Memoire Online - Characterisation of farming systems in southern Rwanda

This dissertation could not have finished without the support we received from different persons and the National University of Rwanda; we would like to express our sincere thanks to all those people.

We highly appreciate the invaluable guidance offered to us by supervisor Ir Charles BUCAGU Msc, his constrictive instructions and suggestions provided a basis of the completion of this work.

Warm thanks go to the authorities of the faculty of agriculture and all lectures for their intelligent and useful advice they rendered to me.

Our thanks go to our colleagues who have always been there during our studies and in research processes.

We would like to thank our parents who have sacrificed their meager income to educate us.

ABSTRACT

Farmers' resource management strategies affect strongly on farm activities and are also basic determinant of farmers' soil fertility status; however those strategies are also in relation with farmers' wealth status. Causes of variability in soil fertility management at different scale of analysis are both biophysical and socio-economic. Such heterogeneity is categorized in this study which interest was to analyze the functioning of different farming systems by establishing their major characteristics and estimating the level of nutrient at farm and plots scales in Shanga cell located in plateau central agroecological zone. For the assessment of socio-economic factors, we used questionnaires during the survey and in order to determine the variation from one plot to another, a soil analysis was done. Three wealth groups were identified using socio-economic information and considering production activities, household objectives and the main constraints faced by farmers. Soil fertility management and nutrient resource flows were studied for each wealth category and related to differences in soil fertility status at farm scale. The first category is the well-off farmer who owned more than 2 cows, 1000 or more coffee trees plus 1ha or more of land and other resource allocation. Second category of intermediate farmer has less than 2 cows, coffee trees between 200 and 500 and less than one hectare of land. They have normally enough food for their family and sometimes surplus for markets. Poor farmer is the last category that has or not animal, 100 trees of coffee and own a small farm less than 0.5 ha. Soil analysis result confirms that there is strong soil fertility gradient across farms and between farms selected from different wealth farmer categories in the order: (well off farmer > intermediate> poor farmer) and within farm; closest field more fertile than mid field and the later field more fertile than the remote fields. The variability of nutrients in farm or in wealth categories is caused by differences in resource allocation strategies.

TABLE OF CONTENT

LIST OF TABLES

LISTE OF FIGURES

LIST OF APPENDICES

ACRONYMS AND ABREVIATIONS

PART I. GENERAL INTRODUCTION

I.1. PROBLEM STATEMENT

Agricultural sector is the backbone of national economy in most of Sub-Saharian African (SSA) countries. In countries such as Rwanda, agriculture sector contributes up to 46% of GNP (MINICOFIN, 2004). African farmers operate in different environments, some having enough resources, others operating in resource constrained environment. In many farming systems in the tropics, strong gradients of decreasing soil fertility are found with increasing distance from the homestead (Ruthernberg, 1980: Prudentcio, 1993). Farmer manage crop and livestock production using organic and mineral nutrient resources and the net flow of resources is not equal for the various fields belonging to a single farm household (Smaling, 1996). Causes of variability in soil fertility management at different scales of analysis (i.e. region, village, farm and field) are both biophysical and socio-economic.

Variability at regional scale is determined by climate and dominant soil types, presence of and access to factor and product markets and historical, socio-cultural and ethnic aspect defining land use. The variability of soil fertility between different farm types within a village is associated within the «soilscape», such as the location along catenary (Duckers, 2002) and with differences in soil fertility management between poor and wealthy households (Crowley and Carter, 2000). Resource availability and the pattern of resource allocation to different activities are determined by household «wealth», and depend on household priorities and production strategies.

Rwanda like other SSA countries presents quite similar features of farming system; it is one of the most populated developing countries with a density of 500 inhabitants per km² of the arable areas (MINICOFIN, 2004). The majority of the Rwandan households are small agricultural producers dealing with subsistence oriented agriculture. Poor productivity of Rwandan agriculture is due to exhaustion of the ground, the insufficiencies of agricultural use of inputs and of the weak development of the markets and of infrastructures (www.rwandagateway.com, 2007). And then, the level of organization farming systems is complex within each agro-ecological and the analysis requires accurate information that is not always available in the literature. A careful analysis of the functioning of farming systems and the way different components interact between them is a key step in the design of possible interventions for improving productivity at farm level. Beside biophysical factors, farmer management strategies determine the kind of farming system the farmer is interested in and the productivity he gets out of it. With the proposed study, we intend to conduct a diagnostic study of different farming systems existing in Shanga cell of Maraba sector as the first step towards a detailed study of different farm types identified in the area. The study will also try to characterize soil fertility level on representative farms which we believe is linked with the socio-economic status of farmers.

I.2. Global objective

The global objective consists of analyzing the functioning of different farming systems by establishing major characteristics and estimating nutrient levels at farm and plot scales.

I.3. Specific objectives

Ø To study the effects of natural and socio-economic factors driving the functioning of farming systems in Rwanda.

Ø To quantify the magnitude of farm soil fertility gradients as affected by biophysical and socio-economic factors

Ø To develop a framework for categorizing heterogeneity in soil fertility at different scales.

I.4. Hypothesis

Ø Diversity of farms and fields in smallholder farming systems exists due to variable biophysical and socio-economical conditions.

Ø Wealth status of the farmer determines soil fertility status of his farm and socio-economic conditions are factors affecting nutrients level in soil of different farm's plots.

I.5. Structure of the report

The first part is composed by a general introduction, followed by a comprehensive literature review on farming systems in the second part, then comes in the third part the description of the methodology used. The fourth part covers the analysis and presentation of results, which is followed by a discussion of the results in the fifth part. The project report is concluded with a brief conclusion and some recommendations.

PART II. OVERVIEW OF MAJOR FARMING SYSTEMS IN SUB-SAHARIAN AFRICA (SSA)

II.1. Definition

Farming system is a unique and reasonably stable arrangement of farming enterprises that the household manages according to well-defined practices in response to the physical, biological, and socioeconomic environments and in accordance with the household's goals, preferences, and resources (Shaner et al., 1981). It is also defined as a complex inter-related matrix of soils, plants, animals, implements, labor and capital, inter-dependent farming enterprises (Dixon et al., 2001). Clearly, farming system is a simple combination of all production activities on a farm, the number and types of activities may be diversified. The type of farming systems can vary from a simple system where only one or two activities are run to the more complex systems where several enterprises are undertaken together on the farm.

II.2. Types of farming systems found in Rwanda

Farming system is broadly divided into three subsystems: Cropping systems, livestock systems and mixed systems referring to the interaction between crops and livestock (Shaner et al., 1981).

II.2.1. cropping systems

Cropping systems simply means a combination of crops in the time and space. Appropriate cropping systems that will improve plant nutrition, increased water and nutrient use efficiency, and build-up of soil organic matter form the bedrock of sustainable agriculture (Antoni, 2000).

II.2.1.1. Intercropping

Intercropping is the growing of two or more crops on the same piece of land within the same years. Various forms of intercropping have been a central feature of many tropical agricultural systems for countries. Beets (1982) has proposed that intercropping can be divided into three general categories: full relay and sequential intercropping depending on the extent of physical association between the crops. Full intercropping involves complete association between crops planted at the same time, while relay cropping involves only partial association, in which a second crop is planted into an already standing crop before harvested. Sequential intercropping where there is no physical association is the extreme case where two crops are grown on the same land in the same year but not at the same time. The main advantages of intercropping reside in reduction of the risk of total crop failure and product diversification. Food crops are often mixed with cash crop ensuring both subsistence and income for farmers. Intercropping is most likely to be practiced on small farms, in area where land is scarce, forcing the simultaneous production of different crops on the same area of land. Relatively better-off farmer with large farms are less reliant on intercropping, being able to fallow and/or control production with other inputs such as water and inorganic fertilizers (Graves et al., 2004)

II.2.1.2. Rotation

Crop rotation is the practice of growing a series of dissimilar types of crops in the same space in sequential seasons to avoid the buildup of pathogens and pests that often occurs when one species is continuously cropped. Crop rotation also seeks to balance the fertility demands of various crops to avoid excessive depletion of soil nutrients. A traditional crop rotation system is the cropping system involving cereals rotating with legume crops such as bean ( www.wikipedia.org/wiki (April, 2007)).

According to Rayar (2000), the advantages of crop rotation are manifested in the Addition of organic matter through incorporation of crop residues and nitrogen through the inclusion of legume in the rotation but this helps also in effective control of insects and diseases while breaking their reproductive cycle. Rotation can also allow a better exploitation of moisture and nutrients at different soil depth by differences in the rooting pattern of crop, resulting in greater potential for obtaining nutrients. This system is also an important tool in weed and soil erosion control.

In subsistence farming, it also makes sense to grow beans and grains at the same time in different fields. In Rwanda, the commonly used rotation is: tubers-legume-cereal, illustrating how Rwandan people know the importance of legume in crop rotation. For example: Bean comes after sorghum or vice versa. Through symbiotic N fixation, beans grow well on soils weakened by sorghum export. Beans benefit of the N from mineralization of the stable humus formed out of the incorporation of sorghum residues (Hitimana, 1989).

II.2.1.3. Monoculture

Monoculture describes the practice of planting crops with the same patterns of growth resulting from genetic similarity. Examples include Wheat fields or Cassava or Potatoes. These cultivars have uniform growing requirements and habit resulting in greater yields on less land because planting, maintenance (including pest control) and harvesting can be standardized. This standardization results in less waste and loss from inefficient harvesting and planting. It is also beneficial because a crop can be tailor planted for a location that has special problems - like soil salt or drought or a short growing season. Monoculture can lead to large scale crop failure as this single genetic variant or cultivar becomes susceptible to a disease. The Irish potato famine in the UK in 1846 was caused by susceptibility to Phytophthora infestans. Each crop then had to be replaced by a new cultivar imported from another country that had used a different genetic variant that was not susceptible to the pathogen (Richard, 1979)

II.2.1.4. Fallows

Traditionally, fallowing was a common practice in most SSA rural areas. Fields were cropped and then left to rest for one or two seasons before returning to the same plot. In most cases natural fallow of natural grasses are allowed to invade the growing fields and then burned and residues incorporated in soil before sowing again. Benefits of short-duration fallows to crop yields are sometimes related to the amount of biomass accumulated during fallow. The practice has disappeared with time due to more demand of land for producing more food. In order to cut down longer period of fallow on field, short term fallow using shrubs and legume known to fix nitrogen in soil have been sought after. The system is very common in agroforestry system and is known as improved fallow practice. Thus, an accelerated fallow is where specific fast growing leguminous trees, shrubs, legumes, and other plants are used to improve soil fertility faster than would occur otherwise, while an enriched fallow is where trees or shrubs of economic value are planted into the fallow so that farmer can drive some income from them while the land is regenerating (Garrity,1999). Improved fallows of perennials and herbaceous cover crops can suppress weeds, particularly over a number of years and might be an important component of integrated weed management strategies. Tree fallows, have distinct advantages over herbaceous fallows, particularly in seasonally dry climates; because they may take up nutrients from deep soil layers, and accumulate a large quantity of biomass through which nutrients can be recycled, and nitrogen fixing trees may add nitrogen to the system through Biological Nitrogen Fixation (BNF) (Louise et al., 1998).

However, despite proved advantages of improved fallow practice across most areas in SSA, the practice has not been widely adopted due to land scarcity that does not allow the farmer to leave his land without producing even for a short term. Smallholder farmer always seeks maximizing production through strategic use of limited resources on farm. At higher population densities, however, scarcity of land means that there is a higher opportunity cost in putting land in fallow, and intensive continuous cultivation systems may dominate (Drechsel et al., 1996).

Enriched fallows address this problem to some extent, in that species that are able to provide some economic benefits, such as fruit or nuts are planted in preference to species that only improve soil fertility (Cairns and Garrity, 1999; Sanches, 1999). Other practical benefits to farmer may include production of fodder, honey, firewood, or bean poles or light timber for construction. Improved fallow practice seems to be irrelevant for Rwandan farmers due to shortage of land and need for continuous food production for household consumption (Nshimyumukiza and Benda, 2005).

II.2.1.5. Agroforestry (Tree Integration)

Trees are important component of Rwanda agricultural system. In most farming systems in SSA, trees are associated with other crops. The system operates as a dynamic, ecologically based that, through the integration of trees in farms and in agricultural landscape, diversifies and sustains productions for increased social, economic and environmental benefits for land users at all levels (Louise et al., 1998). Agroforestry enhances ecological stability; allows better management of below ground resources. Crops grown beside trees on the same field benefit from nutrients uptaken by trees from the sub-soil. In most cases leguminous perennials trees are used in the systems and these are known to fix atmospheric nitrogen that can be used by annuals. In some case, however, perennials may produce allelopathic compounds that can suppress weeds. This is an additional advantage of the system (National research council, 1993).

II.2.2. Livestock systems.

Traditional and modern livestock systems are found in Rwanda. We may distinguish different types according to techniques and socio-economic. These types are: traditional, improved and modern type.

II.2.2.1. Traditional system

Traditional livestock system is a system in which a farmer does agriculture and keeps the cattle in the same time. Animal can be used to produce milk and meat and also manure. Local cattle Ankole is the dominant animal in these systems and are very well adapted to local conditions. The milk production remains, however poor due to poor quality feed. Traditional livestock were relying on natural pasture and in some cases cattle could make long distance for grazing. The manure produced by cattle is the main source of fertilizer. That system is the most predominant system and farmer does not use concentrate feeds, resulting in poor performance of the cattle in terms of milk and manure production (Mubashankwaya, 2005).

II.2.2.2. Improved system

In this system, the farmer has few dairy animals which produce many quantity of milk. It is generally a system of urban and peri-urban. The farmer cuts the grass around and transports them to the cattle and used a few quantities of feed supplements. The production of milk is proportional to the genetic potential of the cattle and environment conditions. It is generally assisted or supported by a development project that supplies medical care and provide concentrated feeds (ISAR, 1990). In most cases, animals are artificially inseminated with the objective of improving the performance of the following offspring (MINAGRI, 1997).

II.2.2.3 Modern system

Modern breeding is that uses improved animals which apply appropriate techniques of feeding with strict sanitation safe. Performance parameters of production are considered as important. Modern farmers are so few in Rwanda because of high cost investments of materials, infrastructures, and labor. To ensure sufficient production and cover the need of production, it is necessary to develop that type of breeding when increasing productivity of cattle is the objective (ISAR, 1990).

In Rwanda we have also small ruminants. Sheep and goats are essential components of pastoralists' herds, poultry, pigs and rabbits. Their main functions are: providing meat, manure, and in addition eggs in the case of poultry and skins in the case of rabbits (Gichuru et al., 2004).

II.2.3. Mixed systems

Smallholder mixed farming systems in SSA (Sub-Sahara Africa) are highly complex due to intricate interactions between the soil, crops and livestock. Productivity of crops and livestock is among many factors limited by poor availability of nutrient resources. Crop-livestock interactions are mediated by the use of crop residues to feed livestock, and the reciprocal use of manure to fertilize crops. Manure is integral source of nutrients for crops in many smallholder farming systems where small amounts of external fertilizer inputs are used, farmers concentrate fertilizer and labour resources on plots closed to the homesteads. This differential management of plots creates gradients of decreasing soil fertility with distance away from homesteads (Zingore et al., 2006). Competition of agriculture and livestock activities for land is very common in SSA including Rwanda. In the 1940's human and animal populations increased dramatically, and land previously reserved for grazing was converted into cropping lands. This led to continuous cultivation and increased vulnerability to soil erosion; reduced pastures resulted in fewer animals and less manure; and farmers were forced to try buying manure. Livestock provided an important and stabilizing component of the farming system by maintaining soil nutrients. Due to competition for land, the number of animals per household was progressively diminishing and this led to a degradation of soil fertility since there were no alternative sources of manure for smallholder farmers across rural areas in the country. www.fao.org/AG/aga/lspa/LXETML/tech/ch3b.htm (April, 2007)

II.3 ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL ASPECTS

In tropics, almost all farms are small and subsistence is usually more important to the farmer than cash cropping. The farm operation is based primary on manual and animal labor. A considerable proportion of the farm output is consumed by the family and the rest of the produce is sold or bartered at nearby markets. This means that a tropical farmer not only measures the «output» of his farm in monetary terms but also in such terms «food value» and return per unit of labor (Beets, 1982)

According to Beets, (1982) to increase the productivity of the traditional tropical farming systems, two main changes can be made:

The availability of external inputs varies greatly from location to location and directly influences the character of the local farming system. Following aspects must be meticulously taken into account:

The inputs used in farming system can be divided into the following four groups: natural resources (climate, soil, etc), human resources (labor, entrepreneurship, etc), external inputs (fertilizers, insecticides, etc), and financial resources (credit).

If human and financial resources are abundant and the level of technology is high, these factors can sometimes compensate in reducing environmental degradation resulting in yield increase. For example, the environment can be improved by the introduction of irrigation systems, drainage works and land leveling.

Farm management is the coordination and supervision of a farm business for long-run maximum profit and/or other specified goals. It has four elements: organizing, planning measuring and controlling, and activating (Robert et al, 1991). The level of education and farmers' understanding of the environment greatly influence the character of the local cropping system. Traditional and certain beliefs play an important role in farming practice in the tropics. A good example is the ownership of the cattle in Africa regarded as a sign of wealth. Management capability is an often overlooked resource that is closely related to labor availability. According to Harwood (1979), the management of farm production includes all production connected activities that cannot ordinarily be performed by common farm labor. Management involves making decisions, performing certain technical operations requiring exceptional skills, and supervising other farm operations when necessary. Land use planning, planting, quality control and marketing require close, active management. In smallholder farming systems, where wage rates for outside labor is low, the intensive use of resources like land and water depends on the farm family's commensurate ability to furnish management services. In Shanga cell, we can take as example, the lack of knowledge in using fertilizers results in low yield. Another example is some popular myths in Rwanda where farmers believe that use of fertilizers damages soil fertility. The reason for this belief is that, farmers may apply fertilizer one season, resulting in more production and cultivate the following season without fertilizer application, resulting in dramatic reduction of yield. This observation gives them an impression that fertilizers have instead degraded their fields.

The effect of population pressure results in reduction of farm size and a greater demand for food. Farmers, in turn, must increase crop production in order to meet the increasing demand, meaning that maximum use is made of the resources available at the farm level.

Small farms are very common in the SSA; a study assessed in Rwanda revealed that 0.75 ha is the minimum size of a farm. In order to increase the level of mechanization, it is often desirable to increase the field and farm size. In many cases, the redistribution of land and increasing farm size are not possible for social and political reasons. It seems, therefore, unavoidable that advances in crop production in the tropics will have to be made on relatively small farms. This will only be possible if the small areas of land are intensively utilized by multiple cropping ( www.minagri.gov.rw July 2007)

The availability of market has a direct influence on farm. To be useful to the farmer, the cash market must be accessible, must give the farmer sufficient warning of changes in demand and prices to enable him to plan his yearly cropping pattern (Harwood, 1979). An example of the role of market demand as an incentive to agricultural production development is illustrated by promotion of rice cultivation by farmers of Bugarama valley following the installation of rice processing industry. The emergence of markets for agricultural products is accompanied by the replacement of basic food commodities by cultures market-oriented. The economic factors or forces have pronounced influence on the type of farming. Examples of these include the price of land, distance to the market, transportation facilities, change in price of farm products enterprises, labor requirement, and available supply and cost labor. These economic forces influence the farmers' decision on whether they will produce a certain product (Robert et al 1991).

II.4 AGRICULTURE EXPLOITATION IN RWANDA

The omnipresence of the hill considered as basic unit, the atomization of the habitat and the dispersion of the pieces constitute some of the fundamental features of the rural landscape. The dispersion of the pieces constitutes a judicious response with the variety of the agro-ecological conditions.

II.4.1 Structure of the agricultural exploitation

In order to remain coherent with the agricultural tools of the national structure, we adopted the definition of the agricultural exploitation proposed by the MINAGRI:

«The farm on which the household lives is a techno-economic unit of agricultural production, including all the animals which are there and all the ground used entirely or partly for the agricultural production and which is subjected to a single direction of the head of household. Basically, a traditional farm of Rwanda is composed of:

The house compound (urugo) limited by fences, where main house and sometimes a small garden are located. It is also used as Cattle Park. Around the enclosure, one finds the banana plantation, beans, various vegetables and sometimes tobacco. These grounds are periodically fertilized using the residues of kitchen or harvest and the animal manure, even human. On the slope/hillside, the permanent crops alternate with the fallow: sometimes, a piece is devoted to a small plantation of coffee-trees. Some exploitations have grounds grazed permanently. In low land/ foot of the hill, a piece of that land is cultivated in bulks where peasants produce sorghum if the ground water is low, sweet potatoes and vegetables if it is high like in Mayaga (Jacques Tassin, 1989).

II.4.2 Typology and characteristics of agricultural farms in Rwanda

Typology of agricultural farms reflects how the farm is organised and how it operates. The procedure in establishing farm typology consists of identifying similar features for a group of farms and categorise the group as one typology. According to a study carried out by MINAGRI on production systems in 1991, three types of farmers with specific characteristics and strategies were identified.

TYPE A: «the small dependent farmer» with a small pieces of land- his homestead, which cannot produce enough food for the family's subsistence - he has to engage in other activities (trader, hauling, crafts etc...) or sell his labour to someone else to complement his farm output.

TYPE B: «The self-sufficient farmer» This type has just adequate farmland and labour to satisfy his family's food needs. Other activities outside farming (trade, handicrafts) are an addition to his farm output and important to the family as extra income.

TYPE C: «production system using capital» is more heterogeneous. A first sub-group is close to type B but has more production factors whereas the third sub-group is composed of absentee farmers (businessmen, civil servants) who pursue land acquisition and accumulation strategies.

However, the proportion and types of farms may differ from one area to another depending to different reasons. For instance, major crops and their spatial arrangement may differ from one location to another.

II.5. NUTRIENT BALANCE PERCEPTION AND IMPORTANCE.

II.5.1. Nutrient element balance as perceived generally.

The soils upon which plants depend for their food materials developed from minerals. Plants with different nutrient requirements developed on soil having different powers to supply nutrients. In SSA, many soils, in their virgin state, do not furnish a balanced nutrient supply for agricultural crops. Man, however, has not restricted his cultivation to the soils best suited to the crops he wants to grow. Furthermore, he has continued to crop the soil for years and has failed to return to the soil all of the nutrients removed in the crops produced. The organic matter of the soil, one function of which is to act as reservoir of slowly available nutrients, has also been allowed to be depleted.

II.5.2. Plant nutrient balance in Sub Sahara Africa

Agricultural production in SSA is constrained by low soil fertility, climatic conditions, lack

of infrastructure, and low availability and use of agricultural inputs (particularly mineral fertilizers). In sub-humid and humid regions, savanna and forest areas have a high variability of nutrients losses/outputs and nutrients inputs.

For smallholder farmers cultivating small acreage in SSA, utilization of straight fertilizers may be more economical but will also depend on farmers' knowledge of nutrients required. Other practices such as crop rotations including legume crops, recycling of residues and INM (Intensification Nutrient Management) are needed to improve plant nutrition. (Vanlauwe and Giller, 2006). Even in resource-limited smallholder agriculture not all fields are continuously mined; some fields have very positive nutrient balances, usually through concentration of nutrients from other parts of the farm (Scones, 2001; Tittonell et al., 2005). This arises from the diversity of plot management, as most organic resources and mineral fertilizers are used on the home gardens and infields, and rarely on the outfields further away from the homestead. The development of gradient of declining soil fertility with distance from the homestead may not be a deliberate form of management, but probably an inevitable consequence of the limited availability of cattle manure and other nutrient resources. Preferential application of nutrients to the infields and homestead gardens ensures good crop yields in these limited areas, and save labour in terms of the distance the nutrients are transported (Vanlauwe and Giller, 2006)

II.5.3. Availability of major elements in soil and their importance

Small farmers use animal manure as a source of crop nutrients which are good amendment and they contain N, P, K, Ca, Mg and micronutrients. Nitrogen is the key nutrient for crops production. This element is the most mobile and also most easily exhausted nutrient in the soil (Ghicuru et al., 2004).

1. it increases leaf size and therefore the potential for greater photosynthesis, which will increase root growth, total dry matter and yield of useful product;

2. it increases the protein content of storage organs, that is grain, tubers, and roots:

3. it increases the proportion of water in the plant fresh weight because of increased plant protoplasm:

4. it increases the site of plant cells and reduces the thickness of their wall (Nyombaire,2001).

Phosphorus is the major element limiting crop production in the tropics (Ghicuru et al., 2004). It plays a role in photosynthesis, respiration, energy storage and several other processes in the living plant. It promotes early root development and growth, it improves the quality of many fruit, vegetable and grain crops. Phosphorus is also vital in seed formation and its concentration is higher in the seed than any other part of the mature plant (Nyombaire, 2001). Potassium is essential for plant growth unlike nitrogen and phosphorus, potassium does not form organic compounds in the plant. It is also essential in protein synthesis and helps the plant use water more efficiently by promoting turgidity to maintain internal pressure in the plant (Nyombaire, 2001).

PART III. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND METHODOLOGY

III.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

III.1.1 Site location

The study was conducted in CENTRAL PLATEAU agroecological zone. The altitude characterizing this zone is ranged between 1500 and 2100m, annual rainfall between 1000 and 1600mm that increases as the altitude increase. The optimum temperature is about 19^oC with minimum of 10^oC and maximum of 30^oC.

This area is characterized by two major seasons: short rainy season (September to December) and long rainy season (February to May). Mixed cropping and rotation practices are well known practices in the area. The important crops are cassava, sweet potato, banana, bean, sorghum. Coffee is the main cash crop. Animals available are cattle, goats, pocks and chickens. Those animals are source of manure but suffer lack of pasture. Predominant trees are Eucalyptus, Grevillea, Mearnsii, Avocado, pinus, Euphorbia, Callitris, Ficus, and Markhamia (Djimde, 1988; Niang & Styger, 1990).

III.1.2 Climatic data

Climate data for former Butare province and Simbi District are lacking and not available at the Meteorological service. In order to have a picture of climatic variation at the study area, we used averages of climate data compiled over two decade (1969 to 1993). Averages calculated over more than 20 years are acceptable and representative values for major weather parameters such as temperature and precipitation. The following is the table showing average climatic variables of the region at Ngoma station (Altitude of 1760m, Latitude of 02⁰ 36', Longitude of 029⁰ 44').

The temperature varies from 19^oC to 20^oC that is in the range of temperature recorded within Central Plateau agro-ecological zone while precipitations levels varies with the major four seasons mentioned above, maximum values recorded around April and minimum values recorded around July in the middle of dry season. Soil types are sandy (known as Urusenyi in local language) in valley and red lateritic (known as Inombe as local language) in upland (ISAR, 1991)

III.2 METHODOLOGY

III.2.1.STUDY FRAMEWORK

III.2.2. Site selection and characteristics

Shanga location known as a coffee production site with sandy soil was selected as a representative site for our study. It is located at 1780 m of altitude, with latitude of 02⁰ 32'502'' South and 029^o 37' 955'' East. In Shanga, the major food crops grown by the smallholders are beans (Phaseolus Vulgaris), sweet potatoes (Ipomea batata.), sorghum (sorghum ssp) and cassava (Manihot escuenta). In marshland, sweet potatoes and tomatoes are grown especially in dry season while beans, cassava, sweet potatoes and sorghum are planted on the hills. The most earning crops are tomatoes, and cassava sold generally to local market. Main cash crop is coffee. The dominant soil type is clay downhill and sandy soil uphill. Most domestic animal reared in Shanga are generally local cows, goats, pigs, and chickens. Cropping system found is mixed cropping where crops , livestock and trees interact on the farm. Trees found are grevillea providing timber, mulching and bean stakes, avocado papaya, orange and citrus providing fruits. Number of trees on farm depends on the type of farm. Pennisetum grass is also found in most of fields. Majority of farmers use organic matter from animal mixed with crop residues and few use inorganic fertilizers.

III.2.3. Wealth categorization and farmer selection

The process of categorizing farmers was done in different steps. Firstly, a community meeting with local farmers was held to get an overview of all socio-economic situation of the area. Then farmers were asked to self-categorize into wealth groups according to their socio-economic status. Wealth classes were established based on farmer criteria (number of animal and type of animal ownership, type of house, type of farm size...). Farmers' criteria of wealth are mainly the number of cattle. Hence three wealth groups were found: Well-off, Middle, and Poor as synthesize in the following table

Table 2. Criteria used by farmers to categorize themselves in wealth categories

The total number of farmers interviewed was 84.All farmers present in the meeting were self-categorized into three different wealth groups. Rich farmers represented about 13.8% of the community, 33.8% representing moderate farmers and 52.3% representing poor farmers. The total number of households in Shanga cell was 1179. We proceed with determination of representative sample using appropriate mathematical formula.

Based on these proportions, a sample of 65 farmers was selected among the community on which a survey was conducted. Therefore, we randomly selected 9 well off farmers, 22 middle farmers and 34 in the third group.

III.2.4. data collection

In order to have fair or accurate information and to be able to verify our hypotheses the following methods and techniques were used.

III.2.5. Methods and techniques

Descriptive method: This method helped us to characterize the production systems. For this we made recourse to the documentary technique. We consulted the documents available related with our study and compile an extensive literature review. The technique of direct observation was also used when farmers could not answer correctly certain questions like those concerning the acreage (cultivated area), farm size, the application of some cultural practices, etc. We went on ground to observe in order to collect reliable information about our study.

Survey method: A structured questionnaire was used to collect the essential information from farmers on their farms.

Technique of soils sampling: Topsoil (20cm) samples were taken directly with an auger at five points per plots according field variability from all the production units (closest, middle, remote field) identified in the farms visited after farmer interview, A composite sample of approximately 0.75kg from each field was taken to the laboratory for soils analyses. Soils samples were air dried, sieved through 2mm and 0.5mm and then stored at room temperature.

The soils analyses method: The major chemical elements, namely N P K as well as organic carbon and pH were analyzed:

v Organic carbon was determined using the method of Schlichting, Blume (1966), consisting of humid oxidation of organic matter. The combustion is done by K₂Cr₂O₇ in the presence of H₂SO₄ concentrated and the carbon rate is measured by reading on spectrophotometer of 60 nm length (Baize, 2000).

v Total nitrogen was determined by the method of Kjedhal which encompasses mineralization of organic nitrogen by H₂SO₄ concentrated, distillation and titration of ammoniac by H₂SO₄ N/70 (Baize, 2000).

v Exchangeable Potassium was extracted by NH₄AC at soil pH of 7. Its content in solution was determined on spectrophotometer of atomic absorption (Juo, 1978).

v Available phosphorous was determined by Bray 1 method consisting of extraction of phosphates by ammonium ions (Baize, 2000)

Results analysis and interpretation: results were analyzed using excel to check eventual errors and SPSS for further analysis that allowed us to get coherent answers. Tables and pie charts were used to represent average values of different wealth groups; Data at plot level were also presented to indicate variability of soil fertility within farm. The statistical means between field types for nutrient status in the soils was assessed using Excel to compare soil fertility of different farms and different fields within farm.

PART IV: ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION OF RESULTS

This chapter concerns the presentation of results on survey conducted in Huye district, Sector Maraba, Cell Shanga and on soil analysis. The results are shown in the tables and figures:

IV.1 SURVEY RESULTS

IV.1.1.BACK GROUND INFORMATION

IV.1.1.1.Farmer wealth categories

The 65 surveyed farmers in Shanga cell are categorized in their different wealth groups as presented in the pie chart below. Well off farmers represent 13.8%, middle farmers 33.8% and poor farmers 52.3%.

The high number of poor farmers compared to other groups is due to many constraints that they face, such as limited resource availability, ignorance, etc.

IV.1.1.2.Farm types according to household head sex

Based on the results, the table below shows that male headed household represents 69.2 % of all surveyed households. In all wealth groups, male headed families are majority (88, 9 % in well off farmers, 68, 2 % in middle farmers, 69, 7% in poor farmers category).

The reason for low number of female headed families is that a well-off female household, once she lost her husband or divorce can easily find another husband and the later becomes automatically responsible of the family.

IV.1.1.3.Education and skills level

The table 4 shows globally that the majority of surveyed farmers (61.6%) have no primary education level, 29.2% have no formal education, 26.2% have not completed primary school while 6.2 % have acquired other skills though they have not completed primary school. Only 38.4% appear to have completed primary in general, and if we try to look in the respective wealth groups, we have 55.5 % of the well-off farmer, 40.9 % of the intermediate group, and 32.3 % of the poor farmers have completed their primary school.

Education literacy Wealth category		No formal education	Has not completed primary school	Has completed primary school	Has completed primary school and acquired other skills	has not completed primary school but acquired other skills	Total
	Well-off farmer	1	2	3	2	1	9
		11,1%	22,2%	33,3%	22,2%	11,1%	100,0%
	Intermediate farmer	5	7	6	3	1	22
		22,7%	31,8%	27,3%	13,6%	4,5%	100,0%
	Poor farmer	13	8	10	1	2	34
		38,2%	23,5%	29,4%	2,9%	5,9%	100,0%
Total		19	17	19	6	4	65
		29,2%	26,2%	29,2%	9,2%	6,2%	100,0%

From these results, one can conclude that there is a positive correlation between education level and resource endowment, which means that a farmers level of education and training influence greatly his resource allocation.

IV.1.1.4.Household size

The table below shows that most families (44.65%) are composed of 5 to 7 people, 33.8% having on average 2 to 4 people per family and only 21.5% of families having more than 7 family members.

Household size Wealth category		2 to 4 people	5 to 7 people	> 7 people	Total
	Well-off farmer	0	5	4	9
		,0%	55,6%	44,4%	100,0%
	Intermediate farmer	6	10	6	22
		27,3%	45,5%	27,3%	100,0%
	Poor farmer	16	14	4	34
		47,1%	41,2%	11,8%	100,0%
Total		22	29	14	65
		33,8%	44,6%	21,5%	100,0%

Large family size in well-off households can be explained by cultural factors that characterize Rwandan society where families with resources have social responsibility to take care of other family members in need. There seems to be a direct correlation between resource availability and family size.

IV.1.1.5.Type of group affiliation

As shown in table 6, majority of farmers (73.9%) are members of organizations or groups while only 26.2 % of farmers are not affiliated to any group and are composed mostly by poor farmers. Interestingly, 100% of well-off farmers are at least member of a given organization/group.

Group affiliation Wealth category						Total
Group affiliation Wealth category		Affiliated to religious group	Affiliated to farmers'organisation or others	Affiliated to both groups	Not affiliated	Total
	Well-off farmer	0	5	4	0	9
		,0%	55,6%	44,4%	,0%	100,0%
	Intermediate farmer	2	15	3	2	22
		9,1%	68,2%	13,6%	9,1%	100,0%
	Poor farmer	2	11	6	15	34
		5,9%	32,4%	17,6%	44,1%	100,0%
Total		4	31	13	17	65
		6,2%	47,7%	20,0%	26,2%	100,0%

Most of farmer organizations are forums where farmers can access useful information and share experience. This means that well-off farmers are very well positioned to benefit training and other facilities offered by associations.

IV.1.2.SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECT

IV.1.2.1.Land tenure status

The results presented in table 7 reveal that moat farmers (86.2%) have acquired land through in heritage while 3.1% have bought their land. 10.8% of surveyed farmers bought part of their land and inherited the other part of the land. The results also show that only 11% of well off farmers and 13.6% of intermediate farmers declared to have bought some land. These are farmers with relatively resources who can buy land and invest in coffee production, lucrative activity in the area.

Land tenure Wealth category		Inherited			Total
Land tenure Wealth category		Inherited	Bought	Part inherited, rest bought	Total
	Well-off farmer	8	0	1	9
		88,9%	,0%	11,1%	100,0%
	Intermediate farmer	17	2	3	22
		77,3%	9,1%	13,6%	100,0%
	Poor farmer	31	0	3	34
		91,2%	,0%	8,8%	100,0%
Total		56	2	7	65
		86,2%	3,1%	10,8%	100,0%

It is however important to notice that some information provided should be taken with caution since farmers may refrain to reveal all the land resource he owns. In this coffee growing area, wealthy farmers tend to buy more land for extending coffee production. So we should expect this category to have bought more land compared to poor farmers.

IV.1.2.2.Total farm size

According to the table 8, results revealed that the majority of farmers interviewed (56.9%) have land of size ranging from 0.10 to 0.30 ha. Most of wealthy farmers (77%) own land of size varying from 0.30 to 3 ha whereas land surface of most of poor farmers (70%) ranged between 0.10 to 0.3 ha.

Total area Wealth category		0.03 to 0.10	0.101 to 0.30	0.301 to 0.60	0.601 to 1 ha	1.001 to 3 ha	Total
	Well-off farmer	0	2	3	1	3	9
		,0%	22,2%	33,3%	11,1%	33,3%	100,0%
	Intermediate farmer	4	11	5	1	1	22
		18,2%	50,0%	22,7%	4,5%	4,5%	100,0%
	Poor farmer	8	24	2	0	0	34
		23,5%	70,6%	5,9%	,0%	,0%	100,0%
Total		12	37	10	2	4	65
		18,5%	56,9%	15,4%	3,1%	6,2%	100,0%

The table shows again that farm size is an indicator of wealth in the area. However, the rule does not exclude cases of poor farmers who have inherited large land from grand fathers and that may wrongly be classified as wealth farmers.

IV.1.2.3.Area fallowed

Fields under fallow are almost inexistent in Shanga cell, because 92.3% of all farmers have no area under fallow (Table 9). From our findings, no single farmer was able to fallow more than 0.10 ha of land, showing that land is being fully cultivated over time. The tendency is that as the resources become scarce, the fallowed area becomes smaller, where 22.2% of the well-off, 9.1% of middle farmers and 2.9% of poor farmers confirmed to have area under fallow.

IV.1.2.4.Area under pasture

As it is exhibited in the table below, 87.7% of farmers studied appear to not have area under pasture. The situation is particularly seen in all wealth groups where 91.2% of the poor farmers, 86.4% of intermediate and 77.8% of the well-off farmers declared having no pasture land.

Well-off farmers have big grazing area because they own cattle. Grazing area that exists on poor farms is for small ruminants (goats, sheep etc...). Also the small browsing area owned by poor farmers can serve to feed a cow donated or borrowed from a neighbor. This is something common in rural area of Rwanda.

IV.1.2.5.Trees on farm

The results of the table 11 reveal that the majority of surveyed farmers (90.8%) have trees on farm and particularly fruit trees on farm and 32,3% of surveyed farmers own trees on fences. Interest is to notice that 100% of the well-off farmers have trees on their farms, meaning that they may better understand the importance of trees on farm or may need them for several purposes.

Trees on farm Wealth category		Calliandra and/or grevillea, and grasses on contour	Fruit trees on farm	AF and fruit trees on farm	Fruit trees on farm and Trees on fences	No tree on farm	Total
	Well-off farmer	2	2	3	2	0	9
		22,2%	22,2%	33,3%	22,2%	,0%	100,0%
	Intermediate farmer	7	6	4	4	1	22
		31,8%	27,3%	18,2%	18,2%	4,5%	100,0%
	Poor farmer	2	7	5	15	5	34
		5,9%	20,6%	14,7%	44,1%	14,7%	100,0%
Total		11	15	12	21	6	65
		16,9%	23,1%	18,5%	32,3%	9,2%	100,0%

In this coffee growing area, mulching is very important practice requiring a lot of organic material across the year and most farmers use biomass of Eucalyptus and grevillea; this may partly explain greater percentage of farmers having these species on their farms.

IV.1.2.6.Labour force availability

As shown in the table 12, 63.1% of surveyed households have labour force composed of 1 to 3 people. The figure is not similar within wealth groups since well-off farmers (88.9%) seem to have more family force labour than other farmer groups.

Labour force Wealth category		1 to 3 people	4 to 7 people	> 7 people	Total
	Well-off farmer	1	6	2	9
		11,1%	66,7%	22,2%	100,0%
	Intermediate farmer	13	8	1	22
		59,1%	36,4%	4,5%	100,0%
	Poor farmer	27	5	2	34
		79,4%	14,7%	5,9%	100,0%

Total		41	19	5	65
		63,1%	29,2%	7,7%	100,0%

Large size of family members present in well off families may explain the reason for more labour available in these families.

IV.1.2.7.Workers availability

The results in table 13 indicate that 93.8 % do not hire any permanent workers and 6.2 % of interviewed people hire 1 to 2 permanent workers. However percentage of farmers hiring casual workers within wealth groups varies from one group to another. While 22.2% of well-off farmers can afford employing 1 to 2 permanent workers, only 9.1% of

intermediate farmers can do it and no single poor family can recruit any permanent worker due to low income. In addition 70.8% of all surveyed farmers do not hire temporally workers but 100% of well off farmer hire between 1 to 2 workers or more.

Comparing the results of the table 13, it is clear that well off farmers prefer recruiting more temporarily workers than permanent workers due to the fact that the former are cheaper and are hired for only specific tasks (sowing, first and, second tillage) that require extra physical energy.

Table 13: Permanent and temporarily Labour hired in relation to farmer wealth status

Hired permanent and temporary workers Wealth categories		No labour hired	1 to 2 workers or more	Total

	Well-off farmer	7	2	9
		77,8%	22,2%	100%
	Intermediate farmer	20	2	22
		90,9%	9,10%	100%
	Poor farmer	34	0	34
		100%	0,0%	100%
Total		61	4	65
		93,8%	6,2%	100,0%
temporary workers
	Well-off farmer	0	9	9
		0,0%	100,0%	100,0%
	Intermediate farmer	15	7	22
		68,20%	31,8%	100,0%
	Poor farmer	31	3	34
		91,20%	8,80%	100,0%
Total		46	19	65
		70,8%	29,20%	100,0%

IV.1.2.8.Labour sale

Labour sale Wealth category					Total
Labour sale Wealth category		Yes	No	Occasionally	Total
	Well-off farmer	0	9	0	9
		,0%	100,0%	,0%	100,0%
	Intermediate farmer	4	16	2	22
		18,2%	72,7%	9,1%	100,0%
	Poor farmer	13	18	3	34
		38,2%	52,9%	8,8%	100,0%
Total		17	43	5	65
		26,2%	66,2%	7,7%	100,0%

The results shown in the table below indicate that few farmers (26%) sell labour and most of them preferring working permanently on their farms. As selling labour is one of the income generating activity, a good number of poor farmers (46 %) do sell labour. We expected this number to be larger, but it is not the case probably due to the fact that the group is mostly composed of old widowers and other vulnerable persons.

IV.1.2.9.Important food crops

The general observation of data presented below indicates that 80% of the surveyed population ranked beans and sweet potatoes as their most important food crop, these are traditional food crops that contribute to food security of rural families in Rwanda, followed by bean alone (9.2%) at the second position. Sweet potatoes, rice, and Irish potato are not favored as food crop by the wealthy group; however, they can be cultivated for market destination.

In general, the majority of the surveyed farmers in Shanga cell (46.2%) declared coffee as their most important income-earning crop followed by vegetables (24.6%). In total 88.9% of wealthy farmers, 63.6% of the intermediate and 23.5% of the poor farmers interviewed grow coffee and get money out of it.

It is interesting to notice that poor farmers prefer diversify cash crops on farmer because of constraint of land shortage and the desire of attaining food self sufficiency.

IV.1.2.11.Livestock

From the results compiled in the table 15, 60% of farmers do not own a cow. However 88.9% of wealthy farmers have more than 3 cows meaning that these farmers can easily access farmyard manure needed for farming. In addition they can produce milk as an extra benefit. Majority of intermediate farmers (63.6%) own between 1 and 2 cattle while few poor farmers own a cow. Referring to the criteria of farmer categorization, poor farmers should not possess cattle. However in some cases we found farmers, especially poor farmers keeping cattle for other farmers for the objective of accessing manure needed for producing enough food. This phenomenon is locally known as «Kuragiza». More than half of the surveyed farmers (53.8%) possess goats in different proportions, but no one in the third class (poor farmers) possess more than 4 goats, meaning that they can get limited quantity of manure for allocation on the entire fields. 93.8% of the surveyed farmers do not possess sheep. As for the small animals, 60% of the well-off farmers possess 1 to more than 4 chickens in their farms. Majority of intermediate and poor farmers may possess at least 1 chicken. The reason for keeping small animals is due to the fact that raising them does not require more resource and attention. Chicken are also source of income since they can provide eggs. Also the table shows that although half of the surveyed farmers (56,9%) does not possess pigs but at least one farmer from each group possess 3 to 4 pigs. Pigs are easy to raise and less demanding in terms of food requirements.

cattle						Number of livestock										Total
						None			1 to 2	3 to 4				More than 4
Wealth category			Well-off farmer			1			0	7				1		9
						11,1%			,0%	77,8%				11,1%		100,0%
			Intermediate farmer			7			14	1				0		22
						31,8%			63,6%	4,5%				,0%		100,0%
			Poor farmer			31			3	0				0		34
						91,2%			8,8%	,0%				,0%		100,0%
Total						39			17	8				1		65
						60,0%			26,2%	12,3%				1,5%		100,0%
goats
Wealth category		Well-off farmer			4			1		1			3		9
					44,4%			11,1%		11,1%			33,3%		100,0%
		Intermediate farmer			8			5		4			5		22
					36,4%			22,7%		18,2%			22,7%		100,0%
		Poor farmer			18			10		6			0		34
					52,9%			29,4%		17,6%			,0%		100,0%
Total					30			16		11			8		65
					46,2%			24,6%		16,9%			12,3%		100,0%
sheep
Wealth category	Well-off farmer			7			0				1	1				9
				77,8%			,0%				11,1%	11,1%				100,0%
	Intermediate farmer			20			1				1	0				22
				90,9%			4,5%				4,5%	,0%				100,0%
	Poor farmer			34			0				0	0				34
				100,0%			,0%				,0%	,0%				100,0%
Total				61			1				2	1				65
				93,8%			1,5%				3,1%	1,5%				100,0%
chickens
Wealth category		Well-off farmer			3			1		1		4				9
					33,3%			11,1%		11,1%		44,4%				100,0%
		Intermediate farmer			17			3		1		1				22
					77,3%			13,6%		4,5%		4,5%				100,0%
		Poor farmer			30			3		0		1				34
					88,2%			8,8%		,0%		2,9%				100,0%
Total					50			7		2		6				65
					76,9%			10,8%		3,1%		9,2%				100,0%
Pigs/Others (rabbit....)

Wealth category	Well-off farmer	4	4	1	0	9
		44,4%	44,4%	11,1%	0.0%	100,0%
	Intermediate farmer	10	11	1	0	22
		45,5%	50,0%	4,5%	0.0%	100,0%
	Poor farmer	23	9	2	0	34
		67,6%	26,5%	5,9%	0.0%	100,0%
Total		37	24	4	0	65
		56,9%	36,9%	6,2%	0.0%	100,0%

IV.1.3. FARM MANAGEMENT ASPECTS.

IV.1.3.1.Use of inorganic fertilizers

The results show that 100% of the well-off farmers, 68.2% of the intermediate farmers and 79.4% of poor farmers use inorganic fertilizers. As for the destination of this fertilizer, it is interesting to notice that 55.6% of the well-off farmers apply the fertilizer in cash crops while other groups seem to distribute it between cash and food crops, showing that resource constrained farmers prefer to invest both in food and cash crops.

Inorganic fertilizers Wealth category					None	Total
Inorganic fertilizers Wealth category		Staple crops	Staple and cash crops	cash crops	None	Total
	Well-off farmer	1	3	5	0	9
		11,1%	33,3%	55,6%	,0%	100,0%
	Intermediate farmer	3	8	4	7	22
		13,6%	36,4%	18,2%	31,8%	100,0%
	Poor farmer	11	7	9	7	34
		32,4%	20,6%	26,5%	20,6%	100,0%
Total		15	18	18	14	65
		23,1%	27,7%	27,7%	21,5%	100,0%

Large percentage of farmers using mineral fertilizers may be explained by extensive cultivation of coffee in the area that requires use of inorganic fertilizers. Fertilizers are being distributed by a local coffee farmers association that allows even poor farmers accessing the expensive input as under a refundable loan scheme.

IV.1.3.2. Use of Organic fertilizers

In general, results show how farmers apply fertilizers in both staple and cash crops in almost same proportions. However 88.9 % of the well-off farmers use it in cash and food crop since they have it in sufficient quantity while relatively great numbers of intermediate and poor farmers allocate it in cash crops because of limited quantity of inorganic fertilizers that is not enough for improving production.

IV.2. SOIL NUTRIENT STATUS

The soil nutrient status are presented to show differences of N, P, K, OC content between farms from different wealth categories and between plots of the same farm and their average values.

IV.2.1 General Trend of Nutrient Distribution In Different Plots

In order to measure variability between farms and within farms, a soil analysis was performed on plots of different farmers. Two representative farms of each farm category and different plots belonging to the selected farms were sampled; this helped us to represent soil fertility status of different farm types identified during the survey. Results are presented as follow:

Figure 5: Variability of soil carbon (1), available P (2), exchangeable K (3) and total N (4) within plots of farm. Plots n^o increases as plot position moves from homestead to further away from home

From these figures, the general observation is that there is a difference of soil fertility from plot 1 up to plot 3. Form the graph (1) the general observation is that the level of carbon decreases as we move from plot 1 to plot 3. On basis of the norms of interpretation (Mutwewingabo et Rutunga, 1987) , the content of carbon in plot 1, 2 and 3 indicate that organic matter content in plot 1 is moderate (since we can determine the organic matter content of a soil by multiplying carbon values to 1.72 which is a constant), whereas in plot 2 and 3 is low. Based on the graph (2) it shows that the level of phosphorus in plot 1 is moderate and low in plot 2 and plot 3 respectively. The graph (3) reveals that the level of potassium in plot 1 is high, whereas content in plot 2 and plot 3 is moderate on basis of norms (Mutwewingabo et Rutunga, 1987). The graph (4) also show levels of nitrogen in plot 1 and plot 2 are moderate whereas the level in plot 3 is low. From these figures, evidence of decreasing soil fertility in different plots with the distance from the homestead is provided.

IV.2.2 Differences of Soil Fertility Within Farm

Mean values of two farms from each wealth category as presented by graphs below, reveals the soil nutrient content of plots on farm, the graphs are indicating the level of soil carbon, available phosphorus, potassium and nitrogen.

Figure 6: Variability of total N (1), exchangeable K (2), soil carbon (3), and Available P (4) in plots on farms in different wealth categories in Shanga

Plots of wealthy farmers as are indicated by graph 6 are the one containing more fertile, probably this in relation with large number of animals owned by the farmer. The high number of livestock providing enough organic manure to the farm may have a positive influence on soil fertility. Looking at the soil carbon graph (1) and referring to the standards of interpretation, we see that the plot 1 of well-off and middle farmers contains high level of organic carbon but that of the poor farmer has little content. However, a net C input was observed due to the transfer of biomass from other fields via crop residues or compost. The graph (2) indicates the level of phosphorus in 3 plots of different wealth group's farms. Based on the interpretation standards, it is evident that the plot 1 in all the wealth group contains moderate quantity of phosphorus, likewise in the plot 2 of the well-off and middle farmers, except that of the poor farmer which has low phosphorus level. The plot 3 of well-off farmer contains moderate phosphorus and low in the middle farmers. The P concentrations in close field reflected the inputs of ash, composted crop residues and manure, together with kitchen wastes and house sweepings normally containing chicken dug. Looking at the nitrogen level (graph (4)) and based on interpretation norms, plot 1 of the well-off and middle farmers contains high level of nitrogen but it is low in plot 1 of the poor farmers. Plots 2 and 3 of the well-off and middle farmer contain moderate nitrogen level, whereas the plot 2 of poor farmer contains low nitrogen quantity. Based on these data, a decreasing soil fertility level with the distance from the homestead is also shown.

PART V DISCUSSION

Biophysical and socio-economical factors are major determinants of farming systems as revealed by several studies conducted across SSA countries. The current study in Shanga cell clearly showed that there are different types of farms that differ according to the wealth status and the management style of the farmer. Categorizing farms on basis of socio-economical factors seems relevant since farmers categorize themselves on basis of these factors. With regards to wealth criteria, cattle is still regarded as sign of wealth in Rwandan rural area and considered as a major criterion for categorizing socio-economical categories of farmers. In addition to economical benefits, cattle can also play several roles such as food security through provision of milk, meat and indirectly provide nutrients through manure. Well- off farmers can afford to have more than two cattle. However, our observations indicate that lack of biomass resource and limited grazing area have refrained people in acquiring more cattle and well-off farmers that own heads tend to borrow some to poor farmers that allow them access manure, a system known as «Kuragiza». Other small animals such as pigs, chickens and goats are also among common livestock. Most farmers prefer them because they don't require much care or attention.

In Shanga, a typical smallholder farm comprises a house surrounded by living fences delimiting a compound often used as grazing place for tethered cattle, fruits trees are scattered around the house. Banana and local vegetables intercropped with pulses and grains are grown around the house. A number of plots grown with food crops or timber trees are located at a distance from home. Looking at the social characteristics of farmers in Shanga, the majority of the households are headed by men. Although male are in most cases household heads, female and child are responsible for major part of agricultural activities and the chief of the family is responsible for looking for money for family nutritional needs. Most of female headed families are widow or divorced and poor farmers. Although the majority of surveyed farmers attended school, large part did not completed the primary schools. The major reason for not attending school or not sending children to school is largely attributable to ignorance. The results show difference between farmers with regards to education. Farmers with resources seem to be more educated than their fellows in other groups. In addition, they seem to have benefited more training. Farmers, irrespective of the wealth group they belong to use family labour .Most rich farmers hired casual labour and in some cases hire permanent labour. Some farmers from the poor class derived income by working for other farmers during land preparation, planting, weeding and harvesting times. In that cell, only the rich farmers were self-sufficient in food production and obtained only some specific food items on the market. In Middle farmer category, most income is generated by farming and farmers normally produce surpluses of food crops for the market. Input-demanding activities such as cash crops are not widely adopted due to financial limiting. Poor farmers are land constrained and one or more family members worked casually for other farmers. Most households headed by women were found within this group. However, some middle farmers extend the areas under crops by hiring extra land.

Land is an important asset for farmers in general and in Shanga in particular. The study tried to establish how different farmers have acquired land. Most farmers get land via inheritance. Few farmers with enough resources have bought land. In general farm area is small. Land ownership is dynamic in the area, to the extent that a portion of land can belong to two different farmers within laps of two seasons. Farmers renting in or out the part of the land to the others are a common feature in the area. However with increasing annual rate of the population and continued fragmentation of land due to in heritance mechanisms of land acquisition, the farm size will continue to diminish and this will affect negatively the production sustainability.

The adoption of management practices such as fallow and crop rotation vary between farmers classes and are normally constrained by land size. Most frequently used organic fertilizers are cattle manure either applied pure or composted together with other organic resources such as crop residues. Land use in Shanga is not different to what is seen across the country and farmers tend to mix several crops to optimize land utilization and try to rely on their own production. Major food crops grown by farmers are sweet potato, bean, cassava and sorghum the same as those cultivated in central plateau (Djimde, 1988; Niang & Styger, 1990). Bean and sweet potatoes are the traditional food crops not only in Shanga but also for several families in rural area. The main cash crops are coffee and vegetables. The management of close and remote fields strongly correlates with farm size, resource endowment and labour availability. The amount and quality of nutrient resources applied to them varied also between farmers from different social classes. Resource management strategies by farmers consist of concentrating fertilizers in some fields at the expense of other. In Shanga cell, fertilizers are used on crops especially grown for sale. A large proportion of farmers do use fertilizers, although often in limited quantities like farmers elsewhere in Africa ( Mapfumo and Giller, 2001; Tittonell, 2003) . The well-off farmers apply organic fertilizers to both staple and cash crops while intermediate and poor farmers allocate preferably them on food crops. Differences in soil fertility status across the farm are a direct consequence of farm and plot management.

Differential allocation of resources to different plots across the farm leads to gradients of decreasing soil fertility with increasing distance from homesteads. The gradient being more pronounced on poor farmers than on well off farmers. This has been highlighted by soil analysis results that indicated that distribution of total N, exchangeable K, soil C and available P decreases from plot 1, near home to plots located far away from home for the three wealth categories. The amount of total N, soil C, available P and exchangeable K found is related to wealth categories in the order: well-of farmers > intermediate farmer > poor farmer. The difference between farmers owning livestock and those who haven't them shows that livestock play a major role in recycling of nutrients in farming system as also shown in other tropical countries such as Zimbabwe (Zingore, 2006).

PART VI: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The main purpose of this work was to analyze the functioning of different farming systems by establishing their major characteristics and estimating the level of nutrients at farm and plot scales in Shanga taken as representative site in plateau central agro-ecological zone. In this region, priority is given to staple and cash crops. The most prevailing farming systems are mixed crop and livestock production systems, 54% of surveyed farmers have at least one goat at home. During this study, three types of farms were identified based on their socio-economic conditions, namely the well-off, middle and poor farmers.

Hypotheses formulated have been successfully tested. The diversity of farms and fields in smallholder farming systems exist due to the several factors, namely: (i) socio-economical factors; and (ii) management factors. Plots belonging to the same farm are managed differently. Plots near homestead where farmers allocate more nutrients are more fertile than those located far away and receiving little fertilizers. Also other factors such as labour are also limiting depending on the family size and wealth. Large differences in nutrient content in plot's soils on different farms are linked to resource endowment. Fertilizing farm fields far away from home requires labour and much physical efforts.

- Simple technologies that do not require lot of investment such as agroforestry practices, rotation systems including legume crops should be promoted to increase soil fertility on poor farms and training of farmers for use of these technologies should be promoted.

- Crop production level of farms belonging to different wealth categories should be

- The framework used to characterize farming system combines both biophysical and socio-economical aspects and allow a comprehensive understanding of the functioning of a farm. It should be recommended for other areas of Rwanda so that options for improving productivity on an individual category of farms can be then designed.

REFERENCES

Graves Anil, Matthews Robin and Waldi Kevin e, 2004. Low external input technologies for livelihood improvement in subsistence agriculture. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 116. Bedfordshire, UK

Rayar Antony Joseph, 2000.Sustainable Agriculture in Sub-Sahara Africa, The role of soil productivity. Chennai India

Cairns M. and Garrity,1999,Improving shifting cultivation in southeast Asia by building on indigenous fallow management strategies. Agroforestry System 47,37-48. Slash and Burn, Swidden

Crowley, E.L., Carter, S.E., 2000.Agrarian change and the changing relationships between toil and in Maragoli, western Kenya (1900-1994).Hum.Ecol.28, 383-414.

Deckers, J., 2002. A system approach to target balanced nutrient management in soilscapes of sub-Sahara Africa In: Vanlauwe, B., Diels, J., Sangiga, N, Merckx, R. (eds.), integrated plant nutrient management in sub-Sahara Africa. From concepts to practice. CAB International, Wallingford, UK pp 47-61.

Djimde, M., ed. 1988. Potentiel agroforestier dans les systèmes d'utilisation des sols des hautes terres d'Afrique de l'Est a régime pluviométrique bimodal. Rapport AFRENA, Nairobi: ICRAF.

Drechsel P.,Steiner,K.G.and Hagedon,F.1996,A review on the potential of improved fallows and green manure in Rwanda. Agroforestry system 33-109. ISAR Rubona, Rwanda

John Dixon and Aidan Gulliver with David Gibbon, 2001. Farming Systems and Poverty, improving farmers' livelihoods in a changing world, 2 p. Roma, Italy

Haque I, Jutsi I, Neate P.J.H, 1985. Potentials of forage legumes in farming systems of Sub-Sahara Afrca.Proceding of workshop held at ILCA Addis Abeba, Ethiopia.

ISAR, 1990.Document de référence pour la préparation du plan directeur nationale de la recherche agricole. Rubona Rwanda

ISAR, 1991. Perception paysanne de la variabilité des sites et gestion de leur productivité. en rapport annuel 1990. Département étude du milieu et systèmes de production. Rubona, Rwanda.

l'agroforesterie. Résultats d'enquête en milieu rural au Rwanda. Ruhande, Butare : ISAR Département de foresterie, and Nairobi: ICRAF 12-13p.

Juo, 1978: Selected methods for soil and plant analysis IITA, PMB 5320, Ibadan, Nigeria, 52 p.

Loning, N, 2002.Should Africa protects its farmers to revitalize its economy? Gatekeeper Series 105, IIED (International Institute for Environment and Development), London, UK.

Louise E.Buck,Eric C.M.Fernandes,1999.Agroforestry in Sustainable Agriculture Systems.CRC Press, Boca Raton,London,New York,Washington,DC

Gichuru,M.p, Bationo,A, Bekunda,M.A, Goma,H.C, Mafongonya P.L, Mugendi D.N, Murwira H.M.,.Nandwa S.M, Nyathi P.and. Swift M.J,2004.Soil fertility management in Africa: A regional perspective. Nairobi, Kenya

Mapfumo, P.and Giller, K.E., 2001.Soil fertility management strategies and practices by smallholder farmers in Semi-arid areas of Zimbabwe.ICRISAT/FAO, Pantancheru, AP, India.

MINAGRI, 1991. Commission nationale de l'agriculture, Rapport préliminaire, Kigali

MINAGRI, 1997.Plan directeur del'élevage volume I version préliminaire. MINAGRI, KIGALI.

MINIPLAN, 1984: Stratégies alimentaire au Rwanda. Objectifs, chiffres et programmes

Mutwewingabo et Rutunga, 1987: Etude des sols des stations d'essai du projet PIA situés dans la Mwogo, à Gitarama, à Kaduha et dans la vallée de l'Akanyaru, MINAGRI- PIA, 114 p.

National Research Council, 1993.Sustainable agriculture and environment in the Humid Tropics. National academy press, Washington, DC.

Niang, A. I. & Stiger E., 1990.Les systèmes d'utilisation des terres et leur potentiel agroforestier au Rwanda. In A. I. Niang ; A. Gahamanyi& E. Stiger. Eds., Actes de la première réunion agroforestière organisée par le projet ICRAF/ISAR du 13 au 15/9/1990 à kigali. AFRENA report No36. Butare, Rwanda. ICRAF/ISAR.

Pridencio, C.F., 1993.Ring management of soils and crops in the West Africa semi-arid tropics: the case of the Mossi farming systems in Burkina Faso. Agri. Ecosystem .Environ. 47,237-264. Ouagadougou

Richard R. Harwood, 1979.Small farm developpement: Understanding and improving Farming systems in the humid tropics, Boulder, Colorado.

Robert A. Luening,.Richard M.S, Klemme M, William P. Mortenson, 1991. The farm management hand book, Interstate Publishers, Inc Danville, Illinois.

Rothenberg, H., 1980.Farming system in the tropics, third ed. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Sanchez,P.1999, Improved fallows come of age in the tropics. Agroforestry systems 47,3-12. Nairobi, Kenya

Scones I, 2001.Dynamics and diversity soil fertility management and farming livelihoods in Africa: case studies from Ethiopia, Mali and Zimbabwe.Earthscan Publication Ltd, London, UK.

SHAMIE ZINGORE, 2006.Exploring diversity within small-holder farming systems in Zimbabwe: Nutrient use efficiencies and resource management strategies for crop production, Wageningen.

Smaling,E.M.A., Fresco,L.O.,De Jager, A.,1996.Classifying and monitoring soil nutrient stocks and flows in African agriculture.Ambio 25,492-496.

Tittonell, P., 2003.Soil fertility gradients in smallholder farm of Western Kenya: Their origin, management and importance. Wageningen, Netherland

Tittonell, P., Vanlauwe B., Leffelaar P.A., Rowe E., Giller K.E., 2005b.Exporing diversity in soil fertility management of smallholder farms in western Kenya. I. Heterogeneity at region and farm scale.Agric.Ecosyst.Environ 110,149-165. Bangor, UK

Vanlauwe, B. and K.E.Giller, 2006.Popular myths around soil fertility management in Sub-Sahara Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 116 pp 34-46. Nairobi, Kenya

Shaner,W.W, Philipp,P.F ,Schmeh,W.R, 1981.Farming systems research and development: guidelines for developing countries. Volume I, United States agency for international development, Washington, DC, USA.

Willem C. Beets, 1982: Multiple cropping and tropical farming system: 31-43 p. Colorado, USA

Yearbook of Agriculture 1943-1947. Science in farming: United States, Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, US Government printing office.

HITIMANA Nicolas, 1989.Etude du bilan d'azote, du phosphore et potassium sous deux systèmes de production du haricot (Phaseolus Vulgaris L) : Rotation sorgho--haricot et haricot bananeraie. Mémoire UNR Butare

MUBASHANKWAYA Isaac, 2005.Contribution du projet HPI à l'élevage bovin laitier au Rwanda : cas de la province de Byumba.Memoire, UNR Butare.

NSHIMYUMUKIZA Wellars et BENDA Théophile, 2005.Etude des systèmes de cultures intégrant l'agroforesterie dans la gestion des sols.Mémoire, ISAE

NYOMBAIRE George, 2001.Yield and phenological comparison of Longe1 and Hybrid bunder different nutrient treatments in the Central plateau of Rwanda: A case study of Tonga Experimental station.Memoire, UNR Butare

APPENDIXES

Indicate educational level of household head and skills(e.g.: retired teacher) Indicate wealthy status if you consider this to be important(e.g. :type of roofing for main house) Indicate affiliations to particular groups within the community(e.g. :religious)
*CATEGORY*	*Sample code*	*pH eau*	*pH KCl*	*C % N % C/N OM %*				*P available/ppm*	*Uptaken K+*
*CATEGORY*	*Sample code*	*pH eau*	*pH KCl*					*P available/ppm*	*Uptaken K+*
RICH	F91P1	5,05	4,89	5,71	0,13	43,90	9,82	25,55	1,245
	F91P2	5,04	4,46	2,48	0,1	24,80	4,27	23,03	1,123
	F91P3	5,35	5,05	0,53	0,08	6,60	0,91	20,29	0,921
	F77P1	5,07	4,51	5,13	0,12	42,77	8,83	24,36	1,011
	F77P2	5,07	4,51	2,62	0,1	26,20	4,51	22,07	0,759
MIDDLE	F80P1	4,81	4,73	2,97	0,11	26,99	5,11	23,26	1,044
	F80P2	5,14	4,94	1,53	0,09	16,97	2,63	21,25	0,993
	F80P3	4,91	4,69	0,49	0,08	6,14	0,84	19,32	0,744
	F78P1	5,9	5,65	3,97	0,11	36,09	6,83	23,38	0,888
	F78P2	5,23	5,23	0,91	0,09	10,11	1,57	20,81	0,721
POOR	F72P1	4,09	4,09	1,31	0,08	16,38	2,25	20,120	0,708
	F72P2	4,75	4,69	0,59	0,07	8,39	1,01	19,174	0,642
	F73P1	6,4	6,26	1,06	0,07	15,14	1,82	21,552	0,732
	F73P2	5,94	5,49	0,69	0,06	11,58	1,20	18,026	0,659

Organic Matter (%)

Appreciation

0,5

0,5-1

1-2

2-5

5-8

8-14

>14

Quite low

Very low

Low

Average

High

Very high

Exceptional

Total Nitrogen (%)

Appreciation

< 0,075

0,075-0,125

>0,125

Low

Average

High

Available P (ppm)

Appreciation

= 3

3-20

20-50

50-80

= 80

Very low

Low

Average

High

Very high

C/N Ratio

Appreciation

< 9

9-12

12-17

17-25

> 25

Very low mineralization

High mineralization

Moderate mineralization

Slow mineralization

Very slow mineralization

Organic C

Appreciation

< 0,5

0,5-1,5

1,5-3,0

> 3,0

Very low

Low

Average

High

Echangeable K

(cmol (+)/kg de sol

Appreciation

<0.1

0.1-0.2

0.2-0.6

0.6-1.2

>1.2

Très faible

Faible

Moyen

Elève

Très élevé

Azote total

Appreciation

0.08-0.13

>0.13

Faible

Moyen

	FARMER' NAME	CODE	WEALTH CATEGORY
1	MATABARO Francois Xavier	68	well-off
2	BAMPIRE Veneranda	130	well-off
3	DEGERI Emmanuel	100	well-off
4	KAMUGUNGA Vianney	70	well-off
5	KIMONYO Innocent	91	well-off
6	MUNYAKAYANZA Laurent	101	well-off
7	NKOMEJE Narcisse	102	well-off
8	RUSANGANWA Vianney	77	well-off
9	SABAGIRIRWA Vincent	69	well-off
10	BAKUNDUKIZE Athanase	107	Middle
11	BUTERA J Damascene	104	Middle
12	HARERIMANA Alexis	103	Middle
13	KABAYUNDO Stefanie	79	Middle
14	KARINDA Jean	115	Middle
15	MBONABUCYA Andre	74	Middle
16	MUHIRE Desiree	76	Middle
17	MUKAGASHONGORE Anonciate	121	Middle
18	MUKAMURIGO Suzane	84	Middle
19	MUKAMUYANGO Domitilia	89	Middle
20	MUKANGENZI Laurence	116	Middle
21	MUREGANSHURO Innocent	118	Middle
22	NDIKURYAYO Samuel	131	Middle
23	NKEBUKANDE Gaspard	105	Middle
24	NYIRANSAGIZA Consensa	119	Middle
25	NYIRANTAWUBIZERA	120	Middle
26	RUHORAHOZA Justin	80	Middle
27	RUKEBESHA Vincent	117	Middle
28	RUTABAYIKA Boneventure	123	Middle
29	SABANE Laurent	78	Middle
30	TEGEJO Emmanuel	122	Middle
31	VUGUZIGA Timothé	132	Middle
32	BAGIRISHYA Alphonse	114	Poor
33	BAVUGIRIJE Simon	87	Poor
34	DUSABE Patricie	108	Poor
35	GASAMUNYIGA Gabriel	128	Poor
36	HABIMANA Leonard	98	Poor
37	HARERIMANA Elie	95	Poor
38	IGENORYAYO Alexis	92	Poor
39	MINANI Jean	99	Poor
40	MUKAKAYONGA Laurencie	83	Poor
41	MUKAMURIGO Violette	109	Poor
42	MUKAMUSONI Velene	75	Poor
43	MUKAMUVARA Marceline	113	Poor
44	MUKANGOMBWA Agnes	111	Poor
45	MUKARANGO Anonciata	127	Poor
46	MUKARUGENERA Esperence	71	Poor
47	MUKARUTESI Winifride	106	Poor
48	MURENGERA Damien	94	Poor
49	MUSABIMANA Berancille	88	Poor
50	MYASIRO Celestin	82	Poor
51	NDAYISABA Boniface	90	Poor
52	NIBIVUGIRE Patricie	81	Poor
53	NIYIBIZI Andre	125	Poor
54	NKUSI Emmanuel	124	Poor
55	NTAGANDA Alphonse	93	Poor
56	NTAKIRUTIMANA Oswald	110	Poor
57	NTAMWEMEZI Vedaste	97	Poor
58	NYIRAMIHIGO Judith	85	Poor
59	NZAMURAMBAHO Innocent	126	Poor
60	NZEYIMANA Emmanuel	73	Poor
61	RUTAYISIRE Innocent	86	Poor
62	RUTESI Bosco	72	Poor
63	RWABIGWI Francois	129	Poor
64	SIBOMANA Fidele	96	Poor
65	TURASENGAMUNGU Stanislas	112	Poor

Characterisation of farming systems in southern Rwanda

DEDICATION

AKNOWELEDGEMENTS

ABSTRACT

TABLE OF CONTENT

LIST OF TABLES

LISTE OF FIGURES

LIST OF APPENDICES

ACRONYMS AND ABREVIATIONS

PART I. GENERAL INTRODUCTION

I.1. PROBLEM STATEMENT

I.2. Global objective

I.3. Specific objectives

I.4. Hypothesis

I.5. Structure of the report

PART II. OVERVIEW OF MAJOR FARMING SYSTEMS IN SUB-SAHARIAN AFRICA (SSA)

II.1. Definition

II.2. Types of farming systems found in Rwanda

II.2.1. cropping systems

II.2.1.1. Intercropping

II.2.1.2. Rotation

II.2.1.3. Monoculture

II.2.1.4. Fallows

II.2.1.5. Agroforestry (Tree Integration)

II.2.2. Livestock systems.

II.2.2.1. Traditional system

II.2.2.2. Improved system

II.2.2.3 Modern system

II.2.3. Mixed systems

II.3 ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL ASPECTS

II.4 AGRICULTURE EXPLOITATION IN RWANDA

II.4.1 Structure of the agricultural exploitation

II.4.2 Typology and characteristics of agricultural farms in Rwanda

II.5. NUTRIENT BALANCE PERCEPTION AND IMPORTANCE.

II.5.1. Nutrient element balance as perceived generally.

II.5.2. Plant nutrient balance in Sub Sahara Africa

II.5.3. Availability of major elements in soil and their importance

PART III. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND METHODOLOGY

III.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

III.1.1 Site location

III.1.2 Climatic data

III.2 METHODOLOGY

III.2.1.STUDY FRAMEWORK

III.2.2. Site selection and characteristics

III.2.3. Wealth categorization and farmer selection

III.2.4. data collection

III.2.5. Methods and techniques

PART IV: ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION OF RESULTS

IV.1 SURVEY RESULTS

IV.1.1.BACK GROUND INFORMATION

IV.1.1.1.Farmer wealth categories

IV.1.1.2.Farm types according to household head sex

IV.1.1.3.Education and skills level

IV.1.1.4.Household size

IV.1.1.5.Type of group affiliation

IV.1.2.SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECT

IV.1.2.1.Land tenure status

IV.1.2.2.Total farm size

IV.1.2.3.Area fallowed

IV.1.2.4.Area under pasture

IV.1.2.5.Trees on farm

IV.1.2.6.Labour force availability

IV.1.2.7.Workers availability

IV.1.2.8.Labour sale

IV.1.2.9.Important food crops

IV.1.2.11.Livestock

IV.1.3. FARM MANAGEMENT ASPECTS.

IV.1.3.1.Use of inorganic fertilizers

IV.1.3.2. Use of Organic fertilizers

IV.2. SOIL NUTRIENT STATUS

IV.2.1 General Trend of Nutrient Distribution In Different Plots

IV.2.2 Differences of Soil Fertility Within Farm

PART V DISCUSSION

PART VI: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REFERENCES

APPENDIXES