This is an outdated, inactive version of this case.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

Crop Residue Management [Ethiopia]

Hafte Midhani

technologies_6644 - Ethiopia

Completeness: 94%

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)

land user:

Woyessa Habtamu

Farmer

Ethiopia

Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
Soil protection and rehabilitation for food security (ProSo(i)l)
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
Alliance Bioversity and International Center for Tropical Agriculture (Alliance Bioversity-CIAT) - Kenya

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

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

1.5 Reference to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Approaches (documented using WOCAT)

Farmers Research and Extension Group (FREG)
approaches

Farmers Research and Extension Group (FREG) [Ethiopia]

A Farmers Research and Extension Group (FREG) engages about 50 or more farmers in a kebele (lower administrative unit), with three sub groups of 17-20 each who live in a homogenous landscape. It is a local institution established for joint learning, piloting, and evaluating soil improvement technologies across the intervention …

  • Compiler: GERBA LETA

2. Description of the SLM Technology

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Crop residue management involves leaving stover and other trash from cereal crops (including tef, wheat and maize), as well as haulms of legumes, in the field. Crop residues keep the soil covered, retain organic matter and moisture in the soil, and help to ensure better production.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Crop residue management involves leaving stover and other trash from cereal crops (including tef, wheat and maize), as well as haulms of legumes, in the field. Crop residue (CR) management is integral to soil health: it yields multiple benefits such as mitigating the risks of soil loss to water erosion, reducing the decomposition of organic matter and storing extra carbon. It also increases the fertility status of degraded soils and helps to improve soil structure and moisture properties. Degraded soils are at risk of tillage, water, and wind erosion. Soils degrade quickly when not covered and when no effort is made to increase organic matter levels or improve soil structure. Crop residue management plays an important role in arresting soil degradation and improving soil properties, and eventually increasing crop production. Therefore, it has positive economic and ecological functions. The aim of applying this technology is to improve soil fertility, reduce soil acidity and demands for synthetic fertilizers. Overall, crop residue management allows land users to sustainably use their land over a long period without losing its productive potential. In this part of Ethiopia, land users used to leave maize and millet stover in the fields but this is challenged by the prevalence of free (open access) grazing. Thus, controlling grazing is one prerequisite to ensuring adoption of the technology. Monocropping also reduces biomass production. Land users appreciate the extra grain yields from crop residue-rich farms. CR management also retains moisture and enables early tillage operations. In summary, the application of appropriate CR management provides multiple benefits. It mitigates the risks of erosion, reduces excessive mining of CR, reduces the rate of decomposition of organic matter, increases the fertility status of degraded soils, and increases crop production and sustainable productivity.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

General remarks regarding photos:

The photo portrays one of the many crop residue management practices applied on different crops.

2.4 Videos of the Technology

Comments, short description:

Videos of this technology is not documented.

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

Country:

Ethiopia

Region/ State/ Province:

Oromia

Specify the spread of the Technology:
  • evenly spread over an area
If precise area is not known, indicate approximate area covered:
  • 0.1-1 km2
Is/are the technology site(s) located in a permanently protected area?

No

2.6 Date of implementation

Indicate year of implementation:

2015

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:
  • as part of a traditional system (> 50 years)
  • through projects/ external interventions
Comments (type of project, etc.):

Integrated Soil Fertility Management Project (ISFM+) of the GIZ.

3. Classification of the SLM Technology

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

  • improve production
  • reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
  • conserve ecosystem
  • preserve/ improve biodiversity
  • create beneficial economic impact

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

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

No


Cropland

Cropland

  • Annual cropping
Annual cropping - Specify crops:
  • cereals - maize
  • cereals - millet
  • cereals - wheat (spring)
  • cereals - Tef
Number of growing seasons per year:
  • 1
Is intercropping practiced?

No

Is crop rotation practiced?

Yes

3.3 Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?
  • No (Continue with question 3.4)

3.4 Water supply

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

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

  • integrated crop-livestock management
  • improved ground/ vegetation cover
  • integrated soil fertility management

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

agronomic measures

agronomic measures

  • A2: Organic matter/ soil fertility
  • A3: Soil surface treatment
  • A6: Residue management
  • A7: Others
A3: Differentiate tillage systems:

A 3.3: Full tillage (< 30% soil cover)

A6: Specify residue management:

A 6.4: retained

management measures

management measures

  • M2: Change of management/ intensity level
Comments:

With tillage, the crop residue is incorporated well into the soil system. It improves soil structure by contributing organic matter with the benefits of facilitating infiltration and reducing surface runoff.

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)
  • Ca: acidification
physical soil deterioration

physical soil deterioration

  • Pc: compaction
  • Ps: subsidence of organic soils, settling of soil
biological degradation

biological degradation

  • Bc: reduction of vegetation cover
  • Bq: quantity/ biomass decline
  • Bs: quality and species composition/ diversity decline
  • Bl: loss of soil life

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:
  • reduce land degradation
  • restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land
Comments:

It ensures the sustainable productivity potential of the soil.

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

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:
  • per Technology area
Indicate size and area unit:

4 sanga

If using a local area unit, indicate conversion factor to one hectare (e.g. 1 ha = 2.47 acres): 1 ha =:

1ha

other/ national currency (specify):

ETB

If relevant, indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (e.g. 1 USD = 79.9 Brazilian Real): 1 USD =:

53.12

4.3 Establishment activities

Activity Timing (season)
1. Mowing the crop by leaving some proportion on the ground. Harvesting
2. Keep of livestock grazing Dry season
3. Plow over the crop residue early on. Late in the dry season.

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

Comments:

The technology needs changing the mindset of the land users than the money/finance for the establishment and maintenance of it. Uniform distribution of rainfall is essential to plan the plowing time to incorporate the residue well into the soil.

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

Activity Timing/ frequency
1. Keep the farm with crop residue intact from livestock During off-season.
Comments:

Prohibiting the use of a proportion of crop residue for fuel, construction, and livestock feed is enough to put in place the technology.

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

If you are unable to break down the costs in the table above, give an estimation of the total costs of maintaining the Technology:

2500.0

Comments:

Allocated some money just to keep off the interference of livestock to the farmland during the off-season. The cost can be covered by land users themselves but need awareness creation on SLM using crop residue as one of the best practices.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Change of the cost is related to the inflation and economic instability.

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
Specify average annual rainfall (if known), in mm:

1947.00

Specifications/ comments on rainfall:

The area received summer maximum rainfall.

Indicate the name of the reference meteorological station considered:

Bedele

Agro-climatic zone
  • sub-humid

The uniform distribution of rainfall is helpful to incorporate the residue in time.

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.
Comments and further specifications on topography:

Since the farming at stallholder level is manual using traction power, the introduction of this technology is not obstructed by the topography as long as the land is under farming.

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)
Soil texture (> 20 cm below surface):
  • medium (loamy, silty)
Topsoil organic matter:
  • medium (1-3%)

5.4 Water availability and quality

Ground water table:

5-50 m

Availability of surface water:

good

Water quality (untreated):

good drinking water

Water quality refers to:

surface water

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

No

5.5 Biodiversity

Species diversity:
  • medium
Habitat diversity:
  • medium

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Sedentary or nomadic:
  • Sedentary
Market orientation of production system:
  • mixed (subsistence/ commercial)
Off-farm income:
  • less than 10% of all income
Relative level of wealth:
  • average
Individuals or groups:
  • individual/ household
Level of mechanization:
  • manual work
  • animal traction
Gender:
  • men
Age of land users:
  • youth
Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

The land users engage in livestock business as off-farm income.

5.7 Average area of land used 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:
  • state
  • individual, titled
Land use rights:
  • individual
Water use rights:
  • open access (unorganized)
  • communal (organized)
Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

Yes

Specify:

The land is inherited from the predecessors, though there was a land reallocation program in the past.

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
drinking water and sanitation:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
financial services:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
Comments:

Land users are benefited from various financial institutions to access credit and other services. Various credit institutions and revolving funds were mentioned my the land users.

6. Impacts and concluding statements

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

crop production

decreased
increased

crop quality

decreased
increased

fodder production

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

The purpose is to use less of crop residue for soil amendment than as fodder.

fodder quality

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

The purpose is to reduces

animal production

decreased
increased

risk of production failure

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

As it improves soil structure, moisture retention capacity, etc., the practice reduces risks of crop failure.

product diversity

decreased
increased

production area

decreased
increased

land management

hindered
simplified
Water availability and quality

drinking water availability

decreased
increased

drinking water quality

decreased
increased
Income and costs

expenses on agricultural inputs

increased
decreased

farm income

decreased
increased

diversity of income sources

decreased
increased

Socio-cultural impacts

food security/ self-sufficiency

reduced
improved

health situation

worsened
improved
Comments/ specify:

The health condition is convergent with considerable harvest and food security.

SLM/ land degradation knowledge

reduced
improved

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

water quantity

decreased
increased

water quality

decreased
increased

surface runoff

increased
decreased

excess water drainage

reduced
improved

groundwater table/ aquifer

lowered
recharge
Comments/ specify:

The health condition is convergent with considerable harvest and food security.

evaporation

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

The ground cover by crop residues inevitably contributes to the reduction of evaporation.

Soil

soil moisture

decreased
increased

soil cover

reduced
improved

soil loss

increased
decreased

soil accumulation

decreased
increased

soil crusting/ sealing

increased
reduced

soil compaction

increased
reduced

nutrient cycling/ recharge

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Improves on a gradual basis.

soil organic matter/ below ground C

decreased
increased

acidity

increased
reduced
Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Vegetation cover

decreased
increased

biomass/ above ground C

decreased
increased

beneficial species

decreased
increased

habitat diversity

decreased
increased

pest/ disease control

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Crop residue may host some insects but obstruct the movement of others.

Climate and disaster risk reduction

drought impacts

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

Increasing the moisture retention capacity of the soil improves crops' resilience to droughts and other adversity.

emission of carbon and greenhouse gases

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

Accumulation of crop residue increases carbon storage via the reduction of emissions.

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

water availability

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

No facts are available to support the allegation. Besides, it needs long-term observation and documentation.

reliable and stable stream flows in dry season

reduced
increased

downstream flooding

increased
reduced

downstream siltation

increased
decreased

impact of greenhouse gases

increased
reduced
Comments/ specify:

Impact of greenhouse gases reduced with accumulation of crop residues.

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 increase or decrease How does the Technology cope with it?
annual temperature increase well
seasonal temperature dry season increase well
annual rainfall decrease well

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Biological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it?
epidemic diseases not known
insect/ worm infestation not well

Other climate-related consequences

Other climate-related consequences
How does the Technology cope with it?
extended growing period well
reduced growing period very well

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

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

positive

Long-term returns:

very positive

Comments:

Actually, the technology demands only labor costs for the protection of the farmland from grazing the leftover and to avoid illegal burning of crop residues.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

  • 11-50%
Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?
  • 91-100%
Comments:

Land users adopted the practice and plow over the crop residue when the first shower of rainfall intercepted.

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 improves soil fertility on gradual basis.
It assists to reduce soil acidity.
Increases production and productivity.
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Absorbs and retain soil moisture for the crop to rely on for growth and grain filling as a coping mechanism to the unpredictable distribution of rainfall.
It reduces soil temperature and smother the weeds.
Sequesters carbon, a beneficial for climate change/variability.

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?
Create tillage inconvenience as mechanization is less common among smallholders. Using the excessive residue as trash line support the purpose of soil and water conservation.
Free grazing system and multiple uses of crop residue challenges retention of crop residue. Institutionalizing controlled grazing system is of paramount important.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
Less fodder available for the livestock and other multiple uses of crop residues. Limit the amount of crop residue to be retained on the farm to 15 to 30 percent of the total non-grain biomass produced in the farm.

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys

2

  • interviews with land users

1

  • interviews with SLM specialists/ experts

1

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

06/02/2023

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Renard, C. 1997. Crop Residues in Sustainable Mixed Crop/Livestock Farming Systems. CAB International, Walingford. ISBN 0 851991777

Available from where? Costs?

https://core.ac.uk › download ›

Title, author, year, ISBN:

IIRR and ACT. 2005. Conservation Agriculture. A manual for farmers and extension workers in Africa. International Institute of Rural Agriculture, Nairobi; African Conservation Tillage Network, Harare.

Available from where? Costs?

http://www.act-africa.org ›

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

Best management practices: residue management

URL:

http://omaf.gov.on.ca/english/environment/bmp/AF179.pdf

7.4 General comments

Similar to any other technologies. some questions in the questionnaire are not relevant to this particular technology. Meaning, the technology doesn't address every issue stated therein.

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules