sign in sign up
<<
Home , Cassava, Corchorus

Intercropping WithCassava Proceedings of an international workshop held atTrivandrum, , 27 Nov-i Dec1978 Ectors: Ecward Webec Barry \esteL anc ariyn CampDeH

ARCHIV 38421

IDRC-142e The International Development Research Centre is a public corporation created by the Parliament of Canada in 1970 to support research designed to adapt science and technology to the needs of developing countries. The Centre's activity is concentrated in five sectors: , food and nutrition sciences; health sciences; information sciences; social sciences; and communications. IDRC is financed solely by the Government of Canada; its policies, however, are set by an international Board of Governors. The Centre's headquarters are in Ottawa, Canada. Regional offices are located in , , , and the .

© 1979 International Development Research Centre Postal Address: Box 8500, Ottawa, Canada K1G 3H9 Head Office: 60 Queen Street, Ottawa

Weber, E. Nestel, B. Campbell, M. IDRC, Ottawa, CA Central Research Institute, Trivandrum, IN IDRC-142e

Intercropping with : proceedings of an international workshop held at Trivandrum, India, 27 Nov-i Dec 1978. Ottawa, Ont. IDRC, 1979. 144 p.: ill.

/IDRC publication!, !conference paper!, !cassava!, /intercropping!, ! diversification!, !agricultural research!, /research centres!, !Latin America/, !Asia!, !Africa/ - !agricultural management!, ! protection!, /soil fertility!, /economic aspects!, !CIAT!, !IRRI/, !agricultural statistics!, bibliography.

UDC: 631.584:635.23 ISBN: 0-88936-231-9

Microfiche edition available IDRC- 142e

Intercropping with Cassava

Proceedings of an international workshop held at Trivandrum, India, 27 Nov-i Dec 1978

Editors: Edward Weber,' Barry Nestel,2 and Marilyn Campbell3

Cosponsored by the Central Tuber Crops Research Institute (Indian Council for Agricultural Research) and the International Development Research Centre

1Senior Program Officer, Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Sciences Division. IDRC. 2Consultant to the AFNS Division of IDRC. 3Communications Division, IDRC. Contents

Foreword Edward Weber and Barry Nestel 5 Multiple cropping cassava and field beans: status of present work at the International Centre of (CIAT) M. Thung and J.H. Cock 7 Intercropping with cassava in Central America Raüf A. Moreno and Robert D. Hart 17 Cassava intercropping in Marcio Carvaiho Marques Porto, Pedro Alves de Almeida, Pedro Luiz Pires de Mattos, and Raymundo Fonséca Souza 25 Intercropping systems with cassava in State, India C.R. Mohan Kumar and N. Hrishi 31 Cassava intercropping patterns and management practices in Suryatna Effendi 35 Cassava intercropping patterns and management practices at Agricultural University, Coimbatore, India C.R. Muthukrishnan and S. Thamburaj 37 Cassava intercropping patterns and practices in Malaysia W.Y. Chew 43 Intercropping with cassava in Africa W. N. 0. Ezeilo 49 Cassava and cassava-based intercrop systems in Sophon Sinthuprama 57 Cassava intercropping research: agroclimatic and biological interactions H.G. Zandstra 67 Soil fertility implications of cropping patterns and practices for cassava Jerry L. McIntosh and Suryatna Effendi 77 Agroeconomic considerations in cassava intercropping research J.C. Flinn 87 Agronomic implications of cassavalegume intercropping systems Dietrich E. Leihner 103 Crop protection implications of cassava intercropping RaülA.Moreno 113 Discussion summary 129 Bibliography 133 Participants 141

2 Intercropping with Cassava in Africa W.N.O. Ezeilo' International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), ,

In Africa, cassava-growing areas are locatedble yields, though this can change in accordance from Senegal in the west, through Nigeria and Zaire,with population densities and socioeconomic and east to Malagasy and from 15°N-15°S latitude,agricultural conditions. according to de Viliers (1965). Optimum production Cassava is an important food for man and animals requires an annual rainfall of 1000-2000 mm; av- in the producing areas and is now being traded on erage annual temperatures of 25-29 °C; daylengthsthe international market. The attributes of cassava not greater than 15 hours; altitudes less than 2000in indigenous farming systems include: high yield m above sea level; and freely draining sandy loamcompared to other crops per unit of time and land soils dominated by oxisols, ultisols, and alfisols.(de Vries et al. 1967); a long planting season (8 The diversity of cassava cropping systems in themonths) allowing for greater flexibility in work lowland humid is based on high populationschedules; and good storage properties in the densities, personal tastes, economic and politicalground. Additionally, cassava is well adapted to a factors, and the overall level of technological de-wide range of ecological conditions (Jones 1959), velopment and resource availability. and is valued for its tolerance and ability to Cassava is grown not only as a sole crop but isgrow in suboptimal soils. often mixed intercropped (i.e., grown simulta- Philips (1974) forecasts cassava deficits and car- neously with one or more different crops on the samebohydrate shortages for some African countries by field with no distinct row arrangement) or relay in-1980. The prospects of increasing cassava produc- tercropped (i.e., grown with one or more differenttion and achieving self-sufficiency in the consumer crops simultaneously during part of the life cycle ofnations of Africa will be enhanced by the intro- each crop). duction of improvements based on an understanding Statistics on intercropped cassava tend to be of the mechanics, economics, advantages, and dis- underestimated, especially if the shorter term an- advantages of traditional systems. nuals planted with cassava have been harvested be- fore the data have been collected. The number of in the intercrop is highly variable. On many Cassava in Traditional Farming Systems family farms, sole cropping is dominant in the outer fields, while intercropping reaches its maximum Cassava, a long-duration crop (9-18 months), is complexity in the compound garden where cassava suited to intercropping with shorter-duration crops and other annual staples, , and perennial (2-5 months) such as , , melons, and trees are intercropped. Farm size tends to vary vegetables. These crops mature when the cas- between 1 and 4 ha in both the rain forest and sa- sava is just attaining its maximum leaf area devel- vannah areas. Although there is a preponderance of opment and is initiating an increased rate of bulking larger farms in the drier savannahs, the number ofin its . As reported by Andrews (1970 and plants in cassava mixed croppings tends to decrease. 1975) and Kassam and Stockinger (1973), the yields Although intercropping is widely practiced, the pat- of relay and intercropping systems are highest when terns are location-specific, especially in the range there is a competition gap between the periods when of crop that may be intercropped. A tradi- the crops involved are making maximum demands tional farming practice, intercropping provides sta- on environmental resources (light, , and 'National Accelerated Food Production Project (NAFPP)moisture). Coordinator, National Cassava Center, National In southern Nigeria, cassava is often intercropped Crops Research Institute, Umudike, Nigeria. with principal staples, such as yams, cocoyams, and

49 maize, and subsidiary crops, such as ( and the dominance of cassava in terminal crop esculentus), melons (Colocynthis vulgaris), leaf sequences. vegetables (Telfairia occidentalis and olitorus), and beans (Sphenosty1is stenocarpa and Vigna unguiculata). Cassava and intercrops are also Cassava tntercropping Research at IITA grown with oil palms and rubber and cocoa trees. The sequence of intercropping with cassava is based on the compatibility of species in the mixture The International Institute of Tropical Agriculture that can produce reasonable yields in relation to soil (IITA) is now emphasizing intercropping systems fertility and environmental conditions during thethat produce good yields, maintain soil fertility, and cropping cycle. Examples of cassava crop combi-minimize disease and pest buildup (IITA 1975). nations and sequences from Nigeria, , The first stage in the IITA strategy was the use of , and Zaire are summarized in Fig. 1-5village-level studies of traditional farming systems (Floyd 1969). With the exception of Liberia andto determine dominant crop mixtures, planting pat- Sierra Leone, where cassava is intercropped withterns, practices, and productivity of land and labour upland (Spencer 1973), it may be concluded that in various ecological zones. The studies also ex- cassava intercropping systems in andamined farmers' attitudes, experience, and con- Zaire (de Schlippe 1956; Reining 1970) are similarstraints, as well as the possibility of increasing prof- in production techniques, diversity of crops grown, itability in a given area (Ezeilo et al. 1975).

Maize Planting

Rice Transplanting

Volunteer crop

1. Planting period 2. Growing period 3. Harvesting period

A B _Double cropping ot crops A & B

Perennial or Biennial crop not yet harvested or stopped growing

Double harvesting

Leaf Final fruit harvest harvesting

Mixed cropping A & B grown mixed B in the same plot

Relay cropping A A planted through B B

Fig. 1. Key to cropping schedules and combinations.

50 Early Maize Early Okra Late Okra Pumpkin Cowpeas Corchorus Capsicum sp.

Mixed lnterc rapping Nnewi Rudimentary Sedentary Cultivation 1st & 2nd Years

Yams Corchorus Amaranth us Early Maize Early Cassava

Note: Okra, pumpkin, cowpeas and vegetables are planted on sides or bases of mounds. Maize is sometimes planted on flat between mounds.

I I I I I I I I I I J F MA M J J A SON 0 J F MA M J J A SON D Fig. 2. Mixed and relay intercropping, Nnewi, first year bush fallow.

FIELD 1

Early Yams Early Maize Melon Okra Early Cowpea (1) FIELD 2 Pepper (2) Late Yams (3) Earty Maize (4) Casaava (5)

FIELD 3 Double Cropping of Maize EarlyMaize(1) - Late Maize(2) _- Melon (3) Late Cowpeas (4)

Cocoa Establishment Cropping Sequence

Early Yams.J Melon Early Maize Okra Cassava Cocoa

J F MA MJ JASON D J F MA MJ JASON D J Fig. 3.Cropping schedules in Ibadan area, Western Nigeria.

51 Anloga Shallot/Vegetables Multiple Cropping Scheme

S - Shallots V - Vegetables

Foyaof Liberia - Upland Rice lntercroppng Scheme

Upland rice

Capsicum sp. Solanum sp. Beans Maize Cassava

Sierra Leone Upland rice intercropping scheme

Upland Rice Casaava Maize Okra Pepper

J FMAM J JASON 0 J F MA M J First Year Second Year Fig. 4. Anioga: shallot/vegetables mu/tip/c cropping scheme; Foya of Liberia. upland rice intercropping scheme; Sierre Leone: upland rice intercropping scheme.

The results showed that 50% of farmers inter-energy source. The majority of cassava with inter- viewed consumed over 70% of their cassava atplants was grown on light soils. Over 77% was home. Dominant combinations of cassava with prin- grown on mounds, 11% on ridges, and 11% on the cipal staples were cassava/maize; cassava/yams; flat. The major economic constraints that farmers and cassava/yam/maize. The frequency of occur- felt prevented them from increasing production rence of more than three crops in the mixture was were: lack of working capital and access to credit, higher in the compound farms than in distant farms. lack of land, and high labour costs. These factors Cassava populations ranged from 15 000 in inter- and the biological constraints of diseases and pests crops, to 30 000 per hectare in sole crops. With theresulted in recorded low modal yields of 6 tonnes exception of compound farms that receive house- per hectare. hold refuse, soil fertility was maintained by bush Okigbo (1977) concluded from cassava intercrop- fallowing. Higher human population densities, andping trials at IITA, Ibadan, that relay intercropping consequently shorter fallows, resulted in lower lev- of cassava through maize gives high yields of com- els of organic matter, nitrogen, and , ponent crops when cassava is planted at the same particularly in distant farms. time as the maize or not more than 2 months after Cassava was planted throughout the rainy seasonmaize planting. In addition, relay planting cassava commencing with the early rains. Clearance wasthrough maize (beyond 2 months after maize plant- accomplished by the "slash and bum" techniqueing) resulted in reduced plant population and root and the primary cultivation implements were the hoe yields. Intercropping provided higher calorie yields and the machete. Human power proved to be the sole and gross returns than sole cropping of component

52 Main Finger Association - Field A

Maize Cassava Finger millet Sesame Hyptis Oil water melon Sorghum Deccan

Peanut Finger Millet Succession - Field B Groundnut Finger millet Cassava Sesame Oil seed water melon Sorghum Hyptis

Finger Millet Through Grass - Field C Finger millet Sesame or Hyptis II'25' Hyptis Sesame

Maize Through Sweet - Adjacent to Courtyard D volunteer crop sweet potato Cassava Maize

Maize oilseed Guard Association E

Maize

Oilseed guards

I J I I I I I I I J F MA M J J A S ON DJF MAM J First Year Second Year

Fig. 5. Various associations of crops: .4, main finger mi/let association, field; B, peanut finger millet succession, field; C, finger millet through grass, field; D, maize, through sweet potato, adjacent to courtyard; E, maize oilseed guard association. crops (Appendix 1). Similar yields were obtained Farm-Level Adoption of New Technology from cassava interplanted (1 month later) on the same row with cowpeas. IITA is involved in cooperative research projects Recent work at IITA has produced high-yielding, in , Liberia, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Up- disease-resistant cassava varieties that have idealper Volta, Zaire, and Nigeria. characteristics for intercropping with maize and In Nigeria, the National Accelerated Food Pro- cowpeas. These characteristics include mediumduction Project (NAFPP) was established in 1973 height plant that resists lodging and branches at ap- to increase the production of staple foods such as proximately 1 m. In addition, a narrow angle ofcassava. At that time production was increasing at branching permits increased plant population den- a rate of 1% per annum against a demand of 4% and sity and good canopy cover, which helps to reducea population growth rate of 2.5%. The NAFPP aims weed growth. Additionally, these varieties exhibitto stimulate the rate of production of cassava (to good root types ( compact with short neck), shal- about 3.2% per annum) through the integrated use low placement in the soil to facilitate manual orof high-yielding planting materials, agrochemicals, mechanical harvesting, and acceptable qualities forimproved agronomic practices, credit, storage, mar- traditional food preparation (Table 1). keting, and other infrastructures.

53 Table 1. Characteristics of some IITA cassava varieties suitable for intercropping with maize and cowpeas, 5-year average.

Fresh tuber Tuber Branching Canopy CMD CBB yield shape Variety habit 1-3 l_3a l-5 1-5 (t/ha) 1 -5

TMS 30572 2 2 2.2 1.8 46.7 4 TMS 30555 2 2 2.7 1.8 41.5 4 TMS 30395 3 2.0 2.0 35.2 3 TMS 30211 3 1.9 1.8 33.2 4 TMS 30337 2 2 2.7 1.8 45.8 4 aMaximum canopy: 1, small; 2, medium; 3, large (after 5 months). bLower figure is the ideal. cTuber shape: 1, round; 2, oval; 3, medium long; 4, long fat; 5, very long and thin.

Workshops organized by the NAFPP provide a is promoted by means of farmer-conducted demon- forum for researchers, farmers, and change agentsstrations on individual farms of closely related farm- on innovations and improved technology. The an- ers organized into NAFPP groups. nual plan of work includes farmer level "minikit" One NAFPP "package" consists of improved trials aimed at involving farmers in decision-making cassava varieties interplanted with improved maize. regarding the relevance and acceptability of the new Combined with recommendations for ridging, spac- technology. "Production kits" are also planned to ing, fertilizer, and insecticides (Tables 2 and 3), the study the profitability of improved versus traditional package has demonstrated yield increases over local practices and to evaluate farmer reaction. The adop- practices of 3:1 for cassava and 6:1 for maize. The tion of the full "package" of improved technologyestimated increase in net proceeds totaled N 368.30

Table 2. Returns from NAFPP 1975/76 cassava-.maizedemonstrations.

Yield/ha Traditional practice NAFPP improved practice Maize 36 kg @ N130/t = N47a 2442 kg @ N130/t = N3l7.50 Cassava 4.8 mt @ N40/t = N192 14.23 mt @ N401t = N569.00 Gross Proceeds - cassava + maize N239 N886.50 Ratio 3.7 a = ca. U.S. $1.54. Source: Ezeilo (1977).

Table 3. Estimated increased net returns/ha (N) from improved NAFPP package of technology cassava-maize 1976 (based on 1975/76 cassava-maize demonstrations).

Incremental cost over local practice: Labour (estimated): 100 man-days @ N 2/man-day 200.00 Cassava: 70 bundles of 50 sticks N 0.50/bundle 35.00 Maize: 37 kg @ N 0.21/kg. 7.77 Fertilizer: 400 kg NPK l5:15:l5@ N 2/50kg 16.00 Aldrin: 21fr% Dust 5 kg @ N 1/kg 5.00 Interest: 6% maximum loan 15.82 Total incremental cost 279.20 Total gross proceeds from improved practice 886.50 Gross proceeds from local practice 239.00 Gross proceeds accruing from incremental cost 647.50 Increased net profits from improved practice 368.30 a = Ca. U.S. $1.54. Source: Ezeilo (1977).

54 Table 4. Proportion of farmers who have adopted fertilizers and improved cassava and maize.

Successful localities Less successful localities

Items NAFPP Non- NAFPP Non- All adopted members members members members localities Cassava alone 12.2 3.6 Cassava + maize 3.5 5.9 2.3 Cassava + fertilizer 3.4 10.7 0.8 3.6 All 3 items 95.3 0.9 67.9 0.8 31.6 Maize alone 7.8 2.3 Maize + fertilizer 2.6 2.4 - 1.6 Fertilizer alone 2.6 - 10.1 3.9 No. item adopted 4.7 67.0 13.1 88.3 51.1 No. farmers adopted items 62 38 73 14 187 No. farmers in sample 65 115 84 119 383 Source: Okali and Bortei-Doku (1978).

(U.S. $566) per hectare. Recent farm level minikit ping patterns and sequences, profitability, the farm trials resulted in farmers selecting even higher-yield- resource base, production constraints, and farm sup- ing disease-resistant elite cassava clones (Appen- ports. On the basis of this research, more profitable dix 2). Farmers have also shown interest in inter- crop combinations and varieties are being developed planting late season cassava with cowpeas (Ezeilo and disseminated by change agents trained in these 1976) requiring an integrated and timely use of technologies. planting materials, fertilizers, and insecticides. The adoption of new technology by farmers is best A study of the impact of the NAFPP program by promoted by means of an integrated "package'' of Okali and Bortei-Doku (1978) showed that the adop- farm support measures to overcome constraints. tion of the total improved intercrop "package" was These measures include: the services of motivated highest in family-related farmer groups (Table 4) change agents, location-specific farm-level trials, who were closely supervised by a change agent. and farmer-conducted demonstrations. Success will Performance was also linked to the capability of the also depend on the availability of credit, marketing, change agent. Outside of the supervised groups, the input supply services, improved transportation, new cassava were usually planted accord- price incentives, and the establishment of coopera- ing to traditional practices. The major constraint to adoption, of both supervised and nonsupervised tive agrobusiness ventures. groups, was the scarcity of planting materials and Such a high-level farm infrastructure support sys- other inputs. To solve this problem, Agro-Service tem, applied selectively to agricultural zones with Centers are being introduced (IITA 1977). the best potential, will maximize productivity in the immediate impact zone and to a lesser degree in neighbouring zones. Organizations with necessary Future Trends finance and expertise for successfully organizing and operating such autonomous management units The experience of NAFPP indicates that self- are seldom lacking in the private sector of most Af- sufficiency in cassava and intercrops can be attained rican nations. The achievement of self-sufficiency by an integrated, cooperative effort of government, in cassava and intercrops depends on the determi- researchers, farmers, and private industry. nation of the people and their governments in adopt- In order to improve traditional technology, re- ing policy guidelines that support a truly integrated search analyzes the existing crop staples, intercrop- approach to agricultural development.

(Appendices] and 2 follow)

55 Total dry weight yields, calorie values, and gross returns of maize and melon relay cropped with cassava at different crop combinations and dates of Appendix 1. ofCassavaTreatments each month planting: indicated 16th day (t/ha)yieldTotal cassava planting in 1974/75. Maize Melon Calorie l0 Cassava Total Maize GrossMelon returns ( t/ha) Cassava Total 32 1 CassavaMelonMaize alone alone (Apr) (Apr) 14.954.491.02 16.03 - 0.53 - 39.77 - 39.7716.03 0.53 991.8 - 71.7 - 2000.3 - 2000 992 72 7654 Cassavaalone(May)Maize/melon/cassavaMaize/cassavaMaize/melon (Apr) (Apr) (Apr) 15.7916.1515.174.66 14.9616.4216.60 - 0.040.03 - 42.0028.1231.79 - 42.0046.7944.5416.63 1016.11027.2925.6 - 5.643.9- 2115.91601.31416.4 - 2116253324331031 1110 98 CassavaMaize/cassavaMaize/melon/cassava alone (Jun) (Jun)(May) (May) 16.5911.8415.9615.63 16.9215.2117.28 - 0.10 - 31.5231.4931.0728.70 48.4431.4946.3845.98 1047.11069.2941.0 - 13.7 - 1587.91586.61565.11445.9 2635252025151587 15141312 Maize/melon/cassavaMaize/cassavaCassavaMaize/melon/cassava alone (Jul) (Jul) (Jun) 12.9914.1523.7310.47 17.7416.39 - 0.040.07 - 21.1225.4327.8550.89 38.9041.8227.8567.35 1097.91013.9 - 9.1 1063.91281.01403.02563.4 2167229535861403 181716 Source: Okigbu (1977).Maize/melon/cassavaMaize/cassavaCassava alone (Aug) (Aug) 10.3011.73 7.46 15.8216.07 - 0.16 - 15.5319.2319.84 31.5119.84 978.6994.1 21.2 5.5- 782.6968.8999.6 178219631000 Variety Tuber yield, NAFPP minikitUzuakoli, trial, Imo State, 1978. Appendix 2. Fertilized Unfertilized TMSLocal 3021130395U1525 60506 12.213.214.817.818.4 13.211.2 8.66.87.2