Assessing The Adoption and Effectiveness of Low Input Sustainable Agriculture (LISA) Methods and Agroecological (AE) Techniques in Gokwe

STUDY REPORT: Assessing the
adoption and effectiveness of

Low Input Sustainable
Agriculture (LISA) methods and
agroecological (AE) techniques
in Gokwe
Research Team: Shamiso Mahachi, Johannes Chikarate, Abigirl Chirasha,
Benhilda Nkomo, Japhet Muchazondida, Ni cholaus Mukorera
September 2022
Anna Brazier
abrazier@mango.zw
Contents
Acronyms and abbreviations ...................................................................................................... 2
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................... 2
Executive summary ........................................................................................................................... 3
Findings ..................................................................................................................................... 3
Discussion.................................................................................................................................. 4
Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 5
1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 5
2. Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 6
Sampling .................................................................................................................................... 7
Data analysis.............................................................................................................................. 8
Constraints to the study ............................................................................................................. 8
3. Findings ..................................................................................................................................... 8
Overview of challenges in the study districts .............................................................................. 8
Effectiveness of the introduced technologies ............................................................................... 10
Adoption of the technologies....................................................................................................... 10
Biochar production .................................................................................................................. 11
BSF larvae production .............................................................................................................. 14
Pfumvudza............................................................................................................................... 17
Agroecological techniques ....................................................................................................... 21
Influencers............................................................................................................................... 26
Discussion ....................................................................................................................................... 26
Recommendations....................................................................................................................... 27
Making the technologies more appropriate ............................................................................. 27
Improving adoption rates......................................................................................................... 28
Annex 1: Description of the techniques ........................................................................................... 29
Biochar .................................................................................................................................... 29
Black Soldier Fly (BSF) larvae farming ....................................................................................... 29
Pfumvudza............................................................................................................................... 29
Nutrient recycling .................................................................................................................... 30
Water harvesting techniques ................................................................................................... 30
Biodiversity (crop and livestock) .............................................................................................. 31
Annex 2: Direct observation checklists ............................................................................................. 31
References ...................................................................................................................................... 33
1
Acronyms and abbreviations
AE Agroecology
Agritex Agricultural Advisory Service
BSF Black Soldier Fly
CBF Community Based Facilitator
CA Conservation Agriculture
DLVS Department of Livestock and Veterinary services
EXTRA Extension and Training for Rural Agriculture
FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation to the United Nations
FfF Foundations for Farming
FGD Focus Group Discussion
KII Key informant interview
LFSP Livelihoods and Food Security Programme
LISA low input sustainable agriculture
NGO Non-Government Organisation
SAT Sustainable Agriculture Trust
TSURO Towards Sustainable Use of Resources Organisation
ZIMSOFF Zimbabwe Small Holder Organic Farmers Forum
Acknowledgements
The research team would like the sincerely thank the district authorities of Gokwe North and South
for facilitating this research project. Thanks to the farmers and Agritex and DLVS representatives for
giving up their time to participate in the focus group discussions and key informant interviews. We
would also like to thank the representatives from Bindura University, Chinhoyi University of
Technology, Foundations for Farming, Sustainable Agriculture Trust, Fambidzanai Permaculture
Centre, TSURO and ZIMSOFF for giving valuable insights based on their wealth of experience.
2
Executive summary
WHH implemented the Extension and Training for Rural Agriculture (EXTRA) project under the FAO
coordinated Zimbabwe Livelihoods Food Security Programme (LFSP) for 7 years in Midlands Province
ending in 2021. Under recommendation from FAO, WHH introduced a range of Low Input
Sustainable Agriculture (LISA) techniques including biochar for improvement of soil fertility and
moisture retention and black soldier fly larvae (BSF) production and use in livestock feed, pfumvudza
– intensive conservation agriculture. In addition, agroecological techniques (AE) were introduced
including water harvesting, increased biodiversity, and nutrient recycling.
A study was carried out in Gokwe North and Gokwe South in 2022 to:
• Analyse the potential for the techniques to contribute to Gokwe’s food system.
• Identify factors that facilitate or inhibit farmers from adoption of the techniques
• Evaluate farmer’s perception about benefits of the techniques and if they plan to use them in
the future.
• Assess intended, and unintended consequences of using the techniques.
• Develop recommendations for the use of the techniques for future programming
Two wards were selected for the study in each district. Separate focus groups were held with
adopters and non-adopters in the sample wards in Gokwe North and South.
Data collection included:

• A literature review
• Direct observation – visiting farm sites of selected adopters to verify uptake of techniques
• Focus group discussions (FGD) for each technique, with adopters and non-adopters
• Key informant interviews (KII) with relevant government departments
• KII with representatives of organisations that have introduced similar approaches.
Findings
Communities in the study districts face a range of challenges that can impact on their uptake of new
agricultural technologies. Households in both districts have large sizes and lower education levels as
well as some of the lowest average monthly income and expenditure in Zimbabwe. A high number of
household heads in both districts are members of the apostolic sect which may hamper women’s
access to training and other extension services. Water shortages are a problem in both districts
while livestock ownership is very low reducing access to draught power and manure for soil
improvement. National surveys found that uptake of new agricultural technologies in Gokwe South
was low as was extension support.
Table 1 shows the motivating factors and barriers for the different techniques:
Technique Motivator for adoption Barrier to adoption

Biochar • Improves soil fertility/ structure • Lack of training
• Improves moisture retention/ • Labour-intensive (discourages
helps mitigate dry spells youth)
• Increased yields • Lack of access to/ affordability of
• Concern about soil fertility equipment and feedstock
• Cheap to produce • Small quantities produced
• Causes waterlogging
Black Soldier Fly • Cheap protein/ feed source • Not enough training
larvae • Easy/ cheap to make • Bad smell/ looks disgusting
• Increased poultry production • Lack of training
3
Technique Motivator for adoption Barrier to adoption
• Addresses feed shortages • Harvesting problems
• Lack of availability of materials year
round
• Pest attack
• Disproval by youth
Pfumvudza • Saves land/ increased grazing • Labour intensive/ health issues
• Increased yield • Late / unfair input distribution
• Moisture conservation/ drought • Encourages termites
mitigation • Lack of materials
• Low input requirement/ cost • Low yields
• Concern about soil fertility declines
• Reduced labour/ time
• Free inputs
• Training
Agroecology • Soil moisture conservation/ • Labour intensive
drought mitigation • Time consuming
• Improved food security/ nutrition • Attracts termites
• Increased soil fertility and • Cost of livestock medication
structure • Animal feed is not available
• Increased yield • Increases water-logging
• Low production cost
• Reduced soil erosion
• Increased income
• Concern about soil fertility
• More training and demonstrations
In all of the surveys the most influential people in terms of motivating farmers to adopt methods
were government extension officers followed by NGOs. Young people were noted to be not
interested in the LISA or AE techniques due to the labour-intensity of the techniques.
Discussion
While many of the techniques introduced through the EXTRA/ LFSP have been shown to be
beneficial in theory, there was little investigation, prior to their introduction, with respect to how
appropriate these technologies are in the specific context of Gokwe North and South. In addition,
not enough time was given to training farmers and extension officers, to provide adequate
mentorship and technical backstopping. The distribution of free inputs for pfumvudza farmers –
while a powerful incentive, could lead to unrealistic expectations of future programmes and make
farmers dependent on inorganic fertilisers which do not benefit soil health in the long term.
However, the fact that so many farmers recognised the benefits of intensification as part of
pfumvudza promotion in these land-constrained, labour-constrained districts, is very positive. Our
study found that farmers were very concerned about soil fertility declines and desperate for ways to
address them. The main barriers to adopting the new technologies were found to be lack of finance
for equipment and materials, lack of labour and time. None of those consulted felt that any of the
techniques should be abandoned and many constructive recommendations were made to make the
technologies more appropriate to the context as well as increasing uptake.
4
Recommendations
• Before introducing a new technology conduct a needs assessment and do a feasibility study
• Set up a working group of organisations promoting these technologies to share experiences
• Address the technical problems identified in this study by improving the technologies
• Carry out trials with farmers before scale-up and mass dissemination
• Carry out careful, regular monitoring and evaluation with farmers and other stakeholders
• Cautiously investigate market development for BSF and biochar.
• Ensure better inclusion and sensitization of all stakeholders
• Adopt a ‘whole village’ approach rather than targeting individuals.
• Support group formation to assist with finance, lack of materials and labour constraints.
• Introduce smart subsidies for equipment and labour-saving technologies.
• Research into and promote labour-saving technologies.
• Support locally based enterprises to manufacture equipment and scale-up BSF, livestock
feed mixes, biochar and other biofertilisers.
• Institute more comprehensive and regular training of trainers, capacitating extension
officers, refresher training and technical backstopping.
• Package AE information into simpler, more user-friendly, practical modules.
• Improve dissemination of information using ICT, TV, radio, WhatsApp, videos, and podcasts.
• Target specific age groups for interventions that would suit them.
• Involve the youth in information dissemination on the techniques through ICT, drama and
other behaviour change communication methods.
1. Introduction
WHH implemented the Extension and Training for Rural Agriculture (EXTRA) project under the FAO
coordinated Zimbabwe Livelihoods Food Security Programme (LFSP) for 7 years in Midlands province
ending in 2021. Under recommendation from FAO who were managing the project, WHH introduced
a range of Low Input Sustainable Agriculture (LISA) techniques including biochar for improvement of
soil fertility and moisture retention and black soldier fly larvae (BSF) production and use in livestock
feed, pfumvudza – intensive conservation agriculture. In addition, agroecological techniques (AE)
were introduced including water harvesting, increased biodiversity, and nutrient recycling.
The techniques are described in more detail in Annex 1.
These techniques were introduced during the final year of the LFSP programme and have been
adopted to varying degrees by some of the farmers in Gokwe North and South. In 2022 WHH
initiated a study to understand the effectiveness of the practices in enhancing the resilience of food
and farming systems and the societies that depend on them for upscaling in future projects. It also
sought to investigate the adoption rate by farmers.
The specific objectives of the study were to:

• Analyse the potential for the techniques to contribute to Gokwe’s food system.
• Identify factors that facilitate or inhibit farmers from adoption of the techniques
• Evaluate farmer’s perception about whether the techniques are beneficial and if they plan to use
them in the future.
• Assess as much as possible, intended, and unintended consequences of using the techniques.
• Develop recommendations for the use of the techniques for future programming
5
2. Methodology
Since it was not possible, in the time given, to conduct a controlled, scientific study that would
isolate the effectiveness of each technique in terms of contributing to yield and food security, the
research team designed a qualitative study to examine farmers perceptions. In addition, we
investigated factors that either enhance or inhibit adoption rates of the different techniques.
Data collection included:

• A literature review looking at information and evidence on the effectiveness of the six
techniques
• Direct observation – visiting farm sites of selected adopters to verify status and uptake level
of techniques
• Focus group discussions (FGD) for each technique (biochar, BSF, pfumvudza and AE
techniques1), with adopters and non-adopters
• Key informant interviews (KII) with Agritex and Department of Livestock and Veterinary
Services (DLVS)
• KII with representatives of organisations that have introduced similar approaches including
NGOs and academic institutions.
The research team identified adopters and non-adopters of the techniques. Separate focus groups
were held with adopters and non-adopters in the sample wards in Gokwe North and South.
Adopters were farmers who had been trained under the EXTRA project and were still using the
technique at the time of the study. Non-adopters were farmers who had been trained through the
EXTRA project but had not taken-up the technique. Due to the fact that there were not enough
adopters to conduct a proper barrier analysis study (which requires an individual survey of at least
45 adopters and 45 non-adopters of a technique), we adapted questions from barrier analysis tools
(see box 1) and incorporated them into a general focus group guide.
Box 1: key determinants of behaviour
Questions in a barrier analysis survey are developed around the following key drivers of individual
and social behaviour
• perceived positive and negative consequences of using the techniques,

• perceived self-efficacy (what made it difficult to use the technique),
• perceived social norms with regard to using the technique (ascertaining whether other people
in the community approve or disapprove of the use of the technique and who they are),
• perceived susceptibility, risk, and severity of consequences of not using the technique (such as
reduced crop yield, reduced soil fertility decline)
• action efficacy, in terms of whether the technique will address these consequences
• perceived divine will – whether God approves of the use of the technique
• policy or cultural influences – whether community or cultural laws prevent the use of the
technique.
Source: Kittle, B. 2013. A Practical Guide to Conducting a Barrier Analysis. New York, NY: Helen Keller International.
1 The three AE techniques were examined together since they had been introduced at the same time to the same farmers.
6
These factors are considered to be key in influencing behaviour2 and are therefore used to develop
questions for a barrier analysis survey. Other general questions were included.
Sampling
Sampling for the study was purposive. FGDs were held with two adopter groups and two non-
adopter groups for each of the techniques in selected wards where the methods were promoted in
Gokwe South, and North. There were no BSF adopters in Gokwe North so no FGDs were conducted
in this area. In terms of Biochar there were not enough farmers who had been trained in the
technique in Gokwe North to sample from two wards for the FDGs.
For direct observation of implementation of the techniques, the research team visited three sites
selected from the groups of adopters participating in each of the FGDs. The direct observation
survey employed a check list of expected practices with researchers giving a score to indicate level of
uptake and taking photographs. Table 2 shows the sampling sites selected for FGD and direct
observation. Table 3 shows the key informants interviewed. Key informants included agricultural
extension officers in the study wards and representatives of organisations that have been promoting
the various techniques.
Table 2 Sampling sites for FGD and direct observation
District Technique FGD Sample

Adopters Non-Adopters
Ward Ward Ward Ward
Gokwe South Biochar 16 16 9 19
Black soldier fly 16 30 16 2
Pfumvudza 16 32 13 15
Increased biodiversity 2 30 19 30
Nutrient recycling 2 30 19 30
Water harvesting 2 30 19 30
Gokwe North Biochar 36 14
Black soldier fly No adopters 7 14
Pfumvudza 14 36
Increased biodiversity 36 36
Nutrient recycling 36 36
Water harvesting 36 36
In total there were 17 Adopter FGD with at least 8 participants each (total at least 136 people) and
19 non adopter FGD (total at least 152 people).
Table 3: Key informant interviews
Technique Ward Key Informant Key Informant organisation

Biochar Agritex Bindura University
Black Soldier Fly Agritex/ DLVS Chinhoyi University
Pfumvudza Agritex Foundations for Farming,
Sustainable Agriculture Trust
AE techniques Agritex Fambidzanai Permaculture Centre,
TSURO Trust
ZIMSOFF
2 Kittle, B. 2013. A Practical Guide to Conducting a Barrier Analysis. New York, NY: Helen Keller International.
7
Data analysis
The FGD and KII data was translated and coded by the research team after they underwent training
in qualitative data analysis methods. A code book was developed using both deductive and inductive
methods. Thus, codes were based on the themes derived from the research questions as well as
themes that arose through analysis of the data transcripts. The team used the code book to analyse
the FGD and KII transcripts noting the frequency with which various codes were mentioned. The
data collected through direct observation during site visits was analysed with respect to the scores
given by the research team for the level of uptake of the techniques.
Constraints to the study

Data collection was hampered by competing events including cropping activities and political rallies
which farmers had to attend. This meant that appointments for focus groups had to be rearranged
making the data collection process lengthy. In retrospect it was agreed that the study should have
been carried out during the dry season when farmers are less busy and study sits are more easily
accessible. However, doing the study in the rainy season made it easier to assess the quality of
implementation of the techniques.
Focus group participants were not very enthusiastic about the process of data collection and asked
to be compensated for their time. This meant that participation was lower than it could have been.
In Ward 16 at a biochar adopters FGD, 60 people turned up expecting to be trained in biochar
production. Most had to be turned away, but enough adopters were present to carry out the FGD.
For assessing the AE techniques, it was difficult for the researchers to differentiate between
adopters and non-adopters since of the three methods disseminated, some farmers only adopted
one or two. Water-harvesting was the method least adopted.
3. Findings
The findings of this study are presented in terms of a general section from the literature review and
then covering the techniques under investigation.
Overview of challenges in the study districts

To give an overview of the general situation in Gokwe North and South with respect to household
characteristics, agricultural practices, uptake of AE/ LISA methods and extension support that relate
to this study, table 4 gives an overview of the two districts taken from the 2021 Rural Livelihoods
Assessment.
The table highlights the challenges faced particularly in households in Gokwe North have large sizes
and lower education levels for household heads than the provincial and national average. This could
contribute to the fact that households in Gokwe North have some of the lowest average monthly
income and expenditure in Zimbabwe. Gokwe South does not fare much better in these aspects.
Gokwe North and South have high numbers of household heads that are members of the apostolic
sect. Often, women in such households are less able to make decisions or participate in activities
without their husband’s input. This may hamper women’s access to training and other extension
services which is a problem given that most farmers are women.
Water shortages in both districts are indicated by the average distance travelled by households to
access water which are both high compared to the provincial and national averages. A large number
of households in both districts do not own livestock and this reduces their access to draught power
and manure for soil improvement in LISA and AE techniques.
8
In 2021 the rural livelihoods assessment looked at uptake by farmers of various sustainable
agricultural (LISA/AE) technologies. The data shows that uptake of pfumvudza, use of compost or
organic fertiliser, intercropping, cover cropping, and integrated pest and disease management were
particularly low in Gokwe South compared to the provincial average while Gokwe North figures were
higher than the provincial average for six out of eight of the promoted techniques. Gokwe South also
had the lowest figures in the province of households which received an extension visit. There were
no national figures available for these aspects in the survey.
Table 4: General background data for Gokwe North and South.
Average (%) Gokwe Gokwe Provincial National * Comment

North South average average
Household size 5.2* 4.6 4.6 4.4 Highest in province
Female household 29.1 32.1 34.9 35.1
head
Household head age 49.4 51.6 53.0 52.2
Household head with 18* 13 13 15 Second highest in
no education province
Household head 20 20 25 23
widowed
Household head 42.8* 35.7 27.9 31 Highest in province
apostolic sect
Average household 26* 36 63 75 Gokwe North - lowest
monthly income in province, Gokwe
South – second lowest
Average household 19* 24 34 38 Gokwe North - lowest
monthly expenditure in province, Gokwe
South – second lowest
Agricultural Gokwe Gokwe Provincial National Comment
information North South average average
Distance travelled to 26* 20 16 16 Highest in province
main water source
more than 1 km
Households that do 62 51 54 64
not own any cattle
not own any draught
cattle
not own any goats
not own any poultry
Farmers practicing Gokwe Gokwe Provincial National Comment
LISA/ AE techniques North South average average
Households practicing 61 37* 59 Lowest in the province
pfumvudza
Households which 41 38 33
grew small grains
Crop rotation 41 44 44
Use of compost/ 49 26 41
organic fertiliser
9
Average (%) Gokwe Gokwe Provincial National * Comment
Use of intercropping 40 12* 32 Second lowest in
province
Use of cover cropping 14 3 11
Use of mulching 41 43 38
Use of integrated pest 46 28 32
management
Extension support Gokwe Gokwe Provincial National Comment
Households which 95 64 82 81
GN highest, GS lowest
received extension in province
visits
Households which 99 94 96 94
received extension
training
Source 2021 Government of Zimbabwe Rural Livelihoods Assessment (for Midlands Province and
National)
Effectiveness of the introduced technologies

While there is a wealth of literature on the potential of AE and LISA techniques to improve
smallholder farming in Africa, there have been few studies done in a smallholder farmer context to
critically appraise the effectiveness and technical challenges farmers experience related to the
techniques. Where trials exist, they are often in controlled, research-station settings rather than
with farmers in the field3. This does not mean that the techniques do not have potential or should
not be promoted but it implies that promoters have not looked at whether the techniques actually
achieve the promoted results when implemented by farmers. Promoters have not fully appreciated
the constraints faced by farmers in adopting the techniques, nor have they interrogated context-
specific factors when choosing techniques to promote. A review of the literature on effectiveness of
each technique is discussed in the relevant subsections.
Adoption of the technologies

A recurring theme in many research papers reviewed for this study is low adoption rates of the
techniques by farmers. According to two comprehensive reviews of studies on small-holder farmers
in developing countries, adoption of new technologies hinges on a range of factors including
technological, economic, institutional, household and farm characteristics4 summarised in figure 1.
The influence of these factors varies according to the type of technology being promoted.
Technological factors relate to whether farmers are able to try out and evaluate a technology before
deciding whether to adopt it. Economic factors, include farm-size and ability to afford inputs
(including seed, fertilisers, and other agrochemicals). The level of off-farm income can provide
finance to increase adoption of technologies as long as they are not labour-intensive. Access to
credit facilitates uptake of risky technologies but can lead to lower adoption by female-headed
households who may not have equal access to credit. Participation in social groups and community-
based organisations and access to information can facilitate farmers adoption of technologies but do
not necessarily directly lead to uptake. The presence of capacitated extension officers who train lead
farmers to cascade information has been shown in numerous studies reviewed to be an effective
way to increase adoption.
3 For example, Gadzirai et al. 2017.

4 Mwangi and Kariuki, 2015 and Fadeyi, et al 2022.
10
Figure 1 Summary of factors influencing adoption of new technologies from literature review
Household-specific factors influencing uptake include age, education level, gender, and household-
size. Farmers with higher education levels are more likely to adopt new technologies while older
farmers tend to be less interested in new technologies. Male farmers tend to adopt some
technologies more readily than female farmers. Married smallholder farmers and those with larger
families tend to adopt more slowly because of financial constraints.
Factors that motivate or inhibit adoption found in FGD and KII in this study are presented under each
technique and are then discussed generally.
Biochar production
In their review of the potentials and challenges of biochar use in Sub-Saharan Africa, Gwenzi et al5
(2015) note that biochar has great potential to address soil fertility problems as well as other uses
such as for water purification. Biochar is a highly effective measure for locking up carbon into the
soil thus mitigating climate change. However, there are numerous criticisms of the use of biochar in
smallholder African context including lack of availability of feedstock (material to produce biochar)
which may result in habitat and biodiversity loss leading to increased land degradation and
greenhouse gas emissions. There could also be human health concerns associated with the
application of biochar to fields. While Gwenzi et al down-play these, they note the need for site-
specific research to investigate these issues. For smallholder faming contexts the authors propose
the use of pyrolytic cookstoves for biochar production. Pyloric cookstoves use biomass in a special
anaerobic chamber to produce fuel for cooking and biochar as a by-product which can be applied to
the soil as a powerful fertiliser. Gwenzi et al quote a study by Torres-Rojas et al, 2011 which found
that pyrolytic cookstoves require less biomass to run and are more energy efficient than traditional
three-stone biomass stoves. They “reduce wood energy consumption by 27% while producing an
average of 460 kg ha_1 yr_1 of biochar.”
5 Gwenzi et al. 2015
11
Biochar promotion in Zimbabwe
Studies of biochar use in Zimbabwe have shown that application of the fertiliser can increase crop
yields in research contexts 6 but trials have not been carried out with farmers in a small-holder
setting. Biochar application has been pioneered by researchers at Bindura University. A respondent
from the university was a key informant for this study. The technique was introduced in Zimbabwe
to address low crop yields due to low soil fertility, high soil acidity, excessive leaching, low soil-
moisture retention, and management of parasitic weeds such as Striga asiatica. The university was
engaged between 2020 and 2021 by FAO under The Indaba Agricultural Policy Research Institute to
train farmers in eight districts (Mutare, Nyanga, Makoni, Bindura, Mount Darwin, Guruve, Gokwe
and Shurugwi) on the technique which had been adapted and tested for Zimbabwe. So far 500
farmers have been trained across the 8 districts.
Biochar promotion in the LFSP

For the LFSP, farmers were trained in one-day sessions by Bindura University staff through face-to-
face training including practical demonstrations. There was limited training of trainers due to budget
constraints but there were follow-up visits to farmers who set up demonstration sites. According to
the respondent, all farmers who were trained adopted the technique. He noted that the community
responded well to the technique and farmers got good results at their demonstration plots. A ward
Agritex officer interviewed in Gokwe North noted that only a few extension officers from selected
wards were trained in the technique.
Grasp of key concepts

The FGD and district KII responses for biochar production uptake shows that adopters and non-
adopters in both districts had a good grasp of the correct techniques to be used to make and apply
biochar, indicating that the quality of training received by the farmers was good. Site visits to fields
of biochar adopters (see annex 2 for scores from direct observation) shows that farmers
implemented the technique well. Most aspects on the direct observation check lists were given high
scores. Fencing of the demonstration plots was poor for seven out of nine farmers while five out of
nine farmers has failed to plant their crops at the correct time in fields where biochar was applied.
This could have been due to the fact that the rains started late in the 2021/22 season. Generally, the
quality of biochar produced by most farmers in both districts was acceptable but not excellent,
according to the scores given by the researchers.
Motivating factors
Table 5 shows the factors mentioned in FGD that motivated farmers to adopt biochar. Generally,
more motivating factors were mentioned by adopters than non-adopters. Improved soil fertility as a
benefit was mentioned more frequently by adopters than non-adopters. Improved moisture
retention (mitigating dry spells), increased yields and the fact that biochar is cheap to produce were
frequently mentioned by both adopters and non-adopters.
Concern about declining soil fertility was prominent in the responses for both adopters and non-
adopters. As one Gokwe North FDG of adopters explained:
“We are very concerned about the decline in soil fertility because…yields are becoming very
low every season as a result of poor soil fertility and other factors.”
6 For example, Gwenzi et al 2016 and Gadzirai et al 2017.
12
A Gokwe South adopter FGD noted, “if we do not put any fertilisers on to the soil right now, we will
not harvest anything.” Farmers also felt that biochar is an important drought mitigation method. A
group of adopters in Gokwe South said “in this era of climate change, it helps a lot.”
Being given more training was the most frequently mentioned factor that could influence future
adoption of the technique by farmers. A group of adopters in Gokwe North noted
“more trainings are dearly needed because EXTRA only introduced the technology and left”.
A group of non-adopters explained that they would have taken up the technique if they had had
more training:
“This season we experienced dry spells and all our crops where badly affected so we want to
do biochar in the next season and have more trainings.”
Table 5 Motivating and incentivising factors for Biochar farmers (number of times mentioned)
Biochar Adopters Non-adopters Total

Motivations/ benefits for current adoption/ KII GN GS GN GS
continuation
Improves soil fertility/ structure 4 4 3 11
Improves moisture retention/ helps mitigate 1 1 2 1 1 6
dry spells
Increased yields 1 2 1 2 6
Concern about soil fertility 1 2 1 2 6
Cheap to produce 1 1 3 5
Reduces pest attack 1 1 2
Saves money 1 1 2
Readily available material 2 2
Easy to prepare/ not labour intensive 1 1 2
Improves seed germination 1 1
Reduces crop heat stress 1 1
Addresses lack of inputs 1 1
Total 13 12 4 9
Adopters Non-adopters Total
Incentives for future adoption KII GN GS GN GS
More training needed** 1 1 2 3 7
Materials (drums) needed 1 1 1 3
Promote as fertiliser for gardens 1 1 2
Help with construction of ovens 1 1 2
Form groups to produce biochar 1 1 2
Recommend timely stover collection 1 1 2
More demonstration sites 1 1 2
Fact sheets and fliers 1 1
Exchange visits 1 1
Giving farmers seed packs 1 1
Sensitising policy-makers 1 1
Total 7 3 7 6 1
13
Barriers to adoption
Table 6 shows the factors that were identified as barriers to adoption by FGD participants. Most
barriers were mentioned by non-adopters in Gokwe South. The main barriers were related to
perceived self-efficacy (i.e., constraints related to farmers ability to implement the technique).
Table 6: Barriers to Biochar uptake (number of times mentioned)
Biochar Adopters Non-adopters Total

Disadvantages/ barriers KII GN GS GN GS
Labour-intensive 1 1 2 1 2 7
No drums available 1 1 1 3 6
Small quantities produced 1 2 3 6
Causes water logging 1 2 1 1 5
Disapproval by youth 1 1 1 1 4
Lack of materials - stover 1 2 1 4
Lack of training 1 1 2 4
Plant discolouration 1 1
Competing activities 1 1
Laggards 1 1
Total 3 7 8 6 14
The main barriers included that the technique was labour-intensive, lack of drums to make the
biochar ovens, and that only small quantities of biochar were produced. This is also linked to lack of
availability of material to make biochar. One group of adopters from Gokwe North said
“it suits only demo plots because making biochar for bigger hectarages is impossible.”
A ward extension officer in Gokwe North explained that a major barrier was
“competition for materials to use to make biochar such as twigs, grass, and crop residue with
livestock feed, and also firewood. Generally, this is a dry area with very little in terms of
material to use for this technique”.
The same extension officer noted that lack of training had hindered uptake.
“To get better uptake, training of trainers should be done with all Agritex officers in the district
who will then disseminate to lead farmers and other farmers,”
The fact that biochar causes waterlogging during times of heavy rainfall was mentioned as a problem
in all focus groups.
Young people were said to disapprove of the technique because, according to the research team,
they believe making biochar is hard work and they would rather earn quick money from selling
horticultural crops and mining. No barriers or motivators were found relating to social norms,
cultural influences, or divine will.
BSF larvae production

BSF larvae production for livestock feed and fertiliser has been successfully promoted and taken up
by farmers in Kenya. Several research papers show that BSF larvae included in feed can increase
14
poultry growth rate,7 and the frass fertiliser made from BSF larvae waste can improve crop yields.8
BSF larvae production in Kenya has also proved to have potential as a successful rural enterprise9.
BSF promotion in Zimbabwe

BSF larvae production in Zimbabwe has been pioneered by researchers at Chinhoyi University of
Technology. One of these was a key informant in this study. The university first began promoting the
technique in 2019 through a collaboration with the Kenyan Africa Centre of Excellence of Insects for
Food and Feed. The technique was introduced as a waste management method and for production
of protein to add to small livestock feed. Over 2500 farmers have been trained from Gokwe, Zhombe
and Shurugwi including farmer groups supported under the LFSP, CARE International and the
Cyclone Idai Relief programme, as well as individual farmer groups who sought technical support.
BSF promotion in the LFSP

Training involved practical demonstrations on the use of breeding facilities, feed formulation,
breeding and harvesting insects. Farmers in each ward were trained twice in one-day sessions by a
BSF expert, agricultural extension officers, field officers and animal feed experts. Technical
backstopping was given over the six months of the LFSP intervention. The communities responded
positively and had success in breeding and integrating the technique with other farming activities.
They realised the benefits to poultry production. However, they voiced the need for more technical
support with starter colonies and improved production facilities. Uptake rate among farmers
trained, according to the respondent, was 10-15% nationally and 20-30% in Gokwe. Barriers included
the unfavourable climate, pests eating the larvae, lack of knowledge, low yields due to technical
challenges, collapse of the insect colonies and lack of tools and equipment. The key informant
suggested that improved access to established colonies, improved frequency of technical
backstopping, improved access to production structures (such as ponds and black plastic) and
provision of value-addition and processing equipment would increase adoption.
A representative from the Gokwe South district Department of Livestock and Veterinary Services
(DLVS) was also interviewed. He was positive about the technique noting that it benefits farmers by
improving their ability to feed their poultry. He felt that more training was necessary for extension
officers. Establishing demonstration sites, forming groups for BSF production, distributing
information, and organising exchange visits with successful farmers were his other
recommendations. He also felt that sensitisation of policy makers would help because government
buy-in has been shown to be pivotal in pfumvudza uptake. He noted that the bad smell of the larvae
ponds was a serious barrier, and that harvesting the larvae was challenging for many farmers. More
knowledge on feed formulation was also needed. Social norms and beliefs had also inhibited uptake.
He felt that availability of markets for BSF larvae would increase adoption.

The FGD responses for BSF uptake showed that both adopters and non-adopters in both districts had
a good grasp of the correct techniques to be used, indicating that the quality of training received by
the farmers was good. Site visits (scores are shown in the tables annex 2) were only done in Gokwe
7 For example, Mutisya, et al 2021 and Chia, 2019

8 For example, Beesigamukama et al 2020
9 Mutuku et al, 2021
15
South since there was no adoption be farmers in Gokwe North. One of the farmers visited had low
scores for seven out of twelve criteria on the checklist so should be classed as a poor adopter. Only
one of the farmers visited had fenced their demonstration site and only one had surrounded the
production area with a water trench to control predators. Three out of the six farmers visited had
inadequately constructed harvesting equipment. It is likely that the low scores for these aspects
relate to lack of finance rather than poor grasp of concepts during training.
Motivating factors
The most frequently mentioned reasons motivating farmers to adopt BSF production (shown in table
7) included that it provides a cheap protein source for poultry and that it is cheap to make. Increased
productivity of poultry fed with BSF larvae was also a frequently mentioned benefit. A major drive
for adoption was concern about feed shortages. The availability of the substrate and the fact that
the waste product from BSF production can be used as a fertiliser were also important benefits to
respondents.
Table 7 Motivating and incentivising factors for BSF farmers (number of times mentioned)
BSF KII Adopters Non-adopters Total

Motivations/ benefits for current GN GS GN GS
adoption/ continuation
Cheap protein/ feed source 1 6 5 4 16
Easy/ cheap to make 5 2 6 13
Increased growth rate/ egg 2 1 3 6
production of poultry
Concern about feed shortages 2 2 2 6
Substrate materials are available 2 1 1 4
Fertiliser source (substrate) 1 1 1 1 4
Increased income 3 3
Waste management/ 2 2
environmentally friendly
Source of employment 2 2
2 19 10 19
More training 3 3 3 3 12
Group formation 1 1 1 3
Supply of material to make ponds 1 1 2
(buckets, etc)
Better materials for substrate 1 1 2
Fact sheets 1 1
Demonstration sites 1 1
Exchange visits 1 1
Awareness campaigns 1 1
7 3 7 8
As with biochar, more training was noted as an incentive to encourage future adoption. This was
more frequently mentioned by non-adopters. Group formation was also proposed by non-adopters
and key informants as a way to increase adoption of the technique. Providing inputs to make the
ponds was mentioned by non-adopters as was recommending better materials for the larvae
16
production substrate. This latter point could be related to the bad smell which is discussed under
barriers.
Most barriers (shown in table 8) were mentioned by non-adopters in both districts. The most
frequently mentioned barrier to BSF larvae production was the bad smell produced by the decaying
substrate. This was a problem not only for the farmers but also for others in the community. An
adopters focus group in Gokwe South noted that young people particularly dislike the method
because they find it disgusting. Lack of training, particularly on feed formulation and harvesting
techniques was next most frequently mentioned. Other barriers related to technical problems with
the technique related to harvesting and pest attack. Lack of materials was also frequently
mentioned. This leads to small quantities being produced only seasonally. No barriers were found
relating to divine will. In terms of social and cultural norms a group of adopters in Gokwe south
noted “communities are not used to people who produce flies, so some people regard it as
witchcraft.”
Table 8: Barriers to BSF uptake (number of times mentioned)
BSF KII Adopters Non-adopters Total

Barriers GN GS GN GS
Bad smell/ looks disgusting 1 2 3 3 9
Lack of training 1 4 2 7
Harvesting problems 1 2 1 3 7
Lack of materials/ seasonality 1 1 3 1 6
Pest attack (rodents, lizards, ants) 1 2 2 5
Disapproval by youth 2 1 2 5
Disapproval by non-poultry farmers 1 2 3
Hard to get colony established 1 1 2
Cultural rules 1 1 2
Lack of money to construct ponds 1 1
Needs monitoring 1 1
Total 6 9 18 15
Pfumvudza
Conservation Agriculture (CA) has been hailed and promoted by FAO and a wide range of NGOs and
governments as an environmentally beneficial, climate-resilient solution to addressing food
insecurity for small-holder farmers. FAO lists the benefits of the technique10 as reducing labour
requirements and labour costs, reducing machinery costs, improving soil fertility and conservation,
increasing biodiversity and soil carbon sequestration. However according to some researchers11,
although CA has the potential to increase crop yields in the long term, adoption rates are very low
considering the investment and research that has gone into promoting the technique. Income
increases from CA are not immediate and there is competition for crop residues for mulching soil as
they are used as livestock feed. Many argue that uptake is low because CA is more labour intensive
than conventional agriculture (which uses ploughs) and impacts negatively on women as the main
source of household and agricultural labour12.
10 https://www.fao.org/conservation-agriculture/impact/benefits-of-ca/en/
11 Corbeels et al, 2013
12 For example, Corbeels et al, 2013 and Farnworth et al, 2016
17
Promotion of pfumvudza in Zimbabwe
Pfumvudza is a modified form of CA that has been promoted in Zimbabwe for the past three years to
address food insecurity and low yields in marginal rainfall areas. Two organisations that have been
key in promoting the technique in Zimbabwe are Sustainable Agriculture Trust (SAT) and
Foundations for Farming (FfF). Representatives from both organisations were consulted as key
informants for this study. The SAT representative noted that unlike CA, pfumvudza emphasises
working on small plots that ideally have access to irrigation. Precision management is emphasised
and farmers are encouraged to grow one cereal and one legume. Resource-use is optimised and
under these conditions, cereal yields of 16t/ha are possible.
Promotion of pfumvudza under the LFSP

To promote the technique as part of LFSP, SAT used a community-based facilitator (CBF) approach.
Each extension officer worked with 3 CBFs and each village had one CBF serving 90 – 120
households. The informant noted that Agritex are overwhelmed and need support for at least two
and ideally three seasons, for effective adoption of pfumvudza in a community. The respondent
explained that although introduction of the technique came late in the LFSP, 70-80% of the farmers
trained adopted the technique to some extent.
“Pfumvudza marketed itself through being a simple package with simple calculations on what could
be realistically produced on a small piece of land” he said.
The aspects least well adopted were application of manure (done by less than 10%) and mulching of
the crop (only 5%). A big motivator noted by SAT is engagement of stakeholders (especially
traditional leaders) since the technique requires a mindset-shift. There is need to target the whole
village then scale-up. A major problem was that national government policy pushed extension
officers to mobilise farmers to open up 3-5 plots when only one plot was recommended. This
resulted in lower yields than are possible on small, intensive plots.
The FfF key informant concurred that the power of pfumvudza lies in the fact that it is a simple
package that is less labour intensive. FfF usually target widows who are highly motivated in their
communities. These are supported (with labour from the community and inputs) to set up
demonstration plots. FfF emphasise the importance of brining Agritex to their training centre in
Harare for training and demonstrations on what is possible. They also note that the aim is to move
away from free synthetic fertiliser inputs and encourage more mixed cropping in future. However,
currently because soils are so degraded in most communal areas, fertiliser is necessary for any
production of maize.
The Gokwe South district agronomist was another key informant. She noted that through the LFSP,
in the 2020/2021 season 45000 farmers were trained in all wards across the district and 42000
adopted the technique. In the 2021/2022 season the target was 69950, 73064 were trained and
80181 adopted the technique. The farmers were trained by extension officers in groups of 25-30
using theory and demonstrations, fact sheets and trainings through WhatsApp during lockdowns.
Trainings were done all year-round during land preparation, planting, weeding and top dressing,
harvesting, post-harvest handling and marketing. Technical backstopping was given by national,
provincial and district staff and supervisors as well as NGOs including FfF.
The 2021 Rural Livelihoods Assessment for Midlands province however showed that Goke South had
the lowest proportion of households in the province practicing pfumvudza (37% compared to 61% in
Gokwe North and 59% for the Midlands average). Gokwe South also reportedly had the lowest
18
proportion of households receiving extension services and training including lack of support on fall
army work support, weather, and climate information, in the province.

In this study the FGD responses for pfumvudza uptake show that both adopters and non-adopters in
both districts had a reasonable grasp of the correct techniques. However, among one adopter FGD in
Gokwe South (Ward 32) and non-adopters (from Ward 13 and 36) in Gokwe North responses
showed that there were training gaps in terms of the correct sequencing of activities and
information. Examination of the score sheet in annex 2 for pfumvudza shows that most concepts
were grasped adequately by adopters. However most (7 out of 9) farmers had not adequately made
holes on contour across the slope and the same farmers had not put the soil from the planting basin
on the downslope side of the hole. This suggests poor quality training on these aspects. Mulching
was poor for 6 out of the 9 farmers surveyed. This could be due to termite attack or due to lack of
material for mulch as crop residues are normally fed to livestock.
Motivating factors
More motivating factors (shown in table 9) were mentioned by adopter groups than non-adopters in
both districts. Concern about soil fertility decline was mentioned by both adopters and non-
adopters. The main factor for adoption mentioned by KII and FGD was intensification of fields which
farmers favoured because it increases the availability grazing land. One group of adopters from
Gokwe South noted that intensification was having an environmental benefit:
“Since a small piece of land is enough to produce enough yield for our families, we are not
cutting down trees to increase the farming area and this is something that God approves since
we are not unnecessarily destroying the environment”.
The next most important motivator was increased crop yields. Moisture conservation leading to
drought or dry-spell mitigation was also frequently mentioned as a benefit. A group of adopters
from Gokwe South noted:
“We will keep using pfumvudza in the future, but we need more trainings so that we will have
enough knowledge on how to cope with the increasingly inconsistent rainfall patterns.”
Low input requirements, which reduce input costs, were the next most frequently mentioned
motivators. This could be linked to the Government of Zimbabwe’s free input distribution to
encourage adoption of pfumvudza. Reduced time and labour were the next most frequently
mentioned benefit of the technique, and this is presumably in comparison to CA.
The distribution of free inputs was the most frequent incentive mentioned by adopters and more
frequently by non-adopters who presumably had not received the free inputs. Training was the next
most frequently mentioned factor that was an incentive for adoption.
Table 9 Motivating and incentivising factors for pfumvudza farmers (number of times mentioned)
Pfumvudza Adopters Non- Total

adopters
Motivations/ benefits for current adoption/ continuation KII GN GS GN GS
Saves land/ increased grazing 4 5 2 5 16
Increased yield 2 4 2 4 13
Moisture conservation/ drought mitigation 1 1 2 4 7
Low input requirement/ cost 2 2 2 1 7
Concern about soil fertility declines 1 2 1 2 6
19
Pfumvudza Adopters Non- Total
adopters
Reduced labour/ time 3 1 1 5
Improved soil 1 1 1 1 4
Low production cost 1 1
Lack of draught power 1 1 2
Total 3 10 23 9 17
Adopters Non- Total
adopters
Free inputs 1 2 4 2 6 15
Trainings 1 5 1 7
Group work 3 3
Availability of labour 1 1 2
Mentorship by Agritex officers 1 1
Total 1 4 9 3 11
The main barrier (see table 10) identified by both adopters and non-adopters is that the technique is
highly labour intensive, and this leads to health issues. A group of non-adopters from Gokwe South
said “God disapproves (of pfumvudza) because digging basins negatively affects our health, and it is
abuse to our bodies”. Late or unfair distribution of inputs was the next most frequent barrier
identified. The fact that the technique encourages termites was mentioned by both adopters and
non-adopters who said that the termites were attracted by the mulch and destroyed the crops.
Lack of materials mentioned mainly by non-adopters related to lack of manure for non-cattle
owners and unavailability of mulch. Low harvests were also mentioned by non-adopters and were
attributed to problems of competition from weeds and long dry spells. No barriers or motivators
were found relating to social norms, cultural influences, or divine will.
Table 10: Barriers to pfumvudza uptake (number of times mentioned)
Pfumvudza Adopters Non-adopters Total

Disadvantages/ barriers KII GN GS GN GS
Labour intensive/ health issues 1 3 4 2 7 17
Late / unfair input distribution 2 3 3 4 12
Encourages termites 1 2 4 7
Lack of materials 1 3 4
Low yields 1 3 4
Weeds 3 3
Water logging 1 1 2
Fencing requirements 1 1 2
Lack of knowledge by extension workers 1 1 2
Pest and diseases 1 1
Laggards 1 1
Total 2 10 13 7 22
20
Agroecological techniques
The evidence for the benefits of AE approaches is increasing. In 2015 the Oakland Institute published
33 case studies13 from across Africa (two from Zimbabwe) on the success of AE in terms of economic,
social and food security benefits to smallholder farmers. The Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa
(AFSA) is collecting a range of evidence based on over 70 case studies14 (including three from
Zimbabwe) from different countries across the continent on how AE techniques can benefit
communities by increasing yields, improving nutrition, building resilience of farming systems to
climate change, increasing agricultural biodiversity, and improving social justice. In a collection of
articles published in 2016, authors from across Africa associated with AFSA explain how AE is
addressing problems in various different contexts15. In 2017, researchers used a household survey of
1000 farmers in Malawi including adopters and non-adopters, found that AE techniques helped
diversify crops and diets16.
Critics of AE say that it is an overly complex approach that is labour-intensive, takes a long time to
implement and is hard to scale or replicate in different contexts. Because AE is at once: a science, a
group of techniques and a social movement, proponents can get bogged down in the ideology which
can make it less relevant and practical to small-holder farmers facing a myriad of problems including
very low incomes, highly degraded soils, chronic water shortages, lack of labour and lack of livestock
as a source of manure17.
Promotion of AE in Zimbabwe
AE techniques including nutrient recycling, water-harvesting and increased crop biodiversity have
been promoted in Zimbabwe by various local NGOs for decades. During this study, key informants
from the following AE promoting organisations were interviewed: SAT, Towards Sustainable Use of
Resources Organisation (TSURO), Fambidzanai Permaculture Centre and Zimbabwe Small Holder
Organic Farmers Forum (ZIMSOFF).
The respondent from SAT said that AE is difficult to get across because it is very information-heavy
and focuses more on principles than on practical techniques. He estimated that farmers need at
least 4 seasons of support to become adopters and the techniques need to be packaged more simply
with farmers carrying out research and developing their own technologies. He emphasised the need
to get all community stakeholders on board including traditional leaders.
The respondent from ZIMSOFF said that the organisation (which is based in Masvingo district) has
been promoting AE across Zimbabwe since 2007 and they have 12000 AE practitioners registered
from across 16 districts, organised into clusters. To be registered as AE practitioners, farmers must
be practicing at least three AE techniques including soil and water management and biodiversity.
ZIMSOFF work through proactive innovators who support surrounding farmers through farmer-to-
farmer training. They have learning visits and dialogues with traditional leaders. The respondent said
the hardest techniques to get across are increasing biodiversity (including agroforestry,
intercropping and crop rotation) and seed-saving. He estimated that it takes at least three years for
seed-saving to be adopted, 5-6 years for forest protection and 5-10 years for full-uptake of all
techniques.
13 Mousseau, F. 2015, https://www.oaklandinstitute.org/agroecology-case-studies/explore

14 https://afsafrica.org/evidence-for-agroecology/
15 AFSA 2016.
16 Nyantakyi-Frimpong et al. 2017
17 https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2020/10/agroecology-must-be-based-in-reality-not-romanticism-panelists-
agree/ and Mugwanya, 2019.
21
TSURO promotes AE principles and techniques, mainly in Chimanimani district, through learning and
demonstration sites which are working examples that farmers can visit. The training is very practical
and takes time. In addition, farmers need a lot of mentoring. TSURO works through committed lead
farmers, each of whom tries to influence about 16 others. They establish demonstration sites at
their homesteads and try to cover large areas. TSURO takes a whole village approach holding
awareness meetings to try to sensitise traditional leaders. Even so their commitment varies. The
respondent noted that the best lead farmers are those who show an interest initially and those who
have applied some of the techniques before. They need to be willing to sacrifice some time and have
enough labour especially for water-harvesting techniques. TSURO try to get farmers to work in
groups especially for implementing water-harvesting earthworks and for seed saving. They involve
Agritex from the start through capacity-building, but they are limited in terms of resources.
TSURO have found that different techniques are adopted more easily in different areas. In the
highveld areas where rainfall is higher, integrated cropping, green manure, cover crops and
agroforestry have the greatest uptake. In the low veld wards, traditional seed-saving holistic
livestock management and water-harvesting have greater uptake. Organic fertiliser production is a
problem for farmers who don’t have livestock as a source of manure.
Farmers adopt an average of five practices, and it takes about five years for them to adopt. In
training TSURO cover all practices and principles of AE. They do baseline assessments to establish
real problems in the community before introducing the techniques. They start with a few practices
then introduce more as time goes on.
AE promotion in the LFSP

A representative from Agritex, Gokwe South explained that farmers in Gokwe were trained in
nutrient recycling, water-harvesting, and biodiversity through the EXTRA programme during the
2021/22 season on the initiative of FAO which contracted Fambidzanai to train all district
supervisors, who in turn cascade to extension officers. These train lead farmers who train other
farmers. There was very little follow-up or technical backstopping, and Agritex do not know how
many farmers were trained or adopted the techniques. The officer estimated that water harvesting
was the least adopted technique with only about 20% adopting it. She noted that the training model
was not adequate, and these were no awareness campaigns. He recommended a better model that
uses the farmer field school approach backed up by demonstrations, awareness campaigns, field
days and exchange-visits.
The respondent from Fambidzanai said that as part of the LFSP, 1000 farmers were trained directly
as well as organisations working with farmers such as Welthungerhilfe, World Vision, Practical Action
and Agritex. Training included theoretical sessions, practical demonstrations, presentations, fact
sheets and information dissemination through WhatsApp. Training was done by Fambidzanai staff,
and the amount of time varied according to the technique but for nutrient recycling there was one
day of theory, half a day practical and then refresher trainings on request. Fambidzanai carried out
joint monitoring visits with partners to assess adoption and worked on filling gaps. The respondent
said that the community accepted the ideas because they are cheap and rely on locally available
materials. In addition, they address soil fertility and environmental degradation concerns. The
respondent estimated that more than 70% of farmers took up the techniques. Barriers to uptake
included lack of livestock manure, resistance to new technology, lack of resources and lack of labour.

The FGD responses about the three AE techniques: water harvesting, increased biodiversity, and
nutrient recycling shows that adopters in both districts had a reasonable grasp of the correct
22
techniques. Non-adopters also had a reasonable grasp of the techniques in Gokwe North but
nutrient cycling proved to have not been well grasped by non-adopters in Gokwe South. The quality
of training appears to have been poor with respect to nutrient cycling among adopters in Gokwe
South in Ward 30 and Ward 2 as it was clear that the aspect of livestock integration had not been
covered. It appeared that some non-adopters in Gokwe South (ward 2) and Gokwe North ward 36
had not been trained in nutrient recycling. Non-adopters in Gokwe South Ward 30 and Gokwe North
Ward 36 did not appear to understand the concept of water harvesting adequately. Among non-
adopters in Wards 2 and 36 horticultural crops do not seem to have been covered adequately when
the groups were trained in biodiversity.
The site visits to 9 adopters (annex 2) showed that most farmers achieved adequate scores for the
key techniques in both districts. Scores relating to crop biodiversity and water-harvesting were high
for most farmers. The lowest scores were in nutrient recycling for four out of 9 farmers. The data
from these checklists is questionable because some of the aspects that were assessed (such as
presence of at least 3 different types of small livestock) are normal practices among some farmers
and could have existed before the intervention.
Motivating factors
Focus group participants and key informants noted a wide range of motivating factors. More were
mentioned by adopters than non-adopters. Highest on the list was improved soil moisture
conservation mentioned followed by increased food and nutrition security. These were mentioned in
all focus groups and by key informants. Increased soil fertility was also mentioned frequently in all
focus groups as was increased yields. A group of non-adopters in Gokwe South said that in reference
to all three AE techniques
“People who have used these techniques are getting better yields than us, so it is clear that the
difference in yield is brought about by these principles”.
A group of non-adopters from Gokwe North noted that the techniques increase the yield of small
grains when there is low rainfall, while a group of adopters from Gokwe North said
“they are all drought resistant methods of farming, and we can harvest something even if we
receive low rainfall”.
Low production costs, reduced soil erosion and increased income were also high on the list of
motivators. Concern about declining soil fertility was mentioned in all focus groups. More incentives
for future adoption were mentioned by non-adopters. As with the LISA methods, trainings and
demonstrations were high on the list of incentives.
Table 11 Motivating and incentivising factors for farmers practicing AE techniques (number of
times mentioned)
AE techniques Adopters Non-adopters Total

continuation
Soil moisture conservation/ drought mitigation 2 4 8 3 1 18
Improved food security/ nutrition 2 2 9 2 2 17
Increased soil fertility and structure 4 8 2 3 17
Increased yield 2 6 2 4 14
Low production cost 1 2 4 2 9
Reduced soil erosion 2 6 8
Increased income 1 3 2 1 7
23
continuation
Concern about soil fertility 1 2 1 2 6
Improved waste management/ recycling 3 1 4
Reduced pest and disease problems 3 3
Improved water supply (for home/ livestock) 1 4 2 3 2
Increased knowledge 2 2
Improved livestock feed 1 1 2
Increased produce variety 1 1
Improved environmental conservation 1 1
Reduced labour (fetching water) 1 1
622 55 16 21
More trainings 2 3 5
Demonstrations 2 1 1 1 3
Input provision (fertilisers) 1 1
Farmer Field Schools 1 1
Group work for digging basins 1 1
Field days 1 1
Exchange Visits 1 1
Total 7 1 1 2 4
A wide range of barriers was mentioned in focus groups. Interestingly more barriers were identified
by adopters than non-adopters of AE techniques particularly in Gokwe South. The main barriers
were that the technique is labour-intensive and time consuming, mentioned in all focus groups.
Particular activities that were identified by non-adopters as being labour intensive included digging
contour ridges, collection of crop residues, and having many crops. A group of adopters addressed
this issue with the suggestion “labour is a problem but as farmers we are working in groups to ease
the workload.”
Table 12: Barriers to uptake of AE techniques (number of times mentioned)

Barriers KII GN GS GN GS
Labour intensive 4 8 5 2 19
Time consuming 4 4 2 2 12
Attracts termites 2 1 2 1 6
Cost of livestock medication 2 3 1 6
Animal feed is not available 2 1 2 5
Increases water-logging 1 2 2 5
Laziness/ laggards/ apathy 1 3 4
Increased number of weeds due to manure use 2 1 3
24
Barriers KII GN GS GN GS
Lack of land 1 2 3
Mosquito breeding 2 1 3
Lack of knowledge 1 1 1 3
Increased soil erosion 2 2
Pest and diseases increased 1 1 2
Lack of livestock manure 1 1
Lack of draught power 1 1
Hard to give equal attention to crops 1 1
Training model was weak 1 1
Retarded crop growth 1 1
Wilting of crops 1 1
Total 3 19 23 15 19
Many farmers brought up the issue of mulch attracting termites which had also been mentioned in
the pfumvudza survey. The cost of livestock medication was cited as a barrier to keeping many
different types of livestock in three focus groups and lack of livestock feed was also frequently
mentioned as a barrier. The fact that some techniques increase water-logging was mainly mentioned
by non-adopters. No barriers or motivators were found relating to social norms, cultural influences,
or divine will.
Table 13. Summary of motivators, barriers and incentives in terms of number of times mentioned
by respondents in each survey
Motivators Biochar BSF Pfumvudza AE # times

mentioned
Improves soil fertility/ structure 1 3 2
Improves moisture retention/ helps mitigate dry 2 3 1 3
spells
Increased yields 2 3 2 4 4
Concern about problem 2 3 4 3
Cheap to produce 3 2 3 3
Saves money on inputs 4 1 2
Saves land 1 1
Improves food security/ nutrition 2 1
Incentives Biochar BSF Pfumvudza AE
Training/ demonstrations 1 1 2 1 4
Materials 2 3 2
Form groups 3 2 3 3 4
Written information 4 4
Inputs 1 2 2
Barriers Biochar BSF Pfumvudza AE
Labour/ time intensive 1 1 1 3
Lack of equipment 2 1
Lack of materials 3 3 4 4 4
25
Motivators Biochar BSF Pfumvudza AE # times
mentioned
Negative effects (lowers yields, termites) 4 3 2 3
Lack of training 4 2 2
Technical difficulties 2 1
Expensive 3 1
Other issues 1 2 2
Table 13 summarises the top four motivators for adoption, incentives for future adoption and
barriers to adoption identified in the surveys for each of the techniques under investigation. In terms
of motivating factors, for all four techniques, increased yields were a main motivator followed by
increased soil moisture retention. Concern about a problem (such as soil infertility, drought or dry
spells and lack of livestock feed) was also mentioned as a motivator for three out of four of the
techniques suggesting that farmers are aware of problems and want to address them. The fact that
the technique was cheap was also mentioned for three out of four of the techniques showing that
farmers prefer low cost or money-saving solutions. This latter point links to lack of materials which
was a main barrier mentioned in the surveys of all four techniques. The fact that the technique was
labour-intensive or time intensive was the primary barrier mentioned in three out of four of the
techniques. This suggests that finance and labour are two main factors that inhibit uptake of new
technologies in Gokwe.
Influencers
In all of the surveys the most influential people in terms of motivating farmers to adopt methods
were government extension officers followed by NGOs. Young people were noted to be not
interested in the LISA or AE techniques in all of the surveys. The main reason was that the
techniques require too much labour. Divine will, social and cultural issues and norms were not seen
as important motivators or barriers in any of the surveys except for BSF.
Discussion
When trying to address problems of food insecurity and low agricultural productivity, which are
typical of many communal areas in Zimbabwe, it is rational to want to introduce improved
technologies. Through the LFSP, a number of agricultural technologies were introduced with varying
degrees of success. There are many definitions of “appropriate technology” these include the
following. It must be compatible with local, cultural, and economic conditions and should utilize
locally available materials and energy resources, with tools and processes maintained and
operationally controlled by the local population18. An appropriate technology should be suitable to
the social and economic conditions of the area; it should be environmentally sound and should
promote self-sufficiency19.
While many of the techniques introduced by the EXTRA/LFSP have been shown to be beneficial in
theory, there was little investigation, prior to their introduction, with respect to how appropriate
these technologies are in the specific context of Gokwe North and South. In addition, not enough
time was given to training farmers and extension officers, to provide adequate mentorship and
technical backstopping. As key informants consulted in this study recommended, several years is
needed for the introduction of some techniques accompanied by awareness-raising programmes
and sensitisation of key stakeholders including traditional leaders and policy-makers.
18 Hazeltine, B. 2003
19 Merriam-Webster
26
The distribution of free inputs for pfumvudza farmers – while clearly a powerful incentive, could lead
to unrealistic expectations of future programmes and make farmers dependent on expensive
fertilisers adding an extra financial burden to highly cash constrained households. In the long-term
inorganic fertilisers do not improve the ability of the soil to store nutrients or moisture and have
been shown to destroy the vital micro-organisms that control the basic functioning of healthy soils.
On the other hand, the fact that so many farmers recognised the benefits of intensification as part of
pfumvudza promotion in these land-constrained, labour-constrained districts, is very positive and
this sentiment should be built upon to promote other intensification methods such as intercropping,
cover-cropping, fodder production and agroforestry.
Some of the technologies introduced may not be entirely appropriate for this context. Pfumvudza,
biochar production and water-harvesting earthworks add extra work to households that are already
highly labour constrained. Biochar production is beneficial in that it reduces the need for scarce
livestock manure as a fertiliser, but it has the added problem of competing with scarce biomass
which is also required for fuel, livestock feed and mulch. There is also a very real danger that if
biochar production takes off and markets for it are created, it could lead to severe deforestation.
BSF production and biochar production require a lot of work and biomass, but only small quantities
are produced. Encouraging farmers to work in groups could help to address many of these issues.
It is clear from this study that the farmers and key informants surveyed in the districts are deeply
concerned about soil fertility declines and the impacts of climate change hazards on their crop and
livestock production and they would like to urgently address these problems. Thus, perceived
susceptibility is a strong motivator. The study participants identified the benefits of many of the
practices that were introduced (positive consequences and action efficacy) but are constrained by
factors related to self-efficacy such as lack of finance for equipment, fencing and veterinary drugs,
lack of labour and time, lack of manure and lack of biomass to implement these new technologies.
Considering these factors and the challenges related to training in the programme, it is heartening
that uptake has been as high as it has been. None of those consulted felt that any of the techniques
should be abandoned and many constructive recommendations were made to make the
technologies more appropriate to the context as well as increasing uptake. These are presented in
the next section.
Recommendations
The recommendations are presented in two categories. First related to making the technologies
more appropriate and second related to improving adoption.
Making the technologies more appropriate

• Before introducing new technologies, development agents should always conduct a
participatory needs assessment and feasibility study (with a PESTEL20 analysis) before
introducing new technologies in future.
• Learn from the experiences of other Zimbabwean organisations by setting up a working-
group or think-tank. This could be launched through a symposium to share experiences on
LISA and AE techniques.
• Improve the technologies being promoted in order to address problems identified in this
study including the smell of BSF production, harvesting challenges.
20 P for political, E for economic, S for social, T for technological, L for legal, and E for environmental and ethical factors
influencing a potential project.
27
• Carry out trials with farmers at selected demonstrations sites and get the technology right
before scale-up and mass dissemination.
• Careful monitoring and evaluation should be carried out and regularly reviewed in order to
improve technology appropriateness and adoption. This should involve extension officers,
traditional leaders, and lead farmers as well as district authorities.
• Cautiously investigate market development for BSF and biochar. However, extreme caution
must be exercised with respect to biochar given the environmental degradation that is
already being experienced in the Gokwe districts. For this reason, it is important to promote
use of unwanted invasive species (such as Lantana camara) as feedstock for group biochar
production and promotion of pyloric stoves for individual household biochar production.
Improving adoption rates

• Ensure better inclusion and sensitisation of all stakeholders.
• Take on a ‘whole village’ approach rather than targeting individual farmers
• To assist farmers with finance, lack of materials and labour constraints, support group
formation (for implementing pfumvudza and water-harvesting).
• Assist with smart subsidies for equipment and labour-saving technologies such as biochar
drums, concrete for BSF ponds, direct drillers, and rippers.
• Conduct comprehensive research (involving private sector and academic institutions) into
what labour-saving technologies can be promoted.
• Support locally based enterprises in the districts to manufacture equipment and for scale-up
manufacture of BSF, livestock feed mixes, biochar and other biofertilisers21. Encourage
young people to get involved in these.
• Institute more comprehensive and regular training of trainers, capacitating extension
officers, refresher training and technical backstopping for farmers. This should include
behaviour change training methods as well as basic technology transfer.
• Package AE information into simpler, more user-friendly modules that can be adapted to
specific contexts. Make it more practical, relevant, and appropriate to the needs and
constraints of the target communities.
• Improve dissemination of information using ICT, TV, radio, WhatsApp, videos, and podcasts.
• Target specific age groups for interventions that would suit them.
• Involve the youth in information dissemination on the techniques through ICT. Set up
advisory hubs run by youths in each ward to help with this. Involve young people in radio
and TV awareness-raising programmes and district awareness raising through drama and
using other social behaviour changes communication methods.
21 Several organisations including Fambidzanai, TSURO and ZIMSOFF are promoting manufacture of various biofertilisers.
28
Annex 1: Description of the techniques
Biochar
Biochar is a carbon rich charcoal formed from the pyrolysis (thermal decomposition) of organic
biomass which is used as a soil amendment when mixed with compost. It improves the water-
holding capacity of the soil, thus helping the soil retain water for longer periods. It also increases
cation exchange capacity of the soil which in turn reduces the loss of nutrients through leaching
thereby increasing nutrient-use efficiency. The training curriculum for farmers included:
Step 1: Biochar making
• Take an old drum, make a hole on the top and fit a pipe made from scrap metal. Make holes
in the base of the drum.
• Fill the drum with dry biomass such as crop residue.
• Ignite the material through the lower opening.
• When the fire is glowing, close the lower opening so that air only enters through the holes
• When the biomass is charred, leave it to cool and offload.
Step 2: Making biochar-based natural fertiliser
• Take one volume of biochar and mix with the same volume of livestock manure or compost.
• If using cattle manure, it should be cured by heaping the manure for up to five months
before mixing with biochar.
Step 3: Biochar based fertiliser application
• After mixing, apply at two cups per planting hole. The fertiliser is compatible with
Pfumvudza.
Black Soldier Fly (BSF) larvae farming

Black soldier fly farming is a quick, cheap method for making high protein livestock feed. BSF
production requires very simple and inexpensive infrastructure so can be produced at farm level or
industrial scale. BSF can be produced from any rotting organic material including fresh manure,
kitchen waste and dead animal carcasses.
The training curriculum for farmers was as follows:

1. Setting up an egg trap. To start up a colony, put waste, offal, or meat waste into concrete
bins. One 50L volume bin will consume about 2kgs of waste a day. Cover the bin with fine
mesh wire. Make “eggies” (places where the fly comes to lay eggs) from corrugated
cardboard or wooden blocks tied together and placed on top of the bin and leave them in
bright natural light.
2. Growing and bulking BSF Larvae. Collect the eggs from the eggies and put them into the bin
where they will hatch into larvae. Continue adding nutrient-rich waste to the bin. After 14-
21 days, the bins are filled with water, so the maggots start to float (separating them from
any leftovers).
3. Harvesting. Harvest the maggots and discard the leftovers or further process into compost.
Slaughter the maggots using hot water; sun dry them and store in a dark dry container to
prevent rancidity. The maggots can be sold and used as animal feed and fishing bait.
Pfumvudza
Pfumvudza is an intensive, precision, conservation agriculture method designed to meet food
security needs for an average household of six people over one year using minimum tillage. It seeks
to address poor yields caused by low soil fertility, negative farmer attitudes, high cost of farming,
climate variability, lack of agronomic knowledge, poor timing of operations. The technique is applied
29
on a plot measuring 39m x 16m, with 52 planting rows each with 28 planting stations holding 2
maize plants per station. The 52 maize plants in each row will give 52 cobs, producing one bucket (20
litres) of shelled grain. Each bucket can provide grain to feed a family of six for one week. The 52
buckets from the 52 rows will feed the family for 52 weeks, which is one year. The training for
farmers included:
• Field selection and siting – fields should be close to the homestead and fenced.
• Field size – 39m x 16m.
• Field preparation - no ploughing, basins are dug with 75cm inter-row spacing and 60cm in-
row spacing with a hole size of 15cm x 15cm x 15cm. Holes and rows are on contour (across
the slope) and soil from hole is placed downslope.
• Planting – plant after receiving enough rains to cover the hole, using correct crop
specifications.
• Weeding and mulching – weed the land and apply mulch to cover all bare soil.
• Fertilizer application – apply the correct fertilizer amounts based on crop requirements at
the correct times.
• Harvesting – Harvest line by line. Check whether each line equates to a 20L bucket which is
required to feed a family of 6 for a week.
• Post-harvest handling and storage – practice proper grain treatment, using proper storage
facilities.
Nutrient recycling
This involves returning nutrients used by plants back to the soil through the direct return of crop
residues, application of animal manure or the use of organic fertilizers derived from plant material or
animal manure. Nutrient cycles restore ecosystems to the equilibrium state, and therefore play an
important role in keeping the ecosystem functioning. Nutrient cycles link living organisms with non-
living organisms through the flow of nutrients. The training for farmers included:
• Principles of soil management.

• Soil improvement techniques:
o Compost types and how they are made (thermal, vermicompost)
o Different types of manure, their treatments and nutrient status (cattle, goats,
poultry etc.), liquid manure and green manuring (using vegetation to maintain or
improve soil fertility)
o Mulching with crop residues and grasses.
• On-farm livestock feed formulation:
o Different crop residues, their nutrient status and how they can be incorporated into
livestock feed.
o BSF-use of farm and kitchen waste products to make larvae used in formulating
livestock diets.
o Fodder production - silage making, hay making, urea treatment, bush meal.
o Food processing for household consumption.
Water harvesting techniques

This is harvesting and storing rainwater for use during mid-season dry periods or when the rains
cease. The harvested water can be used for irrigation, gardening, livestock, and times in some
households for consumption. The training for farmers included:
• Source identification i.e., roof run-off etc.
30
• Methods of harvesting (containers and tanks on roof tops, infiltration pits, pot holing, storm
drains, swales, small dams, contour ridges.
Biodiversity (crop and livestock)

This refers to encouraging farmers to have a wide range of crops and livestock species on their
farms. It helps in enhancing household food and nutrition security as well as maintaining balance in
the farming ecosystems and also helps reduce the impacts of climate change since some species are
more drought tolerant than others. The training for farmers included:
• Importance of having different crops and livestock.

• Sources of different foods and nutrients.
• Agronomic and husbandry practices in growing and rearing the different crops and livestock.
• Product processing for different crops and livestock products
• Food preparation methods and techniques.
Annex 2: Direct observation checklists
Score
Poor Adequate Excellent
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Biochar Check list GN GN GN GS GS GS GS GS GS

Site is close to the homestead 8 8 4 8 8 8 8 8 5
Site is on good quality arable land 7 8 7 8 8 7 7 8 6
Site is fenced 5 4 4 6 6 5 4 5 4
Holes are correct size 8 6 6 6 6 8 6 8 6
Holes and rows are on contour (across the
6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 5
slope)
Soil from hole is downslope 6 8 6 8 6 8 6 8 5
Crops planted at the correct time 5 8 5 8 5 7 5 8 5
Two plants planted per station 8 8 6 8 9 8 7 8 7
Land is weed-free 8 8 7 9 9 9 9 9 4
Quantity and quality of material used to make
6 5 6 6 7 8 6 5 4
biochar
Equipment used to make the biochar 7 8 7 7 7 8 7 7 7
Correct ratio of manure and biochar used (half
6 8 6 6 6 8 6 6 6
manure and half biochar)
500g mixture of manure and biochar applied
7 8 6 6 6 8 6 6 5
correctly per planting station
Total score out of 130 87 94 76 93 89 99 83 93 69
31
BSF Check list GS GS GS GS GS GS
Site close to the water source 8 5 7 8 7 7

Site is close to the homestead on the windward side 8 7 8 8 8 8
Production equipment well-constructed (for self-harvesting of
9 6 4 5 7 4
larvae)
Site is fenced for protection against predators 1 1 1 1 8 1
Production equipment surrounded with a water trench (to control
1 1 1 6 1 1
predators)
Quality of substrate being used 8 8 4 8 8 8
Substrate availability 7 5 4 7 7 7
Adequacy of the substrate 7 7 2 7 7 7
Correct disposal of used substrate 8 4 8 8 8 8
Harvesting and curing process 7 7 7 7 7 7
Storage facilities 6 6 6 6 6 6
Total score out of 110 70 57 52 71 74 64
Pfumvudza Check list GN GN GN GS GS GS GS GS GS

Site is close to reliable water source 3 6 2 8 8 8 8 8 8
Site is close to the homestead 9 6 9 8 9 9 8 8 8
Site is on good quality arable land 5 5 7 8 7 7 8 8 8
Site is fenced 0 9 9 9 9 6 9 9 9
Plot is the correct size(624m2, 39m x
10 10 10 8 10 8 9 9 8
16m)
Plot has correct number of planting
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
holes (52 rows with 28 holes per row)
Holes and rows are correctly spaced
9 9 9 9 9 9 7 7 9
(60cm x 75cm)
Holes are correct size (15cm x 15cm x
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
15cm)
Holes and rows are on contour (across
8 7 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
the slope)
Soil from hole is downslope 7 8 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Crops planted at the correct time 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Two plants planted per station 9 7 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Land is mulched between rows 9 0 8 0 1 1 8 1 1
Land is weed-free 4 5 8 7 9 4 4 9 9
12kg lime applied correctly 10 1 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
16kg basal fertiliser applied correctly 10 10 0 10 10 10 10 8 10
16kg top dressing applied correctly 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 8 10
Insecticide for FAW used correctly 10 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
32
AE techniques Check list GN GN GN GS GS GS GS GS GS
At least 3 cereal crops 7 8 8 10 9 9 8 8 6
At least 2 legume crops 6 9 8 8 6 7 8 8 8
Other crops (garden, roots and tubers, fruit
6 9 9 9 5 6 7 7 7
trees)
Environmentally sustainable crop methods
6 8 6 1 6 1 6 6 8
e.g., pfumvudza, biochar
At least 3 different types of small livestock 8 9 8 8 8 8 7 7 7
Livestock houses that favour good animal
8 6 8 7 6 7 7 7 5
welfare standards
Livestock houses that are environmentally
7 6 10 7 7 5 7 7 6
friendly and sustainable
At least 3 types of recycling methods i.e., crop
residue to feed livestock, livestock manure to
8 5 6 8 8 8 4 5 5
crops, BSF, use of organic liquid fertilizer, use
of compost etc.
At least 2 types of water harvesting
techniques i.e., basins, pot holing, infiltration 9 5 7 8 8 8 7 7 7
pits, contour ridges, tree basins)
References
AFSA 2016. Agroecology: The Bold Future of Farming in Africa. AFSA & TOAM. Dar es Salaam.
Tanzania.
Beesigamukama, D.; Mochoge, B.; Korir, N.; Musyoka, M.W.; Fiaboe, K.K.M.; Nakimbugwe, D.;
Khamis, F.M.; Subramanian, S.; Dubois, T.; Ekesi, S.; Tanga, C.M. Nitrogen Fertilizer Equivalence of
Black Soldier Fly Frass Fertilizer and Synchrony of Nitrogen Mineralization for Maize Production.
Agronomy 2020, 10, 1395. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10091395
Chia, Shaphan Yong, 2019. Black Soldier Fly Larvae as a Sustainable Animal Feed Ingredient in Kenya.
Wageningen University and Research ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2019. 28232942.
Corbeelsa, M., de Graaff, J., Ndahc, T.H., Penota, E., Baudrond, F., Naudina, K., Andrieua, N., Chirata,
G., Schulerc, J., Nyagumboe, I, Rusinamhodzib, L., Traoref, K., Mzobag, H.D., Adolwaha, I.L.
Understanding the impact and adoption of conservation agriculture in Africa: A multi-scale analysis.
Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment. January 2013. DOI: 10.1016/j.agee.2013.10.011
Fadeyi, O.A., Ariyamardana, A. and Aziz, A. 2022. Factors influencing technology adoption among
smallholder farmers: a systematic review in Africa. Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development in
the Tropics and Subtropics. Vol. 123 No. 1 (2022) 13–30
Farnworth, C.R, Baudron, F., Andersson, J.A, Misiko, M, Badstue, L and Stirling, C.M. 2015. Gender
and conservation agriculture in East and Southern Africa: towards a research agenda. International
Journal of Agricultural Sustainability. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2015.1065602
Gadzirai, C., Mandumbu, R., Mafuse, N., Shoniwa, C. 2017. The Compatibility Effects of Biochar-
Vermicompost Mixes on Crop Productivity. Journal of Environmental Science and Engineering. A 6
(2017) 496-501 doi:10.17265/2162-5298/2017.10.002
33
Gewnzi, W., Chaukura, N., Mukome, F.N.D, Machado, S., Nyamasoka, B. 2015. Biochar production
and applications in sub-Saharan Africa: Opportunities, constraints, risks, and uncertainties. Journal of
Environmental Management. 150 (2015) 250 -261.
Gwenzi, W. Muzava, M., Mapanda, F. and Tauro, T.P. 2016.Comparative short-term effects of
sewage sludge and its biochar on soil properties, maize growth, and uptake of nutrients on a tropical
clay soil in Zimbabwe, Journal of Integrative Agriculture. Volume 15, Issue 6, 2016, 1395-1406, ISSN
2095-3119, https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(15)61154-6.
Hazeltine, B (Ed.) 2003. A Field Guide to Appropriate technology, Academic Press
Kittle, Bonnie. 2013. A Practical Guide to Conducting a Barrier Analysis. New York, NY: Helen Keller
International.
Mousseau, F. The Untold Success Story of Agroecology in Africa. Development 58, 341–345 (2015).
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41301-016-0026-0
Mugwanya, N. 2019. Why agroecology is a dead end for Africa. Outlook on Africa. Volume: 48, issue:
2, page(s): 113-116
Mutuku, K.V, Mukhebi, A.W., Orinda, M.A. and Tanga, C.M. 2021. Determinants of profitability of
black soldier fly farming enterprise in Kenya, Journal of Insects as Food and Feed. In press.
Mutisya, M., Agbodzavu, M.K., Kinyuru, J.N., Tanga, C.M, Gicheha, M, Hailu, G., Salifu, D., Khan, Z
and Niassy, S. 2021. Can black soldier fly Desmodium intortum larvae-based diets enhance the
performance of Cobb500 broiler chickens and smallholder farmers' profit in Kenya? Poultry Science.
Volume 100, Issue 2. Pages 420-430, ISSN 0032-5791,
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0032579120308683
Mwangi, M and Kariuki, S. 2015. Factors Determining Adoption of New Agricultural Technology by
Smallholder Farmers in Developing Countries. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development.
ISSN 2222-2855 (Online) Vol.6, No.5, 2015
Nyantakyi-Frimpong, H., Kangmennaang, J., Bezner Kerr, R., Luginaah, I., Dakishoni, L., Lupafya, E.,
Shumba, L and Katundu, M. 2017. Agroecology and healthy food systems in semi-humid tropical
Africa: Participatory research with vulnerable farming households in Malawi. Acta Tropica, Volume
175, 2017, Pages 42-49, ISSN 0001-706X, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actatropica.2016.10.022.
34

Assessing The Adoption and Effectiveness of Low Input Sustainable Agriculture (LISA) Methods and Agroecological (AE) Techniques in Gokwe

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assessing The Adoption and Effectiveness of Low Input Sustainable Agriculture (LISA) Methods and Agroecological (AE) Techniques in Gokwe

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STUDY REPORT: Assessing the

adoption and effectiveness of

Data collection included:

Technique Motivator for adoption Barrier to adoption

The specific objectives of the study were to:

Data collection included:

Box 1: key determinants of behaviour

• perceived positive and negative consequences of using the techniques,

Table 2 Sampling sites for FGD and direct observation

District Technique FGD Sample

Table 3: Key informant interviews

Technique Ward Key Informant Key Informant organisation

Constraints to the study

Overview of challenges in the study districts

Table 4: General background data for Gokwe North and South.

Average (%) Gokwe Gokwe Provincial National * Comment

Effectiveness of the introduced technologies

Adoption of the technologies

3 For example, Gadzirai et al. 2017.

5 Gwenzi et al. 2015

Biochar promotion in the LFSP

Grasp of key concepts

6 For example, Gwenzi et al 2016 and Gadzirai et al 2017.

Biochar Adopters Non-adopters Total

Table 6: Barriers to Biochar uptake (number of times mentioned)

Biochar Adopters Non-adopters Total

BSF larvae production

BSF promotion in Zimbabwe

BSF promotion in the LFSP

Grasp of key concepts

7 For example, Mutisya, et al 2021 and Chia, 2019

BSF KII Adopters Non-adopters Total

Table 8: Barriers to BSF uptake (number of times mentioned)

BSF KII Adopters Non-adopters Total

Promotion of pfumvudza under the LFSP

Grasp of key concepts

Pfumvudza Adopters Non- Total

Table 10: Barriers to pfumvudza uptake (number of times mentioned)

Pfumvudza Adopters Non-adopters Total

13 Mousseau, F. 2015, https://www.oaklandinstitute.org/agroecology-case-studies/explore

agree/ and Mugwanya, 2019.

AE promotion in the LFSP

Grasp of key concepts

AE techniques Adopters Non-adopters Total

Table 12: Barriers to uptake of AE techniques (number of times mentioned)

AE techniques Adopters Non-adopters Total

Motivators Biochar BSF Pfumvudza AE # times

Making the technologies more appropriate

Improving adoption rates

Black Soldier Fly (BSF) larvae farming

The training curriculum for farmers was as follows:

• Principles of soil management.

Water harvesting techniques

• Source identification i.e., roof run-off etc.

Biodiversity (crop and livestock)

• Importance of having different crops and livestock.

Annex 2: Direct observation checklists

Biochar Check list GN GN GN GS GS GS GS GS GS

Site close to the water source 8 5 7 8 7 7

Pfumvudza Check list GN GN GN GS GS GS GS GS GS

Hazeltine, B (Ed.) 2003. A Field Guide to Appropriate technology, Academic Press

You might also like