Resting place of the animals next to the herder's tent. (Christian Wirz (Switzerland))

Daily and seasonal rotation on grassland (Tajikistan)

Dajmardei Kaspi (professional herder)

Description

Extensive grazing of sheep and goats by the means of a precise rotational scheme

Half-year herding with 500 sheep, goats and cows (very few), with 7-8 different locations of the herder's tent. The herder visits each place twice to thrice per grazing season and stays in one place for one week to maximally one month (during the Ramadan period, due to limited forces). The area is grazed from the higher zone (around 2000m) to the lower zone (around 1600m) twice per season, in a sort of circle. Every day the herder starts in another direction from his tent and leads the animals to the pastures, once in the morning and once in the evening. He passes a stream once (autumn) to twice (summer) a day.

Purpose of the Technology: The grass should not get dusty and dirty, explaining why the herder daily changes the pastures, only revisiting the same places every two to three days.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: After accompanying his father as a child and a kind of an apprenticeship (of one year) later on, M. is considered by the villagers as a good herder and they give him their animals for herding. But M. applies for land on the forest department only after working as a guardian and as a tractor driver for 20 years. For the herding profession observing the animals precisely is necessary, in order not to lose any of them. And the maintenance of the pastures is guaranteed by the strict rotational scheme.

Natural / human environment: The pasture-area is in a generally well-conserved state. Moderate to high values of fractional vegetation cover can be observed and only few signs of recent erosion processes (through water) are visible. The area is characterised by steep slopes where still signs of past tree-planting during the USSR period are visible by some trees, many little platforms made for tree-planting and a few terraced areas. Eventhough, many trees have been grazed and do not stand anymore. Besides steep areas there are small, quite flat areas (where the herder installs his tents), that used to be cultivated (wheat) till 1966. These areas generally have low cover-values and signs of rill-erosion, which the herder attributes to the past tilling activity. However, it might also be the trampling and sitting of the animals (staying near the herder's tent at noon-time and during the night) causing this erosion. Nutrient management is provided for by the dung of the animals which is not collected, contrarily to the pastures near the villages.

Location

Location: Faizabad, Region of Republican Subordination, Tajikistan

No. of Technology sites analysed:

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • 69.3771, 38.6213

Spread of the Technology:

In a permanently protected area?:

Date of implementation: more than 50 years ago (traditional)

Type of introduction
-
Sheep and goats grazing in a high-cover area. (Christian Wirz (Switzerland))

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

  • Grazing land
    • Semi-nomadic pastoralism
    Animal type: goats, sheep, cows
      SpeciesCount
      goats500
      sheep500

    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 - Bs: quality and species composition/ diversity decline
    SLM group
    • pastoralism and grazing land management
    SLM measures
    • management measures - M1: Change of land use type, M4: Major change in timing of activities

    Technical drawing

    Technical specifications
    Daily and seasonal rotation.

    Location: Above Karsang. Faizabad / Tajikistan

    Date: 05.08.09

    Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: low (Obeying to what the herder says)

    Technical knowledge required for land users: moderate (It is necessary to know how to lead animals, more than in the case of the common pasture-area)

    Main technical functions: control of dispersed runoff: retain / trap, increase of biomass (quantity)

    Secondary technical functions: improvement of ground cover, control of fires, palatable fodder

    Change of land use type: From afforestation and limited use as cropland to extensive grazing

    Major change in timing of activities: Introduction of a strict rotational grazing scheme
    Author: Christian Wirz, Switzerland

    Establishment and maintenance: activities, inputs and costs

    Calculation of inputs and costs
    • Costs are calculated:
    • Currency used for cost calculation: USD
    • Exchange rate (to USD): 1 USD = n.a
    • Average wage cost of hired labour per day: 6.10
    Most important factors affecting the costs
    Buying an own herd and looking for the animals are the most expensive factors, expecially if there are sick or dead animals.
    Establishment activities
    1. Buying a herd (Timing/ frequency: constantly investing)
    Establishment inputs and costs
    Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (USD) Total costs per input (USD) % of costs borne by land users
    Other
    Buying a herd animals 50.0 87.7 4385.0 100.0
    Total costs for establishment of the Technology 4'385.0
    Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD 4'385.0
    Maintenance activities
    1. Rent fee for land of forest department (Timing/ frequency: once per year)
    2. Salary of an assistant herder (normally, but not in 2008) (Timing/ frequency: at the end of the season)
    3. compensation for dead animals (Timing/ frequency: at the end of the season)
    4. Animal medecine (Timing/ frequency: if necessary)
    5. Salt (Timing/ frequency: daily)
    Maintenance inputs and costs
    Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (USD) Total costs per input (USD) % of costs borne by land users
    Labour
    Salary of an assistant herder Days 120.0 6.1 732.0 100.0
    Other
    Rent fee for land of forest department 300ha/d 180.0 0.4888888 88.0 100.0
    Compensation for dead animals animals 2.0 44.0 88.0 100.0
    Animal medecine per year 1.0 88.0 88.0 100.0
    Salt kg 1000.0 0.08 80.0 100.0
    Total costs for maintenance of the Technology 1'076.0
    Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD 1'076.0

    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
    Mainly in spring and also in autumn, with a trend to decrease
    Thermal climate class: temperate
    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
    fodder production
    decreased
    increased


    Higher vegetation cover and biomass values than for village-pastures

    fodder quality
    decreased
    increased


    Much less impalatable species' frequency

    animal production
    decreased
    increased


    The animals get much fatter and are sold for around 50% higher price than animals from common pastures

    wood production
    decreased
    increased


    The herder says that tree density has decreased, due to livestock but also to chopping. Additionally chopping of living trees is generally forbidden (since the 1960s, when the forest department was created as a new land use type), not making possible the

    production area (new land under cultivation/ use)
    decreased
    increased


    The use of the land for fruit production is not possible with animals grazing, but this was also the case before, as to the herder's opinion

    irrigation water quality
    decreased
    increased


    Due to reduced stocking rates in comparison with village-pastures (and the soviet times), better water quality

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

    health situation
    worsened
    improved

    recreational opportunities
    reduced
    improved

    Livelihoods and human well-being
    reduced
    improved

    Ecological impacts
    surface runoff
    increased
    decreased


    Better control of runoff, but steeper land

    excess water drainage
    reduced
    improved

    soil cover
    reduced
    improved

    Quantity before SLM: 40%
    Quantity after SLM: 80%
    Higher cover than on village-pastures

    plant diversity
    decreased
    increased

    Quantity before SLM: 36 species
    Quantity after SLM: 47 species
    More plant systematical diversity

    fire risk
    increased
    decreased


    According to forest department the area above Karsang, due to ist trees, is more prone to fires than other areas

    Off-site impacts

    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

    4 Years ago a herd of 400 animals had to be sold due to disease. Since then M was able to rebuild a herd of 500 animals. On a short term investing into animals is expensive but pays quickly. The maintenance costs are finally decisive, but quite constant.

    Climate change

    Climate-related extremes (disasters)
    drought

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

    not well at all
    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
    1 Household
    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)

    Conclusions and lessons learnt

    Strengths: land user's view
    • Grazing stabilises the soils and is thus a prevention against gully erosion in areas with low cover (former cropland). Animals have the same effect as the terraces built years ago.

      How can they be sustained / enhanced? Grazing activity should continue, once M. is too old for working.
    • The animals provide for soil fertility by their dung, instead of the fertilisers used in Soviet times. This positively influences the share of palatable plants and cover in general and, by this, soil moisture.
    • The area on the forest department is a good alternative to the much too small pasture-area near the village
    Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
    • Form of land use making it possible to take some pressure from the common pastures without great damages.

      How can they be sustained / enhanced? It needs to be assured that also poorer families, who depend even more on livestock breeding than richer ones, can give their animals to M. or other professional herders. This could be realised by engaging herder assistants from poor families
    • The rotational scheme is much more elaborated than in the case of the villages' pastures, which can be explained by more land available

      How can they be sustained / enhanced? Land users like M. should be addressed by forest administration to elaborate legal forms of herding with little damages on natural resources on this land. This will probably require land reforms.
    Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
    • Tree planting is not possible as long as the area is used for grazing. By giving people land for longer periods (than one year) and with more freedoms in its use, people would gain interest in diversifying use: They would split up "their" land into haymaking, orchard and pasture areas.
    Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
    • The main problem of this form of grazing is that it doesn't allow the regrowth of trees. Changing the areas use for grazing, respectively haymaking, every few years.
    • Cover is markedly reduced around the places where tents are installed. By changing the camping place (but: limited flat areas!) or not keeping the animals in the same place at noon time and during night time, these areas might recover.

    References

    Compiler
    • Christian Wirz
    Editors
    Reviewer
    • David Streiff
    • Alexandra Gavilano
    Date of documentation: March 7, 2011
    Last update: Aug. 4, 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