This technology is problematic with regard to land degradation, so it cannot be declared a sustainable land management technology

Smallstock Manure Production (Togo)

Houré bow

Description

Smallstock manure production technology is an easy and efficient method to produce organic fertilizer for the conservation and improvement of soil fertility.

The main item within this practice is the so-called fosse fumière - a 1-2 m deep and 3-4 m diameter circular pit, enclosed by a stone wall. The pit has a double function: it is the place where manure is produced and it serves as shed for small ruminants (goats, sheep), particularly to avoid uncontrolled grazing /browsing during the cropping season (from April until November). Animals are fed in the fosse, and they drop their faeces, which together with chopped organic material accruing from the kitchen and field activities, piles up in the pit for decomposition. The fosse is partly roofed to provide optimal micro-climatic conditions: partial shading, partial exposure to sunlight and appropriate moistening through rainfall. Inside the pit, one or more circular terraces (0.5 m high, 0.5 m wide) serve as resting area for the animals. The terrace riser need to be plastered or reinforced with stones, particularly in case of loose soil, to avoid damage caused by animal trampling. After decomposition the manure is removed from the pit and distributed on the fields beginning of each cropping season (March). Then straw bedding is renewed and the process starts from scratch. During the dry season from December to March smallstock is left to graze freely on the fields and pastures.

Location

Location: Lassa, Kara, Togo

No. of Technology sites analysed:

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • 1.2333, 9.5833

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

In a permanently protected area?:

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

Type of introduction

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
Land use mixed within the same land unit: Yes - Agro-pastoralism (incl. integrated crop-livestock)

  • CroplandNumber of growing seasons per year: 1
  • Grazing land
  • Forest/ woodlands

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)
SLM group
  • integrated crop-livestock management
SLM measures
  • agronomic measures - A2: Organic matter/ soil fertility
  • management measures - M2: Change of management/ intensity level

Technical drawing

Technical specifications
Dimensions and main components of a manure production pit: (1) open part of the roof; (2) covered part of the roof; (3) stone wall; (4) poles (holding the roof); (5) terraces (where animals can rest)

Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: moderate

Technical knowledge required for land users: low

Main technical functions: increase in organic matter, increase in nutrient availability (supply, recycling,…)

Material/ species: compost (mixture of animal faeces and vegetative scraps
Author: Mats Gurtner

Establishment and maintenance: activities, inputs and costs

Calculation of inputs and costs
  • Costs are calculated: per Technology unit (unit: 1 volume, length: 1-2 m deep and 3-4 m diameter circular pit)
  • Currency used for cost calculation: USD
  • Exchange rate (to USD): 1 USD = n.a
  • Average wage cost of hired labour per day: n.a
Most important factors affecting the costs
Main cost-relevant factor is labour.
Establishment activities
  1. Delimitation of the perimeter of the pit and the position of the steps (Timing/ frequency: None)
  2. Excavation of the pit, shaping a terraced structure 1-3 circular, 0.5 m high and 0.5 wide terrace (Timing/ frequency: None)
  3. Build up a stone wall around the pit, spaced at minimum 0.5 m from the pit, with an integrated ga (Timing/ frequency: None)
  4. Build a roof, which partly covers the pit (Timing/ frequency: None)
  5. Put straw on the ground and corral the animals (Timing/ frequency: None)
  6. After one year (April to March) the compost is ready for application on the field (Timing/ frequency: None)
Establishment inputs and costs (per 1)
Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (USD) Total costs per input (USD) % of costs borne by land users
Labour
Labour ha 1.0 200.0 200.0 100.0
Equipment
machine use 1.0 182.22 182.22 100.0
animal traction
tools: shovel, cutlass, rope, mattock
Total costs for establishment of the Technology 382.22
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD 382.22
Maintenance activities
  1. Continuous depositing and piling up of vegetative material (dung, kitchen waste, crop residues) (Timing/ frequency: None)
  2. Let decompose the organic material inside the pit. Twice a year (between April and November) the material is actively mixed for aeration (Timing/ frequency: Twice a year (between April and November)
  3. Distribute the manure on the fields (during rainy season) (Timing/ frequency: during rainy season)
Maintenance inputs and costs (per 1)
Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (USD) Total costs per input (USD) % of costs borne by land users
Labour
Labour ha 1.0 150.0 150.0 100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology 150.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD 150.0

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
Thermal climate class: tropics
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
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

Impacts

Socio-economic impacts
Crop production
decreased
increased

fodder production
decreased
increased


search for fodder necessary

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

farm income
decreased
increased


the production surplus is sold

workload
increased
decreased

Socio-cultural impacts
SLM/ land degradation knowledge
reduced
improved

Ecological impacts
soil loss
increased
decreased

nutrient cycling/ recharge
decreased
increased

soil organic matter/ below ground C
decreased
increased

None
None
None

Off-site impacts
None
None
None

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

Climate change

-

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%
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
  • None
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • Production of green manure

    How can they be sustained / enhanced? maintenance of the pit
  • Increase of crop yield through fertilization

    How can they be sustained / enhanced? renewal of litter
  • Rehabilitation of degraded soils
  • Limited animal roaming and destroying of crops

    How can they be sustained / enhanced? corrall livestock in the pit
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
  • Manual construction is very labour-intensive mechanized excavation
  • Air pollution through smelly animal dung add products which attenuate the smell; establish the manure pit outside the residential area
  • Accident risk for children establish the manure pit outside the residential area
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
  • None
  • None

References

Compiler
  • Unknown User
Editors
Reviewer
  • Alexandra Gavilano
  • Laura Ebneter
  • Deborah Niggli
Date of documentation: Nov. 9, 2010
Last update: Aug. 21, 2019
Resource persons
Full description in the WOCAT database
Linked SLM data
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution Project
Key references
  • Rapport, Projet de formation et de démonstrations agroforestières au nord Togo(ATDNT), Care International au Togo. 1997. : ESA-UL
  • Rapport, Facteurs d' acceptabilité de techniques de conservation des sols dans le système de production vivrière au Nord -Est du Togo, AMEGBETO K. N. et MAWUSSI G.. 2003. : ESA-UL
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International