| Literature DB >> 20628448 |
Peter Ebanyat, Nico de Ridder, Andre de Jager, Robert J Delve, Mateete A Bekunda, Ken E Giller.
Abstract
Smallholder farming systems in sub-Saharan Africa have undergone changes in land use, productivity and sustainability. Understanding of the drivers that have led to changes in land use in these systems and factors that influence the systems' sustainability is useful to guide appropriate targeting of intervention strategies for improvement. We studied low input Teso farming systems in eastern Uganda from 1960 to 2001 in a place-based analysis combined with a comparative analysis of similar low input systems in southern Mali. This study showed that policy-institutional factors next to population growth have driven land use changes in the Teso systems, and that nutrient balances of farm households are useful indicators to identify their sustainability. During the period of analysis, the fraction of land under cultivation increased from 46 to 78%, and communal grazing lands nearly completely disappeared. Cropping diversified over time; cassava overtook cotton and millet in importance, and rice emerged as an alternative cash crop. Impacts of political instability, such as the collapse of cotton marketing and land management institutions, of communal labour arrangements and aggravation of cattle rustling were linked to the changes. Crop productivity in the farming systems is poor and nutrient balances differed between farm types. Balances of N, P and K were all positive for larger farms (LF) that had more cattle and derived a larger proportion of their income from off-farm activities, whereas on the medium farms (MF), small farms with cattle (SF1) and without cattle (SF2) balances were mostly negative. Sustainability of the farming system is driven by livestock, crop production, labour and access to off-farm income. Building private public partnerships around market-oriented crops can be an entry point for encouraging investment in use of external nutrient inputs to boost productivity in such African farming systems. However, intervention strategies should recognise the diversity and heterogeneity between farms to ensure efficient use of these external inputs.Entities:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20628448 PMCID: PMC2889287 DOI: 10.1007/s11111-010-0104-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Popul Environ ISSN: 0199-0039
Fig. 1Location of study sites and rainfall distribution in Pallisa district, Uganda
Fig. 2Population densities of Pallisa district and study parishes from 1960 to 2001
Fig. 3Land use change in Chelekura parish, Pallisa district from 1960 to 2001
Fig. 4Land use change in Akadot Parish, Pallisa district from 1960 to 2001
Land use/cover and changes in Chelekura and Akadot Parishes, Pallisa district, eastern Uganda from 1960 to 2001
| Parish/land use | Cover | Changesa | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1960 | 1973 | 1986 | 2001 | 1973 | 1986 | 2001 | |||||
| (ha) | (%) | (ha) | (%) | (ha) | (%) | (ha) | (%) | (ha) | (ha) | (ha) | |
| Chelekura | |||||||||||
| Cultivated land/homesteads | 592 | 24 | 441 | 18 | 518 | 21 | 1127 | 46 | −151 | −74 | 535 |
| Forest | 30 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | −30 | −30 | −30 |
| Grasslands/trees | 324 | 13 | 231 | 9 | 231 | 9 | 0 | 0 | −93 | −93 | −324 |
| Bush lands | 586 | 24 | 455 | 18 | 417 | 17 | 0 | 0 | −131 | −169 | −586 |
| Papyrus swamps | 202 | 8 | 606 | 25 | 567 | 23 | 148 | 6 | 404 | 365 | −54 |
| Rice cultivation | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 458 | 19 | 0 | 0 | 458 |
| Water | 730 | 30 | 730 | 30 | 730 | 30 | 730 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 2463 | 100 | 2463 | 100 | 2463 | 100 | 2463 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Akadot | |||||||||||
| Cultivated land/homesteads | 627 | 53 | 177 | 15 | 606 | 51 | 926 | 78 | −450 | −21 | 298 |
| Forest | 195 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | −195 | −195 | −195 |
| Grassland/trees | 0 | 0 | 480 | 40 | 195 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 480 | 195 | 0 |
| Bush lands | 69 | 6 | 288 | 24 | 319 | 27 | 0 | 0 | 219 | 250 | −69 |
| Papyrus swamps | 301 | 25 | 246 | 21 | 71 | 6 | 0 | 0 | −55 | −229 | −301 |
| Rice cultivation | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 266 | 22 | 0 | 0 | 266 |
| Total | 1192 | 100 | 1192 | 100 | 1192 | 100 | 1192 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
aBase year for computation is 1960
Pearson’s correlation coefficients for land use types and population density in Pallisa District
| Cultivated land/homesteads | Forest | Grasslands | bushlands | Papyrus swamps | Rice | Pop. density | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cultivated land/homesteads | 1 | ||||||
| Forest | −0.07 | 1 | |||||
| Grassland | −0.84* | −0.38 | 1 | ||||
| Bushlands | −0.64* | −0.27 | 0.75* | 1 | |||
| Papyrus swamp | −0.49 | 0.41 | 0.20 | 0.51 | 1 | ||
| Rice | 0.87** | −0.24 | −0.62 | −0.71* | −0.47 | 1 | |
| Pop. density | 0.70* | −0.40 | −0.56 | −0.71* | −0.51 | 0.78* | 1 |
* P < 0.05; ** P < 0.01
Fig. 5Uganda’s political timelines and economic performance and their impacts on land use from 1960 to 2001. A = period of political and economic stability; B = Period of political instability and economic decline; C = Period of political instability and economic recovery; D = Period of political stability and economic growth (Sources: GoU 1965, 1967, 1972, 1996; MFPED 1990; UBOS 1999, 2004; Kamugisha 1993; Tukahirwa 1996; Walaga et al. 2000)
Wealth indicators and characteristics of the different resource groups in Pallisa district, Uganda
| Wealth indicator | Resource categorya | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LF | MF | SF1 | SF2 | |
| Farm size | Have about 5 ha | Have about 1.6 ha | Approximately 1 ha | Less than 1 ha |
| Livestock | Have about 9 cattle with at least one pair of oxen | Have about 3 cattle with either one ox or a pair of oxen | At least have 1 ox to team with another farmer for draught power | Do not have cattle, but at least have goats |
| Have about 4 goats | Have about 4 goats | May have about 3 goats | ||
| Hire/sale of labour | Hire labour for livestock and casual labour for cropping activities | Hire labour for cropping activities. Also hire out labour particularly oxen for ploughing | Sell and hire labour for cropping | Sell labour |
| Farm implements | Own ox plough, hoes and wheel barrows | Own ox plough, hand hoes | May own an ox plough and hand hoes | Own only hand hoes |
| Production orientation | Grow some root and grain crops specifically for sale | Produce mainly for home consumption and some crops for sale | Produce for home consumption and can sell any crop for income | Produce for basically home consumption |
| Income sources | Have small scale businesses and remittances from working relatives | Rely on crop sales and salary as civil servants (teachers) | Sale of crop products and local brew | Sale of labour and a little of crop products |
| Food security | Buy food for periods less than 1 month in a year | Buy food for periods of 1–3 months | Buy food for 3–5 months in a year | Buy food for more than 5 months in a year |
a LF Larger farms, MF Medium farms, SF1 Small farms with cattle, SF2 Small farms without cattle
Proportions and mean resource endowments of farm types in the rapid survey (RSF) and case study farm (CSF) samples studied in Pallisa District, Uganda
| Farm typea | Proportions in | Household size | Farm size | Cattle | Oxen | Goats | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RSF | CSF | RSF | CSF | RSF | CSF | RSF | CSF | RSF | CSF | RSF | CSF | |||
| (no) | (%) | (no) | (%) | (no) | (no) | (ha) | (ha) | (no) | (no) | (no) | (no) | (no) | (no) | |
| LF | 10 | 11 | 6 | 20 | 11(5–17) | 11(7–17) | 5.9(2.5–12.7) | 6.2(2.4–12.7) | 9(2–19) | 12(3–19) | 2(0–4) | 3(2–4) | 4(0–12) | 6(2–12) |
| MF | 27 | 30 | 6 | 20 | 7(2–15) | 8(2–15 | 1.6(0.1–4) | 3.1(1.6–4.9) | 3(0–4) | 4(3–6) | 1(0–2) | 2(1–2) | 1(0–4) | 2(0–4) |
| SF1 | 35 | 39 | 10 | 33 | 8(2–15) | 9(6–17) | 1.1(0.2–3.6) | 2.2(0.7–4.2) | 1(0–2) | 1(1–4) | 1(0–2) | 1(0–2) | 1(0–2) | 2(0–4) |
| SF2 | 18 | 20 | 8 | 27 | 6(1–12) | 7(2–16) | 0.8(0.7–2.0) | 1(0.4–2.8) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1(0–7) | 1(0–7) |
a LF Larger farms, MF Medium farms, SF1 Small farms with cattle, SF2 Small farms without cattle, values in parentheses are ranges
Fig. 6Percentage Land allocation per farm type in Pallisa district (2 seasons). LF larger farms, MF medium farms, SF1 small farms with cattle, SF2 small farms without cattle
Fig. 7Average land area allocated to different crops and standard deviations in Chelekura and Akadot parishes
Average flows and balances of major nutrients (kg ha−1) on farms of different resource endowments in Pallisa District, Uganda
| Flows | Nitrogen | Phosphorus | Potassium | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LF | MF | SF1 | SF2 | LF | MF | SF1 | SF2 | LF | MF | SF1 | SF2 | |
| Inflows | ||||||||||||
| IN1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| IN2a | 0 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| IN2b | 36 | 14 | 13 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 0.1 | 51 | 19 | 18 | 4 |
| IN3 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| IN4 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| ∑IN | 43 | 21 | 21 | 13 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 54 | 22 | 21 | 10 |
| Outflows | ||||||||||||
| OUT1 | 0 | −1 | −1 | −3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | −1 | 0 | 0 | −1 | −3 |
| OUT2a | 0 | 0 | 0 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| OUT2b | −15 | −7 | −8 | −1 | −2 | −1 | −1 | −0.1 | −21 | −9 | −11 | −2 |
| OUT3 | −12 | −9 | −13 | −15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | −2 | −2 | −1 | −1 |
| OUT4 | −3 | −2 | −3 | −3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| OUT5 | −1 | 0 | −1 | −1 | 0 | 0 | −1 | −1 | −2 | −1 | −2 | −2 |
| OUT6 | −2 | −3 | −4 | −5 | −1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | −2 |
| ∑OUT | −33 | −22 | −30 | −29 | −3 | −2 | −3 | −3 | −26 | −13 | −16 | −10 |
| Balance | 10Ns | −1Ns | −9** | −16** | 2Ns | 0Ns | −1Ns | −1* | 28Ns | 9Ns | 5Ns | 0Ns |
IN1 Mineral fertilisers, IN2a Organic manures, IN2b Grazing, IN3 Atmospheric deposition, IN4 Biological nitrogen fixation, OUT1 Crop products, OUT2a Crop residues, OUT2b Manure, OUT3 Leaching, OUT4 Gaseous losses, OUT5 Erosion, OUT6 Human excreta
Balance = ∑IN − ∑OUT
* P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01, Ns not significant
Nutrient balances for selected crops and nutrient stocks per farm type in Pallisa District, Uganda (kg ha−1)a
| Crop | Nitrogen | Phosphorus | Potassium | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LF | MF | SF1 | SF2 | LF | MF | SF1 | SF2 | LF | MF | SF1 | SF2 | |
| Cassava | −8 | −6 | −6 | −13 | −1 | −2 | 0 | 0 | −3 | −1 | 3 | −1 |
| Finger millet | −11 | −11 | −5 | −17 | −4 | −3 | −1 | 0 | −5 | −2 | 3 | −5 |
| Cotton | −21 | −2 | −7 | −24 | −4 | −1 | −2 | −4 | −9 | 0 | 7 | −7 |
| Groundnut | −11 | −3 | −2 | −3 | −4 | −1 | −1 | −1 | −8 | −1 | −1 | −1 |
| Fallow | −2 | −2 | −3 | −3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Nutrient stocks | 3530 | 2380 | 4440 | 4350 | 3580 | 3270 | 3050 | 3470 | 11650 | 6640 | 7430 | 13560 |
aNutrient balances are weighted averages per farm type over two seasons
LF Larger farms, MF Medium farms, SF1 Small farms with cattle, SF2 Small farms without cattle
Average yield, productivity and nutrient balances for selected crops grown in Pallisa, eastern Uganda and Koutiala, southern Malia
| Crop | Pallisa | Koutialab | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yield (t ha−1) | Productivity (t ha−1 mm−1) | N (kg ha−1) | P (kg ha−1) | K (kg ha−1) | Yield (t ha−1) | Productivity (t ha−1 mm−1) | N (kg ha−1) | P (kg ha−1) | K (kg ha−1) | |
| Cassavac | 1.21 | 1.3 | −8 | −1 | −0.1 | – | – | – | – | – |
| Finger millet | 0.39 | 0.7 | −11 | −2 | −2 | – | – | – | – | – |
| Cotton | 0.41 | 1.0 | −13 | −3 | −1 | 0.96 | 1.1 | −14 | 12 | 23 |
| Groundnut | 0.32 | 0.6 | −4 | −2 | −4 | 0.56 | 0.8 | −7 | −3 | −11 |
| Sorghum | 0.30 | 0.5 | −5 | −2 | −2 | 0.99 | 1.2 | −16 | −2 | −25 |
| Maize | – | – | – | 1.72 | 2.0 | −26 | −1 | −19 | ||
| Pearl millet | – | – | – | – | 0.86 | 1.0 | −20 | −6 | −24 | |
| Fallow | – | – | 1 | 1 | 2 | – | – | −3 | 1 | 0.1 |
aPallisa receives bimodal rainfall: long rains (560 mm) and short rains (408 mm). Rainfall for Koutiala is unimodal (850 mm)
bData adapted from Lesschen et al. (2004)
cCassava yield is expressed as dry matter
Reasons for declines in food and cash crop production by village in Pallisa district, Uganda
| Reason for decline in | Percent respondents | Average |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chelekura A ( | Onamudian ( | Keria ( | |||
| Food crops | |||||
| Soil infertility | 84 | 73 | 83 | 80 | *** |
| Unreliable rainfall | 44 | 54 | 43 | 47 | *** |
| Pests and diseases | 8 | 39 | 13 | 20 | *** |
| Limited land | 16 | 12 | 23 | 17 | *** |
| Lack of improved seed | 20 | 19 | 0 | 12 | *** |
| Inadequate labour | 4 | 4 | 0 | 3 | Ns |
| Lack of knowledge and skills | 0 | 4 | 0 | 1 | Ns |
| Cash crops | ( | ( | ( | ( | |
| Soil exhaustion | 57 | 57 | 79 | 65 | Ns |
| Lack of agricultural inputs | 30 | 54 | 14 | 33 | *** |
| Pests and diseases | 26 | 36 | 17 | 26 | *** |
| Fluctuating market | 9 | 25 | 31 | 23 | *** |
| Labour intensive | 9 | 14 | 17 | 14 | *** |
| Lack of improved seed | 17 | 11 | 10 | 13 | *** |
| Limited land | 9 | 14 | 7 | 10 | *** |
| Limited knowledge and skills | 4 | 18 | 0 | 8 | *** |
*** Significant at P < 0.001, Ns Not significant
Standardised regression coefficients for determinants of farm-level nutrient and crop-level balances and nutrient balance to stock ratios (BSR)
| Parameter | B | TLU (No) | Crop yield (t ha−1) | LL ratio (ha ae−1) | Landscape position | Off-farm income | Adjusted | Durbin–Watson statistic |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (a) Farm scale | ||||||||
| N balance | −17.50 | 0.68*** | −0.06 | −0.09 | −0.05 | 0.14 | 0.45 | 1.92 |
| P balance | −1.30 | 0.27*** | −0.13 | 0.23a | −0.12 | 0.08 | 0.47 | 2.30 |
| K balance | −3.52 | 3.08*** | 0.24 | −0.09 | 0.24 | 0.07 | 0.58 | 2.01 |
| N BSR | −0.02 | 0.64*** | 0.67*** | 0.21 | 0.13 | 0.78*** | 0.64 | 2.01 |
| P BSR | 0.00008 | 0.62*** | −0.17 | 0.19 | 0.01 | 0.16 | 0.36 | 2.15 |
| K BSR | −0.002 | 0.44** | −0.79*** | 0.13 | 0.31 | 0.89*** | 0.62 | 2.09 |
B intercept
* P < 0.05; ** P < 0.01; *** P < 0.001
Landscape position: two positions are considered, upper and middle position
a.e. Adult equivalent
TLU Tropical Livestock Units, LL ratio Land to Labour ratio, CL Consumer to Labour ratio