Zoning Survey
In October 1979, in order to identify different recommendation domains in the province, a CIMMYT team gathered information by interviewing E
field agricultural extension staff about agricultural activities in their areas. On the basis of this information, the different domains were delineated. A o :a 0 0
summary of the distinguishing characteristics of the six traditional recommendation domains (TRDs) as determined by the zoning survey is given in Table 9-1. ,
Of the differences that are apparent in Table 9-1, the most notable re- 2
flect the commercialization of agriculture in the farming systems. The -M 0.',
heavy demand for maize in urban areas, in conjunction with the availabil- X 3 A
ity of hybrid seed, fertilizer, and credit at the local level, has facilitated the shift from traditional starch staple crops to commercial production. The 0
ARPT determined that TRD2 was the poorest area, followed by TRD3. The ARPT initiated its research trials in TRD2 during the 1980/81 season, and "0
then proceeded to TRD3. a 0
TRD3 falls largely within Mkushi District and includes an estimated o4 > 
eight thousand farm households. It had six NAMBOARD buying points serving some thirteen hundred farmers each. The zoning survey indicated the following distinctive features: 200
E- ~
1. A few farmers in four wards owned cattle, but limited ox-hire was E 0 0 u
reported in only three of these. The floe was the dominant method AV)
of land preparation and the cultivated area was consistently re- 0
ported as between one and two hectares.
2. Sorghum, the major starch staple, was the dominant crop in the"
domain. Finger millet was a secondary starch crop, mainly used for M "
beer. Most wards mentioned some use of maize. A variety of relish
crops was reported, but vegetables, particularly cabbage and rape, .o
dominated the western wards and gave way to pumpkin leaves, U
beans, and groundnuts in the east. Fish was often caught by the r.
farmers themselves, and chickens were also widely used. > >
3. Beer was predominant as a cash source, with temporary labor and E
charcoal also getting frequent mention. Cash sources were varied
and small. Maize was sold by a few farmers in three wards, and ( 0 C
local transactions of sorghum were prominent in three others. .C E S
'1. No hired labor was mentioned in any ward. Four wards reported 0. ".0U ,
uU 
input purchases by a few farmers, almost exclusively seed and fer- 9 .
tilizers for growing vegetables. Li