revista
Brasileira de Ciencia do Solo, 22: 527-538
Culpin, C. 1982. Farm Machinery 10th ed., Granada Publishers, London.
Derpsch, R. 1997. Importancia de la Siembra Directa para obtener la Sustentabilitdad de la
producción Agrícola; V Congreso Nacional de Siembra Directa de AAPRESID, Mar
del Plata, Argentina.
97
FAO 1990. Agricultural Engineering in Development: Selection of Mechanisation Inputs Principles FAO Agricultural Services Bulletin 84, FAO, Rome.
FAO, 2001. Conservation agriculture: Case studies in Latin America and Africa. Soils
Bulletin 78, Rome.
GPRS 2001. Ghana poverty reduction strategy, Poverty reduction policy framework.
Gifford, R.C. 1992. Agricultural engineering in development: Mechanisation strategy
formulation – Concepts and principles FAO Agricultural Services Bulletin 99/1,
Volume 1, FAO, Rome.
Godwin, R.J. 1990. Agricultural engineering in development: tillage for crop production in
areas of low rainfall. FAO Agricultural Services Bulletin 83 FAO, Rome.
Gyamfi, E. and Amoako, O.F.. 2002. Impact Assessment of SFSP project activities-2002,
SFSP, MOFA/ GTZ, Sunyani.
Harrolds, L.L. and Edwards, W.M. 1972. A severe rainstorm test of no-till corn. J. Soil Water
Conservation. 27- 30.
ICRA Training Materials, ICRA Website. http://www.icra-edu.org (accessed April 2003).
ICRA Training Materials, ICRA Course 2003. International Centre for development oriented
Research in Agriculture, The Netherlands
ICRA Training Materials, ICRA CD-ROM, 2002. International Centre for development
oriented Research in Agriculture, The Netherlands
Joe, Ashburner. 2003. Personal communication (SFSP/GTZ), Sunyani
Loos, H. 2001. Agricultural mechanization in Ghana, Technical and organizational options.
Mechanization of agriculture- Missing link to agro processing; Workshop at Crops
Research Institute, Kumasi, Ghana, 19th-20th December- 2001.
Moens, A. and Siepman, A.H.J. 1984. Development of the agricultural machinery industry in
developing countries: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference Amsterdam 23
– 26 January 1984.
National Development plan-Nkoranza, 2002. Medium term development plan for 2002-2004.
National Development planning in collaboration with ministry of local government
and rural development in Nkoranza District.
Odigboh, E.U. 1999 Machines for Crop Production in B.A. Stout and B. Cheze (eds.) CIGR
Handbook of Agricultural Engineering Volume III Plant Production Engineering
ASAE
Osei-Bonsu, P. 2001. Mechanizing Ghana’s agriculture; a new beginning and thinking.
Machinization of agriculture- Missing link to agro processing; Workshop at Crop
Research Institute, Kumasi, Ghana, 19th-20th December- 2001.
Rockwood, W.G. and Lal, R. 1974. Mulch tillage: A technique for soil and water
conservation in the tropics. Span. 17: 77-79.
98
Schiller, S., Schill, M.and Zschekel, 2000. Sunyani District Profile. Based on cropping survey
conducted by MoFA/ SFSP/GTZ. 1999-2000.
SFSP 2000. Farming systems in the SFSP pilot districts of the Brong Ahafo Region. Report by
SFSP/GTZ Sunyani. P3.
Steiner, K. 2002. The economics of conservation tillage. Conservation tillage- Gateway to
food security and sustainable rural development. African Conservation Tillage
Network. Information Series No. 2.
Steiner, K.G. 2001. Direct planting through mulch- Gateway to food security and sustainable
rural development. Machinization of agriculture- Missing link to agro processing;
Workshop at Crop Research Institute, Kumasi, Ghana, 19th-20th December- 2001.
Stout, B.A. and Chezel, B. 1999. Machines for crop production. Hand book of agric
engineering Vol. III. Plant Production Engineering, ASAE.
Unger P.W., 1984. Tillage systems for soil and water conservation. FAO Soils bulletin 54,
Rome.
Unger, P.W. and Wiese, A.F. 1979. Managing irrigated winter wheat residues for water
storage and subsequent dry land grain sorghum production. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 43:
582- 588.
Wijewardene, R. 1978. Appropriate technology in tropical farming systems. World Crops,
May /June: pp 128-134.
Zschekel,W., Afful, F. and Agyepong, A. 1997. Baseline survey on farming systems in the
Brong Ahafo Region carried out in the three districts of Sunyani, Asunafo and
Atebubu by GTZ (SFSP) /MOFA Sunyani. Ghana.
99
100
ANNEXES
101
ANNEX 1:
1.
TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR MOFA/GTZ-SFSP, CRI, SRI, KNUST,
GP-DMC AND ICRA JOINT FIELD STUDY IN THE BRONG AHAFO
REGION OF GHANA
Institutional framework
SFSP and collaborating institutions in Ghana
The Sedentary Farming Systems Project (SFSP) was initiated to develop and disseminate
alternative land use and production systems through the Ministry of Food and Agriculture
(MOFA) and collaborating NGOs. The concept of conservation agriculture is being promoted,
which consists of improved soil organic management through the use of proper crop rotations,
improved short-fallow systems with cover crops and the use of animal manure. Supporting
development measures include improved access to agricultural services, reduction of postharvest losses, adding value to raw products by processing and improvement of marketing
opportunities.
Target group and beneficiaries of this project are farmers, traders and other people involved in
agriculture. The project operates in the Brong Ahafo Region, which has an area of about
40,000 square kilometres and a population of approx. 1,9 Million, of which about 70% are
engaged in agriculture.
Project executing agency is the Regional Agricultural Development Unit (RADU) of the
Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MOFA). Implementation is mainly done through the 13
District Agricultural Development Units (DADUs) and its Agricultural Extension Agents
(AEAs), but also through collaborating NGOs. GTZ (German Technical Cooperation) and
DED (German Development Service) provide technical assistance in terms of advisory
personnel, training and provision of equipment and material.
In the area of Technology Development the project closely collaborates with National
Research Institutions and Universities such as Crops Research Institute (CRI), Soil Research
Institute (SRI), Savannah Agricultural Research Institute (SARI), Animal Research Institute
(ARI), Food Research Institute (FRI), University of Science and Technology Kumasi
(KNUST), and the Cape Coast University. The project maintains also links to regional and
global networks such as African Conservation Tillage (ACT) and Sector Network Rural
Development (SNRD).
DMC Program
The Direct sowing, Mulch-based and Conservation agriculture (DMC) is a Global Partnership
Program under GFAR (Global Forum on Agricultural Research). It is an international
initiative that aims to strengthen the capacity of key stakeholders to develop suitable DMC
systems and to accelerate their wide adoption. The GP-DMC features a process of learning
and synthesis. By analyzing and comparing experiences, by synthesizing lessons learned, and
by identifying and filling gaps, DMC practices can be harnessed by a wide range of
stakeholders. Improved understanding of the factors that determine successful adoption of
DMC systems by small-scale farmers could have a major impact on poverty, as has been
shown in Brazil, Ghana, India and Pakistan, where is has been adopted.
102
ICRA
ICRA is an international organisation founded on the initiative of European members of the
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) to assist in strengthening
the capacity of researchers and development professional working in Latin America, Africa
and Asia to contribute effectively to agricultural development.
ICRA provides participating scientists with an opportunity to acquire new concepts and skills,
and to apply them in a professional assignment with partner research institutes in the South.
The core part of the ICRA Programme consists of a three-month intensive field study in rural
areas of the developing countries. The scope and dimension of this study are based on the
terms of reference (TOR) that are subject of the present document.
2.
Period
The field study will be conducted from April 14 to July 14, 2003.
3.
Topic of the study
Limitations and Potentials for the Introduction of Mechanised Conservation Agriculture in
the Transitional-Savannah Zone of the Brong Ahafo Region of Ghana
Justification
In line with the Poverty Reduction Strategy of Ghana the development of the agricultural
sector is a key element. In Ghana, agriculture contributes 60% to domestic product, 65% to
employment and 50% to exports. Increase in agricultural production and productivity, and the
subsequent introduction of agro-based industries are seen as the motor for economic growth,
of generation income and creation of job opportunities.
However, the majority of Ghanaian farmers still practises shifting cultivation and bush
burning for land clearing. Simple tools like hoe, cutlass (machete) and stick are the main
planting practices in the Brong Ahafo Region. These labour intensive production methods
limit the area under cultivation and are responsible for severe yield losses due to untimelyperformed operations such as planting, weeding, harvesting, transport and storage. The slash
and burn system is responsible for gradual soil degradation and declining soil fertility,
increasing the dependency on external inputs such as mineral fertilisers. The tedious
fieldwork and low returns to labour make agriculture increasingly unattractive for the Youth,
resulting in out migration from rural areas.
Conservation agriculture is seen as a practice that reduces soil erosion, sustains soil fertility,
reduces production costs and makes services affordable to small-scale farmers. But on the
other hand, mechanisation of agricultural production is seen as the missing link and a precondition for the development of agro based industries in Ghana.
Tractor services are available in some parts of the country (Savannah and Transitional Zones),
and mainly used for soil tillage and transport of produce. However, the exclusive use of disc
implements has resulted in soil degradation and multiplication of noxious weeds (Imperata
cylindrica). Also tractor services are not timely available and bad roads increase the costs for
these services (repairs, etc.). The limited services result in late planting and reduced yields,
103
limited transport delays harvest and increases post harvest losses. One result of mechanisation
is the fact that more areas are being planted in a short period of time, which then makes
timely weeding with hand tools not possible anymore.
With regard to the situation described, a concept is needed that combines both conservation
agriculture and mechanisation: Mechanised conservation agriculture is expected to
•
•
•
•
•
enhance the production of sufficient quantities and quality of produce, a pre-condition for the
establishment of rural agro-processing industries
provide for efficient field transport and subsequent post harvest services (shelling, chipping,
drying) at local level
be agronomically sustainable
be economically affordable and viable, and
enhance small-scale farmer accessibility to machinery and services
In this context, basically three questions are important:
i.
ii.
iii.
What type of tillage system is to be promoted?
What is the appropriate level of mechanisation?
What organisational set-up is most suitable?
4.
Geographical area and target population
The Brong Ahafo Region is one of the 10 regions and is located in Central/Western Ghana,
7o–8o North of the equator, with an altitude of less than 300 m. It covers an area of approx.
40,000 km2 and has a population of about 2,0 Million, of which almost 70% is engaged in
agriculture. The region covers three agroecolocial zones: (i) the forest zone in the South (1500
mm bimodal rainfall, cocoa, oil palm and mainly plantain based mixed cropping systems), (ii)
the transitional zone in the centre (1250 mm bimodal rainfall, cassava-maize based cropping
system) and (iii) the savannah zone (1100 mm monomodal rainfall, yam-maize based systems
with legumes, sorghum and millets. The soils are predominantly Forest Ochrosols (Rhodic
Ferrasols or Haplic Ferrasols) in the South, and Savannah Ochrosols (Haplic Acrisols) in the
North. Soil reaction is around pH 6,5, organic C around 2%, and very low P (<5 ppm). Except
of the valley bottoms and the presence of iron pan, soils are usually porous and well drained.
Study area and Target group selection
The choice of the study area will be guided by differences in farming practices, mainly
differences in tillage system and use of tractor services. Based on the study team’s assessment
of the communities in the districts after a first reconnaissance survey, they will choose an
appropriate number of communities for the study in close consultation with the Agricultural
Extension Officer in the communities who will also assist the team in the study.
However, all the farm households operating in the study area constitute the broader target
population to which one should be able to generalise the field study results. Within this
broader population, the team will select representative farm households for more detailed
study of the selected areas.
104
5.
Team composition
The team will be composed of one Ghanaian researcher, an agronomist and five or six
expatriates. In addition to making a scientific contribution to the field study, the Ghanaian
scientist will also be the liaison person or counterpart of the field study. The disciplinary
background of the expatriates will preferably be as follows: one agricultural sociologist, one
agricultural engineer, one crops scientist, one soil scientist, one agricultural economist and
one agronomist. The involved institutions will assist the team with specific complementary
expertise if needed.
6.
Objectives of the study
The following objectives are to be achieved by this field study in Brong Ahafo Region:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
To identify and characterise the prevailing land preparation techniques and their potentials and
limitations
To identify the factors (technical, social, economic and organisational) that constrain or favour
the adoption of the promoted conservation agriculture (CA) techniques by farmers
To identify technological options for combining mechanisation with conservation agriculture
To identify ways of organising viable mechanisation services
To make recommendations for follow-up activities for the promotion of mechanised
conservation agriculture.
The emphasis of the field study will be on an in-depth analysis of and proposed strategies for
mechanised conservation agriculture and on the formulation of follow-up activities, including
research needs with representatives of all institutions involved in the field study. Through
workshops and frequent interactions between the team and stakeholders in the region, the
field study is expected to stimulate feedback between the stakeholders, increase dissemination
of study findings and increase the sense of ownership of the results through the joint effort.
7.
Form of the final product
Before leaving Ghana, the team will produce and hand over a report with an executive
summary, an abstract and a main text of not more than one hundred pages including figures
and tables. In the report, maximum use will be made of visualisation (graphics). The report
shall be structured in a way that will make it simple and understandable.
8.
Relevant stakeholder institutions
MOFA/GTZ-SFSP and the collaborating institutions CRI, SRI and the Universities are the
main clients of the study. NGOs and International Development Organizations in the region
such as World Vision, Action Aid, TechnoServe, DFID, CARE International and FAO are
also expected to use the results of the study. The Regional Coordinating Council (RCC) and
the District Assemblies (DAs), who coordinate and implement government’s policies, will
receive valuable information for decision making.
This field study will also be one of the case studies for the DMC (Direct Sowing Mulch based
systems and conservation agriculture). The synthesis of current worldwide initiatives that aim
to foster the adoption of DMC technologies will help to understand the factors that determine
successful adoption of zero-tillage technologies by small-scale farmers.
105
9.
Field study process
Upon arrival in Ghana, the team will, following a brief reconnaissance of the study area,
present its field study research and work plans to all interested stakeholders at an introductory
workshop in Kumasi at Crops Research Institute. Purpose of this presentation is to obtain
feedback from these stakeholders on the proposed methodology and to receive
recommendations for the execution of the study.
Representatives of the team shall attend the monthly technical review meetings of MOFA, to
provide feedback and receive necessary suggestions and comments. Agricultural Extension
Officers in their respective operational areas and communities shall assist the team in their
field activities. The SFSP and MOFA teams will provide the necessary technical and
logistical support.
A second workshop will be held halfway through the study period in Sunyani at MOFA/GTZSFSP, at which time the team will present its early findings and its views on potential
development strategies.
Final results of the field study will be presented in the form of a draft final report. This will be
discussed at a final workshop involving all stakeholders. This workshop will be held in
Kumasi at Crops Research Institute two weeks before the end of the field study to allow
incorporation of useful comments into the final version of the report before the team leaves
Ghana.
The team will finally submit a final draft report containing their findings and
recommendations before finally leaving Ghana.
10.
Field study responsibility
The team is collectively responsible to MOFA/GTZ-SFSP for respecting the terms of
reference and for the use made of the resources that will be provided for the implementation
of the field study. The Ghanaian participant in the team will be the team’s Liaison Officer to
the host institute and the participating Ghanaian Institutions.
The team is responsible for its own internal management. Within the limits specified in the
terms of reference and in the budget, the team is free to decide its own approach,
methodology, tools and work plan, as well as the use they make of the resources provided for
the field study.
Important questions concerning the terms of reference (TOR) arising during the
implementation of the field study will be immediately clarified in a discussion with
MOFA/GTZ-SFSP and ICRA and other partner institutions.
11.
Means
MOFA/GTZ-SFSP and ICRA are responsible for the provision to the team of the means
specified in the Memorandum of Understanding.
106
ANNEX 2: RESEARCH PLAN (research question, potential answers, information needed, tools, expected output)
Research
questions
Secondary research questions
1. What is the
central
problem to be
analyzed
What is the problem out there?
What is the central research problem?
Which are the elements and relationships that
constitute relevant system for analysis and
problem solving?
What facts (driving forces) have the influence
on mechanized conservation agriculture
What external factors require further analysis?
Typology?
2. Who are
the
stakeholders
and what are
their
perspectives
regarding
mechanized
conservation
agriculture
2.1 Who are the stakeholder?
2.2 What are the perspectives of stakeholders?
2.2.1. What are the
perspectives of:
Farmers
MOFA/SFSF
CRI, SRI, KNUST
Tractor operators
2.3 How do stakeholders collaborate?
2.3.1 How do MOFA /
SFSP, CRI, SRI and
KNUST collaborate in the
search of options to the
problem
2.4 How would different beneficiaries benefit
from mechanized conservation agriculture?
106
Tertiary Questions
2.4.1 How would farmers
benefit?
2.4.2. How would tractor
operators benefit?
Information needed
Tools to be used to
collect information
Expected outputs
Conservation agriculture
Mechanization
Soil degradation
Analysis of terms of
reference (TOR) and
other secondary
information
Central research
problem defined
System of interest
drawn and narrative
in text produced
Stakeholders:
Interests
Linkages
Influence
Importance
Mandates
Key informant interviews
Stakeholder analysis
Secondary information
analysis
Research
questions
3. What type
of tillage
system is to
be promoted?
Secondary research questions
Tertiary Questions
3.1.1. What are the main
characteristics of
conventional tillage system?
3.1. What type of tillage system is currently
being practiced?
3.1.2. What are the main
characteristics
of
conservation tillage system?
3.1.3. What are the main
characteristics of tractor
operated tillage system?
3.2.1. What are the strengths
and weaknesses of
conventional tillage?
3.2. What are the strengths and weaknesses of
different tillage systems?
3.3. What are the factors that favour or
constraint the adoption or use of different
tillage techniques?
3.2.2. What are the strengths
and weaknesses of
conservation tillage
systems?
3.2.3. What are the strengths
and weaknesses of tractor
operated tillage systems?
3.3.1. What are the factors
that favour or constraint the
use of conventional tillage
system?
3.3.2. What are the factors
that favour or constraint the
adoption of CA system?
Information needed
Tools to be used to
collect information
Planting model /tools
Weeding model /tools
Soil tillage techniques
Secondary data analysis
Implement and tools used for
different operations
Effect of the different tillage
systems on:
Soil conservation
Yield
Labour use
Planting system
Weeding system
Key informant
interview
Secondary data analysis
Key informant
interview
Cost of operations
Timeliness in operations
Land tenure arrangements
Labour
Soil fertility, erosion
Land fragmentation
Cost of operations
Timeliness in operations
Farming systems
Rainfall (distribution)
Land holdings
Soil type
Expected outputs
Strengths and
weaknesses of the
different tillage
systems identified
and documented
Analysis of secondary
information
Key informant interview
Focus group interview
Factors that favour
or constraint the use
of minimum tillage
system identified
and documented
107
Research
questions
Secondary research questions
Tertiary Questions
Information needed
Tools to be used to
collect information
Factors that favour
or constraint the use
of tractor operated
tillage system
identified and
documented
3.3.3. What are the factors
that favour or constraint the
use of tractor tillage system?
3.4.1. What technical factors
need to be considered in
introduction of MCA?
3.4 What is the appropriate level of
mechanization?
3.4.2. What ecological
factors need to be
considered in introduction
of MCA?
3.4.3. What economical
factors need to be
considered in introduction
of MCA?
3.4.4. What social factors
need to be considered in
introduction of MCA?
108
Expected outputs
Suitable machinery and
implements :
• Mulch planters
• Slashers
• Direct seeding equipments
• Type of tractors
• Education
• Availability of expertise
Impact of implements on:
• Soil erosion
• Soil compaction
• Soil type
• Fertility improvement
• Yield improvements
• Availability of credit for
private mechanization
service providers
• Policy support
• Profitability of machinery
operations
• Labour costs
•
•
•
Semi structured interview
with key informant/
stakeholders
Secondary data analysis
Secondary data analysis
Flow diagrams
Key informant interview
Key informant interview
Cost-benefit analysis
Secondary data analysis
Land tenure systems
Land fragmentation
Labour availability
Focused group interviews
and discussions
Technical,
Ecological,
Economic,
Organisational and
Social factors for
the introduction of
MCA identified and
documented
Research
questions
Secondary research questions
Tertiary Questions
Information needed
4.1.1 What type of
mechanization services
exist?
Services for:
• Land reparation
• Weeding
• Planting
4.1.2. How are these
services being delivered?
4.1What is the current level of mechanization
services?
4. What
organizationa
l set-up is
most
suitable?
4.1.3 What organizational
factors need to be
considered in introduction
of MCA?
•
Tools to be used to
collect information
Secondary data analysis
Key informant
interview
Focus group interview
Timeliness of services
Organization of:
• Service provider (private
mechanization centers)
• Farmers (Block farming)
Institutional set up:
• Collaboration between SRI,
KNUST, CRI, MOFA/SFSP
4.1.4 What are the problems
faced by the machinery
service providers
•
•
•
•
4.2. What is the status of agricultural
machinery repair services?
4.2.1. How are the repair
services being operated?
•
•
•
Credit support
Profitability of operating
machines
Organization on the farmers
Land surface
Plot sizes
Availability of technicians
for repairs
Cost of repairing services
Availability of spare parts
Distance traveled for
repairing and spare parts
•
Types of
mechanisation
services
identified and
documented
•
Problems of
service
providers
identified and
documented
Analysis of secondary
data
Key informant interview
Stakeholder analysis
•
•
Expected outputs
Focus group interview
Key informant interview
Constraints in repair
services identified
and documented
109
110
ANNEX 3: TIMETABLE (13 weeks)
DATE
ACTIVITIES
st
1 Week: 13-18 April
Sunday
Team arrives in Accra
Monday
Team travels to Sunyani
• Introduction of team members to SFSP, MOFA (regional & district offices)
Tuesday
• Logistic arrangements
• Meeting with monitoring group (to verify problems and objectives of the study,
selection of target communities etc)
Wednesday
• Planning for introductory seminar for local scientist/counterpart & monitoring group
• Planning for introductory workshop
• Introduce local counterpart (and monitoring group or other project staff based on
interest) into the team’s procedure (ARD-procedure, research process, team
procedure)
Thursday
• Collect and analyze secondary information
• Planning for the introductory workshop
Friday
Holiday (Good Friday)
2nd week: 21–25 April
Monday
Reconnaissance Survey
• Revise context analysis (“Rich picture”)
Tuesday
• Revise system of interest (focus of the study)
• Final preparation for introductory workshop
Introductory workshop (Day 1)
• Presentation of the team’s understanding of TOR (problem, objectives, research
questions etc)
Wednesday
• Presentation of research plan
• Presentation of research time table
Feedback session (based on presentation)
Introductory workshop (Day 2)
• Stakeholder analysis (with relevant stakeholders present)
Thursday
• Wrap up of workshop and closing
• Adjust TOR, research plan and time table based on feedback from workshop
• Meeting with Monitoring group to discuss adjusted TOR and research plan
• Agree on the system of interest (focus of the study) for further analysis
Friday
• Refine plan for weeks 3 – 6
3rd Week: 28 April-2 May)
• Meeting with Dr. Heinz Loose (Clarifying the issue of local counterparts)
• Progressive writing of the workshop report
Monday
• Collection of the secondary data
• Division of task regarding the secondary data analysis and the task of report writing
including the first 3 chapter (introduction, methodology, Outline)
• Editing and finalizing introductory workshop contents
Tuesday
• Secondary data analysis and progressive writing
Wednesday
• Progressive writing from secondary data
Thursday
• Progressive writing from secondary data
• Reviewing the progress of 3rd week and team process
Friday
• Planning for 4th week
• Secondary data analysis and progressive writing
4th Week: 5 –9 May
Monday
• Secondary data analysis and progressive writing
111
• Secondary data analysis and progressive writing
• Secondary data analysis and progressive writing
• Presentation subgroup outputs on pin boards and flipcharts
Wednesday
• Exchange written text for feedback
• Planning for field data collection
Thursday
• Preparation of presentation of outputs to reviewer
• Finalization of presentation for the reviewer
Friday
• Reviewing the progress of 4th week and team process
5th Week: 12 -16 May
• Secondary data analysis and progressive writing
Monday
• Finalization of communities in Sunyani for data collection
• Preparation of field data collection from Sunyani (Sub group)
Tuesday
• Meeting with Nkoranza District Director regarding selection of communities
(Subgroup)
Wednesday
• Field data collection from Sunayani
Thursday
• Field data collection from Sunayani
Friday
• Data compilation
Saturday
• Preparation for field data collection from Nkoranza
th
6 Week: 19-23 May
• Visit to Nkoranza and meeting with District Director
Mon
• Data collection from repair services
• Meeting with AEAs and other officials of MOFA for finalizing the communities to
Tuesday
be visited
• Interaction with AEAs regarding verifying secondary information
Wednesday
• Field data collection from Nkoranza
• Field data collection from Nkoranza
Thursday
• Juan (Reviewer) arrived at Sunayani
• Field data collection from Nkoranza
Friday
• Meeting with Juan
7th Week: 26 – 31 May
Monday
• Feed back from Juan
Tuesday
• Data compilation
Wednesday
• Data compilation
Thursday
• Presentation of information gathered from the field to Juan to get feed back
Friday
• Data compilation
• Planning for rest of the field study period
Saturday
• Finalizing the outline for the report
Sunday
• Feed back on outputs
8th Week: 3 –7 June
Monday
• Overview of progress from Juan
Tuesday
• Primary data analysis (Sunyani and Nkoranza)
Wednesday
• Preparation for monitoring group meeting
• Meeting with Rita (GTZ) to get feed back
Thursday
• Monitoring group meeting at Kumasi
Friday
• Preparation for data collection from Sunyani
Tuesday
112
9th Week: 9 –13 June
Monday
• Data analysis and Progressive report writing
Tuesday
• Data analysis and progressive report writing
Wednesday
• Field data collection in Sunyani district
Thursday
• Field data collection in Sunyani district
Friday
• Field data collection in Sunyani district
Saturday
• Field data collection in Sunyani district
10th Week: 16-20 June
Monday
• Progressive report writing
Tuesday
• Progressive report writing
Wednesday
• Progressive report writing
Thursday
• Feedback from clients/stakeholders
Friday
• Visit to tractor owner/operator in Techiman, Chiraa, Wenchi
11th Week: 23-27 June
Mon.-Tues.
• Report writing (subgroup work)
• Exchange outputs to get feed back
Wednesday
• 1st draft of the report ready
Thursday
• Preparation for the monitoring group meeting
Friday
• Presentation of outputs to monitoring group for feed back
Sat. –Sun.
• Preparation for finial workshop and travel to Kumasi (afternoon)
12th Week: 30 June-5 July
Monday
• Final workshop in Kumasi
• Incorporation of feedback
Tuesday
• Planning for rest of the field study period
Wednesday
• Finalization of report
Thursday
• Finalization of the report
Friday
• Finalization of the report
Saturday
• Finalization of the report
13th week: 7-12 July
Monday
• Final Printing and distribution of report
Tuesday
• Farewell to SFSP and MOFA
Wednesday
• Travel to Cape Coast
Thursday
• Cape coast to Accra
Friday
• Workshop in Accra with National Director and other officials
Saturday
• Fly to Wageningen
113
114
ANNEX 4.1: COST AND RETURNS FROM TRACTOR OPERATIONS JUNE, 2003 (¢ PER YEAR), NEW TRACTOR (1000 HRS
WITH SHED AND INSURANCE)
Machine
Item
Tractor 70 HP (51kW)
Unit
Data
F.C
3-Furrow Disc Plough
V.C
Data
F.C
Trailer
V.C
Data
F.C
Purchase Price (P)
¢
200,000,000
15,000,000
15,000,000
Salvage value
¢
20,000,000
1,500,000
1,500,000
Real Interest (I) = 1/2 I on P
%
10.0
10,000,000
10.0
750,000
10.0
750,000
Housing (H) = % on P
%
1,0
2,000,000
1.0
150,000
1.0
150,000
Insurance (I) = % on P
%
0.1
200,000
Working life by time (L)
years
10
10
10
Working life by use (l)
hours
¢
10,000
5,000
5,000
hours
1,000
500
500
hours
1,000
400
600
Repairs expense
Annual use at change of
depreciation=I/ L
Annual use (a) of the machine
Depreciation per year
¢
8,000
18,000,000
3,600
1,350,000
Fuel and oil, etc. (50% load)
¢/ hour
28,630
Labour - if applicable
¢/ hour
10,000
3,600
1,350,000
Totals: Fixed costs per year
Variable costs per hour
¢
30,200,000
Total variable costs per year
¢
46,630,000
1,440,000
2,160,000
Total costs: fixed + variable per
year
¢
76,830,000
3,690,000
4,410,000
46,630
2,250,000
V.C
3,600
2,250,000
3,600
115
ANNEX 4.2: COST AND RETURNS FROM TRACTOR OPERATIONS JUNE, 2003 (¢ PER YEAR), OLD TRACTOR (600 HRS
WITH SHED AND INSURANCE)
Machine
Item
Tractor 70 HP (51kW)
Unit
Data
F.C
3-Furrow Disc Plough
V.C
Data
F.C
Trailer
V.C
Data
F.C
Purchase Price (P)
¢
80,000,000
15,000,000
15,000,000
Salvage value
¢
0
1,500,000
1,500,000
Real Interest (I) = 1/2 I on P
%
10.0
4,000,000
10.0
750,000
10.0
750,000
Housing (H) = % on P
%
2.5
2,000,000
1.0
150,000
1.0
150,000
Insurance (I) = % on P
%
0.1
80,000
Working life by time (L)
years
10
10
10
Working life by use (l)
hours
¢
10,000
5,000
5,000
hours
1,000
500
500
hours
600
200
400
Repairs expense
Annual use at change of
depreciation=I/ L
Annual use (a) of the machine
Depreciation per year
¢
43,333
8,000,000
3,600
1,350,000
Fuel and oil, etc. (50% load)
¢/ hour
36,810
Labour - if applicable
¢/ hour
10,000
3,600
1,350,000
Totals: Fixed costs per year
Variable costs per hour
¢
14,080,000
Total variable costs per year
¢
54,086,000
720,000
1,440,000
Total costs: fixed + variable per
year
¢
68,166,000
2,970,000
3,690,000
116
90,143
2,250,000
V.C
3,600
2,250,000
3,600
ANNEX 4.3: COST AND RETURNS FROM TRACTOR OPERATIONS JUNE, 2003 (¢ PER YEAR), OLD TRACTOR (600 HRS
WITHOUT SHED AND INSURANCE)
Machine
Item
Tractor 70 HP (51kW)
Unit
Data
3-Furrow Disc Plough
F.C
V.C
Data
Trailer
F.C
V.C
Data
F.C
V.C
Purchase Price (P)
¢
80,000,000
15,000,000
15,000,000
Salvage value
¢
0
1,500,000
1,500,000
Real Interest (I) = 1/2 I on P
%
10.0
4,000,000
10.0
750,000
10.0
750,000
Housing (H) = % on P
%
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
Insurance (I) = % on P
%
0.0
0
Working life by time (L)
years
10
10
10
Working life by use (l)
hours
¢
10,000
5,000
5,000
hours
1,000
500
500
hours
600
200
400
Repairs expense
Annual use at change of
depreciation=I/ L
Annual use (a) of the machine
Depreciation per year
¢
43,333
8,000,000
3,600
1,350,000
Fuel and oil, etc. (50% load)
¢/ hour
36,810
Labour - if applicable
¢/ hour
10,000
3,600
1,350,000
Totals: Fixed costs per year
Variable costs per hour
¢
12,000,000
Total variable costs per year
¢
54,086,000
720,000
1,440,000
Total costs: fixed + variable per
year
¢
66,086,000
2,820,000
3,540,000
90,143
2,100,000
3,600
2,100,000
3,600
117
ANNEX 4.4: COST AND RETURNS FROM TRACTOR OPERATIONS JUNE, 2003 (¢ PER YEAR), OLD TRACTOR (800 HRS
WITH SHED AND INSURANCE)
Machine
Item
Tractor 70 HP (51kW)
Unit
Data
F.C
3-Furrow Disc Plough
V.C
Data
F.C
Trailer
V.C
Data
F.C
Purchase Price (P)
¢
80,000,000
15,000,000
15,000,000
Salvage value
¢
0
1,500,000
1,500,000
Real Interest (I) = 1/2 I on P
%
10.0
4,000,000
10.0
750,000
10.0
750,000
Housing (H) = % on P
%
2.5
2,000,000
1.0
150,000
1.0
150,000
Insurance (I) = % on P
%
0.1
80,000
Working life by time (L)
years
10
10
10
Working life by use (l)
hours
¢
10,000
5,000
5,000
hours
1,000
500
500
hours
800
300
500
Repairs expense
Annual use at change of
depreciation=I/ L
Annual use (a) of the machine
Depreciation per year
¢
32,500
8,000,000
3,600
1,350,000
Fuel and oil, etc. (50% load)
¢/ hour
36,810
Labour - if applicable
¢/ hour
10,000
3,600
1,350,000
Totals: Fixed costs per year
Variable costs per hour
¢
14,080,000
Total variable costs per year
¢
63,448,000
1,080,000
1,800,000
Total costs: fixed + variable per
year
¢
77,528,000
3,330,000
4,050,000
118
79,310
2,250,000
V.C
3,600
2,250,000
3,600
ANNEX 4. 5: COST AND RETURNS FROM TRACTOR OPERATIONS JUNE, 2003 (¢ PER YEAR), OLD TRACTOR (800 HRS
WITHOUT SHED AND INSURANCE)
Machine
Item
Tractor 70 HP (51kW)
¢
80,000,000
Salvage value
¢
0
1,500,000
Real Interest (I) = 1/2 I on P
%
10.0
4,000,000
10.0
750,000
10.0
750,000
Housing (H) = % on P
%
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
Insurance (I) = % on P
%
0.0
0
Working life by time (L)
years
10
Working life by use (l)
hours
¢
10,000
hours
1,000
500
500
hours
800
300
500
Repairs expense
Annual use at change of
depreciation=I/ L
Annual use (a) of the machine
Depreciation per year
¢
Data
F.C
V.C
Trailer
Data
15,000,00
0
Purchase Price (P)
Unit
3-Furrow Disc Plough
F.C
V.C
5,000
5,000
3,600
1,350,000
¢/ hour
36,810
Labour - if applicable
¢/ hour
10,000
V.C
10
32,500
Fuel and oil, etc. (50% load)
F.C
1,500,000
10
8,000,000
Data
15,000,00
0
3,600
1,350,000
Totals: Fixed costs per year
Variable costs per hour
¢
12,000,000
Total variable costs per year
¢
63,448,000
1,080,000
1,800,000
Total costs: fixed + variable per
year
¢
75,448,000
3,180,000
3,900,000
79,310
2,100,000
3,600
2,100,000
3,600
119
ANNEX 4.6: COST AND RETURNS FROM TRACTOR OPERATIONS JUNE, 2003 (¢ PER YEAR), OLD TRACTOR (1000 HRS
WITH SHED AND INSURANCE)
Machine
Item
Tractor 70 HP (51kW)
¢
80,000,000
Salvage value
¢
0
1,500,000
Real Interest (I) = 1/2 I on P
%
10.0
4,000,000
10.0
750,000
10.0
750,000
Housing (H) = % on P
%
2.5
2,000,000
1.0
150,000
1.0
150,000
Insurance (I) = % on P
%
0.1
80,000
Working life by time (L)
years
10
Working life by use (l)
hours
¢
10,000
hours
1,000
500
500
hours
1,000
400
600
Repairs expense
Annual use at change of
depreciation=I/ L
Annual use (a) of the machine
Depreciation per year
¢
Data
F.C
V.C
F.C
Trailer
Data
15,000,00
0
Purchase Price (P)
Unit
3-Furrow Disc Plough
V.C
5,000
5,000
3,600
1,350,000
¢/ hour
36,810
Labour - if applicable
¢/ hour
10,000
3,600
1,350,000
Totals: Fixed costs per year
Variable costs per hour
¢
14,080,000
Total variable costs per year
¢
72,810,000
1,440,000
2,160,000
Total costs: fixed + variable per
year
¢
86,890,000
3,690,000
4,410,000
120
72,810
V.C
10
26,000
Fuel and oil, etc. (50% load)
F.C
1,500,000
10
8,000,000
Data
15,000,00
0
2,250,000
3,600
2,250,000
3,600
ANNEX 4.7: COST AND RETURNS FROM TRACTOR OPERATIONS JUNE, 2003 (¢ PER YEAR), OLD TRACTOR (1000 HRS
WITHOUT SHED AND INSURANCE)
Machine
Item
Tractor 70 HP (51kW)
¢
80,000,000
Salvage value
¢
0
1,500,000
Real Interest (I) = 1/2 I on P
%
10.0
4,000,000
10.0
750,000
10.0
750,000
Housing (H) = % on P
%
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
Insurance (I) = % on P
%
0.0
0
Working life by time (L)
years
10
10
10
Working life by use (l)
hours
¢
10,000
5,000
5,000
hours
1,000
500
500
hours
1,000
400
600
Repairs expense
Annual use at change of
depreciation=I/ L
Annual use (a) of the machine
Depreciation per year
¢
Data
F.C
V.C
Trailer
Data
15,000,00
0
Purchase Price (P)
Unit
3-Furrow Disc Plough
F.C
V.C
¢/ hour
36,810
Labour - if applicable
¢/ hour
10,000
V.C
3,600
1,350,000
Fuel and oil, etc. (50% load)
F.C
1,500,000
26,000
8,000,000
Data
15,000,00
0
3,600
1,350,000
Totals: Fixed costs per year
Variable costs per hour
¢
12,000,000
Total variable costs per year
¢
72,810,000
1,440,000
2,160,000
Total costs: fixed + variable per
year
¢
84,810,000
3,540,000
4,260,000
72,810
2,100,000
3,600
2,100,000
3,600
121
ANNEX 4.8: CALCULATION OF FUEL AND OIL COST
Data
Unit
New tractor
Tractor (10 year old)
Fuel consumption at full load
ml per h.p.h.
200
257
Fuel consumption at 50% load
ml per h.p.h.
100
128.5
Fuel consumption of a 70 h.p.
litre per hour
7
9
Fuel costs at ¢ 3850 per lit.
¢
26950
34650
Oil consumption, 2% of fuel
litre per hour
0.14
0.18
Oil costs at ¢ 12000 per lit.
¢
1680
2160
Total cost fuel and oil
¢ per hour
28630
36810
tractor
ANNEX 4.9: OPERATIONAL CHARGES PER HOUR TO COVER ALL FIXED AND
VARIABLE COSTS (NEW TRACTOR)
Item
Tractor
Plough
Trailer
Total
FC+ VC (¢/ year)
76,830,000
3,690,000
4,410,000
Annual use (hours)
1,000
400
600
Total cost (¢/ hour)
76,830
9,225
7350
93,405
Operational charges per hour
The following formula was used to calculate the operational charges per hour covering all fixed
and variable costs:
Total cost (FC + VC) per year/ Actual annual use (hours)
122
Agriculture
not attractive
to the Youth
Rural-urban
migration of
the Youth
HIVAIDS
Introduction of Conservation
Agriculture techniques for
small- scale farmers
MOFA
Facilities for storage
and agro-processing not
available for farmers
How can farmers be properly
organized to ensure timely
mechanization services
Low income
of farmers
Land
fragmentation
Unstable market
prices for agric.
production
What is
appropriate level
of mechanization
Are mechanization
services
economically viable?
Are there qualified
technicians to
maintain machinery
and equipments?
Poor road infrastructure
Farmers
Post harvest
losses
Promotion of
agro-processing
industries
Increasing dependence
on external inputs like
fertilizer
High population
pressure on land
Difficult land
tenure
arrangements
Ghana Government
AESD, CSD,
Regional, District
High cost of inputs
Slash and burn/land
preparation
Government
Policies
Food insecurity and
vicious poverty cycle
Establishment of
private mechanization
service centers
Labour intensive
tillage practices
Less off-farm activities
Lack of appropriate soil
conservation schemes
Promotion of
mulch planters
Unavailability of
labour
Legend
What policy support is
needed on importation of CA
machinery and equipment?
Use of standard
tractors
High
labour cost
What are the factors
influencing successful
adoption of
conservation practices
Introduction of
tractor mounted
slashers and
direct sowing
DMC
How do research (SRI, CRI and
KNUST) and MOFA (SFSP)
collaborate in the search of
options for conservation
Agriculture?
Central Problem:
How to combine
Conservation Agriculture
And Mechanization
Multiplication of noxious
weeds due to extensive
ploughing
Uneven land surface for
ploughing due to tree stumps
SRI
KNUST
What type of tillage system
is to be used that will
minimize soil degradation?
Soil erosion due to
exclusive use of tractor
disc ploughs
Block farming
Government’s drive
for privatization
CRI
Rapid organic matter
decomposition
Other
NGOs
Declining soil fertility
Proper destumping
of fields
Desired future situation
Tractor operators
What organizational set up is
required on the part of
mechanization service providers?
Unreliable tractor services
Untimely planting and weeding
Stakeholders
Problem description
Research questions
Potential solutions
120