A better pump?
While studying the diagram of the water-lifting device (the rope-washer pump) in your last issue, I was struck by the idea of the very simple modification.
The problem is that, to work, the pump would need between 70-100cm of water. This depth of water may not always be available. If the direction of the drive is reversed and the pipe put on the bottom, instead of the top, water could be raised from a depth of only 2-3cm in a water-course.
Rod Mill, UK
Robert Lambert replies:
This raises a good point. I can see no reason why this would not work. However, the advantage of being able to pump from shallower water may not be so great, as the present system will allow water under 10 cm to be collected. Usually, when there is so little water left in a well, it is better to wait for the well to recharge. Another advantage with this suggestion is that the returning rope would be free of obstacles, reducing wear.
But the disadvantages would be that the pipe outlet would be lower, making collection, and particularly distribution, of the water more difficult. If, to compensate for this, the pump axle is raised, it would be more difficult to turn the handle, unless a platform (which women might be unwilling to mount) was used.
I will suggest the idea to pump-makers and trainers. We will see how they respond.
Robert A Lambert
The diagram of the pump in Issue No. 7 included a complicated support in the water. In fact, a simple support of bent wire with a glass bottle acting as a non-rotating pulley is quite effective.
Handling skills
Thank you for sending Footsteps. I have gained a lot, especially on the side of agriculture, Bible Study and health education. Since the magazine is dealing with community, I have obtained a lot of skill on how I can handle them, both in meetings and groups. So I ask you to keep sending it to me. I was also very glad when I saw the photo of our tree nursery. (Footsteps No. 5)
Koileken ole Santeto, Narok, Kenya
Demonstration plots
Firstly let me say how much I appreciate Footsteps magazine. I hope there is no copyright on the material, as we are currently producing a series of simple booklets in Creole, and many of the articles and illustrations are being translated for this purpose.
Last year, plans were made to establish projects in four centres to stimulate agricultural development. These included church demonstration plots where vegetables would be grown between fruit trees, firewood and timber-producing trees. However, we advised that demonstration plots were usually not a good idea so they were dropped from the plans.
My colleagues and I were therefore a little surprised to read Dr Julian Evan’s statement in Footsteps No.5: “Nothing succeeds like success and good demonstration plots can stimulate enquiries and interest.”
Do other readers have strong feelings on this subject? We would be very interested to hear about other experiences.
Ian Wallace. IEGB, Guinea Bissau
Jerry Adams (Tear Fund) replies:
Demonstration plots can often seem very remote from local farmers. They often assume that farmers will be able to copy all their experiments – for example using hybrid varieties with the necessary fertilisers and chemicals. It is much more realistic to have small plots on the farmer’s own land. In West Africa there have been a number of studies looking at how farmers themselves experiment using different varieties and methods on their own land. It seems likely that it would be much better to encourage this process than set up separate demonstration plots.
Jerry Adams
The Editor adds:
This has also been our experience. Church or project-based demonstration plots may well attract interest but, if they are successful people say: “That’s all very well, but they have more…time, money, fertiliser, water, better seed, etc. It wouldn’t work on my land.” A poor demonstration plot is a disaster and may do great harm in losing people’s confidence and interest in any new ideas. Making sure that demonstration plots are always good may use up a lot of time, which might be better spent with local farmers.