The following explains the methodology behind the utilisation of the agricultural tools of Draught Animal Power (DAP) planters and weeders. Traditional methods and the specific DAP planter and weed features are highlighted. The advantages and disadvantages are additionally specified which include labour saving, livelihood resilience strengthening, equipment, skills, cost and risks.

 Description

1. Traditional methods

• Broadcast seed onto tilled soil and then harrow it using draught animals or livestock to trample the seed into the soil.
• Dribble the seed into furrow behind the plough every third or fourth pass, depending on row spacing.

2. Features of DAP planter

• Animal drawn implements for sowing and fertilizer distribution are less common than cultivation equipment.
• The planter is pulled by animals, working in rows and places seeds just below the soil surface.
• Machines are available to plant one, two or three rows at a time.
• Draught animal planter requires fewer animals than ploughing.
• Fertilizing can be carried out at the same time as planting;
  • Care should be taken regarding the placement of the fertilizer in relation to the seed to prevent burning of the seed and to maximize its effectiveness.
  • The fertilizer should be placed around 4 cm to the side and 5 cm below the seed.
• The DAP planters and fertilizers used for conservation agriculture are similar to those used for conventional tillage, with the exception of the opening blade.
  • A ripper tine suitable for penetration into dry untilled soil covered with stubble or rubbish.
  • They can also be used for planting into conventionally ploughed soil.

3. Features of DAP weeder

• The machine is pulled by draught animals, working between rows, and cuts the weeds just below the soil surface using a tine.
  • The most cost common tines are duck-foot tines with horizontal blades on either side of the central tine.
• The conventional mouldboard plough is a very good weeder as it completely inverts the soil covering and killing most weeds.
• The mouldboard can also be removed from a mouldboard plough and the implement used as a non-inverting weeder.
  • This loosens the weeds and allows them to be pulled out easily and left on the surface to die.

Figure 1. Draught Animal Power (DAP) planters and weeders

©FAO/TECA

4. Advantages

4.1 Labour saving

• Work rate is over five times faster than planting by hand and requires few animals.
• If fertilizing is carried out at the same time as planting, the work rate is around ten times faster.
• Planters facilitate planting in rows which, in turn, enables inter-row planting and inter-row weeding with draught animals, thereby saving labour and time.

4.2 Livelihood resilience strengthening

• The practice enables timely planting and weeding.
• Fertilizer is placed accurately in relation to seed.
• This will benefit the production and increase the potential crop yield with all the associated benefits in terms of food security and income.

4.3 Equipment

• The practice facilitates the use of conservation agriculture systems because the planter is able to plant into dry untilled soil covered with stubble or mulch.
• Weeders are relatively easy to manufacture if the equipment supply for other DAP equipment is already in place.

5. Disadvantages

5.1 Labour

• There are potential increases in workloads for weeding if the planter is used to increase the cropped area.

5.2 Equipment

• Skilled local manufacture or importation is required for planters because of the complex metering mechanism.

5.3 Skills

• Skilled operators are required and training of animals is required.

5.4 Cost

• The practice is relatively expensive (USD 500) compared to hand tools.
• This is a barrier to poor communities in acquiring them if finance schemes are not in place.

5.5 Risk

• In regions where there are frequent crop failures due to lack of rain, farmers often minimize their financial risk by applying fertilizers only when it rains.
• A switch to fertilizing at the same time as planting increases the financial risk they are exposed to.
• Animals have low productivity due to poor feeding and ill health, and are unable to complete the task effectively.

6. Agro-ecological zones

• Tropics, warm.

7. Related/associated technologies

• Draught animal power technologies in East Africa: ID 4535.
• Development of tools for draught animals: ID 4483.
• Labour-saving technologies and practices: draught animal power and implements: ID 7306.
• Improving the productivity of draught animal power in sub-Saharan Africa: ID 4467.
• Labour-saving technologies and practices: draught animal powered and motorised crop processing: ID 7307.
• Labour-saving technologies and practices: draught animal powered groundnut lifter: 7309.
• Labour-saving technologies and practices: Pack animals and animal drawn carts: ID 7311.

8. Objectives fulfilled by the project 

8.1 Labour saving technology (LST)

The practice increases the work rate speed, requires fewer animals, and facilitates row planing.  

8.2 Pro-poor technology

The practice improves production and crop yield through accurate fertilization, timely planting and weeding. The practice is also easy to use.