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