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

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 (documented using WOCAT)

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Animal draft zero-till involves the use of an animal drawn mechanical planter to plant directly in untilled soil to minimize soil disturbance and leave a cover of crop residues to conserve the soil and water.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Zero-tillage takes advantage of the beneficial effects of biological processes to loosen the soil and to improve fertility. The organic matter from these processes aggregate the soil while the movement of soil organisms like worms and termites loosen the soil. This is called biological tillage and replaces mechanical tillage. The untilled soil surface covered by residues will require a planter specialized to plant in these conditions. In a sense, adopting zero-till does actually require a zero-till planter. The development of the strip-planter has made zero-till a viable option for animal draft farmers, which until now was not possible due to the unavailability or high cost of zero-till planters. The new planter is both cheap and easy to manufacture locally. The planter uses a narrow tine to open a planting furrow and seed/fertilizer is metered by vertically rotating plates. The planter is pulled by oxen and can plant rows of 75cm or 90cm rows with an intra-row which is determined by the seed plate used (3, 4, 5,…… seeds/m). The planting technology needs to be complemented with sound residue cover and weeding management practices.

Purpose of the Technology: The planter enables planting and fertilizing in untilled soil so that the soil residue cover and soil structure are preserved and can be used sustainably. The protective soil cover reduces evaporation and enhances infiltration while the improved soil structure and organic matter content increases soil water storage making zero tillage an important drought mitigating strategy. The immediate benefits of adopting zero-till are the possibility to plant a bigger area quickly and in time as well as the reduced soil erosion.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: The first step in establishing zero-till is to assess the soil condition and levels of degradation. Where possible tests should be carried out but where not, the farmer needs to start on a small plot to check if there will be yield reduction from not tilling the soil. Where soils are severely degraded, an establishment phase should be embarked on where reduced tillage is practiced until the soil structure has recovered sufficiently to support crop growth without tillage. Liming acidic soils followed by a final ploughing will be required in the first year to correct the soil pH which otherwise will be difficult to correct once conservation tillage has been established. The organic matter levels need to be increased by increasing the amount of residues produced by the crop (i.e. the yields) and retaining these as soil cover. The next establishment activity is the purchase of the planter unit. Maintenance activities include planting and fertilizing in the same operation and weeding. Weeding will have to involve herbicide use to handle increased weed densities implying that spraying will become a major operation. In addition to the normal conventional inputs, herbicides will also become a major input and cost.

Natural / human environment: Zero-till has been applied in a wide range of bio-physical environments but mostly by the large scale farmers. The unavailability and high cost of specialized zero-till planter for small-scale farming has resulted in low adoption rates. The development of the Magoye Planter creates new opportunities for this practice. The farmer has to have sufficient knowledge to assess the soil condition and decide if is too degraded for zero-till or how long the transitional phase should be. Literacy is essential as the farmers will have to learn new approaches on weed control, pest control and crop rotations and adapt practices to suit his/her specific conditions.

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:

• less than 10 years ago (recently)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• during experiments/ research

Comments (type of project, etc.):

Development of the Magoye planter began in 2008 in response to farmers’ feedback on the Magoye Ripper. Farmers started adopting the technology in 2011

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

Comments:

Livestock density (if relevant):
1-10 LU /km2

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Loss of soil structure and low soil fertility
Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Droughts and dry spell

3.4 Water supply

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

• rainfed

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Specification of other agronomic measures: Zero till, Crop residue
Type of agronomic measures: early planting, mulching, manure / compost / residues, mineral (inorganic) fertilizers, soil conditioners (lime, gypsum), zero tillage / no-till

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Main causes of degradation: soil management (Overploughing, soil nutrient mining), crop management (annual, perennial, tree/shrub) (Monocropping), overgrazing (Overgrazing of crop residues), poverty / wealth (Charcoal burning, under application of fertilizer), inputs and infrastructure: (roads, markets, distribution of water points, other, …) (high cost of fertilizer)

Secondary causes of degradation: deforestation / removal of natural vegetation (incl. forest fires) (Charcoal burning), Heavy / extreme rainfall (intensity/amounts) (Overgrazing of crop residues), droughts, land tenure (Communal land overexploited), education, access to knowledge and support services (inadequate extension staff), 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:

• prevent land degradation
• reduce land degradation

Comments:

Secondary goals: rehabilitation / reclamation of denuded land

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

other/ national currency (specify):

Kwacha

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

5.0

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Purchase a magoye planter
2.	Purchase a knapsack sprayer

Comments:

Life span of the magoye planter: 15 years
Life span of the knapsack sprayer: 5 years

4.4 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 Planter	piece	1.0	500.0	500.0	100.0
Equipment	Knapsack sprayer	piece	1.0	80.0	80.0	100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					580.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					116.0

Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 2 month(s)

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Slashing, spreading residues	May-June every year after harvest
2.	Liming	Nov - Dec every 3years
3.	Planting and fertilizing	Nov-Dec at onset of rain
4.	Chemical weeding	3 times per growing season
5.	Harvesting	May-June

4.6 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, spreading residues	person days	8.0	2.5	20.0	100.0
Labour	Liming	person days	2.0	2.5	5.0	100.0
Labour	Chemical weeding	person days	24.0	1.0	24.0	100.0
Labour	Harvesting	person days	8.0	2.5	20.0	100.0
Equipment	Animal traction for planting and fertilizing	ha	1.0	40.0	40.0	100.0
Plant material	Seeds	kg	20.0	2.5	50.0	100.0
Plant material	Fertilizer	kg	400.0	0.8	320.0	100.0
Plant material	Herbicides	l	5.0	6.0	30.0	100.0
Plant material	Lime	ton	1.0	42.0	42.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					551.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					110.2

Comments:

Machinery/ tools: The Magoye planter

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

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

The weed control method is the main determinate factor depending on whether the farmer uses hand hoe or herbicides. Weed densities are higher in unploughed fields increasing the labour requirements/costs by a factor of about 5 if hand weeding is used instead of herbicides. 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

5.3 Soils

5.4 Water availability and quality

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

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 cattle).
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: subsistence (self-supply), subsistence (self-supply), mixed (subsistence/ commercial

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:

• 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

Climate and disaster risk reduction

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	increase or decrease	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	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

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 and quicker planting enables larger areas to be planted and with less labour in the short term. Improved soil structure and soil fertility leads to higher yields and better resilience to droughts in the long term

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• single cases/ experimental

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

• 0-10%

Comments:

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

Comments on spontaneous adoption: The Magoye planter has not yet been officially launched or promoted and the farmers currently using the technology heard of it by word of mouth and insisted on purchasing

There is a strong trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology
There has been numerous inquiries to purchase the Magoye planter even before it can be promoted

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? Plant in with the first rain
Quicker planting enables the planting of larger areas How can they be sustained / enhanced? Plant the seed and fertilize in one operation
reduced workload How can they be sustained / enhanced? Encourage minimum tillage

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Enables early planting How can they be sustained / enhanced? Plant in November with the first heavy rain
Quicker planting enables the planting of larger areas How can they be sustained / enhanced? Use herbicides because without them, the capacity to weed will limit the production capacity
Preserves soil cover and reduces soil disturbance How can they be sustained / enhanced? Training in residue management and zero till

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?
The purchase price of the Magoye planter is quite high	Subsidize the implement
Excessive weeds and lack of information on herbicide use	More training on herbicide use

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
The purchase price for the planter is on the higher side making it affordable only to the larger small-scale farmers	the price is likely to go down when the planter is mass produced
difficult to control weeds in the absence of herbicides	use herbicides

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

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

Available from where? Costs?

FAO

Title, author, year, ISBN:

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

Available from where? Costs?

Indaba project, Michigan state university

Title, author, year, ISBN:

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

Available from where? Costs?

cfu@zamnet.zm