Improved livestock shed (Mia Jan Maroofi)

Improved livestock shed for better health and productivity (Afghanistan)

Tabela; Oghil

Description

Existing livestock sheds can be improved through interior and exterior refurbishing, and door and window installation. More favourable indoor conditions benefit animal health and the quality of animal products.

Livestock keeping is one of the key livelihood strategies in rural Rustaq - in addition to cultivation of agricultural crops. Families rely on their livestock not only for consumption of meat and dairy products, but also as means of transportation (donkeys), labour force in agriculture (oxen, donkeys) and as a source of cash income. When crops fail to produce enough, families sell their livestock to survive until the next season. The pressure to sell livestock is more acute during winter months, when cases of livestock loss increases - from diseases, lack of fodder and the harsh cold winter. These factors, along with poor conditions for livestock keeping, expose the animals to various negative impacts, affecting health, productivity and low quality/ quantity of meat and milk.

This situation is observed mainly in Sari Joy, Jawaz Khana and Dashti Mirzai villages, although Dasthi Mirzai has limited grazing land and livestock keeping is not as prevalent as in the two other villages. All three villages were selected to demonstrate improved livestock sheds, which are among the key factors for productive livestock keeping, along with stable supplies of quality fodder. Improved livestock sheds are part of the chain of activities introduced in the three villages to support livestock production, and at the same time improve the availability and quality of fodder, and restore the degraded and overgrazed pastures.

The Natural Resources Management Committee in the respective villages select a farmer, who is active in livestock keeping and already has a livestock shed. The farmer agrees to provide his livestock shed to serve as a demonstration. The farmer is supported technically and financially to renovate his shed in accordance with the defined requirements. The internal and external walls of the shed are covered with plaster made from a clay mixture to block all holes and protect the building from wind and rain. The roof is renovated to prevent leaking from snow and rain. Windows, a door and a ventilator are installed to ensure air circulation, decrease humidity levels, and protect the animals from cold and heat. A water trough and feeding racks are installed inside the shed. All the costs for the material are covered by the project. The farmer contributes with his labour.

The improved shed is vital for keeping livestock healthy. It also contributes to lowering livestock loss through decreasing the risks of diseases and cold stress during winter. The overall benefit towards livelihoods is significant, since animals are an important household asset and a coping strategy for the majority of households in the villages. The wives of the farmers benefit particularly from the renovated livestock sheds, because they are the ones who feed and water the animals, and they clean the shed of manure.

However, the costs for carrying out renovation of livestock sheds are perceived too high by the farmers. Many are unwilling to make such investments, despite the benefits.

Location

Location: Sari Joy, Jawaz Khana, Dashti Mirzai villages, Takhar Province, Rustaq District, Afghanistan

No. of Technology sites analysed: 2-10 sites

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • 69.91975, 37.10933

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

Date of implementation: 2014; less than 10 years ago (recently)

Type of introduction
Interior of improved livestock shed (Mia Jan Maroofi)
Livestock feed slot (Mia Jan Maroofi)

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 animal health
Land use

  • Settlements, infrastructure - Settlements, buildings
    Remarks: Livestock shed, cows, sheep, goats
Water supply
  • rainfed
  • mixed rainfed-irrigated
  • full irrigation

Number of growing seasons per year: n.a.
Land use before implementation of the Technology: n.a.
Livestock density: n.a.
Purpose related to land degradation
  • prevent land degradation
  • reduce land degradation
  • restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land
  • adapt to land degradation
  • not applicable
Degradation addressed
SLM group
  • pastoralism and grazing land management
  • Livestock management
SLM measures
  • structural measures - S9: Shelters for plants and animals

Technical drawing

Technical specifications
The size of an improved livestock shed is 5 m x 3 m. The internal and external walls of the shed are covered with plaster made from a clay mixture to block all the holes and protect the building from the external elements of rain and wind. The roof is renovated to prevent leaking from snow and rain. Two windows, sized 60 cm x 30 cm and an entrance door 1.5 m x 2 m are installed. 3 ventilation pipes are installed on the roof. The installation of windows, entrance door and ventilators ensure air circulation, decrease humidity levels and protect the animals from cold winters and hot summers. A water trough and feeding racks are installed inside the shed. All the costs for the material are covered by the project. The farmer contributes through labour.

Establishment and maintenance: activities, inputs and costs

Calculation of inputs and costs
  • Costs are calculated: per Technology unit (unit: Building of the livestock shed volume, length: 5m x 3m)
  • Currency used for cost calculation: US Dollars
  • Exchange rate (to USD): 1 USD = 67.0
  • Average wage cost of hired labour per day: 5.2-5.3 USD
Most important factors affecting the costs
Due to the remoteness of the villages where the technology has been implemented, all the inputs for establishment, such as agricultural equipment, plant material, fertilizers, etc., are purchased in Rustaq town. The expenses for traveling and delivering the inputs affect the establishment costs.
Establishment activities
  1. Selection and inspection of the livestock shed for referbishing (Timing/ frequency: None)
  2. Design of measures for referbishment (Timing/ frequency: None)
  3. Transportation of construction materials (Timing/ frequency: None)
  4. Covering the internal and external walls with plaster (Timing/ frequency: None)
  5. Installation of doors and windows (Timing/ frequency: None)
  6. Installation of feed racks, water trough and ventilator (Timing/ frequency: None)
Establishment inputs and costs (per Building of the livestock shed)
Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (US Dollars) Total costs per input (US Dollars) % of costs borne by land users
Labour
Transportation of construction materials person-day 1.0 52.0 52.0
Preparation works person-day 2.0 5.3 10.6
Rennovation works (doors, windows, water tanker and feed slot) person-day 14.0 5.3 74.2 100.0
Construction material
Pipe for air ventilation piece 3.0 7.4 22.2
Lime Bag 1.0 14.0 14.0
Cement Bag 10.0 5.2 52.0
Door piece 1.0 59.0 59.0
Window piece 2.0 22.0 44.0
Cloth Meter 12.0 1.8 21.6
Other
Water tank for animals piece 2.0 8.9 17.8
Total costs for establishment of the Technology 367.4
Maintenance activities
  1. Repair of the roof with clay (Timing/ frequency: Autumn)
Maintenance inputs and costs (per Building of the livestock shed)
Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (US Dollars) Total costs per input (US Dollars) % of costs borne by land users
Labour
Repair of the roof person day 2.0 5.3 10.6 100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology 10.6

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: 580.0
Average annual precipitation for the area was calculated as 580 mm, with minimum in dry years (2000 and 2001) of 270 mm and maximum in wet years (2009/2010) of 830 mm. The absolute maximum rainfall was calculated for 1986 as 1024 mm. The data series covers the period from 1979 to 2014.
Name of the meteorological station: Reference meteorological station considered: Climate Forecast System Reanalysis (CFSR), http://rda.ucar.edu/pub/cfsr.html
Derived from the publicly available data set on length of growing period (LGP) (Fischer 2009 / IIASA-FAO). Internet link: http://tiles.arcgis.com/tiles/P8Cok4qAP1sTVE59/arcgis/rest/services/Length_of_growing_period/MapServer
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
health

poor
x
good
education

poor
x
good
technical assistance

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

poor
x
good
markets

poor
x
good
energy

poor
x
good
roads and transport

poor
x
good
drinking water and sanitation

poor
x
good
financial services

poor
x
good

Impacts

Socio-economic impacts
fodder production
decreased
x
increased

animal production
decreased
x
increased

non-wood forest production
decreased
x
increased

product diversity
decreased
x
increased

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

Socio-cultural impacts
SLM/ land degradation knowledge
reduced
x
improved


Land users learned how to implement SLM practices.

situation of socially and economically disadvantaged groups (gender, age, status, ehtnicity etc.)
worsened
x
improved


Female headed households are not included. Technology is implemented on private land, therefore people without land are excluded. However, they have the opportunity to earn income as a hired worker for the SLM implementers.

Ecological impacts
Off-site impacts

Cost-benefit analysis

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

Long-term returns
very negative
x
very positive

Benefits compared with maintenance costs
Based on the multi-criteria matrix: During the FGD with SLM implementers, a multi-criteria matrix was elaborated, and different SLM practices were rated. In the frame of this exercise, SLM implementers were asked to jointly discuss and rate short term (1-3 years) and long-term (10 years) returns. As the SLM technology was only implemented 1-2 years ago, it is too early to compare benefits to maintenance costs. Farmers have little experience so far on the actual benefits of the SLM technology. The ratings are mostly based on expected benefits and not on actual benefits.

Climate change

Climate-related extremes (disasters)
local rainstorm

not well at all
x
very well
drought

not well at all
x
very well

Adoption and adaptation

Percentage of land users in the area who have adopted the Technology
  • single cases/ experimental
  • 1-10%
  • 10-50%
  • more than 50%
Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many have done so without receiving material incentives?
  • 0-10%
  • 10-50%
  • 50-90%
  • 90-100%
Number of households and/ or area covered
3 households took part in implementing the Technology
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
  • The animals are protected from severe cold weather during the winter. The ventilation is good for keeping the air clean inside the livestock shelter.
  • Lower risks of animal diseases.
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • Improved facility, proper feeding and and watering could reduce diseases and enhance the quality of meat and milk.
  • The survival of livestock may increase potentially, particularly losses may decrease during winter.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
  • Renovation works are too costly and many farmers cannot afford to purchase all the construction material
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
  • Due to high establishment costs the practice is less likely to spread among the land users and will remain experimental.

References

Compiler
  • Bettina Wolfgramm
Editors
  • MIAJAN MAROOFI
  • Hekmatullah Sharifzai
  • Roziya Kirgizbekova
  • Aslam Qadamov
Reviewer
  • William Critchley
Date of documentation: Oct. 27, 2016
Last update: Nov. 3, 2021
Resource persons
Full description in the WOCAT database
Linked SLM data
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution Project
Key references
  • Guidelines for Focus Group Discussions:
  • Methods section of the Rustaq NRM study:
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International