Empowering Beans, Sustaining Growth!
The Low-Cost Staking practice offers innovative and affordable methods to address challenges in climbing bean cultivation, particularly the need for plant support. It focuses on reducing the use of wooden stakes by employing alternative materials and techniques such as tripod staking, wooden string trellises, and live plant support. These approaches aim to enhance yield while minimizing environmental damage caused by deforestation from excessive stake harvesting.
This technology is TAAT1 validated.
Increase in yields compared to bush beans
Staking density for highest yields
Height of stakes for highest yields
Plant population per hectare
Open source / open access
Using the Low-Cost Staking for Climbing Beans introduces innovative and affordable techniques, resulting in reduced cultivation expenses for beans. This leads to increased bean yields, thereby enhancing farmers' productivity and income. Moreover, it stimulates job creation, particularly in rural areas, by encouraging bean cultivation. Additionally, it advocates for environmentally friendly practices, reducing the reliance on deforestation for stake production and promoting environmental conservation and sustainability.
To determine the quantity of staking required for your business, consider that the optimal staking density for maximum yields is 20,000 stakes per hectare, each at least 2 meters tall. Estimate the profitability gained from implementing this technology.
Recommended species for staking include Acacia angustissima, Alnus acuminata, Bamboo, Calliandra calothyrsus, Gliricidia sepium, Sesbania sesban, Vernonia amygdalina, and Elephant grass (Pennisetum atropurpeum). Access to this technology is likely through agricultural extension services, research institutions, local farming communities, and organizations dedicated to sustainable agriculture and rural development.
Furthermore, consider integrating complementary technologies like Climbing Bean with High Yield and N Fixation to enhance operational efficiency.
Adults 18 and over: Positive medium
The poor: Positive medium
Under 18: Positive low
Women: Positive medium
Climate adaptability: Highly adaptable
Farmer climate change readiness: Moderate improvement
Biodiversity: No impact on biodiversity
Carbon footprint: Much less carbon released
Environmental health: Greatly improves environmental health
Soil quality: Does not affect soil health and fertility
Water use: A bit less water used
Country | Tested | Adopted |
---|---|---|
Benin | Tested | Adopted |
Burundi | Tested | Adopted |
Cameroon | Tested | Adopted |
Central African Republic | Tested | Adopted |
Côte d’Ivoire | Tested | Adopted |
Democratic Republic of the Congo | Tested | Adopted |
Ethiopia | Tested | Adopted |
Ghana | Tested | Adopted |
Kenya | Tested | Adopted |
Malawi | Tested | Adopted |
Mozambique | Tested | Adopted |
Nigeria | Tested | Adopted |
Rwanda | Tested | Adopted |
South Sudan | Tested | Adopted |
Tanzania | Tested | Adopted |
Uganda | Tested | Adopted |
Zambia | Tested | Adopted |
This technology can be used in the colored agro-ecological zones. Any zones shown in white are not suitable for this technology.
AEZ | Subtropic - warm | Subtropic - cool | Tropic - warm | Tropic - cool |
---|---|---|---|---|
Arid | – | – | – | – |
Semiarid | ||||
Subhumid | ||||
Humid |
Source: HarvestChoice/IFPRI 2009
The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals that are applicable to this technology.
Last updated on 22 May 2024