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)

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

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

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

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

Yes

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Traditional compost making using locally available materials

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

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.

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:

Dodoma

Further specification of location:

Dodoma/Kondoa

Specify the spread of the Technology:

• applied at specific points/ concentrated on a small area

Comments:

about 150 people are practicing the system

Map

×

2.6 Date of implementation

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:

• more than 50 years ago (traditional)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• as part of a traditional system (> 50 years)

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• create beneficial economic impact

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

Cropland

• Annual cropping

Annual cropping - Specify crops:

• cereals - maize
• cereals - millet
• cereals - sorghum

• finger millet

Number of growing seasons per year:

• 1

Specify:

Longest growing period in days: 120; Second longest growing period in days: 60

Is intercropping practiced?

Yes

If yes, specify which crops are intercropped:

beans, pigeon peas, cowpeas, groundnuts

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): declining soil fertility

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• integrated soil fertility management

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

agronomic measures

• A2: Organic matter/ soil fertility

Comments:

Type of agronomic measures: manure / compost / residues

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

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

Comments:

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

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

Comments:

Secondary goals: prevention of land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify currency used for cost calculations:

• USD

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 84 month(s)

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

4.6 Costs and inputs needed for maintenance/ recurrent activities (per year)

Comments:

Machinery/ tools: hoes,machet spade, bucket

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Labour for pits, labour for ferrying compost

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Comments and further specifications on topography:

Slopes on average: Also steep

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 and high

Soil drainage / infiltration is good

Soil water storage capacity is medium

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Population density: 10-50 persons/km2

3% of the land users are very rich and own 40% of the land.
7% of the land users are rich and own 15% of the land.
70% of the land users are average wealthy and own 35% of the land.
26% of the land users are poor and own 6% of the land.
4% of the land users are poor and own 4% of the land.

5.7 Average area of land used by land users applying the Technology

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

Land ownership:

• group
• individual, not titled

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Other socio-economic impacts

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Climate and disaster risk reduction

Other ecological impacts

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

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

• 11-50%

If available, quantify (no. of households and/ or area covered):

60 households (20 percent of land users)

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

• 91-100%

Comments:

60 land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support

Comments on spontaneous adoption: estimates

There is a strong trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

Comments on adoption trend: 60 farmers have adopted

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

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

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

1st Farmer innovators Workshop

Available from where? Costs?

INADES, Tanzania.