Contour ridging cultivation of cassava in the convex slopy landforms (Allan Bubelwa (P.Box. 38 Kyaka Bunazi Missenyi Kagera Tanzania))

Integrated agronomic measure for sustainable cassava production in convex sloppy landform (Tanzania, United Republic of)

Matumizi ya matuta na vikinga maji katika kilimo cha mihogo

Description

Use of contour ridging cultivation, tiles, manure application and improved genetic material for sustainable cassava production in convex sloppy landforms.

Contour ridges cultivation is a seasonal water conservation and erosion control land tilling practice aiming at improving production of cassava (Manihot esculenta), improving potential of the soil and environmental function of the land. The technology is among a list of basket of choices of SLM practices recently introduced and adapted to the area by land user working in collaboration with extension officers/SLM specialists under the auspicious support of the Tras-boundary Agro-ecosystem Management Project (Kagera TAMP).
Contour ridges are cultivated in rows across a convex slope landform of average slope category lying between 5-8%. The average height of a ridge is 0.45 -0.50m, with width lying between 0.4 -0.5m, and the distance between rows is 1 meter. To be stronger, contour ridges are tied with furrows (Tiles) dug along the slope intercepting the ridges almost perpendicular. Within a cassava block farm of average size 0.5 acres, the average length of a contour ridge is approximately 30 - 35m. Within tiles, pits are dug. The distance from one pit to another is usually 5 meters. Soils from dug pit are piled on the lower side of the slope to form a supportive bund which is stabilized and made productive by planting pineapples on it. The number of pineapples (suckers) planted on each pit bund is 3-4. Tiles provide diagonal strength to the ridges, trap runoff and allow water to infiltrate and be available to the plants. Manure application is done after contour ridging by incorporating or mixing manure with soil. Manure application at a rate of 12 tons per hectare is done before cassava planting.

Purpose of the Technology: The basic tenet of this technology is to turn a poorly managed land resource that is exposed to detrimental grazing, poor agricultural practices and uncontrolled fire burning into a managed, productive agricultural land that contribute to improved agriculture production, livelihood income and ecosystems (put the triple win solution into reality).
The rural food security and income are enhanced through soil erosion control, fertility improvement, beneficial harvesting of rainfall-runoff and use of improved cassava germ-plasm (with high resilience to climatic change and diseases and no use of chemicals).

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: The technology is largely agronomic dominated by seasonally repeatedly activities. The dominant recurrent activities are land preparation, contour ridging cultivation, tile digging (furrow digging, pit digging, bund making and pineapple planting), manure application, cassava planting, weeding and harvesting. The inputs needed are: tools (machete, sickles, hand holes), planting materials (cassava and pineapple), manure and labour.
The average costs per hectare of this technology is 1155.48 USD. Manure application is the most cost determinant factor and accounts for 50.89% of the total costs. Average production of cassava per hectare is 7,376.32 USD. In monetary terms the average benefit to cost ratio B/C is 6.38 exemplifying viability of the technology.

Natural / human environment: Naturally the environment encompasses cropland land use type , the technology is largely agronomic, climatic zone is sub humid with 210 length of growing period, slope category is foot slopes, the dominant soil textural class is loam with a medium soil depth. On human environment the defined level of mechanization is largely hand tools, production is mixed. land ownership is largely individual not titled and there is also communally owned land.

Location

Location: Bukoba rural district/Karonge, Tanzania/Kagera, Tanzania, United Republic of

No. of Technology sites analysed:

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • 31.8189, -1.3293

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

In a permanently protected area?:

Date of implementation: less than 10 years ago (recently)

Type of introduction
A Furrow (Tile) dug perpendicular to contour ridges with pit and pineapples planted on bund (Allan Bubelwa (P.O.Box 38 Kyaka Missenyi Kagera Tanzania))

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: root/tuber crops - cassava
    • Perennial (non-woody) cropping: pineapple
    Number of growing seasons per year: 2

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
  • soil erosion by water - Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion
  • chemical soil deterioration - Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content (not caused by erosion)
SLM group
  • integrated soil fertility management
  • improved plant varieties/ animal breeds
SLM measures
  • agronomic measures - A2: Organic matter/ soil fertility, A3: Soil surface treatment

Technical drawing

Technical specifications

Establishment and maintenance: activities, inputs and costs

Calculation of inputs and costs
  • Costs are calculated:
  • Currency used for cost calculation: Tanzanian shillings
  • Exchange rate (to USD): 1 USD = 1700.0 Tanzanian shillings
  • Average wage cost of hired labour per day: 1.50
Most important factors affecting the costs
Manuring is the most determinant factor affecting the costs.
Establishment activities
  1. tools (Timing/ frequency: None)
Establishment inputs and costs
Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (Tanzanian shillings) Total costs per input (Tanzanian shillings) % of costs borne by land users
Equipment
Tools pieces 36.0 2.9167 105.0 100.0
Plant material
cassava cuttings 1.0
Fertilizers and biocides
compost/manure 1.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology 105.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD 0.06
Maintenance activities
  1. Land preparation (clearing and ploughing) (Timing/ frequency: November)
  2. Contour ridging cultivation combined with tiles. (Timing/ frequency: December)
  3. Manure application (Timing/ frequency: December)
  4. Procurement of improved cassava varieties (Mkombozi) and pineapple suckers. (Timing/ frequency: December)
  5. Planting cassava and pineapple (Timing/ frequency: December)
  6. Weeding (Timing/ frequency: February and September)
  7. Harvesting (Timing/ frequency: Once annualy)
Maintenance inputs and costs
Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (Tanzanian shillings) Total costs per input (Tanzanian shillings) % of costs borne by land users
Labour
Land preparation person/days 45.0 1.17777 53.0 100.0
Contour ridging cultivation combined with tiles. person/days 60.0 1.46666 88.0 100.0
Manure application person/days 30.0 1.46666 44.0 100.0
Planting cassava and pineapple person/days 13.0 1.154 15.0 100.0
Equipment
Tools 1.0 100.0
Plant material
cassava cuttings pieces 10000.0 0.017648 176.48
pineapple suckers pieces 180.0 0.28888888 52.0
Fertilizers and biocides
Compost/manure Tons 12.0 49.0 588.0
Other
Labour: Weeding person/days 26.0 0.577 15.0 100.0
Labour: Harvesting person/days 26.0 0.7307 19.0 100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology 1'050.48
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD 0.62

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
Long sesaon September to December, short season March to May. September to December 180 days, March to May 90 days, Total 210
Thermal climate class: tropics. Average 21°C
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
education

poor
good
technical assistance

poor
good
employment (e.g. off-farm)

poor
good
markets

poor
good
energy

poor
good
roads and transport

poor
good
drinking water and sanitation

poor
good

Impacts

Socio-economic impacts
Crop production
decreased
increased

Quantity before SLM: 12
Quantity after SLM: 24

wood production
decreased
increased

risk of production failure
increased
decreased

Quantity before SLM: 12
Quantity after SLM: 0

product diversity
decreased
increased


Only food

production area (new land under cultivation/ use)
decreased
increased


Few adopters

land management
hindered
simplified

expenses on agricultural inputs
increased
decreased

Quantity before SLM: 30 dollars
Quantity after SLM: 940 dollas
Due to manue application, purchase of improved cartivars and suckers

farm income
decreased
increased

Quantity before SLM: 600
Quantity after SLM: 1200

workload
increased
decreased


Weeding is done once. Needs a lot more labour, hired labourers

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

Quantity before SLM: 0.3
Quantity after SLM: 0.7
Demo site only

SLM/ land degradation knowledge
reduced
improved


Very few adoption

situation of socially and economically disadvantaged groups (gender, age, status, ehtnicity etc.)
worsened
improved


Few widows

Improved livelihoods and human well-being
decreased
improved


Increased productivity above 50% leading to increase income and farmers capacity to invest in education and health.

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

surface runoff
increased
decreased


Close ridges

excess water drainage
reduced
improved

soil cover
reduced
improved

nutrient cycling/ recharge
decreased
increased


Residuals

soil organic matter/ below ground C
decreased
increased


Manure application

biomass/ above ground C
decreased
increased


Residuals

pest/ disease control
decreased
increased


Pure stand

fire risk
increased
decreased


Guarding

Off-site impacts

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

The quality of cassava has improved and there is an increase in productivity. In general rewards are realized within a short term i.e. benefit accrued from cassava surpass the initial investment costs.

Climate change

Gradual climate change
annual temperature increase

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

not well at all
very well
local windstorm

not well at all
very well
Answer: not known
drought

not well at all
very well
general (river) flood

not well at all
very well
Answer: not known
Other climate-related consequences
reduced growing period

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%
Number of households and/ or area covered
50 households and 10% of the area covered
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
  • Group strength and cohesiveness.
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • The technology contributes to soil erosion control, improved soil fertility and improved soil moisture.
  • There is increase in cassava productivity and income accrued from sell of cassava.
  • The technology promote diversification of income sources (cassava and pineapples)
  • Poorly managed land is changed into well managed and beneficial productive agricultural land.
  • Increased farmers commitment to mitigate land degradation
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
  • High expectation due to promissory at the project beginning Stick and give emphasis to project objectives.
  • Slow and weak response of some farmers (group dynamics) Enhance access to quality extension services.
  • Material support ideology Change mindset of farmer from material incentive to self mobilization
  • Community ignorance in land protective bylaws Awareness creation of farmers to laws and act guiding environmental conservation and reinforce use of bylaws.
  • Never attended any study tours Introduce look and learn tour for farmers to see and learn best practices.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
  • High initial investment capital (manure is the most cost determinant factor) Establishment of rural micro finance institutions and formation of inter group farmer associations and networks.
  • Post harvest losses, farmer ignorance in Cassava value addition technologies and tendencies to sell cassava at farm gate dilutes maximum profit realization. Support to post harvest technology and value addition technologies for maximum realization of profit.
  • Shortage of improved planting materials (germ plasma) Liaise with research station for adequate multiplication and distribution of improved planting materials.

References

Compiler
  • ALLAN BUBELWA
Editors
Reviewer
  • Ursula Gaemperli
  • Fabian Ottiger
  • Alexandra Gavilano
Date of documentation: May 28, 2014
Last update: Aug. 6, 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