View
3
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Page a
Ministry of Water and Environment NETWAS Uganda
APPROPRIATETECHNOLOGYCENTREFOR WATER AND SANITATION
Drip Irrigation and Fertigation prospective:
A case study of cabbage growing at the ATC, Mukono district
Page b
Page i
Copyright©: ATC, 2013
Author: Asha B.N Bamutaze and Babirye VictoriaEdited by: Rita N. Opira (Technical Support Unit, Ministry of Water and Environment)
Contact Address:Appropriate Technology Centre (ATC) for water and sanitationUpper Kauga, Prison Road, MukonoP.O. Box 748 Mukono, UgandaTelephone: +256 (0) 414 690806Email: atc.mwe@gmail.com http://www.atc.washuganda.net
Page ii
Abstract
The Appropriate Technology Centre for water and sanitation carried out a study on cabbage growing using fertigation and drip irrigation. Before actual growing of the cabbages, a reconnaissance survey was carried out to establish the best type of crops to grow since the earlier irrigation trials had failed. The survey indicated that soils at ATC are not good since they were just heaped from the excavations done during construction of the centre. It thus suggested soil conditioning and application of fertilizers for better results. Cabbages and tomatoes were identified as some of the best crops to grow and thus we opted for cabbage.
The study aimed at assessing the feasibility of using urine as a fertilizer and drip irrigation technology to address food scarcity that has hit Uganda as a country of late. It employed a randomized control trial approach where five plots were established and subjected to different treatments and one of them acted as a control plot with no intervention to give a benchmark. Data was analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively using ANoVA and Least Significant Difference. We sought for expertise of the Production Department, Mukono District who worked as back-steppers to the project.
The study revealed high rates of return for a farmer who chooses to practice drip irrigation and fertigation. This however gives best results with effective disease control. When a farmer chooses to either practice irrigation or apply fertilizers in isolation chances are clear herein that he/she will not maximize yields and might actually incur serious losses and, leaving the plants to the favour of nature is equally bad because it is very hard to break through and get yields that are competitive to the market. The microbial safety analysis indicated that one out of the five cabbages tested had salmonella. It is therefore important that, before taking the results of this study any further, ATC carries out a relatively larger scale study involving some farmers from the model village to be able to concretize the findings.
Page iii
Contents
1. Introduction ... .......................................................................................................................1 1.1. Reconnaissance survey ................................................................................................ 2 1.2. Fertigation:usingurineasfertilizers ............................................................................ 1 1.3. Dripirrigationusingbucketkitsystem ......................................................................... 2
2. Experimentaldesign ............................................................................................................. 3 2.1. ExperimentalStager ..................................................................................................... 3 2.1.1.Nursarybed ....................................................................................................... 3 2.1.2.Landpreparation ............................................................................................... 4 2.1.3.Transplanting ..................................................................................................... 4 2.1.5.Fertilizerapplication .......................................................................................... 4 2.2.Analysisofresult............................................................................................................ 5 2.3.Microbialsafetyanalysis ............................................................................................... 6
3. Diseasesandcontrol............................................................................................................. 7 3.1.Caterpillarattack........................................................................................................... 7 3.2.Wilting .......................................................................................................................... 8 3.3.Otherchallenges ........................................................................................................... 8
4. Results .................................................................................................................................. 9 4.1. Headformation ............................................................................................................ 9 4.1.1.Imapctofcatepillarattackonheadformation ................................................. 10 4.1.2.Abnormalheadformation ................................................................................ 10 4.2. Harvesting .................................................................................................................... 10 4.3. Costanalysis ................................................................................................................. 14
5. Conclusionsandrecommendations ..................................................................................... 16 5.1.Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 16 5.2.Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 16
References .................................................................................................................................... 17
Page iv
List Tables
Table1:Generalsoilconditions ................................................................................................... 1
Table2:Plotdescriptionandtreatmentadministered ................................................................. 3
Table3:AbbreviationsusedinANoVAanalysis ............................................................................ 5
Table4:Firstcaterpillarattack ...................................................................................................... 7
Table5:Secondcaterpillarattack ................................................................................................. 8
Table6:Formationofheadsintherespectiveexperiments ........................................................ 9
Table7:Harvestedcabbageweightsperband ............................................................................. 11
Table8:ANoVAanalysisresults .................................................................................................... 12
Table9:LeastSignificanceDifferenceanalysis ............................................................................. 13
Table10:Microbialsafetyofcabbagesubjectedtofertigation .................................................... 14
Table11:Farminputs ................................................................................................................... 15
Table12:Projectedincomeandprofit ......................................................................................... 15
Page 1
1. INTRODUCTION
TheAppropriateTechnologyCentreforwaterandsanitation(ATC)carriedoutaninvestigationoncabbagegrowingtocomparativelyexaminetheeffectivenessoffertigationanddripirrigationforsmallscalefarming.InUgandatodaymalnutritionisrampantyetpeoplewouldeasilyaccessshortgestationvegetablesfordietarysupplementastheymakeuseoftheirsmallbackyardsforagriculturethroughouttheyear.Agriculturehasbeentaggedasunprofitablepartlybecausesoilsareexhaustedandrainfallisunreliableandthuspeopleareresortingtoothereconomicactivitiessuchaspettytrade.Thereisurgentneedtointervenewithresearchtoprovideworkingsolutionstoboostagricultureasthebackbornofthecountry.Torevitalizesoilfertility,inorganicfertilizershavebeenonmarketforlongbutmanyfarmershavenotusedthembecausetheyareexpensive.Similarly,irrigationisnotanewphenomenonbutpeoplehavenottakenupthepracticebecausethecommonoptionsaffordablearelaborintensiveandtheautomatedoptionsareveryexpensive.ATCthusconsideredastudyintolowcostoptionsofdripirrigationanduseoforganicfertilizersfeasibletoaddressthecurrentgapinagriculture. 1.1. Reconnaissance surveySoilsdifferinphysicalandchemicalproperties,abilitytoproducecropsaswellasmanagementpractices(Meyeretal,2011).Thisthereforenecessitatesasoiltesttofindouthowmuchofthenutrientwillbeplant-availableandhowmuchshouldbeadditionallyappliedintheformofmineralfertilizerstoreachanexpectedcrop yield (FAO, 2000). A reconnaissance survey was carried out in collaboration withMukono DistrictAgricultureDepartmenttoestablishthetypeofcropsthatwouldgrowbestonthesoilsattheAppropriateTechnologyCentre.SamplesweretakentoNAROforqualitativeanalysis.TheinvestigationfoundsoilsnotverysuitabletoagricultureduetotheirpoorchemistryandlowSOMinrespecttocropproduction.
Table 1: General soil conditionsSoil condition Remark Soilaciditycontent(PH) 6.0-6.8,veryslightlyacidicOrganicmatter HighNitrogen Adequateforsomecropsliketomatoesandwatermelonbutinadequa
forcropslikecassavaandbanana,Phosphorous HighPotassium Sufficient
Thesoiltestresultspointedtotheobservedhardnessofthesoilandwereindicativeofdeviationsfromtheexpectednatural(normal)propersoilBhorizonandcharacteristicsandhencesuggestiveofmanagementinterventions. Management interventions recommended were basically to condition the soils i.e.,incorporationofcompostinformofsoilconditionerandearthboost.Thesewereexpectedtodecreaseonthesoilbulkydensityandincreasesoilparticlesaggregation.Inaddition,nitrogeninadequacybeaddressedusingpoultrymanurefromlayers’housing i.e.,ofat leastsixmonthsold.Thesurveyalsorecommendedadequatemulching,useofmicronutrientsatsomeexperimentsandgoodpestsanddiseasemanagementregimes.
Page 2
The survey recommended that; high value vegetables such as cabbage and tomatoes that take a shortgestationperiodcanbegrowngiveneffectivemanagementpractices.
1.2. Fertigation: using urine as fertilizersFertigationrelatestoapplicationoffertilizersthroughthe irrigationsystem(FAO,2000). Herein,urineaformoforganicfertilizerswasappliedtothecropsusingthefertigationapproach.Urineisknowntobeahighqualityand lowcostfertilizer. It isrich innitrogen,phosphorousandpotassium(EcosanRes,2008&Westnet,2008).Applicationofnitrogenrichurineinthisexperimenthadahighpotentialtoaddressnitrogeninadequacy identified in the reconnaissance survey. Several countries i.e., Japan, China, India, Sweden,Mexico,USA,Guatemal,Zimbabwe,Botswana,EthiopiaandTanzaniauseurineasfertilizersandpesticide.Theirexperienceshowsthatusingurineboostsfoodproductionandincome(Westnet,2008).
SoilsinUgandahavelosttheirfertilityyetuseoffertilizersisneglected.Therecentin-countryagriculturecensus indicated that farmers arenot using inorganic fertilizers because they are too expensivebesideslackofknowledgeand limitedaccessandonly26%ofthefarmersuseorganicfertilizersyettheycanbeaccessedbyalmostallofthem(Mbowaetal2013).Toensuresoilfertilityandmaximizeyields,soilsneedtobereplenishedwithnutrientsandsoilimprovingmaterials(EcosanRes,2008).Thecurrentpracticeofjustwastingurineoughttochange i.e.,promoting itsusewouldprovidebettercropgrowthbecauseoftheirpotentialtorestocktheenvironmentwherecropsgrow(BalmFord,2007).
1.3. Drip irrigation using bucket kit systemUganda’sagriculture is largelydependentontheunpredictablerainfall (Gollinetal,2010&DWD,1995).Coupledwithsoilexhaustioncropproductionisultimatelyaffected(NEMA,2001).Bucket-kitdrip-irrigationsystemcanbeusedtosupportcropproductionthroughouttheyearwithoutrelyingontheuncertainrains.Bucket-kitdrip-irrigationsystemisamicroirrigationsysteminwhichwaterflowsbygravityi.e.,dripsintothesoilthroughinstalleddriplinesconnectedtothebucketreservoir(Wilson&Baue,2005andSijali,2001).Thebucketisplacedat0.5to1metertoprovidetherequiredpressure(ibid,2001).Thissystemisrelativelycheapandeasytoadoptbyallthefarmersregardlessoftheirgender.
Page 3
2. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
AgardenwassetupattheATConaplotsizeof15mlengthand6mwidth.Theplotwaspartitionedintofivetocaterfortheplannedfiveexperiments.Eachexperimenthadtwobands(A&B)subjectedtospecificconditions(table2below).Oneexperimentwassetupasacontrolandthusreceivednotreatmentthroughouttheexperimentalperiod.
Table 2: Plot description and treatment administered
Experimental design
Experiment number
Band Description of Intervention Time of intervention
Fertigation 1 A Inorganicfertilizers;sidedressingwithearthboost,biosulphate,DAPmixedureaandMOPin8ltrsofwater,dripirrigation,DIgrow
Attransplantingandoneweektoheadformation.Atthisstage,cabbageswereoneandtwomonthsoldrespectively.
B Organicfertilizers;3ltrsofurinemixedin8ltrsofwater,DIgrow,sidedressingofearthboost,biosulphate,DAP
Aweektoheadformation
Irrigationandmanualfertilizer
2 A&B Sidedressingwithinorganicfertilizers,DIgrow
Duringtransplantingandaheadofheadformation
Irrigationandnofertilizer
3 A&B DIgrowandirrigation DIgrowattransplantingandeveryaftertwoweeksandirrigationtilltwoweeksafterheadformation
Fertilizerandnoirrigation
4 A&B DIgrow,MOP,earthboost,DAPandbiosulphate
DIattransplantingandeveryaftertwoweeks,fertilizersattransplantingandoneweekaheadofheadformation
Nointervention 5 A&B DIgrow Attransplantingandeveryaftertwoweeks
As shown in the table 2 above, each experiment had two bands. The two bands under experiment 1(fertigation)weresubjectedtodifferentconditions;i.e.,inbandAinorganicfertilizerswereappliedwhereasinbandBorganicfertilizerswereapplied.Nitrogenrichhumanurinerichwasusedasorganicfertilizer.
AllplotsreceivedDIgrowgrowthboosteri.e.,anorganicfoliar.D.IgrowisapesticideaswellasafungiciderichinNitrogen,Phosphorous,Potassium,Magnesium,Iron,Manganese,Copper,Zinc,Boron,Molybdenumandhumicacid.
2.1. Experimental Stager Stageractivitiesincludedsettingupanurserybed,landpreparationandtransplanting.2.1.1. Nursery bedAnurserybedwasprepared,seedssowninrowsat1centimeterspacingandashallowdepthsincetheseedsweresmall.Thesoilwasmulchedwithdrygrassandthenthirtylitersofwaterappliedusingawateringcantohelpingermination.Ittook10daysfortheseedstogerminate.Aftergerminationoftheseeds,ashelterwasraisedtoprovidewarmthandpreventscorchingoftheseedlingsfromthesun.
Page 4
2.1.2. LandpreparationLandwaspreparedbydiggingtoremovetheweedsandraisingbandsforproperflowofwater.10bandswerepreparedforthefiveexperimentaldesignsstudied.Arrangementsforexperimentsrequiringirrigationweredone; i.e.,bucketsfixedwithdrip lineswereinstalledperrespectiveexperiment.Thebucketswereraisedataheightof1mabovethegroundtoallowwaterflowbygravity.Thedrip lineshadholesatanintervalof1ft.Theentiregardenhad10bandsandeachexperimentwascarriedoutontwobandswhichweretaggedaccordingly.
2.1.3. Transplanting Afterthirtydaysinthenursery,theseedlingsweretransplantedtothemaingarden.Fiveexperimentswerelaidouteachwithtwobands.Theplantpopulationwasthirtytwoplantsperexperimentwitheightplantsperdriplineforthosethatweresubjectedtoirrigation.
2.1.4. IrrigationIrrigationfortherespectiveexperimentalbandswasdonethroughoutthegrowthperiod.Thepracticewasthat;thebucketisfilledwithwaterwhichwoulddripgraduallyinthedemarcatedexperiments.Atanearlystage,irrigationwasdonetwiceaday-i.e.,inthemorningandeveningtilltheplantsdevelopedrootsafterwhich;thepracticewasreducedtoonceinthemorningeveryaftertwodays.Irrigationforalltherespectiveexperimentsstoppedtwoweeksaheadofheadformation. Irrigationwasstoppedbecause itwasarainyseason.Besides,cabbagesatthatstageofgrowthdonotrequirealotofwater.
2.1.5. FertilizerapplicationAsearlierpointedout,DIgrowwasappliedtoallexperimentalbands.12mililitresofD.IGrowweremixedin2litersKnapsacksprayerforsprayinginthenursery.DIwasappliedbecausethegerminatingseedsdidnotlookhealthyi.e.theyweretoothintosurvivebeyond10days&theirleavesweresolight.DIgrowwasappliedaftergerminationandaftertransplantingtohelpplantseasilyabsorbtherequirednutrients.ThisapplicationbasedonadvicefromthepriorsoiltestingwhichindicatedthatweneedtoapplyfertilizersrichinNPKandothermicronutrients.
Forthefertilizernoirrigationplot(experiment4)andirrigationmanualfertilizerplot(experiment2)sidedressingwasdone.Eachcabbageplantedwasgiven6gofDAP,0.6gofurea,0.6gofbiosulphate,MOP(6g)and1.2gofearth-boost.Thesewerehalvedi.e.,firstdosagegivenattransplanting(5weeksofgrowth)andtheothertowardsheadformationandthatwasaround10weeksfromsowing.
Fertigationplotsreceivedtreatmentatthesametimewiththerestoftheplotsthatneededfertilizersi.e.,at5and10weeksrespectively.Forinorganicfertilizersband,SidedressingwasdoneforMOP(6g),earth-boost(1.2g)andbiosulphate (0.6g) toavoidblockageof theemitters.Therestof fertilizers;DAP(6g)andurea(0.6g)weremixedin8litersofwaterandemittedtosoilthroughthedripirrigationsystem.Theorganicplotreceivedurineattransplantingandtowardsheadformation.Eachtime,3litersofurineweremixedin8litersofwaterandtheplantsreceiveditthroughdripirrigation.
Page 5
2.2. Analysis of resultAnalysisofvariation(ANoVA)wasusedtodeterminewhichtreatmentisbetterandhowbetter.ANoVAwasdonebycomputinganFvaluewhichwascomparedtothetabularFvaluesasrecommendedbyKwanchaiandArturo(1984).Fvalueshelpindeducingthebettertreatment.
Table 3: Abbreviations used in ANoVA analysis
Abbreviation Meaning Abbreviation MeaningT Numberoftreatments R Numberofreplication Totalnumberofplots d.o.f(t) Treatmentdegreeoffreedomd.o.f(r) Replicationdegreeoffreedom d.o.f(e) Errordegreeoffreedomd.o.f(T) Totaldegreeoffreedom SS SumofSquaresMs MeanSquare R ReplicationtotalFValue testsforsignificanceofatreat-
mentX Differentyields
C.F CorrectionFactor Cv CoefficientofVariation
LeastSignificantDifference(LSD)Thesearecomparisonswhereacontrolwasplanned forbefore thestartof theexperiment.Thecontrolexperimentwasthenoirrigationnofertilizerplot.Thestepsandequationsforanalysisareillustratedbelow;• Computethedifferencebetweenthecontrolmeanandeachofthetreatmentmeans. Thisisdoneasanabsolutevalue.• ComputetheLSDvalueatαlevelofsignificanceas,
For ANoVA the following equations are used; d. o. f t = t− 1 d. o. f r = r− 1 d. o. f T = n − 1 d. o. f e = d. o. f T − d. o. f t − d. o. f r Total SS = X2 − C. Fn
i=1
Replication SS = R2
t − c. fri=1
Treatment SS = T2 r
Ti−1 − c. f
Error SS = Total SS− Replication SS− Treatment SS
Treatment Ms = Treatment SSd.o.f(t)
Replication Ms = Replication SSd.o.f (r)
Error Ms = Error SSError d. o. f
Page 6
Wheretαistabularts2istheerrormeansquarefromtheanalysisofvariationtable.
2.3. Microbial safety analysisFivesamplesi.e.,threefromorganicfertilizer(fertigation–bandB)andtwofrominorganicfertilizerexperiment(fertigationBandA)weretakentotheCollegeofAgricultureandEnvironmentalSciences,FoodTechnology,NutritionandBio-EngineeringDepartmentMakerereUniversityforlaboratoryanalysistoestablishthesafetyofthesecabbagesiftheyaretobeeatenwithoutboiling/cooking.
LSD = t∝ 2S2r
Page 7
3. DISEASES AND CONTROL
3.1. Caterpillar attackCabbageswereattackedbycaterpillarstwicethroughoutthegrowingperiod.Thefirstattackwasduringthe8thweekofgrowthwhenthecaterpillarsatetheleaves.Theexperimentalbandswereaffectedasillustratedintable4below.
Table4:Firstcaterpillarattack
Treatmentwas administered to all bands. 28mililitres of Trobanwere applied basing on the defoliatingdosage.However, thiswasanundercalculationas52millilitershadtobeapplied.Afterapplication, thecaterpillars fled but two weeks after, the cabbages got the second caterpillar attack. This necessitatedapplicationofrocketECwheretenmillilitersweremixedinafivelitersknapsack.Onedayafteradministeringthetreatment,25millilitersofD.Igrowwereapplied.Sincecabbageshadmanyleaves,DIgrowwasmixedintheknapsacktwice.
Thesecondcaterpillarattackoccurredduringthetwelfthweekofgrowth.Theattackwasuneven inthedifferentexperimentsandmainlyaffectedexperiment4and5(table5below).
Experimental design Experiment number Band No. of cabbages attacked
Observations
Fertigation 1 A 8 Leaves eatenB 5 Leaves eaten
Irrigationandmanualfertilizer
2 A 0 Healthygrowthwithdarkgreenleaves
B 0 Fairgrowthwithpalegreenleaves
Irrigationandnofertilizer
3 A 0 HaddarkgreenleavesB 5 Leaveshadholes
Fertilizerandnoir-rigation
4 A 8 HaddarkgreenleavesB 7 Haddarkgreenleaves
Nointervention 5 A 9 HaddarkgreenleavesB 0 Palegreenleaves
Page 8
Experimental design
Experime nt number
Band No. of cabbages attacked
Completely destroyed cabbages
Fertigation 1 A 0 0B 1 0
Irrigationandamnualfertilizer
2 A 0 0B 0 0
Irrigationandnofertilizer
3 A 0 0B 0 0
Fertilizerandnoirrigation
4 A 5 1B 0 0
Nointervention 5 A 4 2
B 0 0
Table5:Secondcaterpillarattack
Therewaseasydiseasespilloverfromthecontrolexperimenttootherexperimentsduetothefactthatplotswerelocatednexttoeachother.Experiment1(Fertigation)hadthehealthiestcabbagesandexperiment5(Nointervention)exhibitedveryslowgrowth.
3.2. Wilting Cabbagesexperiencedwilting inthe10thweekofgrowth.Onecabbagefromexperiment4 (fertilizernoirrigationplot)wilted.Thepossiblecausescouldhavebeenplacingfertilizerstooclosetotherootzone.Thatonecabbagewasuprootedandthrownaway.Wiltingwasonlyexperiencedinoneexperiment.
3.3. Other challenges Weatherinvariabilityposedachallengewherebyuponscheduling,irrigationwastobedoneforthewholeofthegrowingseasonapartfromthemonthofApril.However,therainsstartedinlatemarch.Thisresultedintoleachingofthenutrientsmeaningthattheirrigationnofertilizerandthecontrolplantshadtodevelopstrongerrootstogettherequirednutrients.Nowonderduringthefirstharvest,thecontrolhadonlyfourcabbagesthathadformedheadswithonlytwoclosetomaturity.Thesewereusedforanalysis.
Page 9
4. RESULTS
4.1. Head formationHead formationvaried fromoneexperiment toanotherwith theno interventionexperimenthaving thepoorestheadformation(Table6below).
Table6:Formationofheadsintherespectiveexperiments
Experiment Number Treatment Observation
1 Fertigation Headformationwasverygoodi.e.,allthe32cabbagesformedheadsbythe11thweekandgrowthwassteady.
2 Fertilizerapplicationwithirrigation;
BandAhad14cabbageswithheadsformedbythe11thweek.2cabbagesinthisbandtookrelativelylongertoformheads.BandBofthesameexperimenthadallcabbageswithheadsbythe11thweek.
3 Irrigationnofertilizer Only 8 cabbagesout of 16 in bandAhad formedheadsbyweek11andbandBhadonly6cabbages.Alltheremainingcabbagesinbothbandsoftheexperimentformedheadslaterafterabout13weeks.
4 Fertilizersandnoirrigation Bythe11thweek,bandAhad10andbandBhad12cabbagesthathadsuccessfullyformedheads.Therestofthecabbagesinbothbandsofthisexperimentformedheadsafterweek13.
5 Nointervention 2cabbagesinbandAandoneinbandBhadformedheadsbythe11thweek.Theresttookextrathreeweekstoformtheheads.3cabbagesfrombandAand4frombandBcompletelyfailedtoformheads.
Theexperimentsubjectedtofertigationhadperfectheadformationandweregrowingfastcomparedtotherestoftheexperiments.Inexperiments3and5,headformationtooklongerduetothefactthatplantswerenotgivenfertilizerssotheyhadtofirstdevelopdeeperrootstogetnutrients.
Resultsintable6indicatethatirrigationcatalyzesfasterheadformationbecause,inadditiontofertilizers,waterisneededforphotosynthesis.Theexperiments1and2haddarkgreenleavescomparedtoexperiment4and5thathadratherpalegreenleavesbecausetheformerhadenoughwaterandfertilizers.
Page 10
4.1.1. ImpactofcaterpillarattackonheadformationThestudyrevealedthateventhecabbagesthatareinfectedbycaterpillarsiftreatedontimecanformheadsthoughtheytakerelativelylongertime.Inthisstudy,suchcabbagestook2-3weeksmoretoformheads.Thereforeevenwhencabbagesareinfectedbycaterpillarsbutsprayed,theycanstillyieldresults.Therewasevidenceofdiseasespilloverfromcontrolplottotherestoftheplots.Comparably,thisgreatlyaffectedthefertilizernoirrigationplotwhichwasnexttothecontrolplot.
4.1.2. AbnormalheadformationInexperiment3(irrigation,nofertilizer),thereweresomeanomaliesparticularlyinbandAi.e.,acabbageformedsevenheadsatonce.Speculatively,thiscanbeattributedtothefactthatsomehowsomewherethemiddleheadgotaproblemduringheadformation.Tostopotherheadsfromconsumingthenutrients,sixwereremovedandtheplantwasleftwithonlyonehead.
4.2. Harvesting Thecabbagestookabout3.5monthstomature.Harvestingwasdonefourtimesinbits.On6thMay2013thefirstbunchofcabbageswasharvested.Atmost,twocabbageswereharvestedperbandforqualitativeanalysisexceptforthecontrolplotwherecabbageswerenotreadyforharvesting.Thesecondharvestingwasdoneon21stMay2013andstillbythistime;cabbagesinthecontrolplotwerenotreadyforharvesting.Thethirdroundofharvestingwasdoneonthe21stJune2013andstillnocabbagewasharvestedfromthecontrolplots.Cabbagesfromthecontrolplotswereharvestedinthefourthroundon9thJuly2013.
Page 11
Inte
rven
tion
Wei
ght (
gram
s)To
tal
harv
est
(gra
ms)
Aver
age
Wei
ght
(gra
ms)
Fertigatio
nBa
nd A
3381
1662
3249
3414
2566
1837
1542
2443
3214
2447
2860
3215
2443
2113
3215
3058
4265
9
2666
.19
Band
B
2375
2222
2571
2827
2891
2373
3185
2579
2623
1849
3171
2942
2112
4238
3795
8
2593
.85
Irrigati
on
man
ual
fertilizer
Band
A
3272
3228
2497
2615
2437
2553
2708
2895
2412
2873
2749
0
2735
.22
Band
B
2793
2531
2079
2024
2131
1243
2431
2488
1772
0
2176
.00
Irrigati
on
noFertilize
r
Band
A
1967
1748
2139
2165
1838
1977
27
8614
620
1972
.33
Band
B
2118
1985
2017
2311
365
1932
1072
8
1759
.20
Fertilizerno
irrigati
on
Band A
1853
1367
1947
1814
2282
1031
664
458
11
8012
596
1427
.00
Band B
1856
1628
1145
1375
1406
1925
9335
1482
.00
No
interven
tion
Band A
843
720
331
895
906
577
506
714
405
1131
7028
655.
22Band B
910
631
552
506
467
1083
572
1135
12
5771
13
732.
00
Asob
served
inta
ble7ab
ove,m
issingresultsareattrib
uted
toth
efactth
atth
ecabb
ageswereno
tharvested
moste
speciallybecau
se
theyneverm
atured
.App
aren
tlyth
einorganicplothad
100
%yields,with
biggestcab
bageweigh
ing30
58gan
dthesm
allest154
2g.T
he
organicplot(b
andB)whe
reurin
ewasusedha
don
lytw
ocabb
agesfa
iling
tom
ature;th
ehe
aviestcab
bageweigh
ed423
8gand
theleast
weigh
ed184
9g.C
ompa
redtoth
econtrolplot,thebiggestcab
bageweigh
ed108
3gand
thesm
allest405
g.Itisa
pparen
ttha
t,de
spite
the
factth
atth
efertigatio
nplot(b
andB)whe
reurin
ewasuseddidno
tregister100
%outpu
tasw
asth
ecasewith
theplotwhe
rein
organic
fertilizersw
ereused
,the
yieldsw
ereverygoo
dcompa
ringwith
thecontrolp
lottha
tregistered
41%
outpu
t.
Table7:Harvested
cabb
ageweigh
tsperban
d
Page 12
Althoughtable7aboveindicatesabigvariationbetweenyieldsasperrespectivetreatmentwithfertigationplots having the best output, analysis of results was done with ANoVA to scientifically determine thesignificanceoftreatment.
Table8:ANoVAanalysisresults
Sourcesofvariation
Degreeoffreedom
SumofSquares MeanSquare ComputedF TabularF
Treatment 4 1003682939 250920734.9 0.46 0.05 0.01Replication 1 46392852.1 46392852.1 6.39 15.52Experimentalerror 4 2172810481 543202620.4 Total 9 3222886273
TheANoVAanalysisresultsindicatethatthetreatmentwasnotsignificant.ANoVAcouldnotestablishthedifferencebetweentreatmentsbecause it isageneralanalysis that looksat treatments in lumpsumandnotoneinterventionatatime.ThereforethisjustifiedtheneedforamoredetailedanalysisusingtheLeastSignificantDifference.
Page 13
Table9:Lea
stSignifican
ceDifferen
ceana
lysis
Tva
lues-1
046.13
:735
Compa
ringde
viati
onsintable9with
thetabu
lartvalue
swhichwere10
46.13at1%and
735
at5
%levelo
fsignifican
ce,itiso
bservedthatall
treatm
entsweresig
nifican
tlydifferen
tfromth
econtrol.Th
isim
pliestha
tinterventi
onbyi.e
.,ap
plying
fertilizersw
hetherorgan
icorino
rgan
ic
andirrigati
onboo
stsp
rodu
ctivityand
eventua
lcropyields.
Inte
rven
tion
Wei
ght (
gram
s)
Tota
l ha
rves
t (g
ram
s)
Aver
age
Wei
ght
(gra
ms)
Fertigatio
nBa
nd A
3381
1662
3249
3414
2566
1837
1542
2443
3214
2447
2860
3215
2443
2113
3215
3058
4265
926
66.1
9Ba
nd B
2375
2222
2571
2827
2891
2373
3185
2579
2623
1849
3171
2942
2112
4238
3795
825
93.8
5Irrigati
on
man
ual
fertilizer
Band
A32
7232
2824
9726
1524
3725
5327
0828
9524
12
28
7327
490
2735
.22
Band
B27
9325
3120
7920
2421
3112
4324
31
24
8817
720
2176
.00
Irrigati
onno
Fertilizer
Band
A19
6717
4821
3921
6518
3819
77
2786
1462
019
72.3
3Ba
nd B
2118
1985
2017
2311
365
1932
1072
817
59.2
0Fertilizerno
irrigati
on
Band
A18
5313
6719
4718
1422
8210
3166
445
8
1180
1259
614
27.0
0Ba
nd B
1856
1628
1145
1375
1406
1925
9335
1482
.00
No interven
tion
Band
A84
372
033
189
590
657
750
671
440
5
11
3170
2865
5.22
Band
B91
063
155
250
646
710
8357
211
35
1257
7113
732.
00
Page 14
4.2.1 Microbialsafetyofcabbagessubjectedtofertigation
Table10:Microbialsafetyofcabbagesubjectedtofertigation
Sample No. Description Aerobic plate count (CFU/g)*
Total Coliforms(CFU/g)
Faecal Coliforms(CFU/g)
E.Coli (FCU/g)
Salmonella ssp(in 25g)
1 Organicfertilizer
6.5 x 104 4.5 x 103 2.4 x 102 9.0 x 101 Negative
2 Organicfertilizer
4.5 x 104 2.0 x 101 1.0 x 101 ˂10 Positive
3 Organicfertilizer
1.2 x 104 4 x 101 ˂10 ˂10 Negative
4 Inorganicfertilizer
1.2 x 105 2.5 x 103 5.0 x 102 5.0 x 101 Negative
5 Inorganicfertilizer
1.2 x 105 5.5 x 101 1.0 x 101 1.0 x 101 Negative
Remarks(Basedonguidelinesforready-to-eatvegetables
Rangesof104-107werereported
Countsofupto 104CFU/gwerereported
˂20CFU/g:Satisfactory20to˂100CFU/g:Acceptableif˃100CFU/g:Unacceptable
˂100CFU/g:SatisfactoryIf2/5samplesarewithin100–1000CFU/g:AcceptableIf˃100CFU/g:Unacceptable
Satisfactoryifabsentin25g
*CFU/g=colonyformingunitspergramofsample
Fromtable10above,aerobicplatecountswereinnormalrangeforreadytoeatvegetables.TotalColiformsrangedbetween2.0 x 101- 4.5 x 103CFU/g. Total Coliformswere reported at levels of up to 104CFU/ginready-to-eatvegetablemixes.Countof faecalcoliformswasunacceptableforsomesampledcabbages(table 10). E.Coli countswerewithin acceptable limits for ready-to-eat vegetables.Oneof the cabbagesunderorganicfertilizerapplicationcontainedSalmonellaspp.PresenceofSalmonellasspin25gofasampleobtainedfromamong5unitsissufficienttomakethebatchunacceptable.Theseresultsjustifiedtheneedtorepeattheexperimentwithemphasisonestablishingthepossiblecauseofsalmonellasspinoneofthecabbagesamples.
4.3. Cost analysisTable11and12belowgiveadetailanalysisofcoststhatafarmerwouldincurandtheanticipatedprofits,it isapparentthat thefarmerswouldmakemoreprofitsbyapply inorganic fertilizersanddrip irrigation.Usingurineanddrip irrigation isequallygoodgiventhaturine isacquiredfreeofcharge. Inplotswherefertilizerswereappliedwithoutirrigationandwhereirrigationwasdonewithoutfertilizers,thereturnswereinnegativesimplyingthatthefarmerwouldincurlosses.Itisimportanttonotehoweverthat;expenditureonirrigationsystemsisaoneoffinvestmentthatwouldnotkeeprecurringandthiswouldeventuallybringtheexpendituresdowntotheadvantageofthefarmer.
Page 15
Table11:FarminputsinUgandashillings
In put Fertigation Irrigation manualIrrigation no fertilizer
Fertilizer no irrigation Control
Band A Band B Band A Band B Band A Band B Band A Band BBand
A Band BFertilizers 3,850 3,850 3,850 3,850 3,850Labour 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000Irrigationsystems 26,250 26,250 26,250 26,250 26,250 26,250Totalexpenditure 35,100 31,250 35,100 35,100 31,250 31,250 8,850 8,850 5,000 5,000
Table12:ProjectedincomeandprofitinUgandashillings
InterventionPlanted cabbages
Actual yields
Average weight
Market price Expenditure
Projected income
Projected profit
Fertigationinorganic 16 16 2666.19 2,962 35,100 47,399 12,299Organicfertigation 16 14 2593.85 2,882 31,250 40,349 9,099Irrigation,manualfertilizer,band1 16 12 2735.22 3,039 35,100 36,470 1,370Irrigation,manualfertilizer,band2 16 8 2176 2,418 35,100 19,342 -15,758irrigation,nofertilizer,band1 16 7 1972.33 2,191 31,250 15,340 -15,910irrigation,nofertilizer,band2 16 5 1759.2 1,955 31,250 9,773 -21,477Fertilizer,noirrigation,band1 16 8 1427 1,586 8,850 12,684 3,834Fertilizer,noirrigation,band2 16 5 1482 1,647 8,850 8,233 -617Noirrigation,nofertilizer,band1 16 10 655.22 728 5,000 7,280 2,280Noirrigation,nofertilizer,band2 16 9 732 813 5,000 7,320 2,320
Page 16
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1. Conclusions Practically,itisaworthinvestmentforanordinaryUgandanfarmertocarryoutfarmingusingdripirrigationtechnologyandurineasasourceofmanureifhe/sheistobreakthroughwithfarming.Thetechnologyreliesonmaterialslocallyavailablei.e.,plasticbacketsandaftersetup,itdoesnotrequireanyspecializedskills.Allthatisrequiredisapersonmanuallyfillingthebucketswithwateronschedule.Usingthetechnologyforthefirsttime,returnsmightbeinadquatebecauseofthecostsincuredoninstallingtheirrigationsystemhowevertheycanbemaximizedthefollowingperiodskeepinginmindthatthedripirrigationkitispurchasedonceandworksforacoupleofseasons.Itisapparentthatapplyingurineinisolationofirrigationorirrigationwithoutfertigationwouldnotguaranteebestresults. It isthus importantthatthetwoi.e., irrigationandfertigationareappliedsimultaneously.Thesetwointerventionsarestillnotenoughtostandaloneandgivebestfarmresults.Thereisneedtocontroldiseaseswhichwouldattacktheplantatanytimeduringgrowthperiodasevidencedinthisexperiment.However,thiswasasmallprojecttodrawconclusiveconclusions.
5.2. RecommendationsATC should carry out a bigger project to concretize the findings to create evidence especially on safetyof products and viability of technology for promotion among the local farming communities. Doing theexperimentincollaborationwithfarmersinthemodelvillagewillgiveabreadthofresults.
ATCshouldalsocarryoutlaboratorytestsonurinetoascertainitssafetybeforeapplicationasfertilizers.
Forsubsequentexperiments,Plotsneednottobelocatednexttoeachotherbecauseintheeventofdiseaseattackiteasilyspreadover.Thereisneedtoprovideforbufferzonesbetweenexperiments.
Page 17
References BalmFord (2007). Mineral fertilizers increase plant yield. In: International fertilizer industry, ed. 2007
Fertilizers best management practices: General Principles, strategy for their adoption and voluntary initiative versus Regulation, Paris France. International fertilizer industry. ch.2.
DWD (1995). Directorate of Water Development, “Uganda Water Action Plan: Rapid Water Resources Assessment”
EcosanRes (2008). Guidelines on the Use of Urine and Faeces in Crop Production. Stockholm Environment Institute: Sweden. www.ecosanres.org
FAO (2000). Fertilizers and their use. 4th ed. Rome: International Fertilizer Industry Association. ISBN 92-5-104414-7.
Gollin Douglas, Williams College, Richard Rogerson (2010). Agriculture, roads, and economic development in Uganda. Arizona state university. http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&sourceid=navclient&gfns=1&q=Falkenmark+and+Rockstr%C3%B6m+%282004%29
Kwanchai A. Gomez, Arturo A. Gomez, (1984). Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. 2nd e.d. Laguna, Philippines: International rice science institute.
Mbowa, S., et al (2013).Why a fertilizer policy for Uganda: Economic Policy Review Commission. Available at: http://www.eprc.or.ug/pdf_files/Eprcposter_no1.pdf .
Meyer Jan, Peter Rein, Peter Turner, Kathryn Mathias, Mike Copeland (2011). Good management practices manual for the cane sugar industry (final). International finance corporation, PGBI Sugar and Bio energy (pty) ltd.
NEMA (2001). State of Environment Report 2000 National Environment Management Agency. Kampala:Uganda
Rugumayo, A. I, Kiiza, N & Shima, J (2003). Rainfall Reliability for crop production: A case study of Uganda. A paper presented at the Diffuse pollution Conference Dublin 2003.
Sijali Isaya. V (2001). Drip irrigation system an option for small holder farmers in Eastern and Southern Africa, Hand book series 24, Regional Land Management Unit, ISBN 9966-896-77-5.
Westnet (2008). Human urine harvesting and utilization as organic fertilizer. Accessed at www.westnetindia.org/fileadmin/attachments/newsletters/august 08/urineharvesting.pdf
Wilson. C & Baue. M (2005). Drip Irrigation for Home Gardens: Fact Sheet No. 4.702. Gardening Series|Basics. Colorado State University. Accessed at http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/garden/04702.pdf
Page 18
Page 19
Appropriate Technology Centre (ATC) for water and sanitationUpper Kauga, Prison Road, Mukono
P.O. Box 748 Mukono, UgandaTelephone: +256 (0) 414 690806
Email: atc.mwe@gmail.com http://www.atc.washuganda.net
Recommended