In Malawi, intensive production of maize (Zea mays) is pursued on over 60% of smallholder land, yet application of nutrients is almost nil. To improve adoption of soil productivity-enhancing technologies, two participatory methods were pursued: (i) a novel ‘mother-and-baby’ trial design and (ii) participatory action research with communities in a southern Malawi watershed. The central ‘mother trial’ was managed by researchers (replicated within a site) and systematically linked to farmer-managed ‘baby’ trials to cross-check biological performance with farmer assessment. The watershed approach involved a partnership of researchers and farmers addressing soil management. Technologies tested in both approaches integrated legumes into existing maize-based systems, sometimes in combination with inorganic fertilizers. Across methods, legume intensification increased yields by approximately 40% (net benefit increase of approximately US$50 ha−1) and fertilizer increased yields by approximately 70% compared with continuous maize grain yields of about 1100 kg ha−1. Farmer assessment prioritized technologies that included secondary benefits, such as weed suppression, grain legume yields, and low-labour-demanding fertilizer. A survey indicated that participating researchers and extension staff had reservations about the amount of time required to interact with farmers, and no clear consensus emerged regarding the best approach. There has been wider adoption of the mother-and-baby trial method by scientists in neighbouring countries, indicating the value of systematically incorporating farmers' input.

SUMMARYUsing farmer resource typologies, adaptability analysis and an on-farm mother and baby trial approach, we evaluated the production risks of alternative maize-legume crop combinations for smallholder farmers in Chisepo, central Malawi between 1998 and 2002. Production benefits and risks of four soil fertility and food legumes, pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan), groundnut (Arachis hypogaea), tephrosia (Tephrosia vogelii) and mucuna (Mucuna pruriens), intercropped or rotated with maize, were compared by 32 farmers in 4 farmer resource groups (RGs) of different wealth status. The calculation of lower confidence limits was used to determine the production risk of the crops. Alternative crop technologies presented different risks to farmers of different wealth status, and the degree of risk affected their choice of soil fertility management strategy. The betterresourced farmers (RG 1) had larger yields with all crop combinations than the poorly resourced farmers (RG 4). Legumes integrated with maize significantly (p < 0.001) raised maize grain yields by between 0.5 t ha −1 and 3.4 t ha −1 , when compared with sole crop unfertilized maize. Fertilized maize was less of a risk for the better-resourced farmers (RG 1 and RG 2), and it yielded well when combined with the legumes. Maize-legume intercrops yielded more and were associated with less risk than the maize-legume rotations. Maize intercropped with pigeonpea was predicted overall to be the least risky technology for all RGs. We conclude that new crop technologies may pose more risk to poorly resourced farmers than to wealthier farmers.

This article presents results from a study exploring the reasons for low adoption of legume technologies to improve soil fertility by farmers from a community in central Malawi who took part in participatory trials. This study explores the influence of gender roles in agriculture and land ownership and socio-economic differentiation in the community. Because most women do not own land and are traditionally responsible for legume crops, they have little interest in managing soil fertility for maize crops. Men are not interested in using legumes in maize-cropping systems. Some are too poor: this group needs to complement their subsistence maize production with paid labour on the farms of better-off farmers; restricting the labour availability for their own farming activities. Wealthier farmers have access to, and prefer to use chemical fertilizer and cattle manure. Take-up rates among the middle group of farmers were also low. This study discusses how these (and other) factors influence the (non-)adoption of maize-legume technologies in Malawi and the effectiveness of participatory research. It emphasizes how differentiated farmer-realities affect the uptake of technologies identified as promising in participatory field evaluations.

SUMMARYMineral fertiliser is a scarce input for smallholder maize farmers in Malawi. A recent provision of small amounts of subsidised fertilisers by government programmes to farmers throughout Malawi has increased fertiliser access and raised maize production, but fertiliser management and yield responses frequently remain poor. To seek ways to use the fertiliser more efficiently, we analysed the effects of low rates of N (15 or 30 kg N ha−1) and P (9 kg P ha−1) fertiliser in combination with improved weed management on maize yields in experiments on 12 smallholder farms in Chisepo, central Malawi. Several indices of N and P use efficiency were computed from the above-ground crop components and nutrient contents. Maize yield simulations were conducted using long-term rainfall records in the APSIM crop-soil system model. NP fertiliser significantly (p < 0.001) raised maize grain yield from 0.65 to 1.5 t ha−1, and twice-weeding fertilised maize significantly (p < 0.001) raised maize yields by 0.4 t ha−1 compared with weeding once (0.9 t ha−1). The agronomic efficiency of applied fertiliser N (AEN) averaged 19.3 kg grain kg N−1 with one weeding but doubled to 38.7 kg with the additional weeding. The physiological efficiency of applied N (PEN) was 40.7 kg grain kg−1 N uptake. APSIM predicted that similar or larger maize yield responses to 15 or 30 kg N ha−1 can be expected in 8 out of 10 years in areas with similar rainfall patterns to Chisepo. A financial analysis showed that the application of these small amounts of fertiliser was economic even when fertiliser was purchased from the open market, provided the crop was adequately weeded. Participatory assessments helped farmers understand the increased efficiency of fertiliser use possible with additional weeding, although some farmers reported difficulty implementing this recommendation due to competing demands for labour. We conclude that to raise the productivity and sustainability of fertiliser support programmes in Malawi, initiatives should be introduced to help identify and educate farmers on the major drivers of productivity in their systems.