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

Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

ICARDA Institutional Knowledge Management Initiative

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) - Lebanon

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

1.5 Reference to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Approaches (documented using WOCAT)

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Compressing agro-industrial by-products produces nutrient-dense livestock feed pellets that can compete with expensive and imported alternatives. This innovation consists of a small-scale compressor or "pelletizer" and formulae to create feed pellets of sufficient quality with locally available inputs.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

In Tunisia, there are many agropastoralists who are dependent on expensive and imported feed pellets to improve livestock quality and to supplement feed shortages. Risks of relative shortages are likely to increase due to climate change. Simultaneously there are many discarded by-products from (local) agrofood supply chains such as olive cakes, date kernels, and downgraded dates, which contain good levels of nutrients. ICARDA saw an opportunity and, together with local partners, a machine was imported that is able to compress nutritious by-products into pellets. In addition to the machine, ICARDA and OEP experimented with feasible inputs and different ratios, considering local availability as well. It achieved highly dense and nutritious feed pellets from local available inputs, with similar quality to the imported pellets. There are currently two pelletizers on the market, a large model with a maximum capacity of 500 kilograms of pellets per hour, and a more affordable small pelletizer producing 125 kilogram per hour. Four formulae are recommended (see section 4.1). Two have olive cake as the main ingredient and the other two have date palm by-products as the key input. All formulae have an average protein content of 17% which is higher than imported pellets. The benefits include:
-Possibility of overcoming periods of fodder shortages
-Less dependence on expensive imports and price volatility
-Source of nutritious feed and improving livestock quality while reduced feeding costs
-Less pressure on grazing land and thereby reducing land degradation
-Joint purchase and use of a pelletizer by a farmer organization, improves social cohesion
-The pellets generate income and employment for the farmer organization

However the land users have experience challenges when acquiring permits for pellet production and electricity. In addition, there may be by-products supply constraints.

Information and data presented is partly made available through the projects “CRP livestock “Feed and Forages”” funded by CGIAR, and “SWC@scale” funded by GIZ. Projects were managed by the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) and implemented in Tunisia in collaboration with the Livestock and Pasture Office (OEP). Thus far, pelletizers have been made available by the CIGAR Research Program on Livestock (3 large and 2 small) and the German Organization for International Cooperation (GIZ) (a large and 2 small).

2.3 Photos of the Technology

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

2.6 Date of implementation

Indicate year of implementation:

2019

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• during experiments/ research
• through projects/ external interventions

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts
• create beneficial economic impact
• create beneficial social impact

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

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

Ja

Specify mixed land use (crops/ grazing/ trees):

• Agro-pastoralism (incl. integrated crop-livestock)

3.3 Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

• No (Continue with question 3.4)

3.4 Water supply

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

• mixed rainfed-irrigated

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• pastoralism and grazing land management
• integrated crop-livestock management
• post-harvest measures

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Degradation by overgrazing

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

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

• reduce land degradation
• adapt to land degradation

Comments:

When land degradation reduces yields, feel pellets are able to compensate for this. In addition, the alternative of feed by pellets might reduce the pressure on the land for grazing, potentially preventing overgrazing.

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology unit

other/ national currency (specify):

Tunisian Dinar

If relevant, indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (e.g. 1 USD = 79.9 Brazilian Real): 1 USD =:

3.0

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Purchase Machine

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Equipment	Large Pelletizer		1.0	9000.0	9000.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					9000.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					3000.0

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Gather raw feed materials for inputs
2.	Compress inputs into pellets using the pelletizer
3.	Feed the pellets to livestock

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

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	Using the pelletizer	Person-hour	2.0	3.0	6.0
Plant material	Olive cake	Kilogram	340.0	0.07	23.8
Plant material	wheat bran	Kilogram	320.0	0.25	80.0
Plant material	Faba Beans	Kilogram	300.0	1.5	450.0
Plant material	Minerals	Kilogram	40.0	0.44	17.6
Other	Electricity	Kilo watt	30.0	0.3	9.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					586.4
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					195.47

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

Comments and further specifications on topography:

This innovation can be implemented in many different environments.

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.

This innovation can be implemented in many different environments.

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

Ja

Is flooding of the area occurring?

Nee

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

This innovation can be implemented in many different environments.

5.5 Biodiversity

Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

This innovation can be implemented in many different environments.

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, not titled
• individual, titled

Land use rights:

• individual

Water use rights:

• communal (organized)
• individual

Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

Ja

Specify:

Land use rights in Tunisia have a long history with religious (e.g. melk) influences and French influences. This resulted in that currently most lands are private owned or state owned

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

6.3 Exposure and sensitivity of the Technology to gradual climate change and climate-related extremes/ disasters (as perceived by land users)

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
drought	well

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• 1-10%

Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?

• 0-10%

6.6 Adaptation

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

Nee

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Pellets can be easily stored, and then be used in periods of feed shortages
Pellets are made from local and cheap inputs
The pellets have good nutritional value, similar to the more expensive and imported pellets
The pelletizer is easy to use

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Inputs can come from by-products that would otherwise be wasted
Farmers are less dependent on expensive feed imports and their volatile prices
Pellets being an alternative feed source, reduces the pressure on grazing land
The pelletizer and produced pellets improve the value chain on a local level
When the pelleizer are used in a farmer organization context, it improves the cohesion within this organization. And it provides opportunity for further investment because pellets generate additional income.

6.8 Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks of the Technology and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view	How can they be overcome?
Requires an initial investment	Improve funding schemes with banks or government to support these investments. Farmers can purchase the machine as cooperative.
Difficult to arrange permits from the government	Developing an approach by extension workers, who can then help the farmers
Difficult to get a 380 volt power supply from electricity companies	Developing an approach by extension workers, who can then help the farmers

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
By-products as inputs, might be difficult to come by if the farmers lacks the right network	Set-up a network to connect farmers with producers of suitable by-products
By-products are often only periodically available	Experiment with different inputs that are available in other period, to ensure whole-year availability

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Boubaker Dhehibi, Jebali Oussama, Aymen Frija, Udo Rudiger, Hassen Ouerghemmi, Zied Idoudi, Mourad Rekik, Monia Elayed, Anis Zaiem, Nizar Moujahed. (26/10/2022). Profitability of Manufactured Feed Pellets for Small-Scale Crop-Livestock Farmers in Tunisia. Beirut, Lebanon: International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA).

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

Udo Rudiger, Monia Aouinti. (2/6/2021). Locally manufactured feed pellets: Reducing chronic feed deficits and production costs/Les bouchons alimentaires: Réduire les déficits alimentaires chroniques et les coûts de

URL:

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/10159