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

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

Golden Valley agricultural research trust (Golden Valley agricultural research trust) - Zambia

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

15/01/2013

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

Yes

1.5 Reference to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Approaches

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Conservation Tillage with the Magoye Ripper is an animal draft reduced tillage method that involves the use of the Magoye Ripper to loosen the soil by shattering with a tine instead of ploughing.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The Magoye Ripper is an animal drawn implement used for conservation tillage. The Ripper consists of a frame that is attached to a common plough beam and on this frame is fixed a tine at an angle that penetrates and breaks up the soil when pulled. Only the region where the crop furrow will be is loosened by the tine and by so doing reducing the amount of tillage and disruption of soil structure while preserving the crop residue cover. The frame has some ‘wings’ attached to it that throw the soil out of the ripped furrow to leave it open for planting and collecting of water. Ripping is done in one pass up to a depth of 15cm depending on the strength of the oxen, soil type, hitch assembly settings and the sharpness of the tine.

Purpose of the Technology: Reducing tillage first of all reduces tillage costs and tillage time allowing more time for the farmer to plant early and/or a bigger area. Reducing tillage also reduces the loss of soil organic matter and the destructive effects to the soil structure ultimately improving soil fertility and soil water conservation. Ripping does not invert the soil, hence it does not bury crop residues which further enhance organic matter levels and protect the soil from excessive evaporation and erosion. The open furrow left by the ripper collects water from the adjacent untilled soil much in the same way basins (zai system) are used for water harvesting. This together with the increased rooting depth resulting from the breaking of compacted soil, enhanced infiltration and early planting improves water conservation and hence the resilience of crop to extended dry spells.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: The establishment of ripping based conservation tillage mainly involves the purchase of the ripper frame and the
replaceable tines. Liming acidic soils (low pH soils) followed by a final ploughing will be required to correct the soil pH which otherwise will be difficult to correct once conservation tillage has been established. The main establishment activity involves adopting a new mindset and increasing the knowledge base to apply the technology correctly. Knowledge about alternative weed control practices and herbicide use is particularly cardinal as the farmer will have to adopt new weeding practices and routines in the absence of ploughing. Maintenance activities are more or less the same as conventional tillage except for replacing the tillage tines which wear every now and then. The same applies for the inputs except for the increase in use of herbicides.

Natural / human environment: Ripping is best performed in dry season when the soil is dry although this may not be possible with some of the smaller and/or weak oxen when the soil is too dry. It is therefore recommended for farmers in regions that experience long dry seasons to rip at the end of harvest before the soils get too dry and hard and when the oxen are in good condition before they lose weight and strength due to less feed and water, excessive heat as the dry season progresses.
The ripper is mostly suited to small-scale farmers just adopting Conservation Agriculture (CA) since the tool can be easily adapted to the existing plough beam which most of the farmers already have. The small capital outlay for establishing the system makes it suited to resource poor and risk-averse farmers.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

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

2.6 Date of implementation

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:

• 10-50 years ago

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• during experiments/ research

Comments (type of project, etc.):

The Magoye Ripper was introduced in 1995 after a period of adaptive research by government research branch under a project supported by the Netherlands government.

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation

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

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Loss of soil structure and loss of soil fertility

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Droughts and dry dpells

Livestock is grazing on crop residues

3.3 Further information about land use

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:

• rainfed

Number of growing seasons per year:

• 1

Specify:

Longest growing period in days: 135 Longest growing period from month to month: Mid November to end of March

Livestock density (if relevant):

1-10 LU /km2

3.4 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• minimal soil disturbance

3.5 Spread of the Technology

Specify the spread of the Technology:

• evenly spread over an area

If the Technology is evenly spread over an area, indicate approximate area covered:

• 0.1-1 km2

Comments:

250 rippers were distributed in Magoye and surveys show that only about half of these farmers continued to use the ripper. The field sizes range from 1/4ha to 1/2ha.

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Main measures: agronomic measures

Specification of other agronomic measures: Reduced Tillage, Crop Residues

Type of agronomic measures: early planting, mulching, manure / compost / residues, mineral (inorganic) fertilizers, soil conditioners (lime, gypsum), rotations / fallows, breaking compacted topsoil, minimum tillage, non-inversion tillage, furrows (drainage, irrigation), breaking compacted subsoil

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Main type of degradation addressed: Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content, Pc: compaction, Bl: loss of soil life

Secondary types of degradation addressed: Wt: loss of topsoil / surface erosion

Main causes of degradation: soil management (Over-ploughing), crop management (annual, perennial, tree/shrub) (Monocropping), overgrazing (Crop residues overgrazed leaving land exposed), poverty / wealth (under application of fertilizer leading to nutrient mining, charcoal burning)

Secondary causes of degradation: deforestation / removal of natural vegetation (incl. forest fires) (Charcoal burning), Heavy / extreme rainfall (intensity/amounts) (high intensity storms leading to erosion), droughts (resulting in inadequate soil cover), land tenure (communal land over-exploited), governance / institutional (lack of credit facilities)

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

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

• reduce land degradation

Comments:

Secondary goals: prevention of land degradation, rehabilitation / reclamation of denuded land

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing

Planting rip lines are done at a depth of 15-20 cm with inter row of 75 or 90 cm, 30-40 cm depth of the furrow of ripping can be achieved. This is achieved by running the ripper through the same rip line twice so that the tine gets deeper into the soil. The width of the open furrow is 10-15 cm wide. Ripping is done across the slope to reduce runoff. Ripping is best performed and recommended done in the dry season.

Location: Magoye. Mazabuka/Southern Province/Zambia

Date: 2014-06-29

Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: high (The use of the Ripper itself is simple but applying it as part of a conservation agriculture system can be knowledge demanding.)

Technical knowledge required for land users: moderate (adapting the production system to accommodate the Ripper will require learning new practices for weeding, planting and fertility management.)

Main technical functions: improvement of ground cover, improvement of topsoil structure (compaction), improvement of subsoil structure (hardpan), increase of infiltration, water harvesting / increase water supply

Secondary technical functions: control of raindrop splash, improvement of surface structure (crusting, sealing), increase in organic matter, increase in nutrient availability (supply, recycling,…), increase / maintain water stored in soil, increase of groundwater level / recharge of groundwater

Early planting
Material/ species: maize, cotton
Quantity/ density: 44,000 pla
Remarks: 25cm intra row by 75cm

Mulching
Material/ species: crop residues
Quantity/ density: 3ton/ha
Remarks: uniformly spread

Manure / compost / residues
Material/ species: residues
Quantity/ density: 3ton/ha
Remarks: uniformly spread

Mineral (inorganic) fertilizers
Material/ species: Basal and top dressing
Quantity/ density: 400kg/ha
Remarks: spot application

Soil conditioners (lime, gypsum)
Material/ species: lime
Quantity/ density: 1ton/ha

Rotations / fallows
Material/ species: maize in rotation with cotton, groundnuts and cowpeas

Breaking compacted topsoil
Material/ species: Ripping with Magoye Ripper at 15cm depth
Remarks: 75cm or 90cm row spacing

Minimum tillage
Material/ species: ripping

Non-inversion tillage
Material/ species: ripping

Furrows (drainage, irrigation)
Material/ species: ripped lines leave furrows for water harvesting

Breaking compacted subsoil
Material/ species: deep ripping at 20cm

4.3 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

other/ national currency (specify):

Kwacha

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

5.0

4.4 Establishment activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing
1.	Purchase magoye ripper	Agronomic
2.	Purchase knapsack sprayer	Agronomic

Comments:

Lifespan of the magoye ripper: 7 years
Lifespan of the Knapsack sprayer: 5 years

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
Equipment	Magoye ripper	Tool	1.0	50.0	50.0	100.0
Equipment	Knapsack sprayer	Tool	1.0	80.0	80.0	100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					130.0

Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 5 month(s)

4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing/ frequency
1.	slashing and spreading residues	Agronomic	May-June yearly after harvest
2.	Ripping	Agronomic	May-June after harvest
3.	Liming	Agronomic	Nov-Dec before planting
4.	Planting and fertilizing	Agronomic	Nov-Dec at onset of rains
5.	chemical weeding	Agronomic	3 times
6.	harvesting	Agronomic	April-May

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	Slashing and spreading residues	ha	1.0	20.0	20.0	100.0
Labour	Ripping	ha	1.0	50.0	50.0	100.0
Labour	Liming	ha	1.0	42.0	42.0	100.0
Labour	Planting and fertilizing	ha	1.0	40.0	40.0	100.0
Plant material	Seeds	kg	20.0	2.5	50.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Fertilizer	kg	400.0	0.8	320.0	100.0
Other	Herbicides	liters	5.0	6.0	30.0	100.0
Other	Labour: Chemical weeding	ha	1.0	24.0	24.0	100.0
Other	Labour: Harvesting	ha	1.0	20.0	20.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					596.0

Comments:

Machinery/ tools: Magoye Ripper

Calculation are for a 1ha of maize under magoye ripper based conservation tillage and costs are for the Zambia situation in Magoye as of August 2012.

4.8 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

The weed control method employed is the main determinate factor depending on whether the farmer uses hand hoe or herbicides. Abandoning ploughing leads to higher weed densities leading to increased labour requirements/recurrent costs if hand weeding is used. However, with herbicides the weeding labour demand and costs cost are much lower by a factor of about 5. Another major cost is that of fertilizer which makes up about half the cost hence the total cost will vary significantly depending on fertilizer cost.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Comments and further specifications on topography:

Slopes on average: Also flat and moderate (classed 2) and rolling (classed 3)

5.3 Soils

If available, attach full soil description or specify the available information, e.g. soil type, soil PH/ acidity, Cation Exchange Capacity, nitrogen, salinity etc.

Soil fertility: Low (classed 1) and medium (classed 2, low fertility caused mainly by poor soil management practices, otherwise soil are inherently fertile)
Topsoil organic matter: Low (classed 1) and medium (classed 2, due to excessive ploughing and nutrient mining)
Soil drainage/infiltration: Good (classed 1, soils naturally are well drained except were soil have bee compacted by poor management practices) and medium (classed 2)
Soil water storage capacity: Medium (classed 1, soils mostly loam to sandy loam with medium storage capacity) and low (ranked 2)

5.4 Water availability and quality

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Ground water table: <50m (ranked 1, hand wells are <20m but reliable boreholes are > 50m) and 5-50m (ranked 2)
Availability of surface water: Medium (mostly seasonal streams and dams)
Water quality (untreated): Good drinking water (ranked 1, from hand pumps (both communal and private)) and poor drinking water (treatment required, from hand dug wells, ranked 1 also)

5.5 Biodiversity

Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

Human population densities are relatively low

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Land users applying the Technology are mainly common / average land users

Difference in the involvement of women and men: The technology is applied mostly by men since most households are male headed and animal traction operation are reserved for men. Planting and weeding operations are the domain of women and children

Population density: 10-50 persons/km2

Annual population growth: 3% - 4%

8% of the land users are rich and own 15% of the land (own more than 10 cattle).
8% of the land users are average wealthy and own 15% of the land (own between 5 and 10 cattle).
16% of the land users are poor and own 20% of the land (own less than 5).
68% of the land users are poor and own 40% of the land (do not own cattle).

Off-farm income specification: sale of rainfed crops makes up about half of their income, the remainder coming from sale of livestock, petty trading, hiring out labour and remittances

Market orientation of production system: Mixed (subsistence/ commercial, sale of excess maize and cotton, dairy, ranked 1) and subsistence (self-supply, livestock, maize and legumes for home consumption, ranked 2),
Level of mechanization: Animal traction (ranked 1, families without cattle borrow or hire), mechanised (ranked 2) and manual labour (ranked 2, only for small backyard fields)

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

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

Land ownership:

• individual, not titled

Land use rights:

• open access (unorganized)
• individual

• Land is apportioned by traditional leaders

Water use rights:

• open access (unorganized)

• Land is apportioned by traditional leaders

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Other ecological impacts

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

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		increase	not known

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
local rainstorm	not well
local windstorm	not known

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
drought	well

Hydrological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
general (river) flood	not well

Other climate-related consequences

Other climate-related consequences

	How does the Technology cope with it?
reduced growing period	well

Comments:

Magoye ripper based conservation tillage should be applied in well drained fields to avoid water-logging in the ripped furrows during seasons of excess rainfall or events of heavy downpours.

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?

Comments:

Timely planting enables larger areas to be planted and better yields. In the long term, improved soil fertility and soil structure results in sustained improved yields. However, if herbicides are not used, the costs and labour requirements of weeding can result in negative benefits.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

Comments:

250 land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support

Comments on acceptance with external material support: The farmers bought the Magoye Rippers at half price and over half of them abandoned the technology after the first or second year of use.

Comments on spontaneous adoption: Information on spontaneous adoption is not documented although there have been reports of this in other districts.

There is a little trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

Comments on adoption trend: Availability of replacement tines and the increased weed challenge have been a major hindrances to widespread adoption.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Enables early planting How can they be sustained / enhanced? planting with the first heavy rainfall in November

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
necessitates early planting How can they be sustained / enhanced? Plant in November or early December with the onset of rainfall
fewer operations hence lower costs How can they be sustained / enhanced? continuous emphasis on early land preparation (May to July/August)
conserves water and soil How can they be sustained / enhanced? encourage crop diversification and crop rotation legumes

6.8 Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks of the Technology and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view	How can they be overcome?
weeding is difficult when herbicides are not used	train land users on how to use herbicides
ripping is hardly attained in heavy soils in October	rip between May and July

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
weed pressure	encourage land users to use herbicides and continuous weeding

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Impact study on the acceptance of the Magoye Ripper, Piet Stevens, David Samazaka, Ab Wanders, Douglas Moono, 2002

Available from where? Costs?

GART/free

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Social-economic analysis of conservation agriculture in southern Africa, FAO, 2011

Available from where? Costs?

FAO/free online

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Conservation farming in Zambia, Steven Haggblade, Gelson Tembo, October 2003

Available from where? Costs?

INDABA Project, Michigan State University/free online.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Conservation farming in Zambia, Conservation farming unit (CFU), 2011

Available from where? Costs?

cfu@zamnet.zm