1.2 Coordonnées des personnes-ressources et des institutions impliquées dans l'évaluation et la documentation de la Technologie

Nom du ou des institutions qui ont facilité la documentation/ l'évaluation de la Technologie (si pertinent)

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

1.3 Conditions relatives à l'utilisation par WOCAT des données documentées

Le compilateur et la(les) personne(s) ressource(s) acceptent les conditions relatives à l'utilisation par WOCAT des données documentées:

Oui

1.5 Référence au(x) Questionnaires sur les Approches de GDT (documentées au moyen de WOCAT)

2.1 Courte description de la Technologie

Définition de la Technologie:

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 Description détaillée de la Technologie

Description:

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 Photos de la Technologie

2.5 Pays/ région/ lieux où la Technologie a été appliquée et qui sont couverts par cette évaluation

2.6 Date de mise en œuvre de la Technologie

Si l'année précise est inconnue, indiquez la date approximative: :

• il y a entre 10-50 ans

2.7 Introduction de la Technologie

Spécifiez comment la Technologie a été introduite: :

• au cours d'expérimentations / de recherches

Commentaires (type de projet, 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 Principal(aux) objectif(s) de la Technologie

• réduire, prévenir, restaurer les terres dégradées
• protéger un bassin versant/ des zones situées en aval - en combinaison avec d'autres technologies

3.2 Type(s) actuel(s) d'utilisation des terres, là où la Technologie est appliquée

Commentaires:

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 Approvisionnement en eau

Approvisionnement en eau des terres sur lesquelles est appliquée la Technologie:

• pluvial

3.5 Groupe de GDT auquel appartient la Technologie

• perturbation minimale du sol

3.6 Mesures de GDT constituant la Technologie

Commentaires:

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 Principaux types de dégradation des terres traités par la Technologie

Commentaires:

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 Prévention, réduction de la dégradation ou réhabilitation des terres dégradées

Spécifiez l'objectif de la Technologie au regard de la dégradation des terres:

• réduire la dégradation des terres

Commentaires:

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

4.1 Dessin technique de la Technologie

4.2 Informations générales sur le calcul des intrants et des coûts

autre/ monnaie nationale (précisez):

Kwacha

Indiquez le taux de change des USD en devise locale, le cas échéant (p.ex. 1 USD = 79.9 réal brésilien): 1 USD = :

5,0

4.3 Activités de mise en place/ d'établissement

	Activité	Calendrier des activités (saisonnier)
1.	Purchase magoye ripper
2.	Purchase knapsack sprayer

Commentaires:

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

4.4 Coûts et intrants nécessaires à la mise en place

	Spécifiez les intrants	Unité	Quantité	Coûts par unité	Coût total par intrant	% des coût supporté par les exploitants des terres
Equipements	Magoye ripper	Tool	1,0	50,0	50,0	100,0
Equipements	Knapsack sprayer	Tool	1,0	80,0	80,0	100,0
Coût total de mise en place de la Technologie					130,0
Coût total de mise en place de la Technologie en dollars américains (USD)					26,0

Commentaires:

Duration of establishment phase: 5 month(s)

4.5 Activités d'entretien/ récurrentes

	Activité	Calendrier/ fréquence
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 Coûts et intrants nécessaires aux activités d'entretien/ récurrentes (par an)

	Spécifiez les intrants	Unité	Quantité	Coûts par unité	Coût total par intrant	% des coût supporté par les exploitants des terres
Main d'œuvre	Slashing and spreading residues	ha	1,0	20,0	20,0	100,0
Main d'œuvre	Ripping	ha	1,0	50,0	50,0	100,0
Main d'œuvre	Liming	ha	1,0	42,0	42,0	100,0
Main d'œuvre	Planting and fertilizing	ha	1,0	40,0	40,0	100,0
Matériel végétal	Seeds	kg	20,0	2,5	50,0	100,0
Engrais et biocides	Fertilizer	kg	400,0	0,8	320,0	100,0
Autre	Herbicides	liters	5,0	6,0	30,0	100,0
Autre	Labour: Chemical weeding	ha	1,0	24,0	24,0	100,0
Autre	Labour: Harvesting	ha	1,0	20,0	20,0	100,0
Coût total d'entretien de la Technologie					596,0
Coût total d'entretien de la Technologie en dollars américains (USD)					119,2

Commentaires:

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 Facteurs les plus importants affectant les coûts

Décrivez les facteurs les plus importants affectant les coûts :

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 Climat

5.2 Topographie

Commentaires et précisions supplémentaires sur la topographie:

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

5.3 Sols

Si disponible, joignez une description complète du sol ou précisez les informations disponibles, par ex., type de sol, pH/ acidité du sol, capacité d'échange cationique, azote, salinité, 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 Disponibilité et qualité de l'eau

Commentaires et précisions supplémentaires sur la qualité et la quantité d'eau:

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 Biodiversité

Commentaires et précisions supplémentaires sur la biodiversité:

Human population densities are relatively low

5.6 Caractéristiques des exploitants des terres appliquant la Technologie

Indiquez toute autre caractéristique pertinente des exploitants des terres:

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 Superficie moyenne des terres utilisées par les exploitants des terres appliquant la Technologie

5.8 Propriété foncière, droits d’utilisation des terres et de l'eau

Propriété foncière:

• individu, sans titre de propriété

Droits d’utilisation des terres:

• accès libre (non organisé)
• individuel

• Land is apportioned by traditional leaders

Droits d’utilisation de l’eau:

• accès libre (non organisé)

• Land is apportioned by traditional leaders

5.9 Accès aux services et aux infrastructures

6.1 Impacts sur site que la Technologie a montrés

Impacts socio-économiques

Production

Revenus et coûts

Impacts socioculturels

Impacts écologiques

Cycle de l'eau/ ruissellement

Sols

Biodiversité: végétale, animale

Autres impacts écologiques

6.2 Impacts hors site que la Technologie a montrés

6.3 Exposition et sensibilité de la Technologie aux changements progressifs et aux évènements extrêmes/catastrophes liés au climat (telles que perçues par les exploitants des terres)

Changements climatiques progressifs

Changements climatiques progressifs

	Saison	Augmentation ou diminution	Comment la Technologie fait-elle face à cela?
températures annuelles		augmente	pas connu

Extrêmes climatiques (catastrophes)

Catastrophes météorologiques

	Comment la Technologie fait-elle face à cela?
pluie torrentielle locale	pas bien
tempête de vent locale	pas connu

Catastrophes climatiques

	Comment la Technologie fait-elle face à cela?
sécheresse	bien

Catastrophes hydrologiques

	Comment la Technologie fait-elle face à cela?
inondation générale (rivière)	pas bien

Autres conséquences liées au climat

Autres conséquences liées au climat

	Comment la Technologie fait-elle face à cela?
réduction de la période de croissance	bien

Commentaires:

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 Analyse coûts-bénéfices

Quels sont les bénéfices comparativement aux coûts de mise en place (du point de vue des exploitants des terres)?

Quels sont les bénéfices comparativement aux coûts d'entretien récurrents (du point de vue des exploitants des terres)?

Commentaires:

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 Adoption de la Technologie

Commentaires:

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 Points forts/ avantages/ possibilités de la Technologie

Points forts/ avantages/ possibilités du point de vue de l'exploitant des terres
Enables early planting How can they be sustained / enhanced? planting with the first heavy rainfall in November

Points forts/ avantages/ possibilités du point de vue du compilateur ou d'une autre personne ressource clé
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 Faiblesses/ inconvénients/ risques de la Technologie et moyens de les surmonter

Faiblesses/ inconvénients/ risques du point de vue de l’exploitant des terres	Comment peuvent-ils être surmontés?
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

Faiblesses/ inconvénients/ risques du point de vue du compilateur ou d'une autre personne ressource clé	Comment peuvent-ils être surmontés?
weed pressure	encourage land users to use herbicides and continuous weeding

7.1 Méthodes/ sources d'information

7.2 Références des publications disponibles

Titre, auteur, année, ISBN:

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

Disponible à partir d'où? Coût?

GART/free

Titre, auteur, année, ISBN:

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

Disponible à partir d'où? Coût?

FAO/free online

Titre, auteur, année, ISBN:

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

Disponible à partir d'où? Coût?

INDABA Project, Michigan State University/free online.

Titre, auteur, année, ISBN:

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

Disponible à partir d'où? Coût?

cfu@zamnet.zm