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:

Cultivation of fodder crops on marginal lands and terrace risers

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Fodder plays a major role in the crop-livestock-manure-soil nutrient cycle on farms in the middle mountains of the Himalayas. Livestock convert fodder shrubs and grasses from the forest, crop residues, and other fodder into manure through digestion. However, in the middle hills of Nepal the lack of availability of good quality fodder often limits not only, the productivity of livestock, but also reduces the nitrogen content of animal dung if, for example, only cereal crop residues, are fed to the animals.
In earlier times, livestock were left to graze in the forests and on community lands. The animals sought out their own food and were only assembled for milking and to protect them from wild animals. With the introduction of stall-feeding, the demand for fodder has increased greatly with a subsequent large increase in women’s workload as it is they who are responsible for collecting the fodder.
Most fodder is collected in forest areas, and most livestock manure is applied to arable land, in particular to rainfed fields. This results in a net transfer of nutrients from forest areas to arable lands. It is estimated that, in this way, about 3 to 7 ha of forest land is needed to maintain 1 ha of arable land without degrading the state of the forest. In addition to reducing the availability of forest resources, the widespread closure of community forests has diminished access to fodder during certain times of the year. All this is putting serious pressure on the remaining unprotected forest resources.
Marginal lands and terrace risers offer an opportunity to reduce this pressure. The planting of grasses and shrubs suitable for fodder on these areas not only increases fodder availability but also reduces erosion and landslides that originate in these areas. If leguminous fodder species are planted, they increase soil fertility by increasing the nitrogen content in soils.

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 production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation

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

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Increasing livestock numbers causing the degradation of unprotected forest areas. The closure of large areas of community managed forests to grazing and fodder collection is putting more pressure on unprotected forest areas and increasing the demand for alternative sources of fodder and better quality fodder.

3.4 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• integrated crop-livestock management
• improved ground/ vegetation cover

3.5 Spread of the Technology

Specify the spread of the Technology:

• evenly spread over an 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

4.2 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing

Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: low

Technical knowledge required for land users: low

Main technical functions: increased availability of fodder, improved manure quality & increased quantity of manure, increased soil fertility

Secondary technical functions: nitrogen fixation (if leguminous species are planted)

Trees/ shrubs species: badahar (Artocarpus lakoocha), dudhilo (Ficus nemoralis), nemaro (Ficus roxburghi), tank (Bauhinia p

Grass species: stylo (Stylosanthes spp.), dinanath (Penisetum spp.), molasses, Napier grass NB21 (Penisetum purpure

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.	Establish nursery for saplings/seedlings, and procure seed of appropriate species	Vegetative
2.	Transplant at appropriate time on wasteland areas around houses and terrace risers as given in the Agroforestry Training Manual (NAF, SSMP 2002)	Vegetative

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	Nursing seedling	Persons/day	3.0	2.0	6.0	100.0
Plant material	Seedlings	unit	1.0	4.0	4.0	100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					10.0

4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing/ frequency
1.	Depending on species, newly established trees and shrubs need to be pruned, pollarded, or coppiced; grasses need no further agronomic practices	Vegetative
2.	Replace dead plants and ones that failed to establish	Vegetative

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

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	Replace dead plants	Persons/day	3.0	2.0	6.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					6.0

Comments:

Cost as in January 2007

4.8 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Cost ofseeds or saplings/seedlings depends on species.

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. and 1500-2000 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.

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

Other socio-economic impacts

Ecological impacts

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

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)?

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many have did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?

• 50-90%

Comments:

Comments on spontaneous adoption: 80% of the Sfarmers exposed to this technology by SSMP adopted it. 30% farmers with or without direct reference to fodder promotion) have planted a variety of new fodder species About 10% of local farmers not involved in SSMP have adopted the technology.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Improves fodder quantity and quality with a positive impact on livestock health and productivity
Increased fodder availability near the house reduces the workload of women to collect fodder and grass for livestock
Feeding of improved fodder and grasses improves quality of farmyard manure and thereby reduces need for mineral fertilise
Different species provide source of mulching and staking material

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?
In places fodder grasses and shrubs have increased the incidence of rodents and snakes	select appropriate species; pruning and pollarding to manage height of the plants
Shading effect on fi eld crops	only plant such species on wastelands or along river banks
Host of insect pests
Some species (e.g. bamboo, eucalyptus) have alleopathic effects that inhibit the growth of crop and other plants

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

NAF; SSMP (2002) Agroforestry Training Manual (in Nepali). Kathmandu: Nepal Agroforestry Foundation and Sustainable Soil Management Programme

Available from where? Costs?

SSMP