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

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

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

Yes

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Minimum tillage and direct planting are two conservation agriculture practices which basically consist of leaving crop residues on the soil surface without burning and subsequent planting through the mulch.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The traditional slash-and-burn land use system in the case study area – involving clearing natural vegetation followed by 2-5 years of cropping – has become unsustainable as land pressure has greatly increased, shortening fallow periods. Under the SLM practice of ‘minimum tillage and direct planting’, land is prepared by slashing the existing vegetation and allowing regrowth up to 30 cm height. A glyphosate-based round-up herbicide (Round-up, Chemosate or Helosate) is sprayed with a knapsack fitted with a low-volume nozzle. The residue is left on the soil surface without burning. After 7–10 days, direct planting is carried out in rows through the mulch. Maize is the main crop planted under this system. Planting is practiced manually using a planting stick.

Purpose of the Technology: The mulch layer has several important functions: it helps to increase and maintain water stored in the soil, reduces soil erosion, contributes to improve soil fertility (after crop residues have decomposed in subsequent seasons) and it efficiently controls weeds by hindering their growth and preventing weeds from producing seeds. The use of herbicides requires adequate knowledge. An even better option is to introduce multipurpose cover crops to control weed populations, improve soil fertility, and enhance yields while diversifying crop production and thus reducing dependence on the use of herbicides. Labour inputs for land preparation and weeding is considerably decreased under conservation agriculture. Women benefit most from the workload reduction since these time-consuming activities are their task. For men, the new technology usually means heavier work, especially during the 1st year, since they have to plant through the mulch. Using a jab planter makes the work easier

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: Minimum tillage and direct planting includes the following recurrent activities: 1. Initial land clearing: slash existing vegetation and allow regrowth (up to 30 cm); before onset of rains season.
2. Spraying of pre-emergence herbicide; 300 ml (2 sachets) for every 15 litres water for annual weeds; 450 ml (3 sachets) for every 15 litres water for perennial weeds.
3. Leave residues on the soil surface without burning.
4. Planting through the mulch.
5. Spraying post-emergence herbicide; after regrowth of weeds (7-10 days after planting).
6. Harvesting.
All activities are carried out manually (each cropping season) using jap planter (or a planting stick) and knapsack sprayers.

Natural / human environment: Both case study areas fall within the wet semi-equatorial zone of Ghana with a mean monthly temperature of between 23 °C and 33 °C (SDA 1995). Rainfall is bimodal in both districts with a peak rainy season from the end of March to July and again from September to November, after a short dry spell in August. In general soil characteristics in the study areas vary from well drained with high organic matter content in the forest area, to poorly drained with low organic matter content in the savannah belt.

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:

Ghana

Region/ State/ Province:

Brong Ahafo Region

Further specification of location:

Sunyani and Atwima district

Map

×

2.6 Date of implementation

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:

• 10-50 years ago

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• during experiments/ research

Comments (type of project, etc.):

early 1990s

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts
• create beneficial economic impact

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

Cropland

• Annual cropping

Annual cropping - Specify crops:

• cereals - maize

Comments:

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Fertility decline and reduced organic matter, water erosion, destruction of vegetation trough fires

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• improved ground/ vegetation cover
• minimal soil disturbance

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

agronomic measures

• A1: Vegetation/ soil cover

management measures

• M2: Change of management/ intensity level

Comments:

Main measures: agronomic measures

Secondary measures: management measures

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

soil erosion by water

• Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion

chemical soil deterioration

• Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content (not caused by erosion)

biological degradation

• Bq: quantity/ biomass decline
• Bf: detrimental effects of fires

Comments:

Main type of degradation addressed: Wt: loss of topsoil / surface erosion, Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content

Secondary types of degradation addressed: Bq: quantity / biomass decline, Bf: detrimental effects of fires

Main causes of degradation: soil management, population pressure, land tenure

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

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.3 Establishment activities

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

Comments:

Remarks: Input costs include Jab planter US$ 20; herbicides US$ 5-6/liter. A knapsack costs US$ 50, which not affordable for small-scale farmers (they have to get organised in groups, or hire spraying gangs). Comparing to the traditional slash-and-burn system, Minimum tillage and direct planting has increased inputs costs but reduced labour costs and higher yields, which makes the conversion profitable!

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

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

Comments:

Machinery/ tools: jap planter, knapsack sprayer

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Costs for herbicides and spraying equipment are the most determinant factor affecting the costs. Comparing to the traditional slash-and-burn system, Minimum tillage and direct planting has increased inputs costs but reduced labour costs and higher yields, which makes the conversion profitable!

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Comments and further specifications on topography:

Altitudinal zone: 101-500 m a.s.l. (220-380 m a.s.l.)

5.3 Soils

If available, attach full soil description or specify the available information, e.g. soil type, soil PH/ acidity, Cation Exchange Capacity, nitrogen, salinity etc.

Topsoil organic matter: High (forest area) and low (savannah area)
Soil drainage/infiltration: High (forest area) and low (savannah area)

5.5 Biodiversity

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Population density: 100-200 persons/km2

100% of the land users are poor.

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:

• communal/ village
• individual, titled

Land use rights:

• leased
• individual

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Other socio-economic impacts

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

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

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

Climatological disasters

Hydrological disasters

Other climate-related consequences

Other climate-related consequences

Comments:

The technology is tolerant to climatic extremes, contrary to the traditional slash-and-burn practice

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

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

193 households and 100% of the area covered

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

• 11-50%

Comments:

88% of land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support

170 land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support

12% of land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support

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

There is no trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

Comments on adoption trend: 30% of farmers ceased conservation farming practices after termination of projects input. 21 communities with 193 farmers (125 male, 68 female) apply the technology in the case study area (totally 2845 km2). Around 88% accepted the technology receiving incentives. There is little trend towards spontaneous adoption (through cross farmer visits); 30% of farmers ceased conservation farming practices after termination of projects input

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

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

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Boahen P, B.A. Dartey, G.D. Dogbe, E. A. Boadi, B. Triomphe, S. Daamgard-Larsen, J. Ashburner. 2007. Conservation agriculture as practised in Ghana. Nairobi. African Conservation Tillage Network. FAO.

Available from where? Costs?

FAO