1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Technology

Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

Sustainable Soil Management Programme, Nepal (SSMP)

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

Department of Agriculture, Soil Management Directorate, Hariharbhawan Lalitpur (doasoil) - Nepal

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

HELVETAS (Swiss Intercooperation)

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

07/11/2008

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Yes

1.5 Reference to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Approaches

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Improving farmyard manure by protecting it from direct sunlight, rainfall, and runoff to reduce volatilisation and leaching

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Farmyard manure is the most common form of organic fertiliser applied to crops in the midhills of Nepal. Farmyard manure has a high proportion of organic material which nurtures soil organisms and is essential for maintaining an active soil life. Typically, only about half of the nutrient content of farmyard manure becomes available for crop growth during the first year after it is applied to the soil. The rest of the nutrients are channelled through soil biotic processes and are released in the following years. The high organic matter content and the more active soil life improve or maintain a friable soil structure, increase the cation exchange capacity, the water holding capacity, and the infiltration rate, and reducing the risk of soil pests.
Indigenous methods of preparing and using farmyard manure vary depending on the ecological zone, access to bedding material from crop or forest land and to crop residues and fodder, the availability of labour, and other factors. Traditionally, Nepali farmers take the manure out of their sheds to dry it for 2-3 days and then carry it to the field where it is left in small heaps for a number of days before being spread and incorporated into the soil.
Farmers rate the quality of manure according to which livestock species it comes from. These ratings have been confirmed by nutrient analysis as cattle manure (NPK%: 0.6, 0.13, 0.66) is considered to be better than buffalo manure (0.33, 0.25, 0.10), and horse manure; while pig (0.5, 0.18, 0.42), goat (0.6, 0.13, 0.99), and sheep manure (0.6, 0.13, 0.99) are considered better than cattle manure. Chicken manure (1.46, 0.51, 0.51) is considered the best of all.
It has however been shown that considerable nutrient losses occur if the manure is inappropriately handled or stored. Drying of the manure leads to loss of nutrients through volatilisation, and rainfall and runoff leads to leaching or washing out of nutrients. In addition, the common disposal of urine - the part of the excreta with the highest nutrient concentration - further reduces the level of nutrients in manure.
To reduce nutrient losses farmyard manure needs to be protected from direct sunlight; protected from rainfall or run-on; and protected from runoff. This can be achieved in a variety of ways using a variety of inputs. It is most important to protect the manure during storage and just before it is applied in the field to make the best use of this valuable local resource.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• Improve manure

3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Intensifying cultivation practices with either 1) inadequate application of fertilisers leading to a decline in soil
fertility and the mining of soil nutrients or 2) application of too much fertiliser causing environmental problems through
excessive leaching, and losses of fertiliser in surface runoff and consequent eutrophication or nitrification of streams,
ponds or groundwater

3.4 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• integrated soil fertility management

3.5 Spread of the Technology

Specify the spread of the Technology:

• applied at specific points/ concentrated on a small area

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:

• reduce land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing

a) Covering the farmyard manure
with a roof made of tin sheet or plastic sheets. Cheaper
alternatives are:
- a thatched roof
- shading with creepers like
cucurbits
- planting broadleaf mustard
on the heap
- applying a covering of crop
residues or forest material
b) Farmyard manure is traditionally
carried to the fi elds in doko
baskets and left there in
unprotected heaps to be
incorporated often weeks and
sometimes several months later
(top and bottom left). It is much
better to incorporate it on the
day of transport as the longer it
is left out on the fi elds in heaps
the greater are the nutrient
losses from the heaps (bottom
right). Alternatively it can be
stored in a corner of the fi eld
covered with plastic sheets, crop
residues, or in some other way
(top right).

Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: low

Technical knowledge required for land users: low

Main technical functions: increase in organic matter, increase in soil fertility, increase in soil productivity

Secondary technical functions: increased infiltration rate and water holding capacity, improved soil physical properties (friability,easier soil preparation)

Layout change according to natural and human environment: protect farmyard manure; change application

4.3 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify currency used for cost calculations:

• US Dollars

4.4 Establishment activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing
1.	Cover the farmyard manure heap or pit with any available material (crop residues, forest material, plastic sheet, thatched roof, zinc sheet, etc.)	Management

4.5 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	Building manure pit and shelter	Persons/day	1.0	2.0	2.0	100.0
Construction material	Material	unit	1.0	25.0	25.0	100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					27.0

4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing/ frequency
1.	Pour household wastewater onto the heap or pit to keep the farmyard	Management

4.7 Costs and inputs needed for maintenance/ recurrent activities (per year)

Comments:

Cost as in January 2007

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Comments and further specifications on topography:

Slopes on average: Also moderate (6-10%), rolling (11-15%) and hilly (16-30%)

Landforms: Also footslopes

Altitudinal zone: Also 1000-1500 m a.s.l., 1500-2000 m a.s.l. and 2000-2500 m a.s.l.

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Off-farm income specification: In most farm households, off-farm income plays at least a minor and increasingly a major role. Occasional opportunities for off-farm income present themselves in the form of daily labour wages. Some households’ members receive regular salaries, whilst an increasing number of Nepalis are working in India, the Middle East, Malaysia, and elsewhere and sending remittance incomes home.

Market orientation of production system: Also commercial/ market

5.7 Average area of land owned or leased by land users applying the Technology

5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights

Land ownership:

• individual, not titled
• individual, titled

Land use rights:

• leased
• individual

Comments:

Sharecropping between owner and tenant

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Ecological impacts

Other ecological impacts

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?

Comments:

Large short- and long-term benefits due to need to use less of the costly mineral fertilisers. The only extra ‘cost’ is the extra labor needed.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

Comments:

Comments on acceptance with external material support: An independent assessment found that 95% of the farmers participating in SSMP’s farmyard improvement activities were accepted the technology.

Comments on adoption trend: About 70% of non-participant farmers who had come into contact with the technologies had also adopted them.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The use of improved farmyard manure reduced the need for mineral fertiliser thereby reducing production costs and outside dependency How can they be sustained / enhanced? Further promotion of the technology will increase this impact
A simple technology affordable by poor farmers in remote areas far from a roadhead
The increased use of organic fertiliser improves the physical characteristics of soil making ploughing easier and increasing water holding capacity of the soil

6.8 Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks of the Technology and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Cost of a permanent roof for the manure heap may hinder adoption of the technology	Promote simple alternatives to high cost roofs such as straw cover, cover with broad leaf mustard, thatch, and waste plastic

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

STSS; SSMP (2001) Farmyard Manure and Compost Management (in Nepali) Kathmandu: Soil Testing Services Section, Department of Agriculture and Sustainable Soil Management Programme

Available from where? Costs?

SSMP