This is an outdated, inactive version of this case. Go to the current version.
Technologies
Inactive

Application of balanced fertiliser to improve soil productivity [Bangladesh]

Shumo shar babohar

technologies_3852 - Bangladesh

Completeness: 86%

1. معلومات عامة

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

Key resource person(s)

land user:

Alam Khorshed

+8801857412268

Village- South Dhalla, PS-Singair

Bangladesh

land user:

Jainul Abedin

+8801823014214

Village-South Dhalla, PS-Singair

Bangladesh

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

15/05/2018

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

نعم

1.4 Declaration on sustainability of the described Technology

Is the Technology described here problematic with regard to land degradation, so that it cannot be declared a sustainable land management technology?

لا

Comments:

It reduces fertility decline

2. Description of the SLM Technology

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

To avoid fertility decline through balanced fertiliser

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The SLM technology named ' Application of balanced fertiliser to improve soil productivity' has been introduced in Dhalla union of Singair upazila under Manikgong district of Bangladesh. The technology included applying different types of fertiliser like compost, Urea, TSP, MOP, Zypsum, Zinc Sulphate, boron etc. Compost, Urea, TSP, MOP, Zypsum , Zinc Sulphate and Boron are applied at the rate of 5 ton, 45kg, 65kg, 40 kg, 45 kg, 2 kg respectively. The main purpose of the technology was to improve soil nutrient status by using balanced fertiliser along with organic farming. The advantages achieved by the technology included nutrient mining decline, crop productivity increase and improvement of socio-economic conditions of the land users. The farmers community have accepted the well established methods of balanced fertiliser use. Because they are absolutely benefitted by this technology and it wIll mitigate the climate change impacts by reducing land degradation problem throughout the country.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

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

بلد:

Bangladesh

Region/ State/ Province:

Manikgong

2.6 Date of implementation

Indicate year of implementation:

1900

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:
  • less than 10 years ago (recently)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

  • Advisory services of DAE
Comments (type of project, etc.):

SFFP project of DAE

3. Classification of the SLM Technology

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

  • improve production
  • reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
  • conserve ecosystem
  • preserve/ improve biodiversity
  • adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts
  • create beneficial social impact

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

Cropland

Cropland

  • Annual cropping
Main crops (cash and food crops):

rice

If land use has changed due to the implementation of the Technology, indicate land use before implementation of the Technology:

rice-fallow-fallow

3.3 Further information about land use

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:
  • mixed rainfed-irrigated
Number of growing seasons per year:
  • 3
Specify:

Rabi vegetables-irrigated rice- Rain fed rice AMAN

3.4 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

  • integrated soil fertility management

3.5 Spread of the Technology

Specify the spread of the Technology:
  • applied at specific points/ concentrated on a small area
Comments:

It was started in a small area but now it is spreading surrounding locations

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

management measures

management measures

  • M2: Change of management/ intensity level

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

chemical soil deterioration

chemical soil deterioration

  • Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content (not caused by erosion)

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

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

4. Technical specifications, implementation activities, inputs, and costs

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

Author:

Md Babul Hossain

Date:

24/03/2018

4.2 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing

A farmer is broadcasting Urea in the paddy field. He is maintaining proper fertiliser application rate for rice field. All the fertilisers except Urea have been incorporated in the soil during final land preparation. But, Urea is being broadcasted two times after rice transplanting in the main paddy field.

4.3 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:
  • per Technology unit
Specify unit:

1 hectare

Indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (if relevant): 1 USD =:

83,0

Indicate average wage cost of hired labour per day:

500 TAKA

4.4 Establishment activities

Activity Type of measure Timing
1. Balanced fertilisers like compost,urea, TSP, MOP, Zypsum,Zinc sulphate and boron fertiliser application Management After final land preparation, urea, TSP,MOP and zinc sulphate fertilisers were used. Again, urea was broadcast at the age of 30 days of transplanted crop.
2. Broadcasting of Urea Agronomic After 30 days of transplanting

4.5 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit Total costs per input % of costs borne by land users
Labour Farmer person per day 5,0 500,0 2500,0 80,0
Fertilizers and biocides compost Kg/ha 5000,0 5,0 25000,0 100,0
Fertilizers and biocides
Fertilizers and biocides TSP Kg/ha 65,0 26,0 1690,0 80,0
Fertilizers and biocides MOP Kg/ha 45,0 14,0 630,0 80,0
Fertilizers and biocides Zypsum Kg/ha 45,0 12,0 540,0 80,0
Fertilizers and biocides Zinc sulphate Kg/ha 40,0 190,0 7600,0 80,0
Fertilizers and biocides Boron Kg/ha 2,0 320,0 640,0 100,0
Fertilizers and biocides pesticides tk/ha 3,03 3000,0 9090,0 100,0
Construction material timber
Total costs for establishment of the Technology 47690,0
If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:

Agricultural Extension department as government subsidy for input cost

4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

Activity Type of measure Timing/ frequency
1. Weeding Agronomic During vegetative stage/3
2. Broad casting fertiliser Agronomic 2
3. watering Agronomic 3
4. pesticide application Agronomic if necessary

4.7 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 farmers person -per day 3,0 500,0 1500,0 100,0
Fertilizers and biocides Urea broadcasting KG/HA 90,0 16,0 1440,0 100,0
Other Watering litre/hectare 10000,0 3,0 30000,0 100,0
Other pesticide kg/ha 20,0 200,0 4000,0 100,0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology 36940,0

5. Natural and human environment

5.1 Climate

Annual rainfall
  • < 250 mm
  • 251-500 mm
  • 501-750 mm
  • 751-1,000 mm
  • 1,001-1,500 mm
  • 1,501-2,000 mm
  • 2,001-3,000 mm
  • 3,001-4,000 mm
  • > 4,000 mm
Specify average annual rainfall (if known), in mm:

1900,00

Indicate the name of the reference meteorological station considered:

Dhaka

Agro-climatic zone
  • humid

5.2 Topography

Slopes on average:
  • flat (0-2%)
  • gentle (3-5%)
  • moderate (6-10%)
  • rolling (11-15%)
  • hilly (16-30%)
  • steep (31-60%)
  • very steep (>60%)
Landforms:
  • plateau/plains
  • ridges
  • mountain slopes
  • hill slopes
  • footslopes
  • valley floors
Altitudinal zone:
  • 0-100 m a.s.l.
  • 101-500 m a.s.l.
  • 501-1,000 m a.s.l.
  • 1,001-1,500 m a.s.l.
  • 1,501-2,000 m a.s.l.
  • 2,001-2,500 m a.s.l.
  • 2,501-3,000 m a.s.l.
  • 3,001-4,000 m a.s.l.
  • > 4,000 m a.s.l.
Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:
  • not relevant

5.3 Soils

Soil depth on average:
  • very shallow (0-20 cm)
  • shallow (21-50 cm)
  • moderately deep (51-80 cm)
  • deep (81-120 cm)
  • very deep (> 120 cm)
Soil texture (topsoil):
  • medium (loamy, silty)
Soil texture (> 20 cm below surface):
  • medium (loamy, silty)
Topsoil organic matter:
  • low (<1%)
If available, attach full soil description or specify the available information, e.g. soil type, soil PH/ acidity, Cation Exchange Capacity, nitrogen, salinity etc.

Medium high land, silt loam, silmondi soil series, soil ph-6.6, organic matter -0.88, CEC-0.25,Nitrogen-0.13%

5.4 Water availability and quality

Ground water table:

5-50 m

Availability of surface water:

poor/ none

Water quality (untreated):

good drinking water

Is water salinity a problem?

لا

Is flooding of the area occurring?

نعم

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

episodically

5.5 Biodiversity

Species diversity:
  • medium
Habitat diversity:
  • medium

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Sedentary or nomadic:
  • Sedentary
Market orientation of production system:
  • mixed (subsistence/ commercial
Off-farm income:
  • 10-50% of all income
Relative level of wealth:
  • average
Individuals or groups:
  • individual/ household
Level of mechanization:
  • manual work
Gender:
  • men
Age of land users:
  • middle-aged
  • elderly

5.7 Average area of land owned or leased by land users applying the Technology

  • < 0.5 ha
  • 0.5-1 ha
  • 1-2 ha
  • 2-5 ha
  • 5-15 ha
  • 15-50 ha
  • 50-100 ha
  • 100-500 ha
  • 500-1,000 ha
  • 1,000-10,000 ha
  • > 10,000 ha
Is this considered small-, medium- or large-scale (referring to local context)?
  • small-scale

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

Land ownership:
  • individual, not titled
  • individual, titled
Land use rights:
  • individual
Water use rights:
  • individual

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

health:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
education:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
technical assistance:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
employment (e.g. off-farm):
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
markets:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
energy:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
roads and transport:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
drinking water and sanitation:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
financial services:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good

6. Impacts and concluding statements

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

crop production

decreased
increased

crop quality

decreased
increased

land management

hindered
simplified
Water availability and quality

drinking water availability

decreased
increased

drinking water quality

decreased
increased

water availability for livestock

decreased
increased

water quality for livestock

decreased
increased

irrigation water availability

decreased
increased

irrigation water quality

decreased
increased

demand for irrigation water

increased
decreased
Income and costs

expenses on agricultural inputs

increased
decreased

farm income

decreased
increased

diversity of income sources

decreased
increased

Socio-cultural impacts

food security/ self-sufficiency

reduced
improved

health situation

worsened
improved

land use/ water rights

worsened
improved

cultural opportunities

reduced
improved

recreational opportunities

reduced
improved

community institutions

weakened
strengthened

national institutions

weakened
strengthened

SLM/ land degradation knowledge

reduced
improved

situation of socially and economically disadvantaged groups

worsened
improved

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

water quantity

decreased
increased
Soil

soil moisture

decreased
increased

soil cover

reduced
improved

soil loss

increased
decreased

soil accumulation

decreased
increased

soil crusting/ sealing

increased
reduced

soil compaction

increased
reduced

nutrient cycling/ recharge

decreased
increased

salinity

increased
decreased
Quantity before SLM:

not relevant

soil organic matter/ below ground C

decreased
increased

acidity

increased
reduced
Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Vegetation cover

decreased
increased

biomass/ above ground C

decreased
increased

plant diversity

decreased
increased

invasive alien species

increased
reduced

animal diversity

decreased
increased

beneficial species

decreased
increased

habitat diversity

decreased
increased

pest/ disease control

decreased
increased
Climate and disaster risk reduction

flood impacts

increased
decreased

drought impacts

increased
decreased

emission of carbon and greenhouse gases

increased
decreased

micro-climate

worsened
improved
Other ecological impacts

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

water availability

decreased
increased

groundwater/ river pollution

increased
reduced

impact of greenhouse gases

increased
reduced

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 Type of climatic change/ extreme How does the Technology cope with it?
annual temperature decrease moderately

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Climatological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it?
drought well
Biological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it?
epidemic diseases very well
insect/ worm infestation very well

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?
Short-term returns:

very positive

Long-term returns:

positive

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?
Short-term returns:

positive

Long-term returns:

positive

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

  • more than 50%
Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many have did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?
  • 10-50%

6.6 Adaptation

Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?

لا

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
It reduces soil nutrient mining
Production cost decreased
Crop production increased more than two times
Soil moisture holding capacity increased
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Sustainable soil management technology developed
Soil health improved
judicious use of natural resources

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys

Ten local people

  • interviews with land users

Twenty land users

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Rahman, M. R. 1990. Country report, Bangladesh. In: Problem Soils of Asia and the Pacific. Report of the Expert Consultation of the Asian Network on Problem soils. Bangkok, Thailand, 29 August-1 September 1989

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules