1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Technology

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

Golden Valley agricultural research trust (Golden Valley agricultural research trust) - Zambia

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Ja

1.5 Reference to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Approaches (documented using WOCAT)

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Strip Tillage Conservation Farming is an animal draft reduced tillage method that involves loosening a strip of soil with a strip tillage tool so as to reduce soil disturbance and improve soil and water conservation.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The strip tillage tool is an adaptation of a Magoye Ripper but is meant to be used in moist soil. In the strip tillage tool, sub-surface wings are attached to the ripper tine to increase the width of soil disruption which the ripper will be unable to achieve in moist soil. The sub-surface wings loosen the soil by lifting it slightly and letting it fall in place without inverting it. In this way, a strip of soil with a width of around 20cm is tilled up to 20cm deep and this is where the crop will be planted. The region between the strips is maintained as a no-till region for soil and water conservation.

Purpose of the Technology: The strip tillage tool is meant to be a transitional technology for farmers intending to adopt Conservation Agriculture (CA) in degraded soils. These soils will need routine loosening while the biological activities allow the soil structure to recover sufficiently until tillage is no longer required. Strip tillage is able to achieve deeper soil loosening with much less draft force, wear of tines and soil disturbance than ripping. The untilled region between the strips enables the benefits of soil cover such as improved infiltration, soil water storage and increased soil organic matter. Soil loosening by strip tillage does not produce large clods like ripping does but instead produces a fine seedbed that enables uniform emergence of the crop, and this together with the deep penetration results in early plant vigour. The strip tillage implement is also designed to allow the attachment of a planter unit to enable tillage and planting in one operation.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: The establishment of strip tillage based conservation agriculture mainly involves the purchase of the strip tillage implement and the replaceable tines. Liming acidic soils (low pH soils) followed by a final ploughing will be required to correct the soil PH which otherwise will be difficult to correct once conservation tillage has been established. Maintenance activities include strip-tilling the soil which may or may not include planting and fertilizing in the same operation. Weeding should preferably include the use of herbicides, implying that the major operations will include spraying. In addition to the normal conventional inputs, herbicides will also become a major input and cost.

Natural / human environment: The strip tillage technology is most suited to the bigger small-scale farmers with a capacity of 5ha to about 20ha. The strip tillage tool together with the planter will require a relatively substantial investment and only the bigger farmers will fully utilize its capacity. The strip tillage action will not be very effective in wet soils especially in the heavier soils, soil disruption is best achieved when the soil is slightly moist but not too dry as to require to high draft forces. Strip tillage is useful in soil with poor structure that will require routine loosening to maintain yields while the soil is being rehabilitated.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment

2.6 Date of implementation

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:

• less than 10 years ago (recently)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• during experiments/ research

Comments (type of project, etc.):

Development of the strip tillage technology began in 2008 in response to farmers’ feedback from the promotion of another conservation agricultural technology, the Magoye Ripper. The technology was introduced to the farmers in 2011.

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation

3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

Ja

Specify mixed land use (crops/ grazing/ trees):

• Agro-pastoralism (incl. integrated crop-livestock)

Comments:

Livestock density (if relevant):
1-10 LU /km2

Principaux problèmes d'utilisation des sols (opinion du compilateur): perte de structure du sol et perte de fertilité du sol

Principaux problèmes d'utilisation des terres (perception des utilisateurs fonciers): sécheresses et périodes de sécheresse

L'élevage pèche sur les résidus de récoltes

3.4 Water supply

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:

• rainfed

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• minimal soil disturbance

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Specification of other agronomic measures: Zero till, Crop Residue

Type of agronomic measures: early planting, mulching, manure / compost / residues, mineral (inorganic) fertilizers, soil conditioners (lime, gypsum), rotations / fallows, breaking compacted topsoil, minimum tillage, non-inversion tillage, breaking compacted subsoil

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Secondary types of degradation addressed: Wt: loss of topsoil / surface erosion

Main causes of degradation: soil management (over ploughing, soil nutrient mining), crop management (annual, perennial, tree/shrub) (Monocropping of Maize), overgrazing (overgrazing of crop residues), poverty / wealth (Charcoal burning, under application of fertilizer)

Secondary causes of degradation: deforestation / removal of natural vegetation (incl. forest fires) (charcoal burning, openning up new land for agriculture), Heavy / extreme rainfall (intensity/amounts) (high intensity storms resulting in soil erosion and leaching), land tenure (over-exploitation of communal land), governance / institutional (lack of credit facilities)

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:

• reduce land degradation
• restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land

Comments:

Secondary goals: prevention of land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify currency used for cost calculations:

• USD

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Strip Tillage implement
2.	Knapsack Sprayer

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Equipment	Strip Tillage implement	pieces	1.0	500.0	500.0	100.0
Equipment	Knapsack Sprayer	pieces	1.0	80.0	80.0	100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					580.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					580.0

Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 2 month(s)

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Slashing and spreading crop residues	May-June yearly after harvest
2.	Liming soil	Nov-Dec every 3 years
3.	strip tillage, planting and fertilizing	Nov-Dec at onset of rain
4.	Chemical weeding	3 times per season
5.	Harvesting	April-May

4.6 Costs and inputs needed for maintenance/ recurrent activities (per year)

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	Slashing and spreading crop residues	persons/day/ha	8.0	2.5	20.0	100.0
Labour	Liming soil	persons/day/ha	2.0	2.5	5.0	100.0
Labour	Strip tillage, planting and fertilizing	persons/day/ha	4.0	2.5	10.0	100.0
Labour	Chemical weeding (sprayers)	persons/day/ha	24.0	1.0	24.0	100.0
Equipment	Animal traction	ha	1.0	40.0	40.0	100.0
Plant material	Seeds	kg/ha	20.0	2.5	50.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Fertilizer	kg/ha	400.0	0.8	320.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Herbicides	l/ha	5.0	6.0	30.0	100.0
Construction material	Lime	kg	1000.0	0.042	42.0	100.0
Other	Labour: Chemical weeding (sprayers)	persons/day/ha	10.0	4.0	40.0	100.0
Other	Labour: Harvesting	persons/day/ha	10.0	4.0	40.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					621.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					621.0

Comments:

Machinery/ tools: Strip tillage planter

Calculations are for 1 ha of maize under strip tillage based conservation tillage and costs are for the Zambia situation in Magoye as of August 2012.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

The weed control method employed is the main determinate factor depending on whether the farmer uses hand hoe or herbicides for weeding. Weed densities are higher in unploughed fields increasing the labour requirements/costs by a factor of about 5 if hand weeding is used instead of herbicides. Another major recurrent cost is that of fertilizer which makes up about half the cost hence the total cost will vary significantly depending on fertilizer cost.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

5.3 Soils

If available, attach full soil description or specify the available information, e.g. soil type, soil PH/ acidity, Cation Exchange Capacity, nitrogen, salinity etc.

Soil fertility is low - medium and low fertility caused mainly by poor soil management practices, otherwise soils are inherently fertile.

Topsoil organic matter: Due to excessive ploughing and under fertilization

Soil drainage / infiltration is good - medium. Soils are naturally well drained but become less so after compaction due to ploughing

Soil water storage capacity is medium. Soils mostly loam to sandy loam with medium storage capacity

5.4 Water availability and quality

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Ground water table: Hand wells are <20m but reliable boreholes are > 50m

Availability of surface water: Mostly seasonal streams and dams

Water quality (untreated):Good when from communal hand-pumps and poor when from hand-dug wells.

5.5 Biodiversity

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Land users applying the Technology are mainly common / average land users

Difference in the involvement of women and men: The technology is applied mostly by men since most households are headed males and animal traction operation are reserved for men. Planting and weeding operations are the domain of women and children

Population density: 10-50 persons/km2

Annual population growth: 3% - 4%

8% of the land users are rich and own 15% of the land (own more than 10 cattle).
8% of the land users are average wealthy and own 15% of the land (own 5 - 10 cattle).
16% of the land users are poor and own 20% of the land (less than 5 cattle).
68% of the land users are poor and own 40% of the land (do not own cattle).

Off-farm income specification: sale of rainfed crops makes up about half of their income, the remainder coming from sale of livestock, petty trading, hiring out labour and remittances

Market orientation of production system: Livestock, maize and legumes for home consumption/subsistence and sale of excess maize and cotton, dairy products (mixed).

Level of mechanization: Manual labour only for small backyard fields. Families without cattle borrow or hire

5.7 Average area of land used by land users applying the Technology

5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights

Land ownership:

• communal/ village
• individual, not titled

Land use rights:

• open access (unorganized)
• individual

• Apportioned by traditional rulers

Water use rights:

• open access (unorganized)

• Apportioned by traditional rulers

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Climate and disaster risk reduction

Other ecological impacts

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

6.3 Exposure and sensitivity of the Technology to gradual climate change and climate-related extremes/ disasters (as perceived by land users)

Gradual climate change

Gradual climate change

	Season	increase or decrease	How does the Technology cope with it?
annual temperature		increase	not known

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
local rainstorm	well
local windstorm	not known

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
drought	well

Hydrological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
general (river) flood	not well

Other climate-related consequences

Other climate-related consequences

	How does the Technology cope with it?
reduced growing period	not known

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?

Comments:

Timely and quicker planting enables larger areas to be planted and with less labour in the short term. Improved soil structure and soil fertility leads to higher yields and better resilience to droughts in the long term.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• > 50%

If available, quantify (no. of households and/ or area covered):

7 households in an area of 0.1 - 1 km2 (field size 1 ha - 30 ha)

Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?

• 91-100%

Comments:

7 land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support

Comments on spontaneous adoption: These farmers heard of the technology by word of mouth and solicited for the technology even before it could be officially promoted

There is a strong trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

Comments on adoption trend: Even before promotion, inquiries to purchase the strip planter have been overwhelming. This is most likely due to the ability to till, plant and fertilizer in one operation.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Enables early planting How can they be sustained / enhanced? acquire more than one strip tillage implement
Quicker planting enables planting of larger areas How can they be sustained / enhanced? Plant the seed and apply the fertilizer in one opperation
Lighter to pull enabling deeper penetration of the tillage tool increasing the rooting depth How can they be sustained / enhanced? Use in moist soils

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Enables early planting How can they be sustained / enhanced? Plant with the first heavy rain in November
Quicker planting enables planting of larger areas How can they be sustained / enhanced? Use herbicides because without them, the capacity to weed will limit the production capacity
Preserves soil cover and reduces soil disturbance How can they be sustained / enhanced? Training in residue management (No Burning) and use of zero tillage implement

6.8 Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks of the Technology and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view	How can they be overcome?
The purchase price of the strip tillage planter	subsidizing the strip tillage implement
Excessive weeds and lack of information on herbicide use	More training on herbicide use

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
The purchase price is high making it affordable only to the larger small-scale farmers	It is already by far the cheapest planter available but mass production can lead to significant reduction in purchase price
Benefits are more evident on a scale larger than many farmers capacity especially when used in combination with herbicides	Support farmers to increase capacity
Difficult to control weeds in the absence of herbicides	make herbicides more available at a lower cost

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Social-economic analysis of conservation agriculture in southern Africa, FAO, 2011

Available from where? Costs?

FAO

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Conservation farming in Zambia, Steven Haggblade, Gelson Tembo, October 2003

Available from where? Costs?

INDABA project, Michigan State University

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

Conservation farming in Zambia, Conservation farming unit (CFU), 2011

URL:

cfu@zamnet.zm