This is an outdated, inactive version of this case. Go to the current version.
Technologies
Inactive

Slope cross barier in banana combined with common agronomical measures production [Tanzania, United Republic of]

Makinganga maji mchanganyiko

technologies_1216 - Tanzania, United Republic of

Completeness: 80%

1. General information

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

Key resource person(s)

SLM specialist:
{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 'ALLAN BUBELWA', 'user_id': '2361', 'unknown_user': False, 'template': 'raw'}
SLM specialist:

Kakilla Samuel

TCRS-Ngara

Tanzania, United Republic of

SLM specialist:

Chitege Daudi

Magereza Rusoma Primary School

Tanzania, United Republic of

SLM specialist:

Masikundima Iddi

Ngara District Council

Tanzania, United Republic of

SLM specialist:
{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 'ALLAN BUBELWA', 'user_id': '2361', 'unknown_user': False, 'template': 'raw'}
{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 9, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'The Transboundary Agro-ecosystem Management Project for the Kagera River Basin (GEF-FAO / Kagera TAMP )', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 726, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Missenyi District Council (Missenyi District Council) - Tanzania, United Republic of', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 726, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Missenyi District Council (Missenyi District Council) - Tanzania, United Republic of', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 726, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Missenyi District Council (Missenyi District Council) - Tanzania, United Republic of', 'template': 'raw'}

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

07/08/2014

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

Yes

1.4 Declaration on sustainability of the described Technology

Is the Technology described here problematic with regard to land degradation, so that it cannot be declared a sustainable land management technology?

No

2. Description of the SLM Technology

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Is the embanked soils on the lower side of the furrow, lemon grass and vetiver grass strips along the contour lines combined with Farm yard manures and grass mulch application in banana production.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The slope cross barrier technology in banana production is a 2m deep by 0.6 wide furrow at the less slope combined with lemon grass, vetiver grass contour strips at the greater slopes.. The lemon grasses and vertiver grass are planted in single row spaced 0.3m plant to plant. The distance between strips is about 18m at the slope category of 2%. The technology is applied on the cropland in the tropics, sub humid, dissected plain to flood plains, sandy clay loam over sand clay and deep to moderate deep soils. The land is cultivated manually using hand hoes in a mixed production system. The land ownership is communal and individual not titled. The establishment procedures includes planting of banana suckers, lemon grass, vetiver grass, fruit trees, construction of fanya chini and planting gravelia spps along the boundaries. The maintenance procedures require application of FYM at the rate of 24-36kg per plant. Grass mulch is spread across the slope at the thickness of 0.15m. The average establishment costs is US$ 3,531.42 per hectare while maintenance costs on average is US$ 351.77 per hectare. The technology was introduced fifteen months past ( March 2013) using Demonstration plots methodology. Common agronomic measures such as using improved banana suckers and banana weevils trapping can add extra effectiveness to the main technology.

Purpose of the Technology: The general purpose of the technology is to reduce soil erosion, reduce soil moisture stress and increase soil nutrient cycling and soil organic matters.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: The establishment activities includes first, clearing and cultivation of land in May done manually using machete and hand hoes. Second, harrowing in May done manually using fork handhoes. Third is identification and demarcation of contour lines doneusing A-frame. Fourth is spacing and digging of holes for banana and fruit trees done manually done. Fifth is planting of banana suckers and fruit trees done manually. Sixth is planting of vertiver and lemon grasses along the demarcated contour lines done manually, seventh is digging the farrow and excavating soils to be placed at the lower side of the furrow done manually. The maintenance activities include; first, weeding the entire field using hands done in twice April and October. Second is manure application using plastic buskets done. Third is spreading grass mulch done manually, fourth is desuckering using chisel hand hoes done twice in April and October. Fourth is detrushing using machete and local made tools (rwabyo) done twice (May and January). Last but not least is harvesting of banana, lemon grass and fruits done on market demand.

Natural / human environment: The land ownership is communal and individual not entitled while the water use right is open access. The natural environments are 1184mm of rainfall.The technology is tolerant to drought and seasonal rainfall decrease. Soil fertility is low to moderate. Top soil organic matter is medium, Soil drainage is medium. Soil water storage capacity is medium.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

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

Country:

Tanzania, United Republic of

Region/ State/ Province:

Tanzania

Further specification of location:

Bukoba

2.6 Date of implementation

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:
  • less than 10 years ago (recently)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:
  • through projects/ external interventions
Comments (type of project, etc.):

In February 2013 TAMP -Kagera, Tanzania introduced the technology through demonstration sites for cross slope beerier technology at Magereza Rusumo Primary School.

3. Classification of the SLM Technology

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

Cropland

Cropland

  • Annual cropping
  • Perennial (non-woody) cropping
  • Tree and shrub cropping
Main crops (cash and food crops):

major cash crop: Sorghum and avocado
major food crop: Maize and banana

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): The major land use problems were soil erosion, moistture stress, declining soil nutrients and organic matters.
Major land use problems (land users’ perception): The major land use problems were reduced soil fertility.
Future (final) land use (after implementation of SLM Technology): Cropland: Cp: Perennial (non-woody) cropping

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:
  • 2
Specify:

Longest growing period in days: 90; Longest growing period from month to month: March to May; Second longest growing period in days: 60;Second longest growing period from month to month: November to December

3.4 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

  • improved ground/ vegetation cover
  • cross-slope measure

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 km2 (10 ha)
Comments:

A demonstration plot for pupils self-reliance education studies established a plot measured 2 acres where the technology is applied.

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

agronomic measures

agronomic measures

  • A1: Vegetation/ soil cover
  • A2: Organic matter/ soil fertility
vegetative measures

vegetative measures

  • V2: Grasses and perennial herbaceous plants
structural measures

structural measures

  • S2: Bunds, banks
  • S4: Level ditches, pits
Comments:

Type of agronomic measures: mulching, temporary trashlines, manure / compost / residues, pits
Type of vegetative measures: aligned: -contour, aligned: -along boundary, aligned: -linear, scattered / dispersed, in blocks

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

soil erosion by water

soil erosion by water

  • Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion
chemical soil deterioration

chemical soil deterioration

  • Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content (not caused by erosion)
biological degradation

biological degradation

  • Bl: loss of soil life
Comments:

Main causes of degradation: soil management (Cultivation along the slope), change of seasonal rainfall (decreased rainfall intensity.), droughts (Increased length of dry spell.), population pressure (Increased population density had forced to cultivate slope land to meet the social economical requirements.), poverty / wealth (Land users cant afford to invest in land concervations.), education, access to knowledge and support services (Inadequate staffing limits effective support services for land users to access land concervation knowledge.), governance / institutional (Environment policy implimentation is weak at lower levels.)

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:
  • prevent land degradation
  • reduce land degradation

4. Technical specifications, implementation activities, inputs, and costs

4.2 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing

Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: low (Basic priciples are taught at colleges.)
Technical knowledge required for land users: moderate (The new technology should be taught first for a better innovation and adoption processes.)

Main technical functions: control of raindrop splash, control of dispersed runoff: retain / trap, control of dispersed runoff: impede / retard, increase in organic matter, increase of infiltration, increase / maintain water stored in soil, increase of biomass (quantity)
Secondary technical functions: stabilisation of soil (eg by tree roots against land slides), increase in nutrient availability (supply, recycling,…), reduction in wind speed

Mulching
Material/ species: Panic grasses
Quantity/ density: 1500
Remarks: 0.15m thickness across the slope.

Temporary trashlines
Material/ species: banana dry leaves abd old pseudostems.

Manure / compost / residues
Material/ species: Trushlines
Quantity/ density: 7.5t0nes
Remarks: A 2m X2mX3m pit is dug at the centre of foor banana stools and pilled.

Pits
Material/ species: .
Remarks: a 0.3m depth is left un covered with soil below the soil surface level

Aligned: -contour
Vegetative material: G : grass
Number of plants per (ha): 700
Width within rows / strips / blocks (m): 0.6

Aligned: -along boundary
Vegetative material: T : trees / shrubs
Number of plants per (ha): 70
Width within rows / strips / blocks (m): 6

Aligned: -linear
Vegetative material: C : perennial crops
Number of plants per (ha): 715
Spacing between rows / strips / blocks (m): 4
Width within rows / strips / blocks (m): 3.5

Scattered / dispersed
Vegetative material: T : trees / shrubs
Number of plants per (ha): 625
Spacing between rows / strips / blocks (m): 4
Width within rows / strips / blocks (m): 4

In blocks
Vegetative material: F : fruit trees / shrubs
Width within rows / strips / blocks (m): 3

Trees/ shrubs species: gravelia spps
Fruit trees / shrubs species: Mango, Pawpaw and oranges
Perennial crops species: Banana
Grass species: lemon grass and vetiver

Retention/infiltration ditch/pit, sediment/sand trap
Depth of ditches/pits/dams (m): 0.2
Width of ditches/pits/dams (m): 0.2
Length of ditches/pits/dams (m): 0.2

Structural measure: Fanya chini
Vertical interval between structures (m): E
Depth of ditches/pits/dams (m): 1.5
Width of ditches/pits/dams (m): 0.6
Length of ditches/pits/dams (m): 105
Height of bunds/banks/others (m): 0.6
Width of bunds/banks/others (m): 0.9
Length of bunds/banks/others (m): 105

4.3 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify currency used for cost calculations:
  • US Dollars
Indicate average wage cost of hired labour per day:

1.88

4.4 Establishment activities

Activity Type of measure Timing
1. Ploughoing Vegetative May
2. Harrowing Vegetative may
3. Digging holes Vegetative
4. Demarcating contour lines Vegetative
5. Digging holes for planting banana suckers Vegetative
6. Demacarting banana spacings. Vegetative
7. Mixing FYM Vegetative
8. Plating banana suckers Vegetative
9. Planting vetiver grass and lemon grass. Vegetative May
10. Planting mango, pawpaw, orange and gravelia Vegetative January
11. Demarcation of contour line using F-frame. Structural March
12. Digging the furrow and excavating soils. Structural May

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
Labour Labour ha 1.0 541.18 541.18
Equipment Tools ha 1.0 134.31 134.31
Plant material Seedling ha 1.0 2032.4 2032.4
Fertilizers and biocides Compost / manure ha 1.0 823.53 823.53
Total costs for establishment of the Technology 3531.42
Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 15 month(s)

4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

Activity Type of measure Timing/ frequency
1. Weeding Agronomic april
2. Desuckering and detrushing Agronomic January and may
3. Mulch grass application Agronomic May
4. Pr-oping (anchor poles placement) Agronomic routeenly
5. Harvesting banana fruits. Agronomic routeenly
6. Planting ricinus communis Agronomic February
7. Trees Pruning Vegetative
8. Harvesting fruits Vegetative
9. To remove soil sediments from the furrow and place the in the space between. Structural May and January
10. To cvlear fire-break along the bounderies Structural 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 Labour ha 1.0 153.73 153.73 100.0
Plant material Seeds ha 1.0 1.96 1.96 100.0
Fertilizers and biocides Grass mulch ha 1.0 196.08 196.08 100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology 351.77

5. Natural and human environment

5.1 Climate

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
Specifications/ comments on rainfall:

Highet precipitation March to May and second precipitation November to December.

Agro-climatic zone
  • sub-humid

Thermal climate class: tropics. All months is above 18°C

LGP 60dys to 90dys

5.2 Topography

Slopes on average:
  • 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
Altitudinal zone:
  • 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.
Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:
  • not relevant
Comments and further specifications on topography:

Slopes on average: 3 adption land users are found in the flat areas and a 1.5 acre is demonstration plot site where thye adoption plots found elsewhere.

5.3 Soils

Soil depth on average:
  • 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):
  • medium (loamy, silty)
Topsoil organic matter:
  • medium (1-3%)
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 depth on average: Redish brown/dark brown sandy clay loam over sandy clay
Soil fertilityis low and DP Low to moderate
Soil drainage / infiltration is medium and DP well drained
Soil water storage capacity is medium

5.4 Water availability and quality

Ground water table:

> 50 m

Availability of surface water:

medium

Water quality (untreated):

poor drinking water (treatment required)

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Availability of surface water: Bordering Kagera river.

5.5 Biodiversity

Species diversity:
  • medium
Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

Earthworms, black ants etc.

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Market orientation of production system:
  • mixed (subsistence/ commercial
  • commercial/ market
Individuals or groups:
  • groups/ community
Level of mechanization:
  • manual work
Gender:
  • women
  • men
Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Land users applying the Technology are mainly common / average land users
Market orientation of production system: Fruits intededed for sale and banana are dual purposes.
Level of mechanization: Hand hoes are used.

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

  • < 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
Is this considered small-, medium- or large-scale (referring to local context)?
  • small-scale

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

Land ownership:
  • individual, not titled
  • Institutions
Land use rights:
  • individual
  • village goverment
Water use rights:
  • open access (unorganized)
  • village goverment

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

health:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
education:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
technical assistance:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
employment (e.g. off-farm):
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
markets:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
energy:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
roads and transport:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
financial services:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good

6. Impacts and concluding statements

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

crop production

decreased
increased
Quantity before SLM:

0

Quantity after SLM:

5

Comments/ specify:

Banana first harvest

risk of production failure

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

Mulch reduced moisture stress

Income and costs

expenses on agricultural inputs

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

Improved seeds and seedlings, FYM & grass mulch

farm income

decreased
increased

diversity of income sources

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Orchad as comlimentary enterprises

workload

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

FYM and mulch applications demanded extra labour

Socio-cultural impacts

food security/ self-sufficiency

reduced
improved
Comments/ specify:

Conseved land ensured soil improvement to ensure food availability, accessility and utilizations

SLM/ land degradation knowledge

reduced
improved
Comments/ specify:

AESA conducted during FFS

situation of socially and economically disadvantaged groups

worsened
improved
Comments/ specify:

Equal chances for different gender considered in FFS formulation

livelihood and human well-being

reduced
improved
Comments/ specify:

The effective technology duration is too short to obeserve impacts, but we can say that, there is hope for the technology to contribute highly on livelihod and human wellbeing

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

surface runoff

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

Mulching

evaporation

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

Mulching

Soil

soil moisture

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Pitt and furrows

soil cover

reduced
improved
Comments/ specify:

Mulching

soil loss

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

Contours

soil organic matter/ below ground C

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

FYM

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

biomass/ above ground C

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Trushlines

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

damage on neighbours' fields

increased
reduced
Comments/ specify:

Ditches traped running water down the slope

damage on public/ private infrastructure

increased
reduced
Comments/ specify:

Farrow and bunds along contour lines minimized water run off in the area

6.3 Exposure and sensitivity of the Technology to gradual climate change and climate-related extremes/ disasters (as perceived by land users)

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it?
local rainstorm not well
Climatological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it?
drought well
Comments:

The technology can be modified to become more tolerant by meter drain construction from the contour furrow into drainage ditches to collect excess water during heavy rainfall events. This excess water should be used for small scale irrigation.

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?
Short-term returns:

negative

Long-term returns:

very positive

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?
Short-term returns:

slightly positive

Long-term returns:

neutral/ balanced

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

  • more than 50%
If available, quantify (no. of households and/ or area covered):

8 households

Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many have did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?
  • 10-50%
Comments:

4 land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support
Comments on acceptance with external material support: Only the primary school received external materials to establish a 1.5 acre demonstration plots.

4 land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support
Comments on spontaneous adoption: Three teachers applied the technology at their own lands bearing their full cost of implimentation.

There is a strong trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology
Comments on adoption trend: A 75% adption rate within a less than two years effective duration implies a strong adoption trend.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Easy to learn and practice.
social economic and production very feasible at increasing return to scale.
Ecological benefits should maintain constant returns to scale

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

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
Increased farm input costs.
Highly extension services demand to learn new technology.
Thieving attractions

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys
  • interviews with land users

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules