Local compost making
(Tanzania, United Republic of)
Mapambano (Kiswahili)
Description
Traditional compost making using locally available materials
compost is made in a pit. A pit is dug of 3m diameter and 3m deep.Ashi is pread at the bottom followed by a 4" layer of smooth pasture grass thten all crop remaining, slashed grass, tree leaves, sisal leaves, farm yard manure, animal urine and ash are filled into the pit at laternate layers. 3 people can dig the pit in one day waste domestic water ( washings and cleanings) are daily poured into the mixture. It takes 3 1/2 months to fill up into a heap of 1/2 above the ground level smooth grass is then covered at the top while pouring urine and waste water continues. The final product is a greysh powder like material the compost is spot applied to planting hole at 1/4 litre per hole once after every three years she grows maize, sorghum, finger millet and millet. She intercrop with beans, pigeon peas, cowpeas and groundnuts. The compost is not applied to legumes. The compost increased yield from 3 bags/acre to 20-24 bag/acre of maize. The compost increase soil fertility and soil structure and texture. The emptied pits are usually filled again. Seeds can be mixed with the compost on sowing as it has no side effect. She sells to others the compost at 100/= Tshs ( 0.125 USD) per tin. Maintenance is pouring of waste soap water and cattle urine to catalyse decomposition.
Location
Location: Dodoma/Kondoa, Dodoma, Tanzania, United Republic of
No. of Technology sites analysed:
Geo-reference of selected sites
Spread of the Technology: applied at specific points/ concentrated on a small area
In a permanently protected area?:
Date of implementation: more than 50 years ago (traditional)
Type of introduction
-
through land users' innovation
-
as part of a traditional system (> 50 years)
-
during experiments/ research
-
through projects/ external interventions
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, cereals - millet, cereals - sorghum, finger millet
Number of growing seasons per year: 1
Is intercropping practiced? Yes
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)
-
water degradation - Ha: aridification
SLM group
-
integrated soil fertility management
SLM measures
-
agronomic measures - A2: Organic matter/ soil fertility
Technical drawing
Technical specifications
Establishment and maintenance: activities, inputs and costs
Calculation of inputs and costs
- Costs are calculated:
- Currency used for cost calculation: USD
- Exchange rate (to USD): 1 USD = n.a
- Average wage cost of hired labour per day: 1.90
Most important factors affecting the costs
Labour for pits, labour for ferrying compost
Establishment activities
n.a.
Establishment inputs and costs
Specify input |
Unit |
Quantity |
Costs per Unit (USD) |
Total costs per input (USD) |
% of costs borne by land users |
Labour
|
Labour |
persons/day/ha |
335.5 |
1.9 |
637.45 |
100.0 |
Equipment
|
Tools |
ha |
1.0 |
8.9 |
8.9 |
100.0 |
Total costs for establishment of the Technology |
646.35 |
|
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD |
646.35 |
|
Maintenance activities
-
compost making (Timing/ frequency: 3 timesyear / continously)
-
application of compost (Timing/ frequency: planting time / once/3 years)
Maintenance inputs and costs
Specify input |
Unit |
Quantity |
Costs per Unit (USD) |
Total costs per input (USD) |
% of costs borne by land users |
Labour
|
Compost making and application |
persons/day/ha |
131.0 |
1.9 |
248.9 |
100.0 |
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology |
248.9 |
|
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD |
248.9 |
|
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
n.a.
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
Is salinity a problem?
Occurrence of flooding
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)
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
Impacts
Ecological impacts
organic matter delay to decompose
Off-site impacts
reliable and stable stream flows in dry season (incl. low flows)
downstream flooding (undesired)
wind transported sediments
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
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
60 households (20 percent of land users)
Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?
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
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
-
use local material
How can they be sustained / enhanced? SWC to sustain vegetation
-
compost transferable to other areas
How can they be sustained / enhanced? packing in bags and sell to others
-
increased crop yield
How can they be sustained / enhanced? dissemination of the technology
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
-
transport of the compost to the farm
use ox-cart
References
Compiler
-
Patrick Gervas Mbanguka Lameck
Reviewer
-
David Streiff
-
Alexandra Gavilano
Date of documentation: Feb. 24, 2011
Last update: Aug. 7, 2019
Resource persons
-
Patrick Gervas Mbanguka Lameck - SLM specialist
-
Hamidu Dumea - SLM specialist
-
William Critchley - SLM specialist
Full description in the WOCAT database
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution
- CIS-Centre for International Cooperation (CIS-Centre for International Cooperation) - Netherlands
- Inades Formation Tanzania (Inades Formation Tanzania)
- Ministry of Agriculture of Tanzania (MoA) - Tanzania, United Republic of
Project
Key references
-
1st Farmer innovators Workshop: INADES, Tanzania.