1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Technology

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Ja

1.4 Declaration on sustainability of the described Technology

Is the Technology described here problematic with regard to land degradation, so that it cannot be declared a sustainable land management technology?

Nee

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Lolldaiga Hills ranch is a private ranch and conservancy with livestock production and tourism. Rotational grazing is used to manage livestock on semi-arid lands with limited water resources. Bare land is recovered by a "Boma” technology – strategic corralling of animals overnight on degraded land.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Livestock production on Lolldaiga Hills ranch is managed under an extensive grazing system for dairy, beef, sheep and camel production, with strategic fattening and selling, in harmony with conservation principles. The conservancy is dedicated to the sustainable conservation of critical habitat and wildlife. The ranch serves also as a training ground for the British Army.
Grazing is managed without fixed blocks. Grazing areas vary considerably, depending on rainfall and location within the farm. Similarly, grazing duration in one area also varies significantly (from two weeks to eight months). Starting after the long rains (April to May), livestock are moved gradually from north to south: movement only occurs when areas are completely grazed. They stay for about four months in the north and eight months in the south - due to better grass in the southern part. Some of the dry season grazing is land set aside for later use. They use, for instance, highland forests in the west where zebra and other livestock are largely absent. During the rains, grazing takes place on a much smaller area than during the dry season, where water can be a major challenge. Livestock are kept together, though steers/heifers/breeding cows/resting bulls are separated into different herds of 90-150 units per herd. But these are not tightly “bunched” as in other ranches in the area which apply “Holistic Management” principles, since bunching is not appropriate due to strong wind erosion. The closer livestock are aggregated, the more damage – that is dust generated - in dry areas. As is typical of private ranches in Laikipia, Lolldaiga supports some of the highest densities of wildlife in Kenya. The wild herbivore biomass density on private ranches is estimated by Georgiadis (2007) at 14 ha /TLU.

Whilst the livestock is moving, large bomas (corrals in Kiswahili) are constructed for the herds. Here, animals are closely together kept in protective enclosures overnight. Bomas are strategically sited on bare areas to recover the land through dung accumulation and breaking soil crusts by hooves. Currently, there are 20 bomas covering an area of 0.02 km2 (0.01% of their land). This can be taken to represent the area that can be restored each year. Boma sites are steadily but slightly shifted. On average, one boma is located on the same denuded patch for only one to two weeks during the dry season, and again for one week during the wet season.
In a single boma of 0.1 ha, 400 cows are corralled. Former bare patches with bomas have recovered well after just a few years. Results of a boma site comparison (see Herger 2018) have shown how bomas turn into ecological hotspots with a long-lasting effect. Amounts of soil organic carbon (SOC), as well as macro- and micronutrients in topsoil (especially) and subsoil of former boma sites were much higher than reference sites close-by. The chronology of former boma sites (1, 5, 9 years ago) also played a decisive role in soil parameters. Former boma sites from 5 and 9 years ago performed better than the most recent boma (1 year ago).

On the ranch, due to lack of rains, fodder supplements had to be purchased in 2016. However, it is usually water and not grazing that is the limiting factor on the rangeland.
Whereas cattle are sold to the leading meat producer "Farmer's Choice" (80% for domestic distribution, 20% for export to neighbouring countries and the Middle East), sheep are sold to East African Seafood (Nairobi) and camels to Somalis in town and local butcheries.
Lolldaiga also assists community grazing. The ranch helps neighbouring group ranches by allowing them access to their land for fattening purposes, but mostly as a grass bank during droughts (sometimes charging a small fee, sometimes none). During dry spells, they host on average 500-1000 heads from other communities. Along their fence informal (strictly "illegal") grazing of goats and sheep is tolerated.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment

Country:

Kenya

Region/ State/ Province:

Laikipia

Specify the spread of the Technology:

• evenly spread over an area

If the Technology is evenly spread over an area, specify area covered (in km2):

200.0

If precise area is not known, indicate approximate area covered:

• 100-1,000 km2

Comments:

Lolldaiga has an area size of 200 km2. Similar technologies are also applied on other ranches (see the documentations for "Il Ngwesi", "Makurian", and "Borana")

Map

×

2.6 Date of implementation

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:

• 10-50 years ago

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through land users' innovation

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• conserve ecosystem
• preserve/ improve biodiversity

3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied

Grazing land

Extensive grazing:

• Ranching

Animal type:

• camels
• sheep

• cattle

Products and services:

• meat
• milk
• whool

Species:

sheep

Count:

1800

Species:

camels

Count:

140

Settlements, infrastructure

• Settlements, buildings

Remarks:

Few facilities for tourism.
Few farm houses.

Comments:

Grassed acacia bushland. Overall rather good vegetation coverage with some patches of bare ground. Especially in the northern part Lolldaiga is effected by the invasive species "Opuntia stricta". Dominant grasses: Pennisetum species, Eragrostis species, Cynadon species, Hyparrhenia species, Kelenger species. Dominant shrubs: Solyneum inconum, Lyceum europaeum, Barleria acuthodies, Grewia tembensis, Opuntia. Dominant trees: Acacia etbaica, Acacia drepanalobium, Acacia mellifera. Detailed list of all species (vegetation and wildlife) available (Herger 2018)

Main animal species and products: Cattle, sheep, camels; Milk, wool, beef, camel meat, and lamb/ mutton. High-quality segment. Domestic (80%, Nairobi and hotels), international distribution (20%, neighbouring countries and the Middle East) Livestock: 3,920 TLU; Stocking rate: 5.1 ha/TLU Pressure on land including wildlife numbers (estimated by Georgiadis 2007): 3.7 ha/TLU Livestock numbers: 5,200 cattle, 1,800 sheep, 140 camels Sales: Cattle 20% sales, Sheep 15%, Camels 10%. Additional 1,000-2,000 livestock units from neighbouring community farms during droughts. Goats and sheep illegally grazing along the fence are tolerated. Wildlife: Giraffe, antelope/gazelle (e.g. gerenuk, impala, Thomson's gazelle), baboons, zebra, dikdik, hares, elephant and others. More wildlife than on group ranches. Wildlife herbivore biomass density (Georgiadis 2007) 14 ha/TLU

Number of growing seasons per year: 2
Short rains in November and December. Long rains in April and May. Rains from (October) November to December are usually better in this area. Rainfalls with strong local variations and changing regimes.
Livestock density: 3'920 TLU; Stocking rate: 5.1 ha/TLU, Pressure on land including wildlife numbers (estimated by Georgiadis 2007): 3.7 ha/TLU

3.4 Water supply

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:

• rainfed

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• pastoralism and grazing land management
• improved ground/ vegetation cover

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

management measures

• M2: Change of management/ intensity level
• M4: Major change in timing of activities

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

soil erosion by water

• Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion
• Wg: gully erosion/ gullying

soil erosion by wind

• Et: loss of topsoil

physical soil deterioration

• Pc: compaction
• Pk: slaking and crusting
• Pi: soil sealing

biological degradation

• Bc: reduction of vegetation cover
• Bh: loss of habitats
• Bq: quantity/ biomass decline
• Bs: quality and species composition/ diversity decline
• Bl: loss of soil life

Comments:

Across the grasslands and rangelands, an increase in bare land and bush has been a clear trend all over Laikipia for many years, both on community-owned lands and private ranches. Major identified ecological problems (partly) caused by livestock production are: bare ground, low contents of soil organic carbon and plant-available nutrients, soil erosion (sealing, crusting, rills and gullies, water flow patterns, sheet erosion, pedestals), poor soil properties, undesirable species, and (increasing) woody and invasive species. The current major problem on rangelands is the invasive species Opuntia stricta, which however only could spread that widely because of degraded land in the first place. The technology aims at improving vegetation cover of the land and thereby reducing further degradation and restoring degraded land. However, Lolldaiga is clearly not as much affected by degradation (compare Herger 2018).

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:

• reduce land degradation
• restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

Author:

Michael Herger

Date:

16/01/2018

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology unit

Specify currency used for cost calculations:

• USD

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

4.6 Costs and inputs needed for maintenance/ recurrent activities (per year)

Comments:

Animal treatment costs are estimated according to other ranches in the area since figures for Lolldaiga are missing. Figures are not reconfirmed data.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Labor

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

5.3 Soils

If available, attach full soil description or specify the available information, e.g. soil type, soil PH/ acidity, Cation Exchange Capacity, nitrogen, salinity etc.

SOC 0.9-1.8 %
pH: 6.3
Clay: 9 %
Silt: 47 %
Sand: 44 %
More rangeland health data in Herger (2018)

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

Nee

Is flooding of the area occurring?

Nee

5.5 Biodiversity

Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

Grassed acacia bushland. Overall rather good vegetation coverage with some patches of bare ground. Especially in the northern part Lolldaiga is effected by the invasive species "Opuntia stricta". Dominant grasses: Pennisetum species, Eragrostis species, Cynadon species, Hyparrhenia species, Kelenger species. Dominant shrubs: Solyneum inconum, Lyceum europaeum, Barleria acuthodies, Grewia tembensis, Opuntia. Dominant trees: Acacia etbaica, Acacia drepanalobium, Acacia mellifera. Detailed list of all species (vegetation and wildlife) available (Herger 2018)

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

5.7 Average area of land used by land users applying the Technology

5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights

Land ownership:

• individual, titled

Land use rights:

• individual

Water use rights:

• individual

Comments:

Masai in the area have claimed that land leases of white settlers have expired and the land belongs to them. Government states the land belongs to the private ranchers, but the future development is unknown. There have already been conflicts and are likely to happen again. On the other hand, cooperation with group ranches has increased.

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• single cases/ experimental

If available, quantify (no. of households and/ or area covered):

Similar practices, but different. Most ranches implement Holistic Management.

6.6 Adaptation

Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?

Nee

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Herger, M.B. (2018). Environmental Impacts of Red Meat Production. MSc Thesis. University of Bern.

Available from where? Costs?

University of Bern

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Georgiadis, N.J., Olivero, I.N., Romanach, S.S. (2007). Savanna herbivore dynamics in a livestock-dominated landscape: I. Dependence on land use, rainfall, density, and time. Biology Conservation 137(3): 461-472.

Available from where? Costs?

Online