Technologies

Strip Tillage Conservation Farming [Zambia]

technologies_1187 - Zambia

Completeness: 82%

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': 'Silenga Wamunyima', 'user_id': '2607', 'unknown_user': False, 'template': 'raw'}
SLM specialist:

Ndandula Sharon

Golden Valley Agricultural Research Trust

Zambia

SLM specialist:

Katoweji Alfred

Golden Valley Agricultural Research Trust

Zambia

SLM specialist:
{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 'Silenga Wamunyima', 'user_id': '2607', 'unknown_user': False, 'template': 'raw'}
{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 744, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Golden Valley agricultural research trust (Golden Valley agricultural research trust) - Zambia', 'template': 'raw'}

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)

Participatory Research and Development
approaches

Participatory Research and Development [Zambia]

This is a collaborative process between researchers and farmers for developing and adapting new technologies that focus on incorporating the perspectives and inputs from the farmers into the development process.

  • Compiler: Arthur Chomba

2. Description of the SLM Technology

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Strip Tillage Conservation Farming is an animal draft reduced tillage method that involves loosening a strip of soil with a strip tillage tool so as to reduce soil disturbance and improve soil and water conservation.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The strip tillage tool is an adaptation of a Magoye Ripper but is meant to be used in moist soil. In the strip tillage tool, sub-surface wings are attached to the ripper tine to increase the width of soil disruption which the ripper will be unable to achieve in moist soil. The sub-surface wings loosen the soil by lifting it slightly and letting it fall in place without inverting it. In this way, a strip of soil with a width of around 20cm is tilled up to 20cm deep and this is where the crop will be planted. The region between the strips is maintained as a no-till region for soil and water conservation.

Purpose of the Technology: The strip tillage tool is meant to be a transitional technology for farmers intending to adopt Conservation Agriculture (CA) in degraded soils. These soils will need routine loosening while the biological activities allow the soil structure to recover sufficiently until tillage is no longer required. Strip tillage is able to achieve deeper soil loosening with much less draft force, wear of tines and soil disturbance than ripping. The untilled region between the strips enables the benefits of soil cover such as improved infiltration, soil water storage and increased soil organic matter. Soil loosening by strip tillage does not produce large clods like ripping does but instead produces a fine seedbed that enables uniform emergence of the crop, and this together with the deep penetration results in early plant vigour. The strip tillage implement is also designed to allow the attachment of a planter unit to enable tillage and planting in one operation.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: The establishment of strip tillage based conservation agriculture mainly involves the purchase of the strip tillage implement and the replaceable tines. Liming acidic soils (low pH soils) followed by a final ploughing will be required to correct the soil PH which otherwise will be difficult to correct once conservation tillage has been established. Maintenance activities include strip-tilling the soil which may or may not include planting and fertilizing in the same operation. Weeding should preferably include the use of herbicides, implying that the major operations will include spraying. In addition to the normal conventional inputs, herbicides will also become a major input and cost.

Natural / human environment: The strip tillage technology is most suited to the bigger small-scale farmers with a capacity of 5ha to about 20ha. The strip tillage tool together with the planter will require a relatively substantial investment and only the bigger farmers will fully utilize its capacity. The strip tillage action will not be very effective in wet soils especially in the heavier soils, soil disruption is best achieved when the soil is slightly moist but not too dry as to require to high draft forces. Strip tillage is useful in soil with poor structure that will require routine loosening to maintain yields while the soil is being rehabilitated.

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:

Zambia

Region/ State/ Province:

Zambia/Southern Province

Further specification of location:

Mazabuka/Magoye

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
Comments:

The strip tillage technology is only in its second year of promotion and 7 farmers had adopted the technology in the 2011/12 season. The field sizes range from 1ha to 30ha.

{'is_geometry': True, 'configuration': 'technologies', 'additional_translations': {}, 'key': 'Map', 'value': '{"type":"FeatureCollection","features":[{"type":"Feature","id":1494593333217,"geometry":{"type":"Point","coordinates":[27.605692,-16.033415000000005]},"properties":null}]}', 'questionnaire_object': <Questionnaire: {"qg_name": [{"name": {"en": "Strip Tillage Conservation Farming"}}], "qg_links": [{"links_url": {"en": "cfu@zamnet.zm"}, "links_title": {"en": "Conservation farming in Zambia, Conservation farming unit (CFU), 2011"}}], "qg_photos": [{"image": "02db0ed7-a51c-4e59-9697-4d4ccef79c64", "image_date": "08/01/2011", "image_caption": {"en": "The strip tillage tool with the sub-surface wings attached"}, "image_location": {"en": "Magoye, Mazabuka/Southern Province/Zambia"}, "image_photographer": {"en": "Arthur Chomba (Box 670577, Mazabuka, Zambia.)"}}, {"image": "80baa3eb-0e8d-48dd-8787-62219e2c3b4e", "image_date": "11/05/2011", "image_caption": {"en": "A field after strip tillage"}, "image_location": {"en": "Magoye, Mazabuka/Southern Province/Zambia"}, "image_photographer": {"en": "Arthur Chomba (Box 670577, Mazabuka, Zambia)"}}], "tech_qg_1": [{"tech_definition": {"en": "Strip Tillage Conservation Farming is an animal draft reduced tillage method that involves loosening a strip of soil with a strip tillage tool so as to reduce soil disturbance and improve soil and water conservation."}}], "tech_qg_2": [{"tech_description": {"en": "The strip tillage tool is an adaptation of a Magoye Ripper but is meant to be used in moist soil. In the strip tillage tool, sub-surface wings are attached to the ripper tine to increase the width of soil disruption which the ripper will be unable to achieve in moist soil. The sub-surface wings loosen the soil by lifting it slightly and letting it fall in place without inverting it. In this way, a strip of soil with a width of around 20cm is tilled up to 20cm deep and this is where the crop will be planted. The region between the strips is maintained as a no-till region for soil and water conservation.\r\n\r\nPurpose of the Technology: The strip tillage tool is meant to be a transitional technology for farmers intending to adopt Conservation Agriculture (CA) in degraded soils. These soils will need routine loosening while the biological activities allow the soil structure to recover sufficiently until tillage is no longer required. Strip tillage is able to achieve deeper soil loosening with much less draft force, wear of tines and soil disturbance than ripping. The untilled region between the strips enables the benefits of soil cover such as improved infiltration, soil water storage and increased soil organic matter. Soil loosening by strip tillage does not produce large clods like ripping does but instead produces a fine seedbed that enables uniform emergence of the crop, and this together with the deep penetration results in early plant vigour. The strip tillage implement is also designed to allow the attachment of a planter unit to enable tillage and planting in one operation.\r\n\r\nEstablishment / maintenance activities and inputs: The establishment of strip tillage based conservation agriculture mainly involves the purchase of the strip tillage implement and the replaceable tines. Liming acidic soils (low pH soils) followed by a final ploughing will be required to correct the soil PH which otherwise will be difficult to correct once conservation tillage has been established. Maintenance activities include strip-tilling the soil which may or may not include planting and fertilizing in the same operation. Weeding should preferably include the use of herbicides, implying that the major operations will include spraying. In addition to the normal conventional inputs, herbicides will also become a major input and cost.\r\n\r\nNatural / human environment: The strip tillage technology is most suited to the bigger small-scale farmers with a capacity of 5ha to about 20ha. The strip tillage tool together with the planter will require a relatively substantial investment and only the bigger farmers will fully utilize its capacity. The strip tillage action will not be very effective in wet soils especially in the heavier soils, soil disruption is best achieved when the soil is slightly moist but not too dry as to require to high draft forces. Strip tillage is useful in soil with poor structure that will require routine loosening to maintain yields while the soil is being rehabilitated."}}], "tech_qg_4": [{"tech_spread_area": "tech_spread_01_1", "tech_spread_tech": "tech_spread_evenly"}], "tech_qg_5": [{"tech_who_implemented": ["implementation_experiments"], "tech_who_implemented_comments": {"en": "Development of the strip tillage technology began in 2008 in response to farmers\u2019 feedback from the promotion of another conservation agricultural technology, the Magoye Ripper. The technology was introduced to the farmers in 2011."}}], "tech_qg_6": [{"tech_main_purpose": ["main_purpose_degradation"]}], "tech_qg_7": [{"tech_lu_comments": {"en": "Livestock density (if relevant):\r\n1-10 LU /km2\r\n\r\nPrincipaux probl\u00e8mes d'utilisation des sols (opinion du compilateur): perte de structure du sol et perte de fertilit\u00e9 du sol\r\n\r\nPrincipaux probl\u00e8mes d'utilisation des terres (perception des utilisateurs fonciers): s\u00e9cheresses et p\u00e9riodes de s\u00e9cheresse\r\n\r\nL'\u00e9levage p\u00e8che sur les r\u00e9sidus de r\u00e9coltes"}}], "tech_qg_8": [{"tech_measures": ["tech_measures_agronomic"]}], "tech_qg_9": [{"tech_landuse_2018": ["tech_lu_cropland", "tech_lu_grazingland", "tech_lu_forest"]}], "tech_qg_10": [{"tech_growing_seasons": "growing_season_1", "tech_lu_cropland_sub": ["lu_cropland_ca"], "tech_growing_seasons_specify": {"en": "Longest growing period in days: 135; Longest growing period from month to month: Mid November to end of March"}, "tech_lu_cropland_annual_cropping_crops": ["annual_crops_429", "annual_crops_446", "annual_crops_456"]}], "tech_qg_11": [{"tech_lu_grazingland_animals": ["animals_50", "animals_55", "animals_60"]}], "tech_qg_19": [{"tech_watersupply": "tech_watersupply_rainfed"}], "tech_qg_20": [{"tech_slm_group": ["tech_slm_group_soildisturbance"]}], "tech_qg_21": [{"tech_agronomic_tillage": "tillage_no", "tech_residue_management": "residue_management_burned", "tech_measures_agronomic_sub": ["measures_agronomic_a2", "measures_agronomic_a3", "measures_agronomic_a6_residue_management", "measures_agronomic_a6"]}], "tech_qg_26": [{"tech_measures_comments": {"en": "Specification of other agronomic measures: Zero till, Crop Residue\r\n\r\nType of agronomic measures: early planting, mulching, manure / compost / residues, mineral (inorganic) fertilizers, soil conditioners (lime, gypsum), rotations / fallows, breaking compacted topsoil, minimum tillage, non-inversion tillage, breaking compacted subsoil"}}], "tech_qg_27": [{"tech_degradation": ["degradation_erosion_water", "degradation_chemical", "degradation_physical", "degradation_biological"]}], "tech_qg_28": [{"degradation_erosion_water_sub": ["degradation_wt"]}], "tech_qg_30": [{"degradation_chemical_sub": ["degradation_cn"]}], "tech_qg_31": [{"degradation_physical_sub": ["degradation_pc", "degradation_pk", "degradation_pi"]}], "tech_qg_32": [{"degradation_biological_sub": ["degradation_bl"]}], "tech_qg_34": [{"degradation_comments": {"en": "Secondary types of degradation addressed: Wt: loss of topsoil / surface erosion\r\n\r\nMain causes of degradation: soil management (over ploughing, soil nutrient mining), crop management (annual, perennial, tree/shrub) (Monocropping of Maize), overgrazing (overgrazing of crop residues), poverty / wealth (Charcoal burning, under application of fertilizer)\r\n\r\nSecondary causes of degradation: deforestation / removal of natural vegetation (incl. forest fires) (charcoal burning, openning up new land for agriculture), Heavy / extreme rainfall (intensity/amounts) (high intensity storms resulting in soil erosion and leaching), land tenure (over-exploitation of communal land), governance / institutional (lack of credit facilities)"}}], "tech_qg_35": [{"tech_prevention": ["intervention_reduce_ld", "intervention_rehabilitate"], "tech_prevention_comments": {"en": "Secondary goals: prevention of land degradation"}}], "tech_qg_37": [{"tech_input_est_unit": {"en": "pieces"}, "tech_input_est_costs": 500.0, "tech_input_est_specify": {"en": "Strip Tillage implement"}, "tech_input_est_quantity": 1.0, "tech_input_est_total_costs_pi": 500.0, "tech_input_est_percentage_costs": 100.0}, {"tech_input_est_unit": {"en": "pieces"}, "tech_input_est_costs": 80.0, "tech_input_est_specify": {"en": "Knapsack Sprayer"}, "tech_input_est_quantity": 1.0, "tech_input_est_total_costs_pi": 80.0, "tech_input_est_percentage_costs": 100.0}], "tech_qg_43": [{"tech_maint_timing": {"en": "May-June yearly after harvest"}, "tech_maint_activity": {"en": "Slashing and spreading crop residues"}}, {"tech_maint_timing": {"en": "Nov-Dec every 3 years"}, "tech_maint_activity": {"en": "Liming soil"}}, {"tech_maint_timing": {"en": "Nov-Dec at onset of rain"}, "tech_maint_activity": {"en": "strip tillage, planting and fertilizing"}}, {"tech_maint_timing": {"en": "3 times per season"}, "tech_maint_activity": {"en": "Chemical weeding"}}, {"tech_maint_timing": {"en": "April-May"}, "tech_maint_activity": {"en": "Harvesting"}}], "tech_qg_45": [{"tech_input_maint_unit": {"en": "persons/day/ha"}, "tech_input_maint_costs": 2.5, "tech_input_maint_specify": {"en": "Slashing and spreading crop residues"}, "tech_input_maint_quantity": 8.0, "tech_input_maint_total_costs_pi": 20.0, "tech_input_maint_percentage_costs": 100.0}, {"tech_input_maint_unit": {"en": "persons/day/ha"}, "tech_input_maint_costs": 2.5, "tech_input_maint_specify": {"en": "Liming soil"}, "tech_input_maint_quantity": 2.0, "tech_input_maint_total_costs_pi": 5.0, "tech_input_maint_percentage_costs": 100.0}, {"tech_input_maint_unit": {"en": "persons/day/ha"}, "tech_input_maint_costs": 2.5, "tech_input_maint_specify": {"en": "Strip tillage, planting and fertilizing"}, "tech_input_maint_quantity": 4.0, "tech_input_maint_total_costs_pi": 10.0, "tech_input_maint_percentage_costs": 100.0}, {"tech_input_maint_unit": {"en": "persons/day/ha"}, "tech_input_maint_costs": 1.0, "tech_input_maint_specify": {"en": "Chemical weeding (sprayers)"}, "tech_input_maint_quantity": 24.0, "tech_input_maint_total_costs_pi": 24.0, "tech_input_maint_percentage_costs": 100.0}], "tech_qg_46": [{"tech_input_maint_unit": {"en": "ha"}, "tech_input_maint_costs": 40.0, "tech_input_maint_specify": {"en": "Animal traction"}, "tech_input_maint_quantity": 1.0, "tech_input_maint_total_costs_pi": 40.0, "tech_input_maint_percentage_costs": 100.0}], "tech_qg_47": [{"tech_input_maint_unit": {"en": "kg/ha"}, "tech_input_maint_costs": 2.5, "tech_input_maint_specify": {"en": "Seeds"}, "tech_input_maint_quantity": 20.0, "tech_input_maint_total_costs_pi": 50.0, "tech_input_maint_percentage_costs": 100.0}], "tech_qg_48": [{"tech_input_maint_unit": {"en": "kg"}, "tech_input_maint_costs": 0.042, "tech_input_maint_specify": {"en": "Lime"}, "tech_input_maint_quantity": 1000.0, "tech_input_maint_total_costs_pi": 42.0, "tech_input_maint_percentage_costs": 100.0}], "tech_qg_49": [{"tech_input_maint_unit": {"en": "persons/day/ha"}, "tech_input_maint_costs": 4.0, "tech_input_maint_specify": {"en": "Labour: Chemical weeding (sprayers)"}, "tech_input_maint_quantity": 10.0, "tech_input_maint_total_costs_pi": 40.0, "tech_input_maint_percentage_costs": 100.0}, {"tech_input_maint_unit": {"en": "persons/day/ha"}, "tech_input_maint_costs": 4.0, "tech_input_maint_specify": {"en": "Labour: Harvesting"}, "tech_input_maint_quantity": 10.0, "tech_input_maint_total_costs_pi": 40.0, "tech_input_maint_percentage_costs": 100.0}], "tech_qg_52": [{"tech_input_maint_comments": {"en": "Machinery/ tools: Strip tillage planter\r\n\r\nCalculations are for 1 ha of maize under strip tillage based conservation tillage and costs are for the Zambia situation in Magoye as of August 2012."}}], "tech_qg_54": [{"tech_rainfall": ["tech_rainfall_501_750"], "tech_rainfall_specifications": {"en": "Summer rains from November to March"}}], "tech_qg_55": [{"tech_agroclimatic_zone": ["tech_agroclimatic_zone_semiarid"], "tech_agroclimatic_zone_specifications": {"en": "Thermal climate class: subtropics. 3 distinct seasons \u2013 summer, winter and one rainy season"}}], "tech_qg_56": [{"tech_slopes": ["tech_slopes_gentle", "tech_slopes_moderate"], "tech_landforms": ["tech_landforms_plateau", "tech_landforms_hillslopes"], "tech_altitudinalzone": ["tech_altitudinalzone_1000_1500"]}], "tech_qg_58": [{"tech_soil_depth": ["tech_soil_depth_deep", "tech_soil_depth_verydeep"], "tech_topsoil_organic": ["tech_topsoil_organic_low"], "tech_soil_texture_topsoil": ["tech_soil_texture_medium", "tech_soil_texture_fine"]}], "tech_qg_59": [{"tech_soil_comments": {"en": "Soil fertility is low - medium and low fertility caused mainly by poor soil management practices, otherwise soils are inherently fertile. \r\n\r\nTopsoil organic matter: Due to excessive ploughing and under fertilization \r\n\r\nSoil drainage / infiltration is good - medium. Soils are naturally well drained but become less so after compaction due to ploughing\r\n\r\nSoil water storage capacity is medium. Soils mostly loam to sandy loam with medium storage capacity"}}], "tech_qg_60": [{"tech_groundwater": "tech_groundwater_50m_plus", "tech_surfacewater": "tech_surfacewater_medium", "tech_waterquality": "tech_waterquality_poor"}], "tech_qg_65": [{"tech_water_comments": {"en": "Ground water table: Hand wells are <20m but reliable boreholes are > 50m \r\n\r\nAvailability of surface water: Mostly seasonal streams and dams \r\n\r\nWater quality (untreated):Good when from communal hand-pumps and poor when from hand-dug wells."}}], "tech_qg_66": [{"tech_speciesdiversity": "measure_medium"}], "tech_qg_71": [{"tech_gender": ["gender_men"], "tech_wealth": ["tech_wealth_verypoor", "tech_wealth_poor"], "tech_individuals": ["individuals_individual"], "tech_mechanisation": ["mechanisation_manual", "mechanisation_animal"], "tech_offfarm_income": ["offfarm_income_10_50"], "tech_market_orientation": ["tech_market_orientation_subsistence", "tech_market_orientation_mixed"]}], "tech_qg_72": [{"tech_land_size": ["tech_land_size_1_2", "tech_land_size_2_5"], "tech_land_comments": {"en": "Cropland: 1-2 ha (families without oxen), 2-5 ha (families with one pair of oxen), 5-15 ha (families with over five oxen)\r\n\r\nGrazing land: 5-15 ha, 15-50 ha, 50-100 ha"}, "tech_land_size_relative": ["tech_size_smallscale"]}], "tech_qg_73": [{"tech_ownership": ["tech_ownership_communal", "tech_ownership_individualnottitled"], "tech_landuserights": ["tech_userights_openaccess", "tech_userights_individual"], "tech_wateruserights": ["tech_userights_openaccess"], "tech_landrights_other": {"en": "Apportioned by traditional rulers"}, "tech_waterrights_other": {"en": "Apportioned by traditional rulers"}}], "tech_qg_76": [{"tech_impacts_specify": {"en": "Due to early planting"}, "tech_impacts_quant_after": {"en": "5tons/ha"}, "tech_impacts_quant_before": {"en": "3tons/ha"}, "tech_impacts_cropproduction": 6}], "tech_qg_77": [{"tech_landuser_comments": {"en": "Land users applying the Technology are mainly common / average land users\r\n\r\nDifference in the involvement of women and men: The technology is applied mostly by men since most households are headed males and animal traction operation are reserved for men. Planting and weeding operations are the domain of women and children\r\n\r\nPopulation density: 10-50 persons/km2\r\n\r\nAnnual population growth: 3% - 4%\r\n\r\n8% of the land users are rich and own 15% of the land (own more than 10 cattle).\r\n8% of the land users are average wealthy and own 15% of the land (own 5 - 10 cattle).\r\n16% of the land users are poor and own 20% of the land (less than 5 cattle).\r\n68% of the land users are poor and own 40% of the land (do not own cattle).\r\n\r\nOff-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\r\n\r\nMarket orientation of production system: Livestock, maize and legumes for home consumption/subsistence and sale of excess maize and cotton, dairy products (mixed).\r\n\r\nLevel of mechanization: Manual labour only for small backyard fields. Families without cattle borrow or hire"}}], "tech_qg_79": [{"tech_impacts_specify": {"en": "Residues needed for soil cover"}, "tech_impacts_fodderproduction": 2}], "tech_qg_85": [{"tech_impacts_specify": {"en": "Better resistance"}, "tech_impacts_productionfailure": 6}], "tech_qg_87": [{"tech_impacts_quant_after": {"en": ">10ha"}, "tech_impacts_quant_before": {"en": "2-3ha"}, "tech_impacts_productionarea": 7}], "tech_qg_93": [{"tech_input_est_comments": {"en": "Duration of establishment phase: 2 month(s)"}}], "tech_qg_95": [{"tech_input_determinate_factors": {"en": "The weed control method employed is the main determinate factor depending on whether the farmer uses hand hoe or herbicides for weeding. 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 recurrent cost is that of fertilizer which makes up about half the cost hence the total cost will vary significantly depending on fertilizer cost."}}], "qg_location": [{"country": "country_ZMB", "state_province": {"en": "Zambia/Southern Province"}, "further_location": {"en": "Mazabuka/Magoye"}}], "tech_qg_104": [{"tech_impacts_specify": {"en": "Due to increased production area and improved yield"}, "tech_impacts_farmincome": 7}], "tech_qg_105": [{"tech_impacts_specify": {"en": "More time and labour freed for other activities"}, "tech_impacts_diversityincome": 6}], "tech_qg_107": [{"tech_impacts_specify": {"en": "Due to mechanised planting and herbicide use"}, "tech_impacts_workload": 7}], "tech_qg_108": [{"tech_impacts_specify": {"en": "Due to incresed yields"}, "tech_impacts_foodsecurity": 6}], "tech_qg_109": [{"tech_impacts_health": 6, "tech_impacts_specify": {"en": "Improved nutrition due to crop diversification"}}], "tech_qg_112": [{"tech_impacts_specify": {"en": "Less time spent on farm operations"}, "tech_impacts_recreational": 6}], "tech_qg_113": [{"tech_impacts_specify": {"en": "Farmers trained through cooperatives"}, "tech_impacts_community": 6}], "tech_qg_115": [{"tech_impacts_specify": {"en": "Due to incresed soil Carbon, crop residues to reduce run off, and capacity building"}, "tech_impacts_slmknowledge": 6}], "tech_qg_116": [{"tech_impacts_specify": {"en": "Due to competition with neighbours cattle for crop residues"}, "tech_impacts_conflictmitigation": 3}], "tech_qg_120": [{"tech_impacts_specify": {"en": "Due to better soil cover"}, "tech_impacts_harvestingwater": 6}], "tech_qg_121": [{"tech_impacts_specify": {"en": "Due to better soil cover"}, "tech_impacts_surfacerunoff": 7}], "tech_qg_122": [{"tech_impacts_specify": {"en": "Improved soil structure"}, "tech_impacts_waterdrainage": 5}], "tech_qg_123": [{"tech_impacts_specify": {"en": "Due to good drainage"}, "tech_impacts_groundwater": 4}], "tech_qg_124": [{"tech_impacts_specify": {"en": "Due to better soil cover"}, "tech_impacts_evaporation": 6}], "tech_qg_125": [{"tech_impacts_specify": {"en": "Due to better soil cover"}, "tech_impacts_soilmoisture": 6}], "tech_qg_126": [{"tech_impacts_specify": {"en": "Due to non-inversion tillage"}, "tech_impacts_soilcover": 7}], "tech_qg_127": [{"tech_impacts_specify": {"en": "Due to minimum soil disturbance, soil cover"}, "tech_impacts_soilloss": 7}], "tech_qg_129": [{"tech_impacts_specify": {"en": "Due to minimum soil disturbance, soil cover"}, "tech_impacts_soilcrusting": 7}], "tech_qg_130": [{"tech_impacts_specify": {"en": "Due to deep tillage"}, "tech_impacts_soilcompaction": 7}], "tech_qg_131": [{"tech_impacts_specify": {"en": "Due to minimum soil disturbance, soil cover"}, "tech_impacts_nutrientcycling": 6}], "tech_qg_132": [{"tech_impacts_specify": {"en": "Due to good drainage"}, "tech_impacts_soilsalinity": 5}], "tech_qg_133": [{"tech_impacts_specify": {"en": "Due to minimum soil disturbance, soil cover"}, "tech_impacts_soilorganicmatter": 6}], "tech_qg_135": [{"tech_impacts_specify": {"en": "Due to soil organic matter (SOM) buildup"}, "tech_impacts_animaldiversity": 5}], "tech_qg_140": [{"tech_impacts_biomass": 6, "tech_impacts_specify": {"en": "Due to minimum soil disturbance, soil cover"}}], "tech_qg_141": [{"tech_impacts_specify": {"en": "Due to Carbon (C) sequestration"}, "tech_impacts_emissioncarbon": 6}], "tech_qg_145": [{"tech_impacts_specify": {"en": "Resistance to chemical weed control"}, "tech_impacts_pestcontrol": 4}], "tech_qg_146": [{"tech_impacts_specify": {"en": "Only if applied over an extensive area"}, "tech_impacts_wateravailability": 6}], "tech_qg_147": [{"tech_impacts_specify": {"en": "Only if applied over an extensive area"}, "tech_impacts_downstreamflooding": 7}], "tech_qg_148": [{"tech_impacts_specify": {"en": "Only if applied over an extensive area"}, "tech_impacts_reliableflows": 7}], "tech_qg_149": [{"tech_impacts_specify": {"en": "Only if applied over an extensive area"}, "tech_impacts_downstreamsiltation": 7}], "tech_qg_153": [{"tech_impacts_damageneighbourfield": 3}], "tech_qg_160": [{"tech_implementation_decades": "implemenation_less_10"}], "tech_qg_164": [{"tech_input_dollar": "tech_input_dollars", "tech_input_average_wage": {"en": "2.40"}}], "tech_qg_165": [{"tech_est_activity": {"en": "Strip Tillage implement"}}, {"tech_est_activity": {"en": "Knapsack Sprayer"}}], "tech_qg_168": [{"tech_exposure_incrdecr": "increase", "tech_exposure_sensitivity": "cope_unknown"}], "tech_qg_179": [{"tech_exposure_sensitivity": "cope_well"}], "tech_qg_181": [{"tech_costbenefit_est_long": "costbenefit_verypositive", "tech_costbenefit_est_short": "costbenefit_positive"}], "tech_qg_182": [{"tech_costbenefit_est_long": "costbenefit_verypositive", "tech_costbenefit_est_short": "costbenefit_positive"}], "tech_qg_183": [{"tech_costbenefit_comments": {"en": "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."}}], "tech_qg_184": [{"user_id": "2389", "user_resourceperson_type": "resourceperson_slmspecialist"}, {"country": "country_ZMB", "person_gender": "gender_male", "person_lastname": {"en": "Ndandula"}, "person_firstname": {"en": "Sharon"}, "person_institution_name": {"en": "Golden Valley Agricultural Research Trust"}, "user_resourceperson_type": "resourceperson_slmspecialist"}, {"country": "country_ZMB", "person_gender": "gender_male", "person_lastname": {"en": "Katoweji"}, "person_firstname": {"en": "Alfred"}, "person_institution_name": {"en": "Golden Valley Agricultural Research Trust"}, "user_resourceperson_type": "resourceperson_slmspecialist"}, {"user_id": "2607", "user_resourceperson_type": "resourceperson_slmspecialist"}], "tech_qg_185": [{"tech_drawing": "1a3fecf6-78f7-42ab-9efa-b626d2bcc986", "tech_drawing_author": {"en": "Silenga Wamunyima, Box 670577, Mazabuka, Zambia"}, "tech_specifications": {"en": "Planting lines are done at a depth of 15-20cm with inter row of 75 or 90cm. The width of the open furrow is 5-10cm wide. Planting rows are done across the slope to reduce runoff, these planting rows may be made in the dry season or during the rainy season when the soil is moist.\r\n\r\nLocation: Magoye. Mazabuka/Southern Province/Zambia\r\n\r\nDate: 2014-06-29\r\n\r\nTechnical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: high (must be able to troubleshoot and advise the farmers on how to adapt the technology to fit into their production systems.)\r\n\r\nTechnical knowledge required for land users: moderate (knowledge of soil health management required when adopting the practice)\r\n\r\nMain technical functions: control of raindrop splash, improvement of ground cover, improvement of topsoil structure (compaction), improvement of subsoil structure (hardpan), increase in organic matter, increase of infiltration, increase / maintain water stored in soil\r\n\r\nSecondary technical functions: improvement of surface structure (crusting, sealing), increase in nutrient availability (supply, recycling,\u2026), increase of groundwater level / recharge of groundwater, water harvesting / increase water supply\r\n\r\nEarly planting\r\nMaterial/ species: Maize, Cotton\r\nQuantity/ density: 44,000 pla\r\nRemarks: 25cm intra row x 75cm\r\n\r\nMulching\r\nMaterial/ species: Crop residues\r\nQuantity/ density: 3ton/ha\r\nRemarks: Uniformly spread\r\n\r\nManure / compost / residues\r\nMaterial/ species: crop residues\r\nQuantity/ density: 3ton/ha\r\nRemarks: uniformly spread\r\n\r\nMineral (inorganic) fertilizers\r\nMaterial/ species: basal and top dressing\r\nQuantity/ density: 800kg/ha\r\nRemarks: spot application\r\n\r\nSoil conditioners (lime, gypsum)\r\nMaterial/ species: lime\r\nQuantity/ density: 1ton/ha\r\nRemarks: every 2-3 years\r\n\r\nRotations / fallows\r\nMaterial/ species: rotations of maize, cotton, cowpeas\r\n\r\nBreaking compacted topsoil\r\nMaterial/ species: strip tillage\r\nQuantity/ density: 20cm deep\r\n\r\nMinimum tillage\r\nMaterial/ species: strip tillage\r\n\r\nNon-inversion tillage\r\nMaterial/ species: strip tillage\r\n\r\nBreaking compacted subsoil\r\nMaterial/ species: strip tillage"}}], "tech_qg_187": [{"tech_impacts_specify": {"en": "The technology was only introduced recently and not yet widely adopted to make an impact. However the few farmers that have adopted have been able to multiply their production capacities and incomes."}, "tech_impacts_other_measure": 5, "tech_impacts_other_specify": {"en": "livelihood and human well-being"}, "tech_impacts_other_labelleft": {"en": "reduced"}, "tech_impacts_other_labelright": {"en": "improved"}}], "tech_qg_189": [{"tech_impacts_specify": {"en": "Some chemicals get carried down the profile"}, "tech_impacts_other_measure": 4, "tech_impacts_other_specify": {"en": "Ground water contamination"}, "tech_impacts_other_labelleft": {"en": "increased"}, "tech_impacts_other_labelright": {"en": "decreased"}}], "tech_qg_191": [{"tech_adoption_comments": {"en": "7 land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support\r\n\r\nComments on spontaneous adoption: These farmers heard of the technology by word of mouth and solicited for the technology even before it could be officially promoted\r\n\r\nThere is a strong trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology\r\n\r\nComments on adoption trend: Even before promotion, inquiries to purchase the strip planter have been overwhelming. This is most likely due to the ability to till, plant and fertilizer in one operation."}, "tech_adoption_quantify": {"en": "7 households in an area of 0.1 - 1 km2 (field size 1 ha - 30 ha)"}, "tech_adoption_percentage": "adoption_percentage_more_50", "tech_adoption_spontaneously": "tech_adoption_spont_90_100"}], "tech_qg_197": [{"tech_exposure_sensitivity": "cope_unknown"}], "tech_qg_202": [{"tech_exposure_sensitivity": "cope_well"}], "tech_qg_205": [{"tech_exposure_sensitivity": "cope_not_well"}], "tech_qg_214": [{"tech_exposure_sensitivity": "cope_unknown"}], "tech_qg_219": [{"tech_input_maint_unit": {"en": "kg/ha"}, "tech_input_maint_costs": 0.8, "tech_input_maint_specify": {"en": "Fertilizer"}, "tech_input_maint_quantity": 400.0, "tech_input_maint_total_costs_pi": 320.0, "tech_input_maint_percentage_costs": 100.0}, {"tech_input_maint_unit": {"en": "l/ha"}, "tech_input_maint_costs": 6.0, "tech_input_maint_specify": {"en": "Herbicides"}, "tech_input_maint_quantity": 5.0, "tech_input_maint_total_costs_pi": 30.0, "tech_input_maint_percentage_costs": 100.0}], "tech_qg_222": [{"tech_input_est_total_costs": 580.0}], "tech_qg_223": [{"tech_input_maint_total_costs": 621.0}], "tech_qg_225": [{"location_comments": {"en": "The strip tillage technology is only in its second year of promotion and 7 farmers had adopted the technology in the 2011/12 season. The field sizes range from 1ha to 30ha."}}], "tech_qg_226": [{"tech_access_roads": 2, "tech_access_water": 2, "tech_access_energy": 1, "tech_access_health": 2, "tech_access_markets": 2, "tech_access_education": 2, "tech_access_financial": 1, "tech_access_employment": 1, "tech_access_techassistance": 2}], "tech_qg_232": [{"tech_input_est_total_costs_usd": 580.0}], "tech_qg_233": [{"tech_input_maint_total_costs_usd": 621.0}], "tech_qg_235": [{"tech_lu_mixed": 1, "tech_lu_mixed_select": "lu_mixed_mp"}], "tech_qg_250": [{"date_documentation": "14/01/2013"}], "qg_references": [{"references_title": {"en": "Social-economic analysis of conservation agriculture in southern Africa, FAO, 2011"}, "references_source": {"en": "FAO"}}, {"references_title": {"en": "Conservation farming in Zambia, Steven Haggblade, Gelson Tembo, October 2003"}, "references_source": {"en": "INDABA project, Michigan State University"}}], "qg_location_map": [{"location_map": "{\"type\":\"FeatureCollection\",\"features\":[{\"type\":\"Feature\",\"id\":1494593333217,\"geometry\":{\"type\":\"Point\",\"coordinates\":[27.605692,-16.033415000000005]},\"properties\":null}]}"}], "qg_accept_conditions": [{"accept_conditions": 1}], "qg_strengths_compiler": [{"strengths_compiler": {"en": "Enables early planting\r\n\r\nHow can they be sustained / enhanced? Plant with the first heavy rain in November"}}, {"strengths_compiler": {"en": "Quicker planting enables planting of larger areas\r\n\r\nHow can they be sustained / enhanced? Use herbicides because without them, the capacity to weed will limit the production capacity"}}, {"strengths_compiler": {"en": "Preserves soil cover and reduces soil disturbance\r\n\r\nHow can they be sustained / enhanced? Training in residue management (No Burning) and use of zero tillage implement"}}], "qg_funding_institution": [{"funding_institution": 744}], "qg_strengths_landusers": [{"strengths_landuser": {"en": "Enables early planting\r\n\r\nHow can they be sustained / enhanced? acquire more than one strip tillage implement"}}, {"strengths_landuser": {"en": "Quicker planting enables planting of larger areas\r\n\r\nHow can they be sustained / enhanced? Plant the seed and apply the fertilizer in one opperation"}}, {"strengths_landuser": {"en": "Lighter to pull enabling deeper penetration of the tillage tool increasing the rooting depth\r\n\r\nHow can they be sustained / enhanced? Use in moist soils"}}], "qg_weaknesses_compiler": [{"weaknesses_compiler": {"en": "The purchase price is high making it affordable only to the larger small-scale farmers"}, "weaknesses_overcome": {"en": "It is already by far the cheapest planter available but mass production can lead to significant reduction in purchase price"}}, {"weaknesses_compiler": {"en": "Benefits are more evident on a scale larger than many farmers capacity especially when used in combination with herbicides"}, "weaknesses_overcome": {"en": "Support farmers to increase capacity"}}, {"weaknesses_compiler": {"en": "Difficult to control weeds in the absence of herbicides"}, "weaknesses_overcome": {"en": "make herbicides more available at a lower cost"}}], "qg_weaknesses_landusers": [{"weaknesses_landuser": {"en": "The purchase price of the strip tillage planter"}, "weaknesses_overcome": {"en": "subsidizing the strip tillage implement"}}, {"weaknesses_landuser": {"en": "Excessive weeds and lack of information on herbicide use"}, "weaknesses_overcome": {"en": "More training on herbicide use"}}]}>, 'map_url': '/en/wocat/technologies/view/technologies_1187/map/', 'template': 'raw'}

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 strip tillage technology began in 2008 in response to farmers’ feedback from the promotion of another conservation agricultural technology, the Magoye Ripper. The technology was introduced to the farmers in 2011.

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

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

Yes

Specify mixed land use (crops/ grazing/ trees):
  • Agro-pastoralism (incl. integrated crop-livestock)

Cropland

Cropland

  • Annual cropping
Annual cropping - Specify crops:
  • cereals - maize
  • fibre crops - cotton
  • oilseed crops - groundnuts
Number of growing seasons per year:
  • 1
Specify:

Longest growing period in days: 135; Longest growing period from month to month: Mid November to end of March

Grazing land

Grazing land

Animal type:
  • cattle - dairy
  • goats
  • poultry
Forest/ woodlands

Forest/ woodlands

Comments:

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

Principaux problèmes d'utilisation des sols (opinion du compilateur): perte de structure du sol et perte de fertilité du sol

Principaux problèmes d'utilisation des terres (perception des utilisateurs fonciers): sécheresses et périodes de sécheresse

L'élevage pèche sur les résidus de récoltes

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

  • minimal soil disturbance

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 3.1: No tillage

A6: Specify residue management:

A 6.1: burned

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), rotations / fallows, breaking compacted topsoil, minimum tillage, non-inversion tillage, breaking compacted subsoil

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)
physical soil deterioration

physical soil deterioration

  • Pc: compaction
  • Pk: slaking and crusting
  • Pi: soil sealing
biological degradation

biological degradation

  • Bl: loss of soil life
Comments:

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

Main causes of degradation: soil management (over ploughing, soil nutrient mining), crop management (annual, perennial, tree/shrub) (Monocropping of Maize), overgrazing (overgrazing of crop residues), poverty / wealth (Charcoal burning, under application of fertilizer)

Secondary causes of degradation: deforestation / removal of natural vegetation (incl. forest fires) (charcoal burning, openning up new land for agriculture), Heavy / extreme rainfall (intensity/amounts) (high intensity storms resulting in soil erosion and leaching), land tenure (over-exploitation of communal land), 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:
  • reduce land degradation
  • restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land
Comments:

Secondary goals: prevention of land degradation

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

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

{'additional_translations': {}, 'content_type': 'image/jpeg', 'preview_image': '/media/54/e/54efc322-59de-47bf-a416-9dafcf83e0a9.jpg', 'key': 'Technical drawing', 'value': '/media/1a/3/1a3fecf6-78f7-42ab-9efa-b626d2bcc986.jpg', 'template': 'raw'}
Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):

Planting lines are done at a depth of 15-20cm with inter row of 75 or 90cm. The width of the open furrow is 5-10cm wide. Planting rows are done across the slope to reduce runoff, these planting rows may be made in the dry season or during the rainy season when the soil is moist.

Location: Magoye. Mazabuka/Southern Province/Zambia

Date: 2014-06-29

Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: high (must be able to troubleshoot and advise the farmers on how to adapt the technology to fit into their production systems.)

Technical knowledge required for land users: moderate (knowledge of soil health management required when adopting the practice)

Main technical functions: control of raindrop splash, improvement of ground cover, improvement of topsoil structure (compaction), improvement of subsoil structure (hardpan), increase in organic matter, increase of infiltration, increase / maintain water stored in soil

Secondary technical functions: improvement of surface structure (crusting, sealing), increase in nutrient availability (supply, recycling,…), increase of groundwater level / recharge of groundwater, water harvesting / increase water supply

Early planting
Material/ species: Maize, Cotton
Quantity/ density: 44,000 pla
Remarks: 25cm intra row x 75cm

Mulching
Material/ species: Crop residues
Quantity/ density: 3ton/ha
Remarks: Uniformly spread

Manure / compost / residues
Material/ species: crop residues
Quantity/ density: 3ton/ha
Remarks: uniformly spread

Mineral (inorganic) fertilizers
Material/ species: basal and top dressing
Quantity/ density: 800kg/ha
Remarks: spot application

Soil conditioners (lime, gypsum)
Material/ species: lime
Quantity/ density: 1ton/ha
Remarks: every 2-3 years

Rotations / fallows
Material/ species: rotations of maize, cotton, cowpeas

Breaking compacted topsoil
Material/ species: strip tillage
Quantity/ density: 20cm deep

Minimum tillage
Material/ species: strip tillage

Non-inversion tillage
Material/ species: strip tillage

Breaking compacted subsoil
Material/ species: strip tillage

Author:

Silenga Wamunyima, Box 670577, Mazabuka, Zambia

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

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

2.40

4.3 Establishment activities

Activity Timing (season)
1. Strip Tillage implement
2. Knapsack Sprayer

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 Strip Tillage implement pieces 1.0 500.0 500.0 100.0
Equipment Knapsack Sprayer pieces 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 580.0
Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 2 month(s)

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

Activity Timing/ frequency
1. Slashing and spreading crop residues May-June yearly after harvest
2. Liming soil Nov-Dec every 3 years
3. strip tillage, planting and fertilizing Nov-Dec at onset of rain
4. Chemical weeding 3 times per season
5. Harvesting April-May

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 and spreading crop residues persons/day/ha 8.0 2.5 20.0 100.0
Labour Liming soil persons/day/ha 2.0 2.5 5.0 100.0
Labour Strip tillage, planting and fertilizing persons/day/ha 4.0 2.5 10.0 100.0
Labour Chemical weeding (sprayers) persons/day/ha 24.0 1.0 24.0 100.0
Equipment Animal traction ha 1.0 40.0 40.0 100.0
Plant material Seeds kg/ha 20.0 2.5 50.0 100.0
Fertilizers and biocides Fertilizer kg/ha 400.0 0.8 320.0 100.0
Fertilizers and biocides Herbicides l/ha 5.0 6.0 30.0 100.0
Construction material Lime kg 1000.0 0.042 42.0 100.0
Other Labour: Chemical weeding (sprayers) persons/day/ha 10.0 4.0 40.0 100.0
Other Labour: Harvesting persons/day/ha 10.0 4.0 40.0 100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology 621.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD 621.0
Comments:

Machinery/ tools: Strip tillage planter

Calculations are for 1 ha 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 employed is the main determinate factor depending on whether the farmer uses hand hoe or herbicides for weeding. 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 recurrent cost is that of fertilizer which makes up about half the cost hence the total cost will vary significantly depending on fertilizer cost.

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:

Summer rains from November to March

Agro-climatic zone
  • semi-arid

Thermal climate class: subtropics. 3 distinct seasons – summer, winter and one rainy season

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.

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)
  • fine/ heavy (clay)
Topsoil organic matter:
  • low (<1%)
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 is low - medium and low fertility caused mainly by poor soil management practices, otherwise soils are inherently fertile.

Topsoil organic matter: Due to excessive ploughing and under fertilization

Soil drainage / infiltration is good - medium. Soils are naturally well drained but become less so after compaction due to ploughing

Soil water storage capacity is medium. Soils mostly loam to sandy loam with medium storage capacity

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:

Ground water table: Hand wells are <20m but reliable boreholes are > 50m

Availability of surface water: Mostly seasonal streams and dams

Water quality (untreated):Good when from communal hand-pumps and poor when from hand-dug wells.

5.5 Biodiversity

Species diversity:
  • medium

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Market orientation of production system:
  • subsistence (self-supply)
  • mixed (subsistence/ commercial)
Off-farm income:
  • 10-50% of all income
Relative level of wealth:
  • very poor
  • poor
Individuals or groups:
  • individual/ household
Level of mechanization:
  • manual work
  • animal traction
Gender:
  • men
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 headed males and animal traction operation are reserved for men. Planting and weeding operations are the domain of women and children

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 5 - 10 cattle).
16% of the land users are poor and own 20% of the land (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: Livestock, maize and legumes for home consumption/subsistence and sale of excess maize and cotton, dairy products (mixed).

Level of mechanization: Manual labour only for small backyard fields. Families without cattle borrow or hire

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
Comments:

Cropland: 1-2 ha (families without oxen), 2-5 ha (families with one pair of oxen), 5-15 ha (families with over five oxen)

Grazing land: 5-15 ha, 15-50 ha, 50-100 ha

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

Land ownership:
  • communal/ village
  • individual, not titled
Land use rights:
  • open access (unorganized)
  • individual
  • Apportioned by traditional rulers
Water use rights:
  • open access (unorganized)
  • Apportioned by traditional rulers

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

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:

3tons/ha

Quantity after SLM:

5tons/ha

Comments/ specify:

Due to early planting

fodder production

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Residues needed for soil cover

risk of production failure

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

Better resistance

production area

decreased
increased
Quantity before SLM:

2-3ha

Quantity after SLM:

>10ha

Income and costs

farm income

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Due to increased production area and improved yield

diversity of income sources

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

More time and labour freed for other activities

workload

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

Due to mechanised planting and herbicide use

Socio-cultural impacts

food security/ self-sufficiency

reduced
improved
Comments/ specify:

Due to incresed yields

health situation

worsened
improved
Comments/ specify:

Improved nutrition due to crop diversification

recreational opportunities

reduced
improved
Comments/ specify:

Less time spent on farm operations

community institutions

weakened
strengthened
Comments/ specify:

Farmers trained through cooperatives

SLM/ land degradation knowledge

reduced
improved
Comments/ specify:

Due to incresed soil Carbon, crop residues to reduce run off, and capacity building

conflict mitigation

worsened
improved
Comments/ specify:

Due to competition with neighbours cattle for crop residues

livelihood and human well-being

reduced
improved
Comments/ specify:

The technology was only introduced recently and not yet widely adopted to make an impact. However the few farmers that have adopted have been able to multiply their production capacities and incomes.

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

harvesting/ collection of water

reduced
improved
Comments/ specify:

Due to better soil cover

surface runoff

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

Due to better soil cover

excess water drainage

reduced
improved
Comments/ specify:

Improved soil structure

groundwater table/ aquifer

lowered
recharge
Comments/ specify:

Due to good drainage

evaporation

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

Due to better soil cover

Soil

soil moisture

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Due to better soil cover

soil cover

reduced
improved
Comments/ specify:

Due to non-inversion tillage

soil loss

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

Due to minimum soil disturbance, soil cover

soil crusting/ sealing

increased
reduced
Comments/ specify:

Due to minimum soil disturbance, soil cover

soil compaction

increased
reduced
Comments/ specify:

Due to deep tillage

nutrient cycling/ recharge

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Due to minimum soil disturbance, soil cover

salinity

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

Due to good drainage

soil organic matter/ below ground C

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Due to minimum soil disturbance, soil cover

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

biomass/ above ground C

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Due to minimum soil disturbance, soil cover

animal diversity

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Due to soil organic matter (SOM) buildup

pest/ disease control

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Resistance to chemical weed control

Climate and disaster risk reduction

emission of carbon and greenhouse gases

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

Due to Carbon (C) sequestration

Other ecological impacts

Ground water contamination

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

Some chemicals get carried down the profile

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

water availability

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Only if applied over an extensive area

reliable and stable stream flows in dry season

reduced
increased
Comments/ specify:

Only if applied over an extensive area

downstream flooding

increased
reduced
Comments/ specify:

Only if applied over an extensive area

downstream siltation

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

Only if applied over an extensive area

damage on neighbours' fields

increased
reduced

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 not known

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?
{'template': 'raw', 'additional_translations': {}, 'key': 'Short-term returns', 'values': ['positive']}
Long-term returns:

very positive

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

positive

Long-term returns:

very positive

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

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

7 households in an area of 0.1 - 1 km2 (field size 1 ha - 30 ha)

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

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

Comments on spontaneous adoption: These farmers heard of the technology by word of mouth and solicited for the technology even before it could be officially promoted

There is a strong trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

Comments on adoption trend: Even before promotion, inquiries to purchase the strip planter have been overwhelming. This is most likely due to the ability to till, plant and fertilizer in one operation.

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? acquire more than one strip tillage implement
Quicker planting enables planting of larger areas

How can they be sustained / enhanced? Plant the seed and apply the fertilizer in one opperation
Lighter to pull enabling deeper penetration of the tillage tool increasing the rooting depth

How can they be sustained / enhanced? Use in moist soils
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Enables early planting

How can they be sustained / enhanced? Plant with the first heavy rain in November
Quicker planting enables 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 (No Burning) and use of zero tillage implement

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 strip tillage planter subsidizing the strip tillage 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 is high making it affordable only to the larger small-scale farmers It is already by far the cheapest planter available but mass production can lead to significant reduction in purchase price
Benefits are more evident on a scale larger than many farmers capacity especially when used in combination with herbicides Support farmers to increase capacity
Difficult to control weeds in the absence of herbicides make herbicides more available at a lower cost

7. References and links

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

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

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

URL:

cfu@zamnet.zm

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules