Nine maize planted in a pit (Paul Kahiga (8444-00300 Nairobi))

Nine Maize Pits (Kenya)

Maize Pits

Description

The nine maize pits is a type of SLM technology whereby, a planting pits measuring (2*2*2) feet are dug along a contour and maize planted in the pit at a spacing of (30*30) cm. The top soil is mixed with FYM and the spaces in between are left un-ploughed.

Maize pits commonly referred as zai is a traditional land rehabilitation technology “invented” to rehabilitate degraded dry lands and to restore soil fertility to the benefit of farmers living there.They are made on land which is not very permeable so that runoff can be collected. Improvements in the traditional pits by the addition of organic matter (compost) have resulted in dramatic improvements in yield. The planting pits are suitable for semi-arid area like the lower Mbeere District to enable crops to survive dry spells. They are used on a wide variety soil types but most suitable on silt and clay soils where runoff can be generated due to limited permeability.

Purpose of the Technology: Apart from establishment of a nine maize crop stand in one pit, the technology assists in harvesting rain water, conserving the moisture, managing of soil fertility and controlling of weed development. Use of this technique in Mbeere South District have produced higher grain yields, particularly on highly degraded sandy soils. They offers a good potential to both increase the livelihood of the rural population and at the same time, combat desertification.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: The process is started in dry season of the year. Holes of 2ft by 2ft and 2ft deep are dug out. Remove the top soil and put it on the uphill side. Remove the subsoil and place it down hill to form a continuous bund from end to end of each row. The top soil is returned into the pit and mixed with animal manure at the rate of 1 debe per hole. Plant 9 maize seeds on the pit at a spacing of 1foot. The compost can be made from rotted cow/sheep dung, leaves, and ashes from wood-fueled stoves.

Natural / human environment: These maize pits are usually constructed on abandoned or unused ground. Thus, crop yields resulting from this practice bring a benefit of 100%.

Location

Location: Mbere South District, Eastern Province, Kenya

No. of Technology sites analysed:

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • 37.69734, -0.74395

Spread of the Technology: evenly spread over an area (approx. < 0.1 km2 (10 ha))

In a permanently protected area?:

Date of implementation: 10-50 years ago

Type of introduction
Construction of the nine maize pits, the top soil is put aside and mixed with manure (Paul Kahiga (8444-00300 Nairobi))

Classification of the Technology

Main purpose
  • improve production
  • reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
  • conserve ecosystem
  • protect a watershed/ downstream areas – in combination with other Technologies
  • preserve/ improve biodiversity
  • reduce risk of disasters
  • adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts
  • mitigate climate change and its impacts
  • create beneficial economic impact
  • create beneficial social impact
Land use

  • Cropland
    • Annual cropping: cereals - maize, legumes and pulses - beans
    Number of growing seasons per year: 1

Water supply
  • rainfed
  • mixed rainfed-irrigated
  • full irrigation

Purpose related to land degradation
  • prevent land degradation
  • reduce land degradation
  • restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land
  • adapt to land degradation
  • not applicable
Degradation addressed
  • water degradation - Ha: aridification
SLM group
  • minimal soil disturbance
  • integrated soil fertility management
  • water harvesting
SLM measures
  • structural measures - S2: Bunds, banks

Technical drawing

Technical specifications
The technical drawing on the right side shows a representation of how the nine maize pits are prepared. The top soil is put aside and mixed with FYM or other organic matter. The area in between the pits is left undisturbed.

Location: Mbeere South District. Eastern
Date: 19/09/2012

Main technical functions: control of raindrop splash, water spreading, sediment retention / trapping, sediment harvesting
Secondary technical functions: control of dispersed runoff: retain / trap, control of concentrated runoff: retain / trap

Retention/infiltration ditch/pit, sediment/sand trap
Vertical interval between structures (m): 0.2
Spacing between structures (m): 0.3
Depth of ditches/pits/dams (m): 0.2
Width of ditches/pits/dams (m): 0.3
Length of ditches/pits/dams (m): 0.3
Author: Paul Kahiga, 62000-00200 Nairobi

Establishment and maintenance: activities, inputs and costs

Calculation of inputs and costs
  • Costs are calculated:
  • Currency used for cost calculation: KSh
  • Exchange rate (to USD): 1 USD = 100.0 KSh
  • Average wage cost of hired labour per day: 4.00
Most important factors affecting the costs
It requires high intensity labour due to manual construction.
Establishment activities
  1. Land clearing (Timing/ frequency: Before onset of rainfall)
  2. Digging of pits (Timing/ frequency: Before onste of rainfall)
  3. Buying of seed maize (Timing/ frequency: before onset of rains)
  4. Planting of seed maize (Timing/ frequency: just before onset of rain)
Establishment inputs and costs
Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (KSh) Total costs per input (KSh) % of costs borne by land users
Labour
Labour ha 1.0 24.0 24.0 100.0
Equipment
Tools ha 1.0 15.0 15.0 100.0
Plant material
Seeds ha 1.0 12.0 12.0 100.0
Fertilizers and biocides
Manure (FYM) ha 1.0 50.0 50.0 100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology 101.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD 1.01
Maintenance activities
  1. Weeding (Timing/ frequency: after 2 months)
Maintenance inputs and costs
Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (KSh) Total costs per input (KSh) % of costs borne by land users
Labour
Labour (weeding) ha 1.0 24.0 24.0 100.0
Equipment
Tools ha 1.0 15.0 15.0 100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology 39.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD 0.39

Natural environment

Average 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
Agro-climatic zone
  • humid
  • sub-humid
  • semi-arid
  • arid
Specifications on climate
Thermal climate class: tropics
Slope
  • 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
Altitude
  • 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.
Technology is applied in
  • convex situations
  • concave situations
  • not relevant
Soil depth
  • 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)
  • coarse/ light (sandy)
  • medium (loamy, silty)
  • fine/ heavy (clay)
Soil texture (> 20 cm below surface)
  • coarse/ light (sandy)
  • medium (loamy, silty)
  • fine/ heavy (clay)
Topsoil organic matter content
  • high (>3%)
  • medium (1-3%)
  • low (<1%)
Groundwater table
  • on surface
  • < 5 m
  • 5-50 m
  • > 50 m
Availability of surface water
  • excess
  • good
  • medium
  • poor/ none
Water quality (untreated)
  • good drinking water
  • poor drinking water (treatment required)
  • for agricultural use only (irrigation)
  • unusable
Water quality refers to:
Is salinity a problem?
  • Yes
  • No

Occurrence of flooding
  • Yes
  • No
Species diversity
  • high
  • medium
  • low
Habitat diversity
  • high
  • medium
  • low

Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Market orientation
  • subsistence (self-supply)
  • mixed (subsistence/ commercial)
  • commercial/ market
Off-farm income
  • less than 10% of all income
  • 10-50% of all income
  • > 50% of all income
Relative level of wealth
  • very poor
  • poor
  • average
  • rich
  • very rich
Level of mechanization
  • manual work
  • animal traction
  • mechanized/ motorized
Sedentary or nomadic
  • Sedentary
  • Semi-nomadic
  • Nomadic
Individuals or groups
  • individual/ household
  • groups/ community
  • cooperative
  • employee (company, government)
Gender
  • women
  • men
Age
  • children
  • youth
  • middle-aged
  • elderly
Area used per household
  • < 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
Scale
  • small-scale
  • medium-scale
  • large-scale
Land ownership
  • state
  • company
  • communal/ village
  • group
  • individual, not titled
  • individual, titled
Land use rights
  • open access (unorganized)
  • communal (organized)
  • leased
  • individual
Water use rights
  • open access (unorganized)
  • communal (organized)
  • leased
  • individual
Access to services and infrastructure
health

poor
good
markets

poor
good

Impacts

Socio-economic impacts
Crop production
decreased
increased

risk of production failure
increased
decreased

land management
hindered
simplified


Machinery

farm income
decreased
increased

workload
increased
decreased


High manpower to dig the pits

Socio-cultural impacts
food security/ self-sufficiency
reduced
improved

SLM/ land degradation knowledge
reduced
improved

Food security and a source of income generation at household level
decreased
increased

Ecological impacts
harvesting/ collection of water (runoff, dew, snow, etc)
reduced
improved

evaporation
increased
decreased

soil moisture
decreased
increased

Off-site impacts
damage on neighbours' fields
increased
reduced

damage on public/ private infrastructure
increased
reduced

Cost-benefit analysis

Benefits compared with establishment costs
Short-term returns
very negative
very positive

Long-term returns
very negative
very positive

Benefits compared with maintenance costs
Short-term returns
very negative
very positive

Long-term returns
very negative
very positive

Climate change

Gradual climate change
annual temperature increase

not well at all
very well
Climate-related extremes (disasters)
drought

not well at all
very well

Adoption and adaptation

Percentage of land users in the area who have adopted the Technology
  • single cases/ experimental
  • 1-10%
  • 11-50%
  • > 50%
Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many have done so without receiving material incentives?
  • 0-10%
  • 11-50%
  • 51-90%
  • 91-100%
Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?
  • Yes
  • No
To which changing conditions?
  • climatic change/ extremes
  • changing markets
  • labour availability (e.g. due to migration)

Conclusions and lessons learnt

Strengths: land user's view
  • Prevention of soil erosion.
  • It is a water harvesting technology.
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • Food security.
  • Prevention of excessive evaporation.
  • Income generation at household level.
  • Improves ground water recharge.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
  • Encourages pests to stay in the pits
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
  • Labour intensive (construction & maintenance)
  • In wet seasons, they can be prone to water logging
  • Prevents machinery movement in the farms

References

Compiler
  • Paul Kahiga
Editors
Reviewer
  • Fabian Ottiger
  • Alexandra Gavilano
Date of documentation: Feb. 19, 2015
Last update: May 3, 2019
Resource persons
Full description in the WOCAT database
Linked SLM data
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution Project
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International