Unza-Katc Permaculture Project

UNZA-KATC PERMACULTURE PROJECT

Draft Report for the Year 2008/09 Growing Season

June, 2010

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The team that worked on the Permaculture demonstration and research trial is greatly indebted to the following persons and institutions:

Mr Ali Sharif of PAL (Permaculture Latin America) for helping to conceptualize the research project and for fundraising for it. Mr. John Nzira of Ukuvuna Permaculture for Sustainable Livelihoods for leading the team in designing the trial in terms of what crop to plant where and when to plant. Mr. Mugove Walter Nyika of RESCOPE (Regional Schools and Colleges Permaculture Education) for his advice throughout the time the work on this project was in progress. The Rescope Programme for coordinating the project and administering the funding. The Plan Africa team for initiating and providing oversight on the project. The Kasisi Agricultural Training Centre (KATC) for providing the land for the trial and staff to manage its implementation. The University of Zambia (UNZA) School of Agricultural Sciences for providing staff to be part of the implementing and reporting team, and in most cases providing transport to and from Kasisi. The farmers in the vicinity of the trial site who agreed to participate in the study by providing data from their farms.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... II TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... III LIST OF TABLES ...... IV LIST OF FIGURES...... IV EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... V 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 7 1.1. OBJECTIVES ...... 7 1.2. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS ...... 8 2. INPUTS UTILISATION AND COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS ...... 10 2.1. LABOUR ...... 10 2.2. SEED ...... 12 2.3. OTHER INPUT COSTS ...... 13 2.4. TOTAL INPUT COSTS ...... 13 3. AGRONOMY...... 14 3.1. LAND PREPARATION ...... 14 3.2. MANURE APPLICATION ...... 15 3.3. PLANTING ...... 15 3.4. LIMING ...... 17 3.5. WEEDING ...... 18 3.6. CROP PROTECTION ...... 18 3.7. HARVESTING ...... 19 4. OUTPUT ...... 20 4.1. LAND MANAGEMENT / FERTILITY ...... 20 4.2. PRODUCTION AND PRODUCTIVITY ...... 20 4.3. GROSS MARGIN ANALYSIS ...... 20 4.4. COMPARISON OF THE PERMACULTURE TRIAL WITH NEIGHBOURING CONVENTIONAL PLOTS ...... 21 5. NUTRITION...... 21 6. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ...... 23 7. CHALLENGES AND WHAT WAS DONE ...... 23 8. RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 24 APPENDIX 1 ...... 25 APPENDIX 2 ...... 26

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page Table 1: Implementation Plan ...... 8 Table 2 : Estimated Cost of Labour by Activity ...... 12 Table 3: Cost of Seed by Type ...... 12 Table 4: Other Input Costs ...... 13 Table 5: Production and Yield Data from the Permaculture Trial ...... 20 Table 6: Total Crop yield and Crude Protein Yield ...... 22 Table 7: Crude Protein Results for Selected Crops...... 23

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page Figure 1: Kasisi Permaculture Zone 3 1ha Dryland Trial Plot for 2008-9 Season...... 9 Figure 2: Allocation of Labour ...... 10 Figure 3: Number of Man-days by Activity ...... 11 Figure 4: Costs by Major Input ...... 13 Figure 5: Before Ripping Figure 6: After Ripping ...... 14 Figure 7: Levelled Ground Figure 8: Fencing the Trial ...... 14 Figure 9: Compost Making and Turning the Manure in the Background ...... 15 Figure 10: Making Planting Furrows Figure 11: Planting basins for maize ...... 16 Figure 12: Planting Maize Figure 13: Planting cassava ...... 16 Figure 14: Planting Moringa Seedlings Figure 15: Sunflower and Groundnuts ...... 17 Figure 16: Crop Development in Plot Figure 17: Cassava and Pigeon Pea ...... 17 Figure 18: Lime application ...... 17 Figure 19: Weed Infestation (Centre) Figure 20: Weeds Infesting the Crop ...... 18 Figure 21: Termite Damaged Maize Figure 22: Stalk Borer Damaged Maize...... 19 Figure 23: Drying Cowpeas Figure 24: Drying Sunflower ...... 19 Figure 25: Harvested Pumpkins ...... 19

Executive Summary

The greatest challenge to agriculture is to produce enough food to feed the world population. Current agriculture practices do not guarantee access to food for all, and are not sustainable. Permaculture land use is an agro-ecological land design system that mimics nature and aims at promoting sustainability. To assess the practical application of Permaculture land use and demonstrate the system, Plan Africa conceptualised the project and raised funds for setting up of a Permaculture plot at Kasisi Agricultural Training Center (KATC). The Kasisi Agricultural Training Centre worked in conjunction with the University of Zambia (UNZA). This report highlights the planning and design of the plot, agronomic practices followed, problems encountered, observations made and output achieved in the first cropping year.

The main objective was to design a 1 hectare rain-fed permaculture trial and compare its output with 1 hectare monocrop hybrid maize. Test plants included those that contribute to food needs, soil/environmental protection, and pest and disease control. Labour is the most critical input that went into the establishment of the Permaculture trial with weeding, manure preparation and application, planting and mulching accounting for over 80% of labour requirements. In terms of labour costs, weeding was the most costly exercise as more man days were required to complete the task of weeding. Seed was another important input that went into the Permaculture trial. Seed material raised through the nurseries incurred more costs (61%) than direct seed material (39%). Other input costs encompassed land preparation, manure, a wire fence, protective clothing, agricultural lime and tools and shade cloth. The total input costs for the whole Permaculture trial were disaggregated into three components namely: labour, seed and manure costs. Manure costs were by far the largest proportion with approximately 50% of the total input costs being taken up by manure.

The site used had been under a Rhodes grass fodder crop over a period of 16 years. Therefore, ripping was the most appropriate way to uproot the fodder crop and enhance good drainage. Ripping was done in a north-south direction, across the slope. The clods of the soil were broken, the ground was levelled and demarcated to facilitate establishment of planting stations. The trial was demarcated into blocks and these blocks were further demarcated into subplots. Blocks were planted with different crop varieties for easy identification and yield data collection

The manure used was composed of chicken litter, cattle dung and compost and was decomposed before being applied. The trial was limed at a rate of 1 ton per hectare on 1 st December 2008, after getting laboratory test results that indicated low soil pH.

Planting stations were made depending on the type of crop. Large seeded crops were planted in basins (potholes) while furrows were made for small seeded crops. Crops were planted according to recommended intra-row spacing. Apart from food crops, Moringa was planted in the center of the field at a spacing of 1m from plant to plant and another 1m from row to row on an area of 120m 2. Neem seedlings were

v planted on the northern boundary in a row at the spacing of 40cm from plant to plant. Faidherbia albida seedlings were planted on the borders.

Weeding was conducted as and when necessary since the crops were planted at different times. Termites, stalk borers, aphids, blister beetles, shield bugs and snails caused most damage to the crops. The natural remedies worked as anti feeding and as repellants. The remedies used included Tephrosia vogelli , ash, Euphorbia, Neem leaves, crushing of snails and hand picking. Tephrosia and Neem appreared effective on the stalk borer and termites.

To study the effects of different cropping systems on soil fertility, soil samples were collected and analyzed in the soil science laboratory at the University of Zambia. The pH in the maize crop intercropped with velvet beans was higher than pH in other land uses. Organic matter on the beans was higher than that for other land uses. There seemed to be clear influence of beans and velvet beans on organic matter and phosphorous. The trends for K in the plot of beans, maize and cassava were similar to those of N and other parameters.

Crops were harvested as soon as they were mature and dried in the sun or in the storage shade. Most of the crops grown on the 1 ha permaculture plot had reasonable yield levels. The plot produced a variety of nutritious foods. In terms of staples, maize was the most important but the amount produced was low (156kg) and did not meet the annual requirements for a family of six. However, it was complimented by finger millet and sweet potatoes. The amount of pulses, nuts and oilseed was sufficient. Similarly, the amount of fresh vegetables was sufficient . Despite the damage caused by pests, the general crop production was excellent. It is recommended that the trial continue into the second year to help consolidate the results obtained.

1. Introduction

The greatest challenge to world agriculture is to produce enough affordable food to feed the ever increasing world population in a sustainable manner. It has been realised that the various current agriculture practices do not guarantee access to food for all, and are not sustainable. A number of systems have been proposed and tried as alternatives in an attempt to address this pressing problem. Such systems have largely aimed at reducing production cost to reduce produce cost, and selecting input and identifying appropriate land preparation and crop husbandry practices to minimize environmental degradation while maximizing output.

Permaculture Agriculture is one of the systems that attempt to address the problem highlighted above. Permaculture designs the land for permanence and energy efficiency. Using nature as a guide, plants are carefully chosen to fulfill multi functions such as food, fodder, shelter, fertility, pest predator habitat, etc. Permaculture aims at promoting sustainability among communities; achieving a situation where needs and aspirations are satisfied without diminishing the chances of future generations.

To assess the practical application of Permaculture Agriculture and demonstrate the system to farmers and other interested stakeholders, Plan Africa decided to set up a Permaculture plot at Kasisi Agricultural Training Center in conjunction with the University of Zambia (UNZA). The plot is a scientific research trial that will take into account all inputs, dynamics in soil condition and outputs.

This report highlights the planning and design of the plot, agronomic practices followed, problems encountered, observations made and output achieved in the first cropping year in terms of yield, food security, nutrition and income generation.

1.1. Objectives

Main Objective The main objective was to design a 1 hectare rain-fed permaculture trial and compare its output with 1 hectare monocrop hybrid maize, in terms of yield, food security, nutrition and income generation.

Specific Objectives: 1. To determine the effects of different land uses within the plots on land 2. To determine soil productivity of the different land uses 3. To determine the total crop yield per hectare for permaculture and monoculture plot 4. To determine the difference in labour input between 1 hectare permaculture plot and 1 hectare of mono-crop maize 5. To determine other input demands for 1 hectare permaculture plot and 1 hectare of mono-crop maize 6. To determine the nutrition levels of food crops grown in a permaculture plot and compare with a monoculture system 7. To determine the difference in monetary gains between 1 hectare permaculture plot and 1 hectare of mono-crop maize 8. To determine crop equivalent ratios of the two cropping systems

It is anticipated that a one hectare permaculture field will give output that exceeds one hectare monocrop hybrid maize in a sustainable manner.

1.2. Planning and Implementation Process

A planning meeting was held to design the Permaculture plot. The meeting was attended by representatives from KATC, UNZA, ReSCOPE and Ukuvuna Permaculture for Sustainable Livelihoods. In the process, a situational analysis of the plot was carried out taking into account; terrain, soil type, vegetation, climatic conditions, machinery for use, human resource, fire hazard and pollution.

It was decided that plants to be included in the trial should be those that contribute to food needs, soil/environmental protection, and pest and disease control. With this in mind, a number of plants were considered inclusive of crops, fruit trees, medicinal plants, wind breakers, soil improvement plants, sources of extracts for pest and disease control and hedging plants. A field layout was developed for all plants selected for the trial as illustrated in Figure 1.

Crops such as maize, sweet potato, cassava, beans, pumpkins and ground nuts were identified as major crops because they are grown by most farmers as staple food. The borders of the plot were planned to become a dense resource of permanent useful plants and trees, both indigenous and exotic. Added to the existing Faiderbia albida would be thorny hedge/fruit plants like Dovyalis and Ziziphus, exotic fruits, Moringa for seed, Neem for pest management, as well as climbing plants like loofa, passion fruit, perennial tomatoes and many others. Organization of inputs and monitoring of activities were as indicated in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Implementation Plan

Activity Responsible Time/Frequency Procedure Institution Harvesting KATC/UNZA From 6 weeks after planting Weighing and recording Input procurement KATC Throughout the year Recording Labour KATC/UNZA Throughout the year Templates, planning, recruiting, direct measurement Soil tests KATC/UNZA 3 times Soil sampling and analysis Soil life examination KATC/UNZA 3 times Visual and chemical Pests/disease KATC/UNZA Once/week Scouting, identification, diagnosis recording Predators KATC/UNZA Once/week Scouting, identification, identification recording Plant diversity KATC/UNZA Monthly Species count/unit area assessment Biomass estimation KATC/UNZA At the end of crop life Weighing on unit area Nutrient value KATC/UNZA From 6 weeks after planting Chemical analysis estimation

Figure 1: Kasisi Permaculture Zone 3 1ha Dryland Trial Plot for 2008-9 Season.

11m Pumpkin 3 Cowpeas 2 Beans 4 Cow peas 4 11m Maize 4 Maize 7 Cleome 3 Cassava 5 Velvet beans 4 Sesame 2 Five finger millet 3 Sunflower 2

1m Beans 4

Pumpkin 5 Mustard 4 Sun hemp 3 11m Maize 4 Maize 2 Five finger millet 3 Cassava 6 Cowpeas 5 Cowpeas 4 Amaranthus 2 Maize 4

Pumpkin 5 Pumpkin 4 Beans 4 Soya beans 5 11m Cleome 3 Cleome 4 Okra 4 Cassava 6 Beans 3 Five finger millet 3 Five finger millet 3

Lippia Javanica Artimisia Afra Lucern Vetiver Grass 90m

(2m of Moringa at 1m apart 1m 1m wide PATH and cut at 1m high) 2m Sweet Potatoes 5 Cow peas 7 Ground Nuts 5 Maize 5 Ground Nuts 3 11m Maize 4 Amaranthus 4 Sun hemp 3 Sunflower 3 Mustard 2 Amaranthus 3

Cow peas 4 Sweet potatoes 5 Ground Nuts 7 Beans 4 11m Cassava 5 Beans 4 Sunflower 4 Maize 5 Cleome 2 Amaranthus 2 Pumpkin 2

1m Ground Nuts 5 Amaranthus 3 Sweet Potatoes 4 Velvet beans 3 Sweet potatoes 4 11m Cowpeas 4 Sun hemp 5 Maize 3 Cowpeas 2 Five finger millet 4 Maize 2 Maize 5 Musekesa 5m

120m Legend: North Mahogany trees (existing hard woods) Aloe species (plant 50m apart) Best Aloe Tenuor, Malothi, ferox, Arborescence (medicinal, fire resistant) Sisal existing (shift the plant 1m from the fence, closer to plot) Plant Elephant foot (Portulacaria afra) along the fence (fire break, windbreak, vegetable) Paw Paws at least plus minus 5m apart at zigzag Moringa at least 10m apart in hedge (Nutrition, income) Faidherbia albida (existing) where gaps are too wide replacement is required (Soil improver) Eboza, Lippia and Artimisia afra at 40cm apart. Eboza (Plectranthus fam. med., live fence, wind break) Neem s at 75cm apart keep it a 1m high (pest management) Carrissa macrocarpa plant at 60cm apart (fruit, live fence, medicinal) Dovyalis cafra or zeyheri Plant 60cm apart (thorny hedge, fruit) Ziziphus moritania plant at 10m apart northern side of the Faidherbia albida (thorny hedge, fruit) Tephrosia area 1 m plant 15cm apart zigzag method 2 seeds per hole (pest management, soil improver) Pigeon pea area 3m wide plant 15cm apart zigzag method 2 seeds per hole (soil improver, food) The distance between tephrosia and Pigeon pea is plus minus 12m and the width is about 30m therefore the area for crops is about 360sqm. The number attached to the crop type is suggested lines of the crop at 1m apart. The distance between plants could be adjusted according to plants type. I suggest application of manure will be 2kg per square meter on land preparation, thereafter 3 times top dressing; this could be liquid manure or compost.

2. Inputs Utilisation and Cost-Benefit Analysis

2.1. Labour

Labour is perhaps one of the most important critical issues in permaculture. Since several crops and plants are grown, this entails increased activities in terms of attention paid to these crops and plants. Several activities took place in the permaculture plot as shown in Figure 2. Weeding, manuring, planting and mulching, in this order, took up most (more than 80%) of the time dedicated to the plot.

Transporting Land poles and Spraying Pegging plots 2% preparation 3% fencing 4% 2% Slashing Mulching Planting 1% 11% 15% Pruning 1%

Manuring 20% Weeding 35%

Harvesting 6%

Figure 2: Allocation of Labour

Figure 3 illustrates the number of man days spent on each activity for the whole period of the trial, assuming an 8 hour working day, which is generally accepted as the average in Zambia.

140 126 120

100

80 75 56 60 40 40 23 Number of Man-days of Number 20 13 12 7 7 2 4 0

Figure 3: Number of Man-days by Activity

The unit labour cost was pegged at ZMK8000/day during the period of the trial. According to actual cost figures submitted by the project team, the total cost of labour on the permaculture plot was ZMK6,336,000. To have an idea of how much money was spent on labour disaggregated by activity, the following assumptions were made: a) Wage rate of ZMK8000 per man day is the same across all activities; b) Proportion of labour costs by activity is similar to the proportion of the number of man days by activity. Based on the aforementioned, weeding was the most costly activity principally because of the number of man days spent on weeding. Preparation and actual application of manure to the trial was also another involving activity that took about one-fifth of the number of man days. As a consequence, this had a huge bearing on the cost of labour that was allocated to manuring 1. On the other hand, pruning was the least costly exercise as it took only 2 man days.

1 Manuring includes all activities such as turning the manure as well as making compost. 11

Table 2 : Estimated Cost of Labour by Activity

Activity Man days Proportion (%) Labour Cost (ZMK) Land Preparation 13 4 225,666 Planting 56 15 972,099 Weeding 126 35 2,187,222 Harvesting 23 6 399,255 Manuring 75 21 1,301,918 Pruning 2 1 34,718 Slashing 4 1 69,436 Pegging Plots 12 3 208,307 Mulching 40 11 694,356 Transporting Poles and Fencing 7 2 121,512 Spraying 7 2 121,512 TOTAL 365 100 6,336,000

2.2. Seed Planting material in the plot came in different forms. Crops such as maize, Tephrosia vogelii, pumpkins etc were planted directly while other plants such as neem, paw paw and moringa were planted in tree nurseries. Seed material raised through nurseries incurred more costs (61%) than the direct seeded material (Table 3).

Table 3: Cost of Seed by Type Seed Type Cost (ZMK) Proportion (%) Directly Seeded Material Maize 61,185 2.2 Cowpeas 18,000 0.6 Pigeon peas 30,000 1.1 Tephrosia 80,000 2.9 Velvet beans 24,000 0.8 Sunflower 12,000 0.4 Sesame 12,000 0.4 Sweet beans 40,000 1.4 Sunhemp 63,000 2.2 Soyabeans 25,000 0.9 Okra 100,000 3.6 Mustard 100,000 3.6 Amaranthus 100,000 3.6 Cleome 100,000 3.6 Pumpkins 200,000 7.2 Finger millet 20,000 0.7 Seedlings Neem 300,000 10.8 Faidebhia albida 45,000 1.6 Paw paw 240,000 8.7 Moringa 1,200,000 43.3 TOTAL 2,770,185.80 100

2.3. Other Input Costs Other than cost of labour and planting material, a significant amount was spent on land preparation (ripping), manure, a wire fence to ensure the crop was not damaged by stray animals, protective clothing, agricultural lime and tools and shade cloth. Table 4 below itemises the cost of other inputs by activity.

Table 4: Other Input Costs

Activity Cost (ZMK) Proportion (%) Land Preparation 300,000 2 Manure 8,075,000 52 Wire Fence 5,971,500 39 Protective Clothing 210,000 1 Agricultural lime 180,000 1 Tools and Shade Cloth 705,900 5 TOTAL 15,442,400 100

2.4. Total Input Costs Compairing the various major cost components, seed material cost the least. Manure costs accounted for close to 50% of the total cost of inputs. Although some seed materials were expensive, the overall seed costs were approximately twice lower than the labour costs (Figure 4). The total input cost for the permaculture plot was ZMK25,227,585.

Seed material 15%

Manure Costs 48%

Labour Costs 37%

Figure 4: Costs by Major Input

3. Agronomy

3.1. Land Preparation The site for the Permaculture plot was under a Rhodes grass fodder crop which was cut annually over a period of 16 years. Therefore, ripping with a tractor was the most appropriate way to uproot the entire fodder crop and enhance drainage. Figures 5 and 6 below show the site before and after ripping, respectively. The area has a gentle slope from east to west, hence ripping was done in a north-south direction, across the slope.

Figure 5: Before Ripping Figure 6: After Ripping

After ripping, the clods of soil were broken, and the ground was levelled and demarcated to facilitate establishment of planting stations. Figure 7 shows levelled ground in the background.

Figure 7: Levelled Ground Figure 8: Fencing the Trial

The trial was demarcated into blocks and these blocks were further demarcated into subplots. This facilitated the planting of similar crops but of different varieties because blocks were planted with different crop varieties for easy identification and yield data collection. The trial was fenced to protect crops from livestock damage (Figure 8).

3.2. Manure Application The manure used on the plot comprised of chicken litter (10t), cattle dung (10t) and compost (5t). The manure was decomposed before being applied to the field by irrigating and turning it for a period of two (2) weeks (Figure 9). Manure application was done in two ways; (1) for crops planted in furrows, the application was 3kg/m before planting and mostly cow dung manure was used to act as a basal dressing and later compost and chicken manure were used two (2weeks) after emerging of the crops in intervals at the same rate of 3kg/m in furrows. (2) for crops planted in basins, like maize, sunflower and pumpkins, the application rate was 2kg in basins before planting and two weeks after emerging with cow dung, and chicken manure and compost used as basal and top dressing, respectively. The application for top dressing was done at intervals.

However, the actual amounts applied were not as recommended, some crops received higher amounts of manure or compost. Due to the variable particle size of the material, it was difficult to achieve even distribution. It was evident that maize received a more even application of manure/compost as compared to other crops like Amaranthus, legumes and vegetables because deficiencies were more prominent in these latter crops. Hence application was done every time a deficiency manifested. This may have led to observed differences in the soil samples.

Figure 9: Compost Making and Turning the Manure in the Background

3.3. Planting Planting stations were made depending on the type of crop. Large seeded crops like maize, velvet, sunflower and pigeon peas were planted in basins while furrows were made for small seeded crops. Planting basins were of standard size (conservation farming). Similarly, planting furrows were also of standard size (conservation

15 farming). Figures 10, 11 and 12 show planting furrows being made, planting basins for maize, and maize being planted, respectively. Crops were planted according to recommended intra-row spacing. Planting started on the 20.11.08 with most of the crops being planted during this time except for the legumes that were planted in mid- January 2. Figure 13 is a cassava planted subplot.

Figure 10: Making Planting Furrows Figure 11: Planting Basins for Maize

Figure 12: Planting Maize Figure 13: Planting cassava

Apart from food crops, tree seedlings of Faiderbia albida , Moringa and Neem were planted. Moringa was planted in the center of the field at a spacing of 1m from plant to plant and another 1m from row to row on an area of 120m. Neem seedlings were planted on the northern boundary in a row at spacing of 40cm from plant to plant in just one row. Faiderbia albida 3 seedlings were planted on the borders, in gaps of existing Faidherbia albida trees, at a spacing of 10m apart. Paw paw seedlings were also planted in the borders at a spacing of 5m from plant to plant. The layout of the different food crops and trees was as illustrated in the design diagram in Figure 1. Figure 14 is showing moringa seedlings being planted whereas Figures 15 through to 17 are showing crop development from different segments of the Permaculture plot.

2 The total rainfall received during the 2008/09 season as recorded at the Kasisi Agricultural Training Centre Permaculture plot was 1018mm. 3 Faidherbia albida is a unique “fertilizer” tree revered by small scale farmers in many parts of Africa which loses its leaves during the growing season and drops nutritious pods at the end of the dry season when animals have little to eat. 16

Figure 14: Planting Moringa Seedlings Figure 15: Sunflower and Groundnuts

Figure 16: Crop Development in Plot Figure 17: Cassava, cleome and Pigeon Pea

3.4. Liming The trial was limed on 1 st December 2008, after getting laboratory test results that indicated low soil pH of 4.3 (Figure 18). The late application of lime was due to delayed confirmation of need for liming based on laboratory results. The lime was applied at a rate of 1 ton per hectare.

Figure 18: Lime application

3.5. Weeding Weeding was done immediately after the crops had emerged but it was not easy due to a high weed infestation arising from the fodder crop that was there previously. Figures 19 and 20 below show weed infestation in most subplots. Weeding was conducted as necessary since the crops were planted at different times.

Figure 19: Weed Infestation (Centre ) Figure 20: Weeds Infesting the Crop

3.6. Crop Protection Termites, stalk borers, aphids, blister beetles, shield bugs and snails caused most damage to the crops. Figures 21 and 22 show termite and stalk borer damaged maize, respectively. To control these pests, natural remedies were used. The natural remedies worked as anti feeding and as repellants.

The remedies used included the following: 1. Tephrosia Vogelli- this was used as an anti feeding agent to most of the mentioned pests, and was used twice/week. One kilogram of Tephrosia leaves were crushed and soaked in 1litre of plain water and left over night. Upon spraying, the mixture was diluted with 3litres of water. 2. Ash was also used to control termites by applying around the plants. 3. Euphorbia was also used to control termites by applying the leaves around the plants. 4. Neem leaves – this was used to spray against the stalk borers by crushing 1kg of leaves, soaking in 2litres of water and letting it stand overnight. The mixture was diluted to 2 litres of water upon spraying. 5. Crushing of snails and hand picking of blister and shield bugs were also employed. 6. Some plants that were infected with virus e.g. cassava were uprooted and taken away from the field to avoid the spread of the disease.

Tephrosia and Neem appeared to be effective on the stalk borer and termites. It is planned to apply sand in funnels for next season. Also use of Diatomaceous Earth could be effective against termites.

Figure 21: Termite Damaged Maize Figure 22: Stalk Borer Damaged Maize.

3.7. Harvesting Crops were harvested as soon as they were mature and dried in the sun or in the storage shade to reduce moisture content to safe levels for storage. Figures 23 and 24 show cowpeas and sunflower being dried, respectively while Figure 25 shows harvested pumpkins.

Figure 23: Drying Cowpeas Figure 24: Drying Sunflower

Figure 25: Harvested Pumpkins

4. Output

4.1. Land Management / Fertility To study the effects of different cropping systems (land management or land uses) on soil fertility, soil samples were collected and analyzed in the soil science laboratory at the University of Zambia (Appendix 1). The similar results for different parameters in the different blocks indicate similar land uses. The pH in the maize crop intercropped with velvet beans was higher than pH in other land uses. Organic matter on the beans was higher than that for other land uses. There seem to be clear influence of beans and velvet beans on organic matter and phosphorous. Phosphorous does not seem to indicate any pattern in relation to land uses. This could be due to the fact that it has low mobility in the soil. One would expect more organic matter under pumpkin crop but that was not the case. The reason may be that pumpkins are a heavy feeder plant so that the organic matter and other plant nutrients are still locked up in the biomass at this time. The trends for K on beans, maize and cassava were similar to those of N and other parameters. See Appendices 1 and 2 for complete results.

4.2. Production and Productivity One of the main objectives of permaculture is to enhance household food and nutrition security. Despite the myriad of challenges encountered during the 2008/09 season, most of the crops grown on the 1 ha permaculture plot had reasonable yield levels. Moreover, the fact that a number of crops were included in the trial demonstrated the importance permaculture attaches to food security. Table 3 below presents production and productivity data for a selection of food crops planted.

Table 5: Production and Yield Data from the Permaculture Trial Crop Area planted (ha) Actual Yield (kg) Productivity (kg/ha) 4 Maize 0.12 151 1258 Cowpea 0.11 33 314 Sweet potatoes 0.05 219 4294 Pumpkins 0.05 112 2074 Soya beans 0.02 9 600 Sunflower 0.03 19 704 Groundnuts 0.06 125 2083 Finger millet 0.03 5.2 193

4.3. Gross Margin Analysis The gross margin of the permaculture trial is the gross production value of all output from the trial less the directly allocatable variable costs. Gross margin analysis for the reporting period was not conducted for the following reasons:

4 The Land Equivalent Ratio (LER) method would best estimate productivity of the Permaculture plot versus conventional plots. In view of scanty data from the conventional plots, which would have given us yield data for a sole crop required to compute LERs, the analysis was not done for the 2008/2009 season. 20

a) Price data for most of the crops was not collected and hence making it difficult to compute the gross production value b) The permaculture trial, in its first season, had a number of sunk cost expenses which would have resulted in a negative gross margin thereby giving the impression that the trial was not feasible and economically justifiable. Therefore, gross margin and profitability analysis of the permaculture plot will be conducted with data from the second season (2009/2010)

4.4. Comparison of the Permaculture Trial with Neighbouring Conventional Plots Data from two of the three conventional farmers living adjacent to the permaculture trial were collected. Gaps in some of the data collected from the conventional trials made it difficult to conduct meaningful comparisons. It is proposed that a more rigorous framework of collecting data from conventional farmers should be put in place for future analyses. This will address the potential problem of understating the actual input costs faced by conventional farmers.

5. Nutrition The permaculture plot produced a variety of nutritious foods. The types of crops grown included cereals, pulses, nuts, tubers, pumpkins, etc. In terms of staples, maize is the most important but the amount produced was low (156kg) as shown in Table 6 and does not meet the annual requirements for a family of six. The low amount of maize, however, is complimented by finger millet and sweet potatoes. The amount of pulses, nuts and oilseed is sufficient. Similarly, the amount of fresh vegetables produced was sufficient though the amounts that were dried are not given. Certain vegetables such as amaranthus could have produced more if they were not allowed to seed early and others like cassava can be harvested on a continuous basis.

In terms of nutrients, most of the crops in Table 6 except for the ones highlighted were analysed for crude protein content and the results are shown in the table. The table also shows the total crude protein yield from the crops amounting to 116.9kg.

Table 6: Total Crop yield and Crude Protein Yield Crop Yield Crude Protein content Protein Yield kg % kg Cereals Maize 156 9.8 15.3 Finger millet 4.2 11.61 0.5

Tubers Sweet potato 219 1.5 3.3

19.1 Pulses Beans 18.9 22.32 4.2 Soybeans 9 42.36 3.8 Cowpeas 21 26.25 5.5 Pigeon peas 42 21 8.8 22.4

Nuts & seeds Sunflower 19 20 3.8 Groundnuts 125 30.29 37.9 Amaranthus seed 10 14.71 1.5 Sesame 2 25.33 0.5 Cleome 2 24.6 0.5 44.1 Fresh Vegetables Amaranthus leaves* 45 11.51 5.2 Pumpkin Leaves 24 7.09 1.7 Cowpea leaves 10 6.08 0.6 Cleome leaves 13 5.41 0.7 Cucumber 22.6 0.0 Okra 7 0.0 Cassava leaves* 10 7.01 0.7 Moringa leaves 3 13.6 0.4 pumpkin 88 25 22.0 31.3 Dried Leaves Pumpkin ? 25.38 0.0 Cowpeas ? 29.73 0.0 Cleome ? 30.11 0.0 Moringa ? 32.09 0.0 0.0

Total crude protein produced 116.9 Note that the crude protein from the cucumber and okra are not included. The CP for pumpkin, cleome seed, pigeon peas, sunflower and sweet potato are from literature. * These leaves were under-harvested during the year because of lack of market at the institution.

Crude protein (CP) analysis is based on the nitrogen content in the food crop and was determined using the kjeldahl method in Food chemistry laboratory in the Department of Food Science and Technology at the University of Zambia. Table 7 shows CP results for selected food crops as well as CP ranges from literature. The results obtained from the laboratory fell within the acceptable/established ranges. CP and mineral content of certain crops can, to some extent, be influenced by soil types/fertility. Therefore, it would be prudent to determine both parameters in subsequent years.

Table 7: Crude Protein Results for Selected Crops. Crop Crude Protein Crude Protein ranges. (results) % % Maize 9.8 8-11 Finger millet 11.6 8-15 Groundnuts 30.29 25-32 Beans 22.32 18-22 Soyabeans 42.36 38-40 Cowpea 26.25 20-27 Sesame seeds 25.33 18-25 Amaranthus seeds 14.71 12.5-17.6

6. General Observations Despite the damage caused by pests, the general crop production was excellent. The following main observations were made: a) Pests and weed infestations contributed to low yield; b) Inputs were not ready on time and this contributed to late planting hence affecting yield; c) Thefts from the people surrounding the trial also affected the yield data; d) Marketing was also a problem as some crops totally had no market and they ended up spoiling.

7. Challenges and What was Done

Problem/observation Solution/action Manure application rate was not Next season application will be monitored more exactly as recommended closely. Weeding was not easy due to high Next time will plant quick producing crops while waiting weed infestation arising from the to plant beans. fodder crop that was there previously Pest attack was intense Learnt that it is important to have predator attracting plants in place early next season. In addition, it is important that there is mulch to keep termites off the crop. Perceived future plans Ensure that land preparation starts on time and inputs are ready on time. More interplanting and sequential planting to improve productivity of plot. Source market for some crops so as to avoid wastage.

8. Recommendations The main recommendation is that the trial should continue into the second year to help consolidate the results obtained. Based on the noted trends it is advised that there be no changes to how soil fertility is managed. The application of lime and organic matter should be based on soil fertility tests.

APPENDIX 1

APPENDIX 2