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:

Ripploughing and oversowing (sodsowing) of extensive grazing land in order to improve productivity of a semi-arid rangeland.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

A pasture characterised by the unpalatable Cymbopogen plurinoides grass species was rip-ploughed to a depth of 20, 15, or 7 cm to uproot the unfavourable grass species.
Coated and uncoated seeds of more palatable grass species were hand sown into the furrows and the soil kicked over the seeds.
Grazing has been excluded for the past four years, giving the sown-in grass species the opportunity to establish and credit the soil seed bank.
The purpose of the technology was threefold: First, the success of rip-ploughing as a restoration technology was researched. Secondly, the suitability of coated or uncoated seeds was established. Thirdly, the suitability of the technology for restoration purposes was researched. This was done in the summer of 1995/96. The frequency and density was measured in the following years up to 1999. The density was measured with a 1 x 1 square meter; and tillers, vegetative and reproductive plants were distinguished.
The purpose of the frequency measurement is to establish the percentage a grass species contributes to the grass community. The density measurement gives the amount of rooted plants in a square meter. Distinction between the life stages indicates the self-sustainability of a population. Seed bank analyses are also added.

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

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:

• during experiments/ research

Comments (type of project, etc.):

Lennof Reynecke (fellow student) & Klaus Kellner (lecturer)

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production

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

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Overgrazing or rather mismanagement led to i) dominance of the unpalatable grass species at Koster, and ii) bare soil at Totiuskraal, Davidkatnagel and Krompspruit.

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Erosion/overgrazing making area unsuitable for grazing because of lack of vegetation of appropriate palatability and nutrition.

Semi-nomadism / pastoralism: Kromspruit; Davidkatnagel

Ranching: Totiuskraal; Koster

Grazingland comments: Area closure only followed on incentive of researchers. Koster duplicated area enclosure on own initiative afterwards.

Type of grazing system comments: Area closure only followed on incentive of researchers. Koster duplicated area enclosure on own initiative afterwards.

Number of growing seasons per year: 1
Longest growing period in days: 180; Longest growing period from month to month: Oct - Mar

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• improved plant varieties/ animal breeds

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Main measures: vegetative measures

Secondary measures: structural measures

Type of vegetative measures: scattered / dispersed

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Main type of degradation addressed: Wt: loss of topsoil / surface erosion

Secondary types of degradation addressed: Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content, Ha: aridification

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

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

• prevent land degradation
• restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land

Comments:

Secondary goals: mitigation / reduction of 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 area

Specify currency used for cost calculations:

• USD

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Seedbed reparation	Summer
2.	Sowing of seeds	Summer
3.	Enclosing site	Summer
4.	Debushing were necessary	Early Summer
5.	Area enclosure	From start for 2 years

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	Constructing seed beds and	persons/day/ha	36.0	8.3	298.8
Equipment	Machine use	ha	1.0	10.0	10.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					308.8
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					308.8

Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 24 month(s)

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Grazing excluded	/Continuously
2.	Grazing	Spring (Apr-Sept) /After 2 y for a week; then after regrowth
3.	Rotation grazing	Late summer after 2nd year / Once a year for winte

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

Comments:

For Koster, in terms of seeds and tractors; as well as final credit after 3 years measured in R/ large stock unit.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Labour and transport; equipment (gasoline).

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Comments and further specifications on topography:

Landforms: Hill slopes for Totiuskraal, footslopes for Koster and valley floors for Davidkatnagel; Kromspruit

Altitudinal zone: 1,501-2,000 m a.s.l. for Totiuskraal

Slopes on average: Flat for Davidkatnagel, gentle for Kromspruit and moderate for Koster; Totiuskraal

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.

Soil texture: All sites actually; sandy clay loam: the soil is evenly textured but has a high clay content

Soil fertility is very high

Topsoil organic matter: Medium for Koster and poor for Kromspruit, Davidkatnagel and Totiuskraal.

Soil drainage / infiltration: Medium for Koster and poor for Kromspruit, Davidkatnagel and Totiuskraal.

Soil water storage capacity: medium - high

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Population density: 10-50 persons/km2

Relative level of wealth: rich, average, very poor

40% of the land users are rich and own 30% of the land (Koster).
40% of the land users are average wealthy and own 30% of the land (Totiuskraal).
20% of the land users are poor and own 40% of the land (Kromspruit; Davidkatnagel).

Off-farm income specification: Farmers have extra-farm occupations for the Totiuskraal area

Market orientation of production system: Subsistence for Kromspruit; Davidkatnagel and commercial for Totiuskraal; Koster

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:

• communal (organized)
• 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

Other ecological impacts

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

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%

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

30 households

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

• 11-50%

Comments:

30 land user families have adopted the Technology

Comments on acceptance with external material support: estimates

25% of land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support

Comments on spontaneous adoption: estimates

There is a moderate trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

Comments on adoption trend: One land user applied the technology to another part of his farm.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Vegetation cover How can they be sustained / enhanced? Rotational grazing

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Establishment of perennial grass cover How can they be sustained / enhanced? Grazing management; not graze to seed production stage.
Increase of perennial grass production How can they be sustained / enhanced? Grazing management
Find suitable seed mixtures for different habitats How can they be sustained / enhanced? Literature study on habitat preferences
Seed bed preparation enhance establishment How can they be sustained / enhanced? Know exact depth of sowing of seeds.

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

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Implementation in communal areas mostly	Brainstorm on implementation without gasoline needed.
Communication with landuser	Contact on monthly basis built friendship

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Veld management in South Africa, Tainton. 1985.

Available from where? Costs?

From researcher