A Farmer inspecting his cactus (Slim Sim)

Cactus Cultivation (Tunisia)

Description

This technology is based on the natural advantages and the multi-purpose usage of spineless cactus pear (Opuntia fiscus-indica), to cultivate marginal lands in central Tunisia, generating environmental and socio-economic benefits.

The central areas of Tunisia are semi-arid and receive less than 500 millimeters of annual rainfall . Most of these lands are considered marginal as result of land degradation. Marginal lands are often used as (unproductive) grazing land for livestock. To revitalize these areas and to benefit the local population, the International Centre of Agricultural Research in Dry Areas (ICARDA) and its national partners have investigated the potential of cactus as a crop (e.g. Opuntia fiscus-indica).

Spineless cactus was already introduced in Tunisia during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, but beginning in 1920-1930 cultivation for fodder production has gradually evolved. Opuntia is known for its invasive character, but the particular species being promoted - Opuntia fiscus-indica - is non-invasive. The crop is well suited for the Tunisian context because the cacti can cope with high temperatures and grow well in (semi)-arid areas with limited rainfall. Additionally, the plant is very resilient as it can withstand a long dry season due to its high water- content and water-use -efficiency, which are a result of its morphology (waxy cuticle, no actual leaves) and its Crassulacean Acid Metabolism (CAM). In a CAM plant, stomata in the leaves remain shut during the day to reduce evapotranspiration, but open at night to collect and fix carbon dioxide (CO2). In general, cacti have multiple products that benefit local livelihoods. These are, for example, stable production of fodder for livestock and fruits for human consumption. Also, cactus can grow and produce requiring few inputs such as fertilizers, therefore marginal lands are well suited for cultivation. The main current risk for cactus cultivation is the risk of cochineal, an insect pest.

To establish a cactus plantation, the surface is ploughed to loosen up the often crusted soil. Then furrows are constructed in which the cacti pads are planted. Simultaneously, the furrows are partly filled with manure. The depth and widths of the furrows are 30 centimetres. The spacing between plants within the row is 50 centimeters and the distance between rows is 5 meters.
A cactus plantation needs weeding. Weeding is mechanically done by a plough in March to May. Harvesting of fruit is manually done by fruit-pickers in August to September. Cacti can also be harvested for their pads, which can be fed to livestock or used for outplanting. It is excellent fodder as it has a high nutritional value and high water-content. On average, a farmer following these agronomic practices generates an income of 800 USD per hectare.

To conclude, this documentation shows that the implementation of cacti is socio-economically and environmentally appropriate to cultivate marginal lands as cacti uses water and nutrients highly efficient while reducing land degradation. Therefore, the out-scaling of cacti is very valuable and a practical option to fight land degradation and enhance smallholder’s income.

Location

Location: Kairouan, Zaghouan, Siliana, Kef, Sidi Bouzid, Kasserine and Gafsa, Central Tunisia, Tunisia

No. of Technology sites analysed: 100-1000 sites

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • 9.42697, 35.14238
  • 9.71637, 35.69609
  • 10.15496, 36.41371
  • 9.35297, 36.09566
  • 8.72947, 36.15951
  • 9.47131, 35.04746
  • 8.83297, 35.18552
  • 8.75169, 34.38844

Spread of the Technology: evenly spread over an area (approx. 1-10 km2)

In a permanently protected area?: No

Date of implementation: 10-50 years ago

Type of introduction
Household Survey (Mounir Louhaichi)
Tasting delicious cactus pear fruits in Tunis (Mounir Louhaichi)

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
Land use mixed within the same land unit: No

  • Cropland
    • Tree and shrub cropping: cactus, cactus-like (e.g. opuntia)
    Number of growing seasons per year: 1
    Is intercropping practiced? No
    Is crop rotation practiced? No
  • Grazing land
    • Cut-and-carry/ zero grazing
    Animal type: goats, sheep

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, Wg: gully erosion/ gullying
  • soil erosion by wind - Et: loss of topsoil
  • physical soil deterioration - Pk: slaking and crusting
  • biological degradation - Bc: reduction of vegetation cover
SLM group
  • improved ground/ vegetation cover
  • improved plant varieties/ animal breeds
SLM measures
  • agronomic measures - A1: Vegetation/ soil cover, A3: Soil surface treatment
  • management measures - M1: Change of land use type

Technical drawing

Technical specifications
A = Depth Furrow = 30 centimeter
B = Width Furrow = 30 centimeter
C = Spacing between rows = 5 meter
D = Spacing between plants = 0.5 meter
Author: Joren Verbist

Establishment and maintenance: activities, inputs and costs

Calculation of inputs and costs
  • Costs are calculated: per Technology area (size and area unit: 1 Hectare)
  • Currency used for cost calculation: USD
  • Exchange rate (to USD): 1 USD = n.a
  • Average wage cost of hired labour per day: n.a
Most important factors affecting the costs
n.a.
Establishment activities
  1. Surface Soil Ploughing (Timing/ frequency: Prior to Furrow Digging)
  2. Digging Furrows (Timing/ frequency: Prior to Planting)
  3. Planting the Cacti (Timing/ frequency: Spring to Autumn (During Planting))
  4. Fertilizer Application (Timing/ frequency: Spring to Autumn (During Planting))
Establishment inputs and costs (per 1 Hectare)
Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (USD) Total costs per input (USD) % of costs borne by land users
Labour
Planting & Fertilizer Application Person-Hours 91.5 0.875 80.06 100.0
Equipment
Furrow Digging Machine-Hours 1.0 10.0 10.0 100.0
Surface Soil Ploughing Machine-Hours 2.0 10.0 20.0 100.0
Plant material
Cactus Pads Pads 4000.0 0.045 180.0 100.0
Fertilizers and biocides
Fertilizer Ton 1.0 110.0 110.0 100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology 400.06
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD 400.06
Maintenance activities
  1. Mechanical Weeding (Timing/ frequency: March-May)
  2. Harvesting (Timing/ frequency: August-September)
Maintenance inputs and costs (per 1 Hectare)
Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (USD) Total costs per input (USD) % of costs borne by land users
Labour
Harvesting Person-Hours 40.0 0.875 35.0 100.0
Equipment
Weeding Machine-Hours 1.0 10.0 10.0 100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology 45.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD 45.0

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
Water quality refers to: ground water
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
financial services

poor
good

Impacts

Socio-economic impacts
Crop production
decreased
increased

crop quality
decreased
increased

fodder production
decreased
increased

fodder quality
decreased
increased

risk of production failure
increased
decreased

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

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

Ecological impacts
soil cover
reduced
improved

soil loss
increased
decreased

soil accumulation
decreased
increased

soil crusting/ sealing
increased
reduced

soil organic matter/ below ground C
decreased
increased

vegetation cover
decreased
increased

drought impacts
increased
decreased

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

Climate change

Climate-related extremes (disasters)
local hailstorm

not well at all
very well
local snowstorm

not well at all
very well
heatwave

not well at all
very well
drought

not well at all
very well
epidemic diseases

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
  • The cacti are highly productive with minimum inputs.
  • It does not require much water
  • The cacti are even productive in poor soil and by growing cacti on these soils, it also reduces erosion.
  • The reduced risk of drought deteriorated yields is important as climate change leads to more extreme weather event, such as droughts. This will only increase in the future. Therefore the cactus's ability to cope with climate change (resilience to climate fluctuations) is a great advantage and increasingly important.
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • Due to the suitability of cacti on marginal lands, the soil is partly covered permanently by vegetation in these areas which protects these degraded lands. Therefore, cacti cultivation could offer incentive to prevent land degradation.
  • The technology offers increased resilience of the environment and its involved livelihoods. This is because cacti are more resilient to climate change induced effects such as increased droughts and increasing (summer) temperatures, as result of their high-water content and efficiency. Therefore, this technology is better suited for the future.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
  • The significant cost related to labour.
  • The increased risk of new pests. More awareness is required so the new pests can be identified, allowing proper and timely action.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
  • The possible knowledge gap for farmers to switch from their conventional/traditional agricultural practices to a more innovative one could be a bottleneck for out-scaling the technology. This bottleneck can be overcome, by developing social capital such as (e.g.) institutions or farmers networks to disseminate knowledge. A good example is the field days for farmers organized ICARDA.
  • The risks of pests and diseases is a weakness of the cacti as these plants are vulnerable to this. Also, due to the density and mono-cropping of the cacti, the pest/ disease may spread easily and rapidly over the field. Eventually, risking the production of the cacti, thus possibly reducing the income of local farmers. A solution may be found in changing the agricultural activities. An example of such a possible solution is the introduction of intercropping, this could increase bio-diversity and reduce the potential loss of income in case of a pest-outbreak.

References

Compiler
  • Joren Verbist
Editors
Reviewer
  • William Critchley
  • Rima Mekdaschi Studer
Date of documentation: Sept. 8, 2021
Last update: Jan. 28, 2022
Resource persons
Full description in the WOCAT database
Linked SLM data
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution Project
Key references
  • Mounir Louhaichi, Sawsan Hassan, Joren Verbist, Rima Mekdaschi-Studer. (13/4/2021). Cactus Fruit Plantation in Arid Dry Lands (Jordan). Global: WOCAT.: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/13197 / https://qcat.wocat.net/en/wocat/technologies/view/technologies_5847/
  • Mounir Louhaichi, et al.,. 2021. Multi-purpose drought-tolerant cactus pear can provide livelihood opportunities for farmers and nutrition for people and livestock in dryland areas. Policy Brief. Nairobi, Kenya ILRI: https://hdl.handle.net/10568/114695
  • Mounir Louhaichi, Sawsan Hassan, Giorgia Liguori. (30/12/2019). Manual: Cactus Pear Agronomic Practices.: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/10558
  • HO de Waal, Mounir Louhaichi, Makiko Taguchi, Herman Fouché, Maryna de Wit. (25/1/2015). Development of a cactus pear agro-industry for the sub-Sahara Africa Region. Bloemfontein, South Africa: HO de Waal (Curator).: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/7109
  • Mounir Louhaichi, Sawsan Hassan. (7/10/2018). Managing rangelands: promoting sustainable shrub species: Opuntia ficus-indica (L. ) Mill: a sustainable fodder plant for the dry areas. Beirut, Lebanon: International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA).: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/9048
  • Mourad Rekik, Mounir Louhaichi. (9/3/2014). Cactusnet: Promoting the social and ecological benefits of cactus production: Enhancing sheep reproduction through cactus-based feed diets. Beirut, Lebanon: International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA).: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/8523
  • Hichem Ben Salem, Mounir Louhaichi. (30/11/2014). Cactusnet: Promoting the social and ecological benefits of cactus production: Promoting Cactus as an alternative and sustainable livestock feed. Beirut, Lebanon: International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA): https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/5454
  • Ali Nefzaoui, Mounir Louhaichi, Hichem Ben Salem. (30/1/2014). Cactus as a Tool to Mitigate Drought and to Combat Desertification. Journal of Arid Land Studies, 24(1), pp. 121-124.: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/7319
  • Mounir Louhaichi (Producer), Sawsan Hassan (Director). (17/1/2021). Best Agronomic Practices for establishing cactus Orchard. Jordan: International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) (Executive Producer).: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/12374
  • Fethi Gouhis, Mounir Louhaichi, Ali Nefzaoui. (12/8/2019). Cactus (Opuntia ficus-indica) utilization for rehabilitating rangelands in arid regions of Tunisia. Acta Horticulturae, 1247, pp. 95-102.: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/10394
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International