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

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

15/05/2018

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

Comments:

It reduces fertility decline

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

To avoid fertility decline through balanced fertiliser

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The SLM technology named ' Application of balanced fertiliser to improve soil productivity' has been introduced in Dhalla union of Singair upazila under Manikgong district of Bangladesh. The technology included applying different types of fertiliser like compost, Urea, TSP, MOP, Zypsum, Zinc Sulphate, boron etc. Compost, Urea, TSP, MOP, Zypsum , Zinc Sulphate and Boron are applied at the rate of 5 ton, 45kg, 65kg, 40 kg, 45 kg, 2 kg respectively. The main purpose of the technology was to improve soil nutrient status by using balanced fertiliser along with organic farming. The advantages achieved by the technology included nutrient mining decline, crop productivity increase and improvement of socio-economic conditions of the land users. The farmers community have accepted the well established methods of balanced fertiliser use. Because they are absolutely benefitted by this technology and it wIll mitigate the climate change impacts by reducing land degradation problem throughout the country.

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

Indicate year of implementation:

1900

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:

• less than 10 years ago (recently)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

• Advisory services of DAE

Comments (type of project, etc.):

SFFP project of DAE

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• conserve ecosystem
• preserve/ improve biodiversity
• adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts
• create beneficial social impact

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

If land use has changed due to the implementation of the Technology, indicate land use before implementation of the Technology:

rice-fallow-fallow

3.3 Further information about land use

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

• mixed rainfed-irrigated

Number of growing seasons per year:

• 3

Specify:

Rabi vegetables-irrigated rice- Rain fed rice AMAN

3.4 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• integrated soil fertility management

3.5 Spread of the Technology

Specify the spread of the Technology:

• applied at specific points/ concentrated on a small area

Comments:

It was started in a small area but now it is spreading surrounding locations

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

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

• reduce land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing

A farmer is broadcasting Urea in the paddy field. He is maintaining proper fertiliser application rate for rice field. All the fertilisers except Urea have been incorporated in the soil during final land preparation. But, Urea is being broadcasted two times after rice transplanting in the main paddy field.

4.3 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology unit

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

83.0

4.4 Establishment activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing
1.	Balanced fertilisers like compost,urea, TSP, MOP, Zypsum,Zinc sulphate and boron fertiliser application	Management	After final land preparation, urea, TSP,MOP and zinc sulphate fertilisers were used. Again, urea was broadcast at the age of 30 days of transplanted crop.
2.	Broadcasting of Urea	Agronomic	After 30 days of transplanting

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	Farmer	person per day	5.0	500.0	2500.0	80.0
Fertilizers and biocides	compost	Kg/ha	5000.0	5.0	25000.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides
Fertilizers and biocides	TSP	Kg/ha	65.0	26.0	1690.0	80.0
Fertilizers and biocides	MOP	Kg/ha	45.0	14.0	630.0	80.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Zypsum	Kg/ha	45.0	12.0	540.0	80.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Zinc sulphate	Kg/ha	40.0	190.0	7600.0	80.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Boron	Kg/ha	2.0	320.0	640.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	pesticides	tk/ha	3.03	3000.0	9090.0	100.0
Construction material	timber
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					47690.0

If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:

Agricultural Extension department as government subsidy for input cost

4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing/ frequency
1.	Weeding	Agronomic	During vegetative stage/3
2.	Broad casting fertiliser	Agronomic	2
3.	watering	Agronomic	3
4.	pesticide application	Agronomic	if necessary

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	farmers	person -per day	3.0	500.0	1500.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Urea broadcasting	KG/HA	90.0	16.0	1440.0	100.0
Other	Watering	litre/hectare	10000.0	3.0	30000.0	100.0
Other	pesticide	kg/ha	20.0	200.0	4000.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					36940.0

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

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.

Medium high land, silt loam, silmondi soil series, soil ph-6.6, organic matter -0.88, CEC-0.25,Nitrogen-0.13%

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

Yes

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

episodically

5.5 Biodiversity

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

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
• individual, titled

Land use rights:

• individual

Water use rights:

• individual

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Water availability and quality

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Climate and disaster risk reduction

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		decrease	moderately

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
drought	well

Biological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
epidemic diseases	very well
insect/ worm infestation	very well

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)?

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• more than 50%

Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many have did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?

• 10-50%

6.6 Adaptation

Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?

No

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
It reduces soil nutrient mining
Production cost decreased
Crop production increased more than two times
Soil moisture holding capacity increased

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Sustainable soil management technology developed
Soil health improved
judicious use of natural resources

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Rahman, M. R. 1990. Country report, Bangladesh. In: Problem Soils of Asia and the Pacific. Report of the Expert Consultation of the Asian Network on Problem soils. Bangkok, Thailand, 29 August-1 September 1989