eChapter Name: Erosion Control Through Land Husbandry
9789391383664
eBook Name: SOIL CONSERVATION: FULLY REVISED AND UPDATED: 3RD ED.
by NORMAN HUDSON
11.1 The farmer’s point of view
In the last chapter possible conservation practices were reviewed in groups according to their purpose in terms of influencing runoff or soil loss. Now, looking at ways of limiting soil degradation by improved land husbandry, the primary consideration is to look at the alternatives from the farmer’s point of view. In fact we need to be very wary of manual-type recommendations. A better approach is to offer a menu of alternatives, and the role of the professional is to help the farmer choose what is appropriate for his or her circumstances. A recent review of technologies acceptable to resource-poor farmers points out that combining practices into a farming system must take account not only of the physical factors such as soil and climate, but equally the available resource inputs, especially cash and labour, and the farmer’s objectives (STOCKING 1993).
The objectives of a commercial farmer are usually to maximize yield and income, but the subsistence farmer is likely to be more interested in improving food security by reducing the risk of failure, or improving the return on inputs of seed, fertilizer and labour, or improving the quality of life by reducing drudgery, particularly relevant in the case of women farmers.
We need a new approach to the farmer when recommending changes to farming practice. Instead of recommending practices because they will reduce erosion, we should show how they can lead to increased production. For example, practices which lead to better soil structure, more organic matter, or more moisture-holding capacity should be put forward because they improve yield, not because they reduce the soil erodibility. Increasing infiltration from better ground cover or the use of contour farming or ridging can result in better crops as well as reducing soil loss. Improved crop management could include more use of fertilizer and manures or crop rotations. These practices will make more sense to the farmer if they are recommended as leading to better production, which he can instinctively appreciate as desirable, rather than because they will reduce soil erosion which is likely to be a less important objective.