This technology is problematic with regard to land degradation, so it cannot be declared a sustainable land management technology
Livestock from Makurian Group Ranch (Michael Herger)
On Makurian Masai Group Ranch, livestock production management is through a combination of traditional livestock keeping practices and newly introduced management principles. Livestock production at Makurian is for subsistence and local use, and has very high cultural significance.
During the wet season, livestock are “bunched” together and rotational grazing in blocks is practiced. The management team (elders) group all livestock from each village (16 villages) and each uses the block next to their village. Livestock are hardly separated (cows, heifers, steers, bulls all herded together).
o Block 1: Lower Makurian - 1 month
o Block 2: Makurian Loruko - 2 weeks (next to Lolldaiga Northern Gate)
o Block 3: Munishoi Noosidan - 2-3 months
o Block 4: Mukogodo Forest - 1-2 months
o Block 5: Orieteti Conservation Area - 3 weeks. Soft grass, runs out quickly.
o Block 6: Ol Kinyei Mulango - 2 weeks. Next to Olenaisho
They apply resting periods of three months after usage (if this rule is broken, the owner is punished by a fine of one livestock unit).
When it becomes dry, everyone is responsible for their own livestock. Owners of livestock want to maintain and decide about their livestock individually, this is why "Holistic Management" and specific grazing plans for the dry season did not work.
In comparison to earlier days when the whole family moved, and livestock was herded by morans (young warriors), they hire external herders nowadays (800 herders in total). Herders seek whatever water and pasture remains on the group ranch, then move on to:
(a) Ngare Ndare forest: 1,000 cattle and 1,000 sheep and goats (shoats) per year on average, for 1-2 months, over an area of 250 km2;
(b) Mukogodo forest: 3,000 cattle and 4,000 shoats per year on average, for 3-4 weeks, over 250 km2, and
(c) Mount Kenya: 12,000 cattle and 5,000 shoats on average per year, for 1-2 months, on an undefined area.
In Mukogodo forest, Makurian Masai have also officially settled, in Ngare Ndare forest on the other hand they graze on the basis of an informal agreement and on Mount Kenya it is not official pasture - but grazing is tolerated). They are also assisted by private ranches to graze during droughts (Lolldaiga and Borana; for every 1,000 units, they usually pay 5 Ksh per cow per month: a token amount). On one private ranch (Borana) they also graze steers and cows for fattening and selling.
Furthermore, Laikipia rangelands support some of the highest densities of wildlife in Kenya, however, group ranches less so than private ranches. The wild herbivore biomass density on group ranches is by Georgiadis et al. (2007) estimated at 205 ha /TLU.
Bomas (corrals in Kiswahili) for the livestock are constructed in traditional style, where animals are kept closely bunched together in enclosures overnight. Bomas are strategically located on denuded land to rehabilitate the land (through dung accumulation and breaking the soil crust by hoof action). Every homestead has one boma (approximately 1,500 in total in the whole Group Ranch). When herders are moving with livestock, temporary bomas are constructed.
Sales are usually need-driven (e.g. for school fees) within a family. They sell to the nearest local markets (in DolDol and Nanyuki) or directly to butchers. Makurian is also part of the "Dung Market" in Mukogodo District, where livestock dung is sold as manure for crop production. Moreover, Makurian makes additional income by harvesting sand and selling it for construction.
Location: Mukogodo Division, Laikipia, Kenya
No. of Technology sites analysed: single site
Spread of the Technology: evenly spread over an area (78.0 km²)
In a permanently protected area?:
Date of implementation: less than 10 years ago (recently)
Type of introduction
| Species | Count |
| goats | 20000 |
| sheep | 10000 |
| Specify input | Unit | Quantity | Costs per Unit (USD) | Total costs per input (USD) | % of costs borne by land users |
| Labour | |||||
| unknown | |||||
| Specify input | Unit | Quantity | Costs per Unit (USD) | Total costs per input (USD) | % of costs borne by land users |
| Labour | |||||
| Herders, watchmen, supervisors | Person-days | 260000.0 | 1.5 | 390000.0 | |
| Engaged population in livestock production | 720000.0 | 1.5 | 1080000.0 | ||
| Other | |||||
| Animals treatments | Per TLU | 13500.0 | 3.5 | 47250.0 | |
| Total costs for maintenance of the Technology | 1'517'250.0 | ||||
| Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD | 1'517'250.0 | ||||
Lack of rain. Impact analysis is comparing the current state vs. some 10 years ago when they applied Holistic Management. This is why improvements are indicated according to the land user, even though the land is severely degraded.
less salt
Compared to HM it has decreased, because of higher numbers of livestock it has increased though
More traditional knowledge than with Holistic Management
Other communities
Opuntia
Opuntia (an invasive cactus) is chasing out native plants and consuming water. Elephants are destroying trees (high density of elephants, Opuntia is additionally attracting elephants)
Opuntia
More wildlife coming in, roaming even in villages. Elephants problematic; breaking fences
Wildlife numbers are declining drastically. Indigenous vegetation is being driven out by invasive species like Opuntia.
Resilience has worsened
