Photo showing pigs tethered for animal manure. (Issa Aiga)

Intensive Pig farming for soil fertility improvement and household income (Uganda)

Gwoko Opego Kidyang Pi Yubu Moc can

Description

Pigs are kept to produce manure used for soil fertility improvement and household income.

Pig farming has become a popular and lucrative business among farmers in Northern Uganda. It is considered to be a quick means of improving soil fertility and household incomes, thus improving land productivity and reducing poverty.

Pigs are normally fed reguraly on maize bran purchased or maize grain produced as the most common food ration but could also benefit from having a ratio with protein from soybeans produced on farm, and home-made feeds mainly in the form of cassava, brew waste and potatoes as well as adequate supply of drinking water for purposes of fattening, animal manure and income provision.

10-12 pigs are kept in a pen measuring 6 to 8 m wide, 8 m long and 3.5 m high with a space for feeding and bedding. The materials needed for constructing the pen are iron sheets, wood, and nails. Sanitation in pig farming is important in order to keep the pigs disease-free. Therefore, a mechanism for easy cleaning and removal of waste is necessary for any type of pig housing using sawdust. The farmer uses simple local brooms, basins, and buckets to clean and remove manure on a daily basis and applied in nearby gardens
After five to seven months, pigs are likely to have attained an ideal market weight of more than 70 – 100kg. The farmer may decide to sell or slaughter for meat. Compared to most livestock species, pigs have a higher turnover rate due to a shorter gestation period in addition to providing manure which the farmer applies on the gardens to increase soil fertility for increased food production. Pigs also have higher returns on investment due to a larger litter size and higher feed conversion ratio. These factors make pig farming a more profitable livestock enterprise, since more meat is produced and sold in a shorter period, relative to other domestic animals.
However, the farmer needs to be aware that pigs are easily attacked by bacteria and virus related diseases, which result into diarrhoea, leading to death. Treatment requires high-level skills, which may need the attention of an extension worker to provide advisory services and treatment in case they fall sick.

Location

Location: Northern Region,Uganda, Uganda

No. of Technology sites analysed: single site

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • 33.10022, 3.16303

Spread of the Technology: applied at specific points/ concentrated on a small area

In a permanently protected area?:

Date of implementation: 2015; less than 10 years ago (recently)

Type of introduction
Photo showing pigs kept to produce manure used for soil fertility improvement and household income. (Issa Aiga)
-

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
  • Improve learning with the community on tithered livestock mangement for manure
Land use

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
  • chemical soil deterioration - Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content (not caused by erosion)
  • biological degradation - Bc: reduction of vegetation cover
SLM group
  • integrated crop-livestock management
  • integrated soil fertility management
  • Piggery
SLM measures
  • agronomic measures - A2: Organic matter/ soil fertility
  • structural measures - S9: Shelters for plants and animals
  • management measures - M6: Waste management (recycling, re-use or reduce)

Technical drawing

Technical specifications
None
Author: Pito Alex

Establishment and maintenance: activities, inputs and costs

Calculation of inputs and costs
  • Costs are calculated: per Technology area (size and area unit: less than 0.05 acre, 6 to 8 m wide, 8 m long and 3.5 m high)
  • Currency used for cost calculation: UGX
  • Exchange rate (to USD): 1 USD = 3400.0 UGX
  • Average wage cost of hired labour per day: 7000
Most important factors affecting the costs
Labour takes most of the costs because its required regularly during establishment and maintenance.
Establishment activities
  1. Select site where to put pigs (Timing/ frequency: Once before establishment)
  2. Build a pen for pigs (Timing/ frequency: Once before establishment)
  3. Look for inputs (Timing/ frequency: Once during estabslsihment/ routine)
  4. Purchase pigs (Timing/ frequency: Once during establsihment)
  5. Put pigs in the pen (Timing/ frequency: Once during establlsihment)
  6. Feedding pigs (Timing/ frequency: Daily)
  7. Watering pigs (Timing/ frequency: Daily)
  8. Spraying pigs (Timing/ frequency: Weekly)
Establishment inputs and costs (per less than 0.05 acre, 6 to 8 m wide, 8 m long and 3.5 m high)
Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (UGX) Total costs per input (UGX) % of costs borne by land users
Labour
Persons days on monthly basis persons 4.0 210000.0 840000.0 100.0
Equipment
Nails kgs 10.0 2500.0 25000.0 100.0
Hoes Pieces 1.0 10000.0 10000.0 100.0
Spade Pieces 1.0 10000.0 10000.0 100.0
Wheel barrow Pieces 1.0 75000.0 75000.0 100.0
Iron sheets pieces 6.0 20000.0 120000.0 100.0
Fertilizers and biocides
Pestcide litres 5.0 15000.0 75000.0
Construction material
Poles Pieces 20.0 5000.0 100000.0 100.0
wood pieces 15.0 5000.0 75000.0 100.0
Other
Feeds on weekly basis kgs 100.0 3000.0 300000.0 100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology 1'630'000.0
Maintenance activities
  1. Cleaning and removing manure (Timing/ frequency: Daily)
  2. Giving drinking water to pigs (Timing/ frequency: Daily)
  3. Spraying the pigs (Timing/ frequency: Weekly)
  4. Feeding the pigs (Timing/ frequency: Daily)
  5. Manure application in the field to improve soil fertility (Timing/ frequency: Weekly)
Maintenance inputs and costs (per less than 0.05 acre, 6 to 8 m wide, 8 m long and 3.5 m high)
Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (UGX) Total costs per input (UGX) % of costs borne by land users
Labour
persons days on monthly basis persons 4.0 210000.0 840000.0 100.0
100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology 840'000.0

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
Average annual rainfall in mm: 1200.0
Two rainy seasons.
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?
  • Yes
  • No

Occurrence of flooding
  • Yes
  • No
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
good
education

poor
good
technical assistance

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

poor
good
markets

poor
good
energy

poor
good
roads and transport

poor
good
drinking water and sanitation

poor
good
financial services

poor
good

Impacts

Socio-economic impacts
Crop production
decreased
increased

Quantity before SLM: 0
Quantity after SLM: 250kgs
Manure application on the maize field to improve soil fertility.

crop quality
decreased
increased


Especially maize.

fodder production
decreased
increased


For feeding the pigs.

animal production
decreased
increased


Good feeding/purchase after sell of maize.

land management
hindered
simplified


manure application.

drinking water quality
decreased
increased

water quality for livestock
decreased
increased

Quantity before SLM: 0
Quantity after SLM: 1 water harvesting tank
to be used for drinking by the pigs.

expenses on agricultural inputs
increased
decreased


Spend on pesticides.

farm income
decreased
increased

Quantity before SLM: 0
Quantity after SLM: 800000
sale of maize and 2 pigs.

workload
increased
decreased


Looking after pigs and maize on farm.

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


Especially with the harvest of maize.

SLM/ land degradation knowledge
reduced
improved


Training on planting maize, feeding the pigs and manure application in the maize field.

Ecological impacts
soil cover
reduced
improved


Animal manure application in the maize field.

soil loss
increased
decreased


Zero grazing avoiding overgrazing.

soil organic matter/ below ground C
decreased
increased


Due to application of manure.

vegetation cover
decreased
increased


Zero grazing.

beneficial species (predators, earthworms, pollinators)
decreased
increased


Pigs.

pest/ disease control
decreased
increased


Support from extension workers.

Off-site impacts
damage on neighbours' fields
increased
reduced


Zero grazing as pigs are destructive.

Cost-benefit analysis

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

Long-term returns
very negative
very positive

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

Long-term returns
very negative
very positive

Short term- High costs on labour and inputs. Long term - Low costs required only for labour to maintain the technology.

Climate change

Gradual climate change
annual temperature increase

not well at all
very well
seasonal temperature increase

not well at all
very well
Season: wet/ rainy season

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
5
Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?
  • Yes
  • No
To which changing conditions?
  • climatic change/ extremes
  • changing markets
  • labour availability (e.g. due to migration)
Planted Agroforestry trees ( avocado and calliandra) as feed supplement.

Conclusions and lessons learnt

Strengths: land user's view
  • Can easily be replicated in some other areas.
  • Cheap to maintain once established: require low costs for maintenance.
  • Provide manure which is applied on farm for increased maize production.
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • Rewarding to both small and scale land users in terms of Income from the sale of pigs.
  • Provide manure for maize production.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
  • Expensive to feed during the dry season: costly due to shortage of feeds. Promote alternative farm feeds on farm e.g avocado and calliandra trees.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
  • Easily attacked by bacteria and virus related diseases which result into constant Diarrhoea. Improve hygiene.
  • Intensive Labour. Use both family labour.
  • Requires some capital which may not be available with the land user who may want to start. Form saving and loans group/ association.
    Access agricultural loans for farmers and pay after sale of pigs.

References

Compiler
  • Kamugisha Rick Nelson
Editors
  • JOY TUKAHIRWA
  • Sunday Balla Amale
  • Richard Otto Kawawa
  • Bernard Fungo
Reviewer
  • Donia Mühlematter
  • Drake Mubiru
  • Nicole Harari
  • Renate Fleiner
Date of documentation: June 10, 2017
Last update: March 22, 2019
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