Grass mulch combined with cow dung, Triple Supper Phosphate and Calcium Ammonium Nitrate in maize production. [Tanzania, United Republic of]
- Creation:
- Update:
- Compiler: Godfrey Baraba
- Editor: –
- Reviewers: Ursula Gaemperli, Fabian Ottiger, Alexandra Gavilano
Matandazo ya nyasi katika kilimo cha mahindi yaliyolishwa mbloea.
technologies_1199 - Tanzania, United Republic of
View sections
Expand all Collapse all1. General information
1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Technology
SLM specialist:
Nkuba Julitha
Bukoba District Council
Tanzania, United Republic of
SLM specialist:
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
Missenyi District Council (Missenyi District Council) - Tanzania, United Republic ofName of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
Bukoba district council (Bukoba district council) - Tanzania, United Republic of1.3 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
2. Description of the SLM Technology
2.1 Short description of the Technology
Definition of the Technology:
Is the spread of dry Hyperrhamia rufa across the slope combined with manures, Calcium Ammonia Nitrate and Triple Supper Phosphate in maize production.
2.2 Detailed description of the Technology
Description:
The spread of dry Hyperrhamia rufa 15cm thickness across the slope combined with manures, TSP and CAN in maize production technology is applied on annual cropland for reduced declining soil fertility, reduced soil erosion and improved soil moisture content in the sustainable land agro-ecosystem management. The activities to implement the technology includes to slush bushes and cut grasses using sickles , to cultivate the land using hand hoes, to measure spacing demarcate and dig holes using hand hoes, to mix manure, soils and TSP in a 5cm depth hole using hands, to spread grass mulch using hands, to plant maize seeds using hand hoes, to apply CAN at week four after planting using hands, to weed the whole field using hands, to apply a mixture of ashes and pepper on the tip, closed tip leaf to control maize stock-bores and to harvest and trush using hands
This technology is applied on annual cropland using agronomic measures in the sub humid climatic zone. The slope category of that land is gentle, characterized of loam sandy soil textures with medium soil depth.
The technology is applied by Individual / household, Small scale land users, common / average land users, men and women. The Land ownership is individual, not titled and Land use rights is individual as well. Water use rights is open access (unorganized).
The relative level of wealth categorized as, rich, which represents 20% of the land users and own 32% of the total area. Average, which represents 64% of the land users and own 64% of the total area. Poor, which represents 20% of the land users and own 4% of the total area.
The technology was introduced in 2012 by TAMP -Kagera using FFS in the community integrated catchment approach.
To implement the technology it was calculated to be US$ 57.059 for establishment and US$ 1,923.36 maintenance costs.
Purpose of the Technology: The major purpose of the technology is to prevent loss of top soil, to improve soil fertility decline and reduced organic matter content on the annual cropland with a sustainable land management to improve community livelihood.
Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: This technology has no establishment activities as a common phenomena for all Agronomic measures. The maintenance activities of the technology includes; To slush bushes and cut grasses using sickles in Late August, To cultivate the land using hand hoes in Earl September, To measure spacing, demarcate and dig holes using hand hoes in earl September, To mix manure, soils and TSP in a 5cm deep hole using hands in mid september, To spread dry Hyperrhamia rufa using hands mid September, To plant maize seeds using hand hoes Late September, To apply CAN at week four after planting using hands in mid October, To weed the whole field twice using hands in early November and early February , To apply a mixture of ashes and pepper on the top openleaf to control maize stock-bores, To harvest and trash maize cobs using hands in Late February redy for marketing in late May.
To perform the maintenance activities the following inputs required; Labour, tools, seeds, fertilizer, biocides and compost/manure. All inputs can cost a total of US$ ...........0 per hector per season.
The dry Hyperrhamia rufa mulch in the Zea maize pure stand complemented withi cow dung, TSP and CAN introduce in April 2012 by TAMP -Kagera in the Butulage catchment.
Natural / human environment: This technology is applied on the cropland type in the subhumid. The landform of this catchment is plain and footslpoes with gentle slope. It is obvious that, the land is prone to sheath erosion, soil fertility decline and reduced organic matter content. However, the cause of these types of land degradation includes direct (human and natural) and indirect (land use supporting system). The technology is tolerant of seasonal rainfall decrease and drought or dry spell climatic extremes. On another hand the technology is sensitive to foods where excess water will lodge and damage the maize roots.
The land ownership is individual not titled and catergorised in small scale farmers who practiced mixed production mode. The wealth of the people applying this technology can be categorized as poor, average and rich according to land ownership. The poor repents 20% of land users and own 4% of the cropland area. The average category represents 64% of the land users and own 64% of the cropland area. The rich category represents 20% of cropland users and own 32% of the cropland.
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:
Tanzania, United Republic of
Region/ State/ Province:
Tanzania
Further specification of location:
Bukoba D.C
Specify the spread of the Technology:
- evenly spread over an area
If precise area is not known, indicate approximate area covered:
- < 0.1 km2 (10 ha)
Map
×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:
- through projects/ external interventions
Comments (type of project, etc.):
TAMP -Kagera in collaboration with Bukoba District council facilitated a group of FFS members to combat the land degradation problems identified and solutions prioritised by introducing the Grass mulch with manure, TSP AND CAN Technology in April 2012.
3. Classification of the SLM Technology
3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology
- improve production
- reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
- create beneficial economic impact
3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied
![Cropland](/static/assets/img/pictos/land_1.png)
Cropland
- Annual cropping
- Perennial (non-woody) cropping
- Tree and shrub cropping
Annual cropping - Specify crops:
- cereals - maize
- legumes and pulses - beans
- root/tuber crops - sweet potatoes, yams, taro/cocoyam, other
- vegetables, fruits
Perennial (non-woody) cropping - Specify crops:
- banana/plantain/abaca
Tree and shrub cropping - Specify crops:
- coffee, open grown
Number of growing seasons per year:
- 1
Specify:
Longest growing period in days: 120. Longest growing period from month to month: september to December Second longest growing period in days: 90 Second longest growing period from month to month: March to May
Comments:
Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Without the land conservation there will be declining soil fertility, excessive drought, sheath erosion and plant moisture stresses.
Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Declining soil fertility, moisture stress and maize stock-bores.
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
- integrated soil fertility management
3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology
![agronomic measures](/static/assets/img/pictos/swc_2_agro.png)
agronomic measures
- A1: Vegetation/ soil cover
- A2: Organic matter/ soil fertility
- A3: Soil surface treatment
Comments:
Type of agronomic measures: early planting, mulching, manure / compost / residues, mineral (inorganic) fertilizers
3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology
![soil erosion by water](/static/assets/img/pictos/degra_watererosion.png)
soil erosion by water
- Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion
![chemical soil deterioration](/static/assets/img/pictos/degra_2_chem.png)
chemical soil deterioration
- Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content (not caused by erosion)
![biological degradation](/static/assets/img/pictos/degra_vegetation.png)
biological degradation
- Bl: loss of soil life
Comments:
Main causes of degradation: soil management (Continous land tillage i.e. cultivation is done at every planting season), change of seasonal rainfall (Rain seasons are unpredictable now days.), droughts (The area experiences irregular droughts.), population pressure (Increased population density has rendered all productive area to occuppied, therefore people were forced to use marginal land for crop production.), labour availability (Hired labour is very cheap to cultivate in marginal land.)
Secondary causes of degradation: education, access to knowledge and support services (Low and ineffective primary education provided, Inadequety agriculture advisory staffing)
3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation
Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:
- prevent land degradation
4. Technical specifications, implementation activities, inputs, and costs
4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology
Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):
Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: low (Agronomy principles are taught at colleges.)
Technical knowledge required for land users: moderate (The use of correct ratios and measurement of fertilizers not common to farmers.)
Main technical functions: control of raindrop splash, improvement of ground cover, increase in organic matter, increase / maintain water stored in soil
Secondary technical functions: control of dispersed runoff: impede / retard
Early planting
Material/ species: Zea maize
Quantity/ density: 0.025
Remarks: 70cm plant to plant by 90cm row to row.
Mulching
Material/ species: dry Hyperrhamia ruffa
Quantity/ density: 1500
Remarks: 15cm thickness, 5cm from the plant and across the slope.
Manure / compost / residues
Material/ species: cow dung
Quantity/ density: 18.518
Remarks: Tharough mixed with soil in a 5cm hole on month prior planting.
Mineral (inorganic) fertilizers
Material/ species: Tripo supper Phosphate and Calcium Ammonium Phosphate
Quantity/ density: 0.1851
Remarks: 5gm per plant at planting and dressing stage.
4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs
other/ national currency (specify):
Tshs
If relevant, indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (e.g. 1 USD = 79.9 Brazilian Real): 1 USD =:
1700.0
Indicate average wage cost of hired labour per day:
1.76
4.3 Establishment activities
Activity | Timing (season) | |
---|---|---|
1. | handhoes | |
2. | machete | |
3. | sickles | |
4. | tape measures |
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 | Handhoes | pieces | 16.0 | 2.94 | 47.04 | 100.0 |
Equipment | Machete | pieces | 16.0 | 1.17625 | 18.82 | 100.0 |
Equipment | Sickles | pieces | 16.0 | 0.47 | 7.52 | 100.0 |
Equipment | tape measures | pieces | 1.0 | 11.76 | 11.76 | |
Total costs for establishment of the Technology | 85.14 | |||||
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD | 0.05 |
Comments:
Duration of establishment phase: 1 month(s)
4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities
Activity | Timing/ frequency | |
---|---|---|
1. | To slush bushes and cut grasses using sickles | late august |
2. | To cultivate the land using hand hoes | early september |
3. | To measure spacing demarcate and dig holes using hand hoes. | Early September |
4. | To mix manure, soils and TSP in a 5cm depth hole using hands. | Mid September |
5. | To spread grass mulch using hands. | Mid September |
6. | To plant maize seeds using hand hoes. | Late September |
7. | To apply CAN at week four after planting using hands. | Mid October |
8. | To weed the whole field using hands. | Early Nov & Early Jan |
9. | To apply a mixture of ashes and pepper on the tip closed tip leaf to control maize stock-bores. | Mid November |
10. | To harvest and trush using hands | February |
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 | Slush bushes and cut grasses using sickles | person/days | 20.0 | 1.7645 | 35.29 | 100.0 |
Labour | Cultivate the land using hand hoes | person/days | 66.0 | 1.78 | 117.48 | |
Labour | Measure spacing demarcate and dig holes using hand hoes | person/days | 4.0 | 1.7 | 6.8 | |
Labour | Labour: Harvest and trush using hands | person/days | 225.0 | 1.7647 | 397.06 | |
Equipment | Polythene bags | pieces | 10.0 | 0.588 | 5.88 | |
Plant material | Grass mulch | bundles | 1500.0 | 0.29412 | 441.18 | |
Plant material | Seeds | kg | 25.0 | 2.9412 | 73.53 | |
Fertilizers and biocides | Fertilizer | kg | 185.0 | 0.97 | 179.45 | |
Fertilizers and biocides | Mixture of ashes and pepper | tons | 18.518 | 0.14688 | 2.72 | |
Fertilizers and biocides | Compost/manure | tons | 18.518 | 29.412 | 544.65 | |
Other | Labour: Mix manure, soils and TSP in a 5cm depth hole using hands. | person/days | 12.0 | 1.7 | 20.4 | |
Other | Labour: Spread grass mulch using hands. | person/days | 15.0 | 1.76 | 26.4 | |
Other | Labour: Plant maize seeds using hand hoes | person/days | 4.0 | 1.7 | 6.8 | |
Other | Labour: Apply CAN at week four after planting using hands. | person/days | 8.0 | 1.7 | 13.6 | |
Other | Labour: Weed the whole field using hands | person/days | 6.0 | 2.353 | 14.12 | |
Other | Labour: Apply a mixture of ashes and pepper on the tip closed tip leaf to control maize stock-bores. | person/days | 4.0 | 1.7 | 6.8 | |
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology | 1892.16 | |||||
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD | 1.11 |
Comments:
The above costs were calculated for population plants per ha of land protected in the sense that all maize plants were planted, fertilized and mulched.
4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs
Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:
The most determinate factor is light labor (US$ 641.53).
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
Specify average annual rainfall (if known), in mm:
800.00
Specifications/ comments on rainfall:
Long and short rains
Agro-climatic zone
- sub-humid
Thermal climate class: tropics. average 21°C. Average 210 day LGP
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)
Topsoil organic matter:
- medium (1-3%)
5.4 Water availability and quality
Ground water table:
5-50 m
Availability of surface water:
medium
Water quality (untreated):
poor drinking water (treatment required)
Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:
Availability of surface water: Medium (The entire catchment borders Lake Ikimba)
Water quality (untreated): Poor drinking water (no tape water and rain water reserve facilities)
5.5 Biodiversity
Species diversity:
- medium
Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:
Earthwors, ants, cockroaches and different weed spps are found.
5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology
Market orientation of production system:
- mixed (subsistence/ commercial)
Off-farm income:
- less than 10% of all income
Relative level of wealth:
- poor
- average
Individuals or groups:
- individual/ household
Level of mechanization:
- manual work
Gender:
- women
- men
Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:
Relative level of wealth: rich, average, poor
20% of the land users are rich and own 32% of the land.
64% of the land users are average wealthy and own 64% of the land.
20% of the land users are poor and own 4% of the land.
Market orientation: Mixed (Excess are for sale)
Level of mechanization: Manual work (Large part of cropland is occuppied with pereneal crops)
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:
Average area of land owned or leased by land users applying the Technology:
< 0.5 ha: 20% of poor land user who own 4% of cropland.
0.5-1 ha: 64% of average land user who owns 64% of cropland.
2-5 ha: 20% of land user who own 32% of cropland.
5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights
Land ownership:
- individual, not titled
Land use rights:
- individual
Water use rights:
- open access (unorganized)
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
Quantity before SLM:
1
Quantity after SLM:
3
Comments/ specify:
Maize yield increased from 1t to 3t per hectors.
risk of production failure
production area
Quantity before SLM:
0
Quantity after SLM:
1
Comments/ specify:
Formelly used as farrow or rangelands can be used for maize production.
Income and costs
expenses on agricultural inputs
Quantity before SLM:
1
Quantity after SLM:
3
Comments/ specify:
Mulch and manures costs
farm income
workload
Quantity before SLM:
0
Quantity after SLM:
1
Comments/ specify:
Weeding once insted of twice but mulching demands more labour
Socio-cultural impacts
food security/ self-sufficiency
Quantity before SLM:
0
Quantity after SLM:
2
Comments/ specify:
Maize is food, excess can be sold to earn money, money can be used to aquire animal protein source to utilise the balanced diet.
SLM/ land degradation knowledge
Quantity before SLM:
0
Quantity after SLM:
1
Improved livelihoods and human well-being
Comments/ specify:
Increased maize productivity should access market and the increased accrues empowers the household to meet financial obligations especially for health and education costs.
Ecological impacts
Water cycle/ runoff
surface runoff
Quantity before SLM:
2
Quantity after SLM:
1
Comments/ specify:
grass mulch
evaporation
Quantity before SLM:
0
Quantity after SLM:
1
Comments/ specify:
grass mulch
Soil
soil moisture
Quantity before SLM:
0
Quantity after SLM:
1
Comments/ specify:
grass mulch
soil cover
Quantity before SLM:
1
Quantity after SLM:
3
Comments/ specify:
grass mulch
soil loss
Comments/ specify:
controlled rill erosion
nutrient cycling/ recharge
Quantity before SLM:
1
Quantity after SLM:
3
Comments/ specify:
manure, TSP & CAN.
soil organic matter/ below ground C
Quantity before SLM:
1
Quantity after SLM:
3
Comments/ specify:
manures
Biodiversity: vegetation, animals
biomass/ above ground C
Quantity before SLM:
1
Quantity after SLM:
2
Comments/ specify:
trashlines
6.3 Exposure and sensitivity of the Technology to gradual climate change and climate-related extremes/ disasters (as perceived by land users)
Climate-related extremes (disasters)
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 |
Comments:
The Grass mulch with manure and fertilizers has been modified with topical application of domestic made biocide to protect maize plants from stock-bores infestation
6.4 Cost-benefit analysis
How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?
Short-term returns:
slightly negative
Long-term returns:
very positive
How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?
Short-term returns:
very negative
Long-term returns:
slightly positive
Comments:
The short term returns is slightly positive (sales of maize) compared with establishment costs (US$ 85.18) while the long term returns is not applicable in this case.
The short term returns is slightly positive (increased sales of maize) compared with maintenance costs < US$ 1,476.30 (decreasing labour,mulch)
6.5 Adoption of the Technology
- 11-50%
If available, quantify (no. of households and/ or area covered):
26 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?
- 51-90%
Comments:
23% of land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support
Comments on acceptance with external material support: 3 host farmers during FFS implementation were provided with grass mulch, manures, TSP and CAN to be applied the the technical sites.
77% of land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support
13 land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support
Comments on spontaneous adoption: 10 farmers adopted the technology either through participating in FFS or from their numbers in thier field with average area of 0.75ha.
There is a moderate trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology
Comments on adoption trend: 10 household participated in FFS already have implemented the technology using their own resources.
6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view |
---|
It has opportunity of free grass mulch harvested from communal land. |
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view |
---|
There is cumulative effects of soil organic matters as a major component of land conservation. |
The technology is best appropriate for market oriented commodities. |
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? |
---|---|
High costs of manures and mulch discouraged to choose the technology wherever future prospective is. |
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view | How can they be overcome? |
---|---|
Increased farm inputs costs in agronomic measures tends to reduce benefits in the first instants. |
7. References and links
7.1 Methods/ sources of information
- field visits, field surveys
- interviews with land users
When were the data compiled (in the field)?
29/05/2014
Links and modules
Expand all Collapse allLinks
No links
Modules
No modules