1.2 Detalles de contacto de las personas de referencia e instituciones involucradas en la evaluación y la documentación de la Tecnología

Nombre de la(s) institución(es) que facilitaron la documentación/ evaluación de la Tecnología (si fuera relevante)

Golden Valley agricultural research trust (Golden Valley agricultural research trust) - Zambia

1.3 Condiciones referidas al uso de datos documentados mediante WOCAT

El compilador y la/s persona(s) de referencia claves aceptan las condiciones acerca del uso de los datos documentados mediante WOCAT:

Sí

1.5 Referencia al (los) Cuestionario(s) de Enfoques MST (documentados usando WOCAT)

2.1 Breve descripción de la Tecnología

Definición de la Tecnología:

Conservation Tillage with the Magoye Ripper is an animal draft reduced tillage method that involves the use of the Magoye Ripper to loosen the soil by shattering with a tine instead of ploughing.

2.2 Descripción detallada de la Tecnología

Descripción:

The Magoye Ripper is an animal drawn implement used for conservation tillage. The Ripper consists of a frame that is attached to a common plough beam and on this frame is fixed a tine at an angle that penetrates and breaks up the soil when pulled. Only the region where the crop furrow will be is loosened by the tine and by so doing reducing the amount of tillage and disruption of soil structure while preserving the crop residue cover. The frame has some ‘wings’ attached to it that throw the soil out of the ripped furrow to leave it open for planting and collecting of water. Ripping is done in one pass up to a depth of 15cm depending on the strength of the oxen, soil type, hitch assembly settings and the sharpness of the tine.

Purpose of the Technology: Reducing tillage first of all reduces tillage costs and tillage time allowing more time for the farmer to plant early and/or a bigger area. Reducing tillage also reduces the loss of soil organic matter and the destructive effects to the soil structure ultimately improving soil fertility and soil water conservation. Ripping does not invert the soil, hence it does not bury crop residues which further enhance organic matter levels and protect the soil from excessive evaporation and erosion. The open furrow left by the ripper collects water from the adjacent untilled soil much in the same way basins (zai system) are used for water harvesting. This together with the increased rooting depth resulting from the breaking of compacted soil, enhanced infiltration and early planting improves water conservation and hence the resilience of crop to extended dry spells.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: The establishment of ripping based conservation tillage mainly involves the purchase of the ripper frame 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. The main establishment activity involves adopting a new mindset and increasing the knowledge base to apply the technology correctly. Knowledge about alternative weed control practices and herbicide use is particularly cardinal as the farmer will have to adopt new weeding practices and routines in the absence of ploughing. Maintenance activities are more or less the same as conventional tillage except for replacing the tillage tines which wear every now and then. The same applies for the inputs except for the increase in use of herbicides.

Natural / human environment: Ripping is best performed in dry season when the soil is dry although this may not be possible with some of the smaller and/or weak oxen when the soil is too dry. It is therefore recommended for farmers in regions that experience long dry seasons to rip at the end of harvest before the soils get too dry and hard and when the oxen are in good condition before they lose weight and strength due to less feed and water, excessive heat as the dry season progresses.
The ripper is mostly suited to small-scale farmers just adopting Conservation Agriculture (CA) since the tool can be easily adapted to the existing plough beam which most of the farmers already have. The small capital outlay for establishing the system makes it suited to resource poor and risk-averse farmers.

2.3 Fotografías de la Tecnología

2.5 País/ región/ lugares donde la Tecnología fue aplicada y que se hallan comprendidos por esta evaluación

2.6 Fecha de la implementación

Si no se conoce el año preciso, indique la fecha aproximada:

• 10-50 años atrás

2.7 Introducción de la Tecnología

Especifique cómo se introdujo la Tecnología:

• durante experimentos/ investigación

Comentarios (tipo de proyecto, etc.):

The Magoye Ripper was introduced in 1995 after a period of adaptive research by government research branch under a project supported by the Netherlands government.

3.1 Propósito(s) principal(es) de la Tecnología MST

• reducir, prevenir, restaurar la degradación del suelo
• proteger una cuenca hidrográfica/ áreas corriente abajo – en combinación con otras Tecnologías

3.2 Tipo(s) actuales de uso de la tierra donde se aplica la Tecnología

Comentarios:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Loss of soil structure and loss of soil fertility

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Droughts and dry dpells

Livestock is grazing on crop residues

3.4 Provisión de agua

Provisión de agua para la tierra donde se aplica la Tecnología:

• de secano

3.5 Grupo MST al que pertenece la Tecnología

• perturbación mínima del suelo

3.6 Medidas MST que componen la Tecnología

Comentarios:

Main measures: agronomic measures

Specification of other agronomic measures: Reduced Tillage, Crop Residues

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, furrows (drainage, irrigation), breaking compacted subsoil

3.7 Principales tipos de degradación del suelo encarados con la Tecnología

Comentarios:

Main type of degradation addressed: Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content, Pc: compaction, Bl: loss of soil life

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

Main causes of degradation: soil management (Over-ploughing), crop management (annual, perennial, tree/shrub) (Monocropping), overgrazing (Crop residues overgrazed leaving land exposed), poverty / wealth (under application of fertilizer leading to nutrient mining, charcoal burning)

Secondary causes of degradation: deforestation / removal of natural vegetation (incl. forest fires) (Charcoal burning), Heavy / extreme rainfall (intensity/amounts) (high intensity storms leading to erosion), droughts (resulting in inadequate soil cover), land tenure (communal land over-exploited), governance / institutional (lack of credit facilities)

3.8 Prevención, reducción o restauración de la degradación del suelo

Especifique la meta de la Tecnología con relación a la degradación de la tierra:

• reducir la degradación del suelo

Comentarios:

Secondary goals: prevention of land degradation, rehabilitation / reclamation of denuded land

4.1 Dibujo técnico de la Tecnología

4.2 Información general sobre el cálculo de insumos y costos

otra / moneda nacional (especifique):

Kwacha

Si fuera relevante, indique la tasa de cambio de dólares americanos a la moneda local (ej. 1 U$ = 79.9 Reales Brasileros): 1 U$ =:

5,0

4.3 Actividades de establecimiento

	Actividad	Momento (estación)
1.	Purchase magoye ripper
2.	Purchase knapsack sprayer

Comentarios:

Lifespan of the magoye ripper: 7 years
Lifespan of the Knapsack sprayer: 5 years

4.4 Costos e insumos necesarios para el establecimiento

	Especifique insumo	Unidad	Cantidad	Costos por unidad	Costos totales por insumo	% de los costos cubiertos por los usuarios de las tierras
Equipo	Magoye ripper	Tool	1,0	50,0	50,0	100,0
Equipo	Knapsack sprayer	Tool	1,0	80,0	80,0	100,0
Costos totales para establecer la Tecnología					130,0
Costos totales para establecer la Tecnología en USD					26,0

Comentarios:

Duration of establishment phase: 5 month(s)

4.5 Actividades de establecimiento/ recurrentes

	Actividad	Momento/ frequencia
1.	slashing and spreading residues	May-June yearly after harvest
2.	Ripping	May-June after harvest
3.	Liming	Nov-Dec before planting
4.	Planting and fertilizing	Nov-Dec at onset of rains
5.	chemical weeding	3 times
6.	harvesting	April-May

4.6 Costos e insumos necesarios para actividades de mantenimiento/ recurrentes (por año)

	Especifique insumo	Unidad	Cantidad	Costos por unidad	Costos totales por insumo	% de los costos cubiertos por los usuarios de las tierras
Mano de obra	Slashing and spreading residues	ha	1,0	20,0	20,0	100,0
Mano de obra	Ripping	ha	1,0	50,0	50,0	100,0
Mano de obra	Liming	ha	1,0	42,0	42,0	100,0
Mano de obra	Planting and fertilizing	ha	1,0	40,0	40,0	100,0
Material para plantas	Seeds	kg	20,0	2,5	50,0	100,0
Fertilizantes y biocidas	Fertilizer	kg	400,0	0,8	320,0	100,0
Otros	Herbicides	liters	5,0	6,0	30,0	100,0
Otros	Labour: Chemical weeding	ha	1,0	24,0	24,0	100,0
Otros	Labour: Harvesting	ha	1,0	20,0	20,0	100,0
Indique los costos totales para mantenecer la Tecnología					596,0
Costos totales para mantener la Tecnología en USD					119,2

Comentarios:

Machinery/ tools: Magoye Ripper

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

4.7 Factores más determinantes que afectan los costos:

Describa los factores más determinantes que afectan los costos:

The weed control method employed is the main determinate factor depending on whether the farmer uses hand hoe or herbicides. Abandoning ploughing leads to higher weed densities leading to increased labour requirements/recurrent costs if hand weeding is used. However, with herbicides the weeding labour demand and costs cost are much lower by a factor of about 5. 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 Clima

5.2 Topografía

Comentarios y especificaciones adicionales sobre topografía :

Slopes on average: Also flat and moderate (classed 2) and rolling (classed 3)

5.3 Suelos

Si se halla disponible, adjunte una descripción completa de los suelos o especifique la información disponible, por ej., tipo de suelo, pH/ acidez de suelo, capacidad de intercambio catiónico, nitrógeno, salinidad, etc. :

Soil fertility: Low (classed 1) and medium (classed 2, low fertility caused mainly by poor soil management practices, otherwise soil are inherently fertile)
Topsoil organic matter: Low (classed 1) and medium (classed 2, due to excessive ploughing and nutrient mining)
Soil drainage/infiltration: Good (classed 1, soils naturally are well drained except were soil have bee compacted by poor management practices) and medium (classed 2)
Soil water storage capacity: Medium (classed 1, soils mostly loam to sandy loam with medium storage capacity) and low (ranked 2)

5.4 Disponibilidad y calidad de agua

Comentarios y especificaciones adicionales sobre calidad y cantidad de agua:

Ground water table: <50m (ranked 1, hand wells are <20m but reliable boreholes are > 50m) and 5-50m (ranked 2)
Availability of surface water: Medium (mostly seasonal streams and dams)
Water quality (untreated): Good drinking water (ranked 1, from hand pumps (both communal and private)) and poor drinking water (treatment required, from hand dug wells, ranked 1 also)

5.5 Biodiversidad

Comentarios y especificaciones adicionales sobre biodiversidad:

Human population densities are relatively low

5.6 Las características de los usuarios de la tierra que aplican la Tecnología

Indique otras características relevantes de los usuarios de las tierras:

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. 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 between 5 and 10 cattle).
16% of the land users are poor and own 20% of the land (own less than 5).
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: Mixed (subsistence/ commercial, sale of excess maize and cotton, dairy, ranked 1) and subsistence (self-supply, livestock, maize and legumes for home consumption, ranked 2),
Level of mechanization: Animal traction (ranked 1, families without cattle borrow or hire), mechanised (ranked 2) and manual labour (ranked 2, only for small backyard fields)

5.7 Área promedio de la tierra usada por usuarios de tierra que aplican la Tecnología

5.8 Tenencia de tierra, uso de tierra y derechos de uso de agua

Tenencia de tierra:

• individual, sin título

Derechos de uso de tierra:

• acceso abierto (no organizado)
• individual

• Land is apportioned by traditional leaders

Derechos de uso de agua:

• acceso abierto (no organizado)

• Land is apportioned by traditional leaders

5.9 Acceso a servicios e infraestructura

6.1 Impactos in situ demostrados por la Tecnología

Impactos socioeconómicos

Producción

Ingreso y costos

Impactos socioculturales

Impactos ecológicos

Ciclo de agua/ escurrimiento de sedimento

Suelo

Biodiversidad: vegetación, animales

Otros impactos ecológicos

6.2 Impactos fuera del sitio demostrados por la Tecnología

6.3 Exposición y sensibilidad de la Tecnología al cambio climático gradual y a extremos relacionados al clima/ desastres (desde la percepción de los usuarios de tierras)

Cambio climático gradual

Cambio climático gradual

	Estación	Incremento o reducción	¿Cómo es que la tecnología soporta esto?
temperatura anual		incrementó	no se sabe

Extremos (desastres) relacionados al clima

Desastres climatológicos:

	¿Cómo es que la tecnología soporta esto?
tormenta de lluvia local	no muy bien
tormenta de viento	no se sabe

Desastres climatológicos

	¿Cómo es que la tecnología soporta esto?
sequía	bien

Desastres hidrológicos

	¿Cómo es que la tecnología soporta esto?
inundación general (río)	no muy bien

Otras consecuencias relacionadas al clima

Otras consecuencias relacionadas al clima

	¿Cómo es que la tecnología soporta esto?
periodo reducido de crecimiento	bien

Comentarios:

Magoye ripper based conservation tillage should be applied in well drained fields to avoid water-logging in the ripped furrows during seasons of excess rainfall or events of heavy downpours.

6.4 Análisis costo-beneficio

¿Cómo se comparan los beneficios con los costos de establecimiento (desde la perspectiva de los usuarios de tierra)?

¿Cómo se comparan los beneficios con los costos de mantenimiento/ recurrentes (desde la perspectiva de los usuarios de tierra)?

Comentarios:

Timely planting enables larger areas to be planted and better yields. In the long term, improved soil fertility and soil structure results in sustained improved yields. However, if herbicides are not used, the costs and labour requirements of weeding can result in negative benefits.

6.5 Adopción de la Tecnología

Comentarios:

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

Comments on acceptance with external material support: The farmers bought the Magoye Rippers at half price and over half of them abandoned the technology after the first or second year of use.

Comments on spontaneous adoption: Information on spontaneous adoption is not documented although there have been reports of this in other districts.

There is a little trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

Comments on adoption trend: Availability of replacement tines and the increased weed challenge have been a major hindrances to widespread adoption.

6.7 Fuerzas/ ventajas/ oportunidades de la Tecnología

Fuerzas/ ventajas/ oportunidades desde la perspectiva del usuario de la tierra
Enables early planting How can they be sustained / enhanced? planting with the first heavy rainfall in November

Fuerzas/ ventajas/ oportunidades desde la perspectiva del compilador o de otra persona de referencia clave
necessitates early planting How can they be sustained / enhanced? Plant in November or early December with the onset of rainfall
fewer operations hence lower costs How can they be sustained / enhanced? continuous emphasis on early land preparation (May to July/August)
conserves water and soil How can they be sustained / enhanced? encourage crop diversification and crop rotation legumes

6.8 Debilidades/ desventajas/ riesgos de la Tecnología y formas de sobreponerse a ellos

Debilidades/ desventajas/ riesgos desde la perspectiva del usuario de la tierra	¿Cómo sobreponerse a ellas?
weeding is difficult when herbicides are not used	train land users on how to use herbicides
ripping is hardly attained in heavy soils in October	rip between May and July

Debilidades/ desventajas/ riesgos desde la perspectiva del compilador o de otra persona de referencia clave	¿Cómo sobreponerse a ellas?
weed pressure	encourage land users to use herbicides and continuous weeding

7.1 Métodos/ fuentes de información

7.2 Vínculos a las publicaciones disponibles

Título, autor, año, ISBN:

Impact study on the acceptance of the Magoye Ripper, Piet Stevens, David Samazaka, Ab Wanders, Douglas Moono, 2002

¿Dónde se halla disponible? ¿Costo?

GART/free

Título, autor, año, ISBN:

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

¿Dónde se halla disponible? ¿Costo?

FAO/free online

Título, autor, año, ISBN:

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

¿Dónde se halla disponible? ¿Costo?

INDABA Project, Michigan State University/free online.

Título, autor, año, ISBN:

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

¿Dónde se halla disponible? ¿Costo?

cfu@zamnet.zm