Maize legume relay intercrops in Malawi - Microbial Ecology in Sustainable Agroecosystems - page 251

were male-headed households (MHHs) ( Figure 9.5 ). Indeed, FHHs are disproportionately
poor (NEC, 2000; Simtowe, 2010; Takane, 2009) and likely in greater need of short-term
livelihood support in the form of food. Nonetheless, although many men voiced their dis-
like of pigeon pea's taste, all MHHs planted pigeon pea ( Figure 9.5 ). Some FHHs had a
difficult time saving seeds for subsequent planting due to food insecurity, which may
explain why a few FHHs did not plant pigeon pea in 2003. Likewise, Ferguson (1994) found
that Malawian land-limited, resource-poor females struggled to save seed from season to
season as they either consumed it or sold it shortly after harvest.
We had expected pigeon pea preference to be highest on the hillside, the landscape
with the highest concentration of the poorest farmers. In actuality, pigeon pea preference
was highest at the dambo margin and slightly lower for farmers on the hillside and dambo
( Figure 9.5 ) . Hillside farmers explained that baboons from the adjacent forest stole pigeon
pea from their fields, and as a result they had low yields, making T. vogelii more attractive.
Nonetheless, pigeon pea adoption was still much higher than T. vogelii and S. sesban across
all three landscapes ( Figure 9.5 ), suggesting that it continues to play an important role for
hillside farmers despite theft by baboons.
9.8 Assessing sustainability
Using the framework outlined, we can examine sustainability as the ability to meet a com-
bination of goals, including immediate-term livelihood needs, food/income stability over
time, and long-term improvement of soil quality. In addition, the distributional dimen-
sion to sustainability must be considered since the sustainability of each system clearly
depends on the socioeconomic status of the farmers, their gender, and their position across
the landscape.
Short-term livelihood concerns relate not only to maize yields but also to immediate
benefits such as provision of a secondary food or income source, as is the case with pigeon
pea and T. vogelii , and untimely labor requirements associated with managing S. sesban,
which limited its use to a few wealthier farmers. In terms of short-term livelihoods, for
the most vulnerable farmers the unfertilized pigeon pea system provided the best option
among the D1 treatments in the period 1999-2000 based on its high returns and provision
of a secondary food or income source for women. The fertilized T. vogelii system gave
similar returns, but it is unlikely that the poorest farmers would be able to purchase the
necessary amount of fertilizer. For the wealthier farmers, fertilized pigeon pea gave the
highest returns in both years, but all fertilized systems performed well.
Among the D2 treatments, the highest returns even for the poorest farmers came
from the fully fertilized system, which appears to represent the best option but may be
unrealistic for most farmers, especially poorer farmers, for two reasons. First, until the
government's recent fertilizer subsidy programs, initiated in 2005, only roughly 25% of
smallholders in southern Malawi could afford to purchase inorganic fertilizers (Minot et
al., 2000), and many applied quantities far smaller than the recommended rate (Dorothy
Sirrine, personal observation, 2002-2004). Second, southern Malawian smallholders, even
wealthier smallholders, rarely monocrop maize due to limited landholdings. Thus, for
the poorest farmers either T. vogelii plus half fertilizer or pigeon pea plus half fertilizer
was a promising option, providing they could afford a smaller amount of fertilizer. While
S. sesban plus half fertilizer gave good returns, poorer farmers would be unlikely to have
the necessary additional labor available for growing S. sesban since poorer households in
general sell their own labor, especially during the peak agricultural season, as a livelihood