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)

Soil Resource Development Institute (SRDI) (Soil Resource Development Institute (SRDI)) - Bangladesh

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

BANCAT (BANCAT) - Bangladesh

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

Institue of forestry and Environmental Sciences (Institue of forestry and Environmental Sciences) - Bangladesh

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

Comments:

The technology is perfectly suitable for mitigating land degradation as well as it conserves soil health in a highly populated country like Bangladesh.

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Balanced fertiliser use( Shusomo shar babohar) technology is absolutely suitable for reducing land degradation as well as increasing crop productivity,

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Land degradation is one of the major concern of the globe. Land degradation means loss in the capacity of a given land to support growth of useful plants on a sustained basis (Singh,1994). It results from many factors or/and combination of factors which damage the soil, water and vegetation resources and restrict their use or production capacity. Considering its impact on food security and environment, it is being important in many corners of the world. The productivity of some lands has declined by 50% due to soil erosion, fertility decline and desertification of the world. Like other countries, Bangladesh is not exception in facing threat of land degradation. Due to different types of land degradation, Bangladesh lost a substantial amount of production which in terms of hundreds of billion taka in every year (BARC, 1999). It is high time to be conscious to minimize the land degradation in Bangladesh, a small country with 1, 47,570 sq. km and about 140 million people. The ever-increasing growth rates (1.48%) caused a spurt in all round consumption level. To meet up the demand of the present and forthcoming generation it is essential to sustain soil fertility and increase crop productivity.
Considering the presentation land degradation scenario of Bangladesh, the farmers of Manikgong have adopted the SLM technology named ' balanced fertiliser use to minimise land degradation as well as increase crop productivity'. The technology has been approached by DAE personnel under "Farmers' advisory services program" in Manikgong district of Bangladesh. The balanced fertiliser recommendation has been made according to the suggestion of soil resource development institute. The SLM specialists have compiled database regarding the technology from Dhalla union of Singair upazila under Manikgong district. The technology included applying different types of fertiliser like compost, Urea( Nitrogen), TSP
( phosphorus), MOP( potassium), Zypsum( sulphur), Zinc Sulphate( zinc+ sulphur) etc. Compost, Urea, TSP, MOP, Zypsum and Zinc Sulphate are applied at the rate of 5 ton, 265kg/ha, 90kg/ha, 145 kg/ha, 100 kg/ha and 8.5 kg respectively. The main purpose of the technology was to improve soil nutrient status by using balanced fertiliser along with organic farming. The technology provides multidimensional advantages for the stakeholders. It prevents nutrient mining decline, improves soil physical ,chemical and biological conditions,increase water holding capacity of the soil, increase crop productivity and improve socio-economic conditions of the land users. Overall, it conserves soil health. The farmers community have accepted the well established methods of balanced fertiliser use. Because they are absolutely benefitted by this technology, crop yield has increased manifolds, soil fertility increrased, land cover also increased. As the farm income has increased, the socio-economic condition of the land user has changed dramatically and in the long run it wIll mitigate the climate change impacts by reducing land degradation problem throughout the country.

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

Indicate year of implementation:

1900

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:

• less than 10 years ago (recently)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

• Advisory services of DAE

Comments (type of project, etc.):

SFFP project of DAE

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• conserve ecosystem
• preserve/ improve biodiversity
• adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts
• create beneficial social impact

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

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:

• mixed rainfed-irrigated

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• integrated soil fertility management

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:

• reduce land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology unit

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

83.0

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	seed bed preparation	rice seed bed in the month of july.
2.	Main land preparation for rice cultivation	at the starting of rainy season( july-august)
3.	Balanced fertilisers like compost,urea, TSP, MOP, Zypsu and ,Zinc sulphate fertiliser application	After final land preparation TSP,MOP, sulphur and zinc sulphate fertilisers were used. Again, urea was broadcast at the age of 30 days of transplanted crop.
4.	Broadcasting of Urea	After 30 days of transplanting
5.	Weeding	september
6.	2nd and 3rd split of nitrogen application	september and last of october
7.	Harvesting of rice	November
8.	bed preparation for vegetable cultivation in dry season	December
9.	fertiliser application	december
10.	Harvesting	last of january onward

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
Labour	land preparation	person per day	5.0	500.0	2500.0	100.0
Labour	seed bed preparation	persons-per day	2.0	500.0	1000.0	100.0
Labour	rice transplanting	persons-per day	10.0	500.0	5000.0	100.0
Labour	fertiliser application	persons-per day	3.0	500.0	1500.0	100.0
Equipment	weeding	persons-per day	4.0	500.0	2000.0	100.0
Equipment	pesticide application	persons-per day	2.0	500.0	1000.0	100.0
Equipment	harvesting, winnowing, drying	persons-per day	5.0	500.0	2500.0	100.0
Plant material	urea	kg/ha	70.0	16.0	1120.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	compost	Kg/ha	160.0	5.0	800.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	TSP	Kg/ha	70.0	22.0	1540.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	MOP	Kg/ha	100.0	30.0	3000.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Zypsum	Kg/ha	70.0	15.0	1050.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Zinc sulphate	Kg/ha	8.5	150.0	1275.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	pesticides	tk/ha	2.0	200.0	400.0	100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					24685.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					297.41

If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:

Agricultural Extension department as government subsidy for input cost

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Weeding	During vegetative stage/3
2.	Broad casting fertiliser	3
3.	watering	3
4.	pesticide application	if necessary

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	weeding	person -per day	3.0	500.0	1500.0	100.0
Labour	Broadcasting nitrogen fertiliser	person -per day	3.0	500.0	1500.0	100.0
Labour	irrigation	person -per day	2.0	500.0	1000.0	100.0
Labour	pesticide application	persons per day	2.0	500.0	1000.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Urea broadcasting	KG/HA	140.0	16.0	2240.0	100.0
Other	Watering	litre/hectare	3000.0	3.0	9000.0	100.0
Other	pesticide	kg/ha	3.0	200.0	600.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					16840.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					202.89

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Labour cost is very high. but other input cost is also increasing day by day.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

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.

Medium high land, silt loam, silmondi soil series, soil ph-6.6, organic matter -0.88, CEC-0.25,Nitrogen-0.13%

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

Yes

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

episodically

5.5 Biodiversity

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

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
• individual, titled

Land use rights:

• individual

Water use rights:

• individual

Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

Yes

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Water availability and quality

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Climate and disaster risk reduction

Other ecological impacts

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		decrease	moderately

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
drought	well

Biological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
epidemic diseases	very well
insect/ worm infestation	very 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)?

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• > 50%

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

• 11-50%

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 reduces soil nutrient mining
Production cost decreased
Crop production increased more than two times
Soil moisture holding capacity increased

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Sustainable soil management technology developed
Soil health improved
judicious use of natural resources

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?
labour cost very high	farmers borrow money from rich people or from financial institute
Poor marketing facilities	land owners try to sell their products in wholesale markets

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
ever increasing pressure on land due to fulfillment of the food demand of huge population.	Research institutes are investigating high yielding variety and already some variety developed.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Rahman, M. R. 1990. Country report, Bangladesh. In: Problem Soils of Asia and the Pacific. Report of the Expert Consultation of the Asian Network on Problem soils. Bangkok, Thailand, 29 August-1 September 1989

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

Impact of land degradation in Bangladesh: changing scenario in agricultural land use [2001]

URL:

http://www.fao.org/library/library-home/en/

7.4 General comments

The database may be considered as a useful tool for planners with a view to sustainable land management.