The high production fodder plot yielding about 8-10 t/ha of high quality hay (Gulniso Nekushoeva (Dushanbe Tajikistan))

Growing of fodder crops on steep slopes in arid highlands (Tajikistan)

Парвариши алафхои бисьерсола (юнучка) дар нишебихои ростфуромадагии минтакахои баландкухои хушк

Description

Cultivation of fodder crops (alfa-аlfa) on irrigated slopes of 60% steepness in the arid mountainous area of the Western Pamirs (Vanj valley).

In 1993, in the Vanj district all land suitable for tilling was already occupied, only steep slopes were uncultivated. However, one innovative land user began to set up on a slope with 60% steepness, a 3 ha plot for intensive grass / fodder production through his own initiative. By the application of irrigation, within 3-5 years the very low productive grazing land was converted into a highly productive and sustainable cut-and-carry system. The technology is very effective in these ecological conditions for rapid rehabilitation of degraded lands. Over the 18 years of on-going fodder production on the plot, the pure alfa-alfa culture transformed into a grass-bean mixture, which provides even better soil cover and soil conservation.

Purpose of the Technology: The main purpose is secured fodder production for keeping livestock in the winter time. Despite the steep slope of 60%, and low-productive soils, by applying irrigation, the farmer gets three harvests of hay per season, amounting to about 8-12 ton of high quality fodder. Thus, over all these years, the farmer has had no problems producing sufficient fodder for his livestock.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: The establishment of such a plot is very labour-intensive. However, within 3-4 years the productivity of the land improves several times over. High yields of high quality hay can be obtained within the short term, and the labour intensive activities are mostly needed just within the first year of establishment. Thus, many farmers have been attracted to apply this technology.

Natural / human environment: The plot described is situated in the village of Ravgada, Jamoat Teharv in Vanj district. Vanj is one of the two districts of GBAO with favourable agro-climatic conditions. But even here the natural fertility of the stony soils is low, especially on pasture lands with sparse vegetation. Due to the high aridity, farming is not possible without irrigation. The main income of the population is from livestock and the sale of nuts and fruits. All families that have recently become independent farmers, had mostly lands on steep slopes allocated to them. These families have therefore been applying the described technology with minor variations depending on the topography of their land.

Location

Location: Vanch / Ravgada, Tajikistan / GBAO, Tajikistan

No. of Technology sites analysed:

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • 71.7317, 38.5336

Spread of the Technology: evenly spread over an area (approx. < 0.1 km2 (10 ha))

In a permanently protected area?:

Date of implementation: 10-50 years ago

Type of introduction
Intensive fodder production on irrigated land in a cut-and-carry system on a slope with 60% steepness (Gulniso Nekushoeva (Dushanbe Tajikistan))

Classification of the Technology

Main purpose
  • improve production
  • reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
  • conserve ecosystem
  • protect a watershed/ downstream areas – in combination with other Technologies
  • preserve/ improve biodiversity
  • reduce risk of disasters
  • adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts
  • mitigate climate change and its impacts
  • create beneficial economic impact
  • create beneficial social impact
Land use

  • Cropland
    • Annual cropping: legumes and pulses - beans, fodder crops - alfalfa
    • Perennial (non-woody) cropping
    Number of growing seasons per year: 1
  • Grazing land
    • Cut-and-carry/ zero grazing
  • Forest/ woodlandsProducts and services: Fruits and nuts
Water supply
  • rainfed
  • mixed rainfed-irrigated
  • full irrigation

Purpose related to land degradation
  • prevent land degradation
  • reduce land degradation
  • restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land
  • adapt to land degradation
  • not applicable
Degradation addressed
  • soil erosion by water - Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion, Wg: gully erosion/ gullying
  • chemical soil deterioration - Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content (not caused by erosion)
  • biological degradation - Bc: reduction of vegetation cover
  • water degradation - Ha: aridification
SLM group
  • improved ground/ vegetation cover
  • improved plant varieties/ animal breeds
SLM measures
  • agronomic measures - A1: Vegetation/ soil cover
  • vegetative measures - V2: Grasses and perennial herbaceous plants
  • structural measures - S3: Graded ditches, channels, waterways
  • management measures - M1: Change of land use type

Technical drawing

Technical specifications

Establishment and maintenance: activities, inputs and costs

Calculation of inputs and costs
  • Costs are calculated:
  • Currency used for cost calculation: somoni
  • Exchange rate (to USD): 1 USD = 4.53 somoni
  • Average wage cost of hired labour per day: 6.60
Most important factors affecting the costs
The steepness of the slope.
Establishment activities
  1. Clearing the site of stones (Timing/ frequency: before plowing)
  2. Clearing the site of stones (Timing/ frequency: before plowing)
  3. plowing the land using ox (Timing/ frequency: Spring / 1 time in 19 years)
  4. plowing the land using ox (Timing/ frequency: Spring / 1 time in 19 years)
  5. Purchasing fertilisers(50 kg=150s) (Timing/ frequency: None)
  6. Purchasing fertilisers(50 kg=150s) (Timing/ frequency: None)
  7. Applying fertilisers (Timing/ frequency: before sowing)
  8. Applying fertilisers (Timing/ frequency: before sowing)
  9. alfa-alfa seeds (Timing/ frequency: None)
  10. alfa-alfa seeds (Timing/ frequency: None)
  11. planting (sowing) alfalfa (Timing/ frequency: None)
  12. planting (sowing) alfalfa (Timing/ frequency: None)
  13. watering the field (Timing/ frequency: None)
  14. watering the field (Timing/ frequency: None)
  15. Construction of main irrigation canal(pipes water from a spring) (Timing/ frequency: None)
  16. Construction of main irrigation canal(pipes water from a spring) (Timing/ frequency: None)
  17. Purchasing of pipes20 Ø= 50cm x 6m1=100$ (Timing/ frequency: None)
  18. Purchasing of pipes20 Ø= 50cm x 6m1=100$ (Timing/ frequency: None)
  19. installation of pipesover a length of 120m (Timing/ frequency: None)
  20. installation of pipesover a length of 120m (Timing/ frequency: None)
  21. Construction ofirrigation network on site (Timing/ frequency: before sowing)
  22. Construction ofirrigation network on site (Timing/ frequency: before sowing)
  23. stabilisation of irrigation canals with stones collected from the fields (Timing/ frequency: after plowing)
  24. stabilisation of irrigation canals with stones collected from the fields (Timing/ frequency: after plowing)
Establishment inputs and costs
Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (somoni) Total costs per input (somoni) % of costs borne by land users
Labour
Clearing the site of stones Persons/day 10.0 30.0 300.0 100.0
Plowing the land with ox Persons/day 9.0 180.0 1620.0 100.0
Applying Fertilizer/planting alfalfa/watering Persons/day 13.0 30.0 390.0 100.0
Construction of irrigation pipes Persons/day 304.0 30.0 9120.0 100.0
Equipment
Purchasing of pipes 20 Ø= 50cm x 6m 1=100$ pipes 20.0 453.0 9060.0 100.0
Labour: Constructing and stabilizing irrigation network (3km) Persons/day 450.0 30.0 13500.0 100.0
Plant material
Alfa-alfa seeds kg 48.0 20.0 960.0 100.0
Fertilizers and biocides
Fertilizer kg 500.0 3.0 1500.0 100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology 36'450.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD 8'046.36
Maintenance activities
  1. watering the field10 times per vegetation period (5 month).Once, every 9 days for 3 ha. (Timing/ frequency: during vegetation period)
  2. cutting of alfa-alfa and natural grass (Timing/ frequency: 3 times per year)
  3. Repairing and cleaning of the main irrigation canal from sediments and debris (Timing/ frequency: Before the irrigation season in spring)
  4. repairing and cleaning of the irrigation network from sediment and branches on an overall area of 3 ha (Timing/ frequency: Before the irrigation season in spring)
Maintenance inputs and costs
Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (somoni) Total costs per input (somoni) % of costs borne by land users
Labour
watering the field 10 times per vegetation period Persons/day 90.0 30.0 2700.0 100.0
cutting of alfa-alfa and natural grass Persons/day 45.0 30.0 1350.0 100.0
Cleaning irrigation network and canal Persons/day 12.0 30.0 360.0 100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology 4'410.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD 973.51

Natural environment

Average annual rainfall
  • < 250 mm
  • 251-500 mm
  • 501-750 mm
  • 751-1,000 mm
  • 1,001-1,500 mm
  • 1,501-2,000 mm
  • 2,001-3,000 mm
  • 3,001-4,000 mm
  • > 4,000 mm
Agro-climatic zone
  • humid
  • sub-humid
  • semi-arid
  • arid
Specifications on climate
Thermal climate class: subtropics
Slope
  • flat (0-2%)
  • gentle (3-5%)
  • moderate (6-10%)
  • rolling (11-15%)
  • hilly (16-30%)
  • steep (31-60%)
  • very steep (>60%)
Landforms
  • plateau/plains
  • ridges
  • mountain slopes
  • hill slopes
  • footslopes
  • valley floors
Altitude
  • 0-100 m a.s.l.
  • 101-500 m a.s.l.
  • 501-1,000 m a.s.l.
  • 1,001-1,500 m a.s.l.
  • 1,501-2,000 m a.s.l.
  • 2,001-2,500 m a.s.l.
  • 2,501-3,000 m a.s.l.
  • 3,001-4,000 m a.s.l.
  • > 4,000 m a.s.l.
Technology is applied in
  • convex situations
  • concave situations
  • not relevant
Soil depth
  • very shallow (0-20 cm)
  • shallow (21-50 cm)
  • moderately deep (51-80 cm)
  • deep (81-120 cm)
  • very deep (> 120 cm)
Soil texture (topsoil)
  • coarse/ light (sandy)
  • medium (loamy, silty)
  • fine/ heavy (clay)
Soil texture (> 20 cm below surface)
  • coarse/ light (sandy)
  • medium (loamy, silty)
  • fine/ heavy (clay)
Topsoil organic matter content
  • high (>3%)
  • medium (1-3%)
  • low (<1%)
Groundwater table
  • on surface
  • < 5 m
  • 5-50 m
  • > 50 m
Availability of surface water
  • excess
  • good
  • medium
  • poor/ none
Water quality (untreated)
  • good drinking water
  • poor drinking water (treatment required)
  • for agricultural use only (irrigation)
  • unusable
Water quality refers to:
Is salinity a problem?
  • Ja
  • Nee

Occurrence of flooding
  • Ja
  • Nee
Species diversity
  • high
  • medium
  • low
Habitat diversity
  • high
  • medium
  • low

Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Market orientation
  • subsistence (self-supply)
  • mixed (subsistence/ commercial)
  • commercial/ market
Off-farm income
  • less than 10% of all income
  • 10-50% of all income
  • > 50% of all income
Relative level of wealth
  • very poor
  • poor
  • average
  • rich
  • very rich
Level of mechanization
  • manual work
  • animal traction
  • mechanized/ motorized
Sedentary or nomadic
  • Sedentary
  • Semi-nomadic
  • Nomadic
Individuals or groups
  • individual/ household
  • groups/ community
  • cooperative
  • employee (company, government)
Gender
  • women
  • men
Age
  • children
  • youth
  • middle-aged
  • elderly
Area used per household
  • < 0.5 ha
  • 0.5-1 ha
  • 1-2 ha
  • 2-5 ha
  • 5-15 ha
  • 15-50 ha
  • 50-100 ha
  • 100-500 ha
  • 500-1,000 ha
  • 1,000-10,000 ha
  • > 10,000 ha
Scale
  • small-scale
  • medium-scale
  • large-scale
Land ownership
  • state
  • company
  • communal/ village
  • group
  • individual, not titled
  • individual, titled
Land use rights
  • open access (unorganized)
  • communal (organized)
  • leased
  • individual
Water use rights
  • open access (unorganized)
  • communal (organized)
  • leased
  • individual
Access to services and infrastructure
health

poor
x
good
education

poor
x
good
technical assistance

poor
x
good
employment (e.g. off-farm)

poor
x
good
markets

poor
x
good
energy

poor
x
good
roads and transport

poor
x
good
drinking water and sanitation

poor
x
good
financial services

poor
x
good

Impacts

Socio-economic impacts
fodder production
decreased
x
increased

Quantity before SLM: None
Quantity after SLM: 8-12 t / ha

fodder quality
decreased
x
increased

animal production
decreased
x
increased

farm income
decreased
x
increased

diversity of income sources
decreased
x
increased

Socio-cultural impacts
food security/ self-sufficiency
reduced
x
improved

SLM/ land degradation knowledge
reduced
x
improved

conflict mitigation
worsened
x
improved

Ecological impacts
soil moisture
decreased
x
increased

soil cover
reduced
x
improved

soil loss
increased
x
decreased

nutrient cycling/ recharge
decreased
x
increased

soil organic matter/ below ground C
decreased
x
increased

biomass/ above ground C
decreased
x
increased

plant diversity
decreased
x
increased

animal diversity
decreased
x
increased

beneficial species (predators, earthworms, pollinators)
decreased
x
increased

habitat diversity
decreased
x
increased

emission of carbon and greenhouse gases
increased
x
decreased

Off-site impacts
downstream flooding (undesired)
increased
x
reduced

damage on neighbours' fields
increased
x
reduced

Cost-benefit analysis

Benefits compared with establishment costs
Short-term returns
very negative
x
very positive

Long-term returns
very negative
x
very positive

Benefits compared with maintenance costs
Short-term returns
very negative
x
very positive

Long-term returns
very negative
x
very positive

The largest amount of money was spent on the purchase of water pipes to bring irrigation water to the site. But the farmer says that over the long-term (18 years), he has already covered this cost.

Climate change

Gradual climate change
annual temperature increase

not well at all
x
very well
Climate-related extremes (disasters)
local rainstorm

not well at all
x
very well
local windstorm

not well at all
x
very well
drought

not well at all
x
very well
general (river) flood

not well at all
x
very well
Other climate-related consequences
reduced growing period

not well at all
x
very well

Adoption and adaptation

Percentage of land users in the area who have adopted the Technology
  • single cases/ experimental
  • 1-10%
  • 11-50%
  • > 50%
Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many have done so without receiving material incentives?
  • 0-10%
  • 11-50%
  • 51-90%
  • 91-100%
Number of households and/ or area covered
266 houshold in an area
Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?
  • Ja
  • Nee
To which changing conditions?
  • climatic change/ extremes
  • changing markets
  • labour availability (e.g. due to migration)

Conclusions and lessons learnt

Strengths: land user's view
  • For many years the farmer had no problems with fodder for his 10 cows.
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • this technology is very effective in these ecological conditions for the rapid rehabilitation of, and reduction of land degradation in these low-productivity soils.
  • Alfalfa has been grown for the last 18 years, giving a stable hay yield.
  • Over many years, the pure alfa-alfa fields became mixed with grass-bean herbs, which provide much better soild cover than alfalfa alone.
  • Despite the 60% steep slope and low-productive soils, thanks to irrigation, the farmer can harvest three yields of hay per season, which is about 8-10 ton of high quality fodder.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
  • Next year the farmer wants to plow the field and re-plant the alfalfa. He is already an old man and on such a steep slope it will be difficult
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
  • The farmer did not engage in beekeeping. Possibly because he does not have enough knowledge. the farmer should start beekeeping which can have several benefits, including ecologically clean honey and good pollination of alfalfa, which will lead to greater seed yields and greater income.

References

Compiler
  • Gulniso Nekushoeva
Editors
Reviewer
  • David Streiff
  • Alexandra Gavilano
  • Joana Eichenberger
Date of documentation: Maart 31, 2011
Last update: Nov. 2, 2021
Resource persons
Full description in the WOCAT database
Linked SLM data
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution Project
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International