This is an outdated, inactive version of this case. Go to the current version.

Stall feeding of Friesian cow for manure [Uganda]

Gokwo dyang

technologies_2816 - Uganda

Completeness: 90%

1. General information

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

Key resource person(s)

land user:

Olanya Simon



Kosh village , Goma parish Unyona sub-county , Nwoya District


land user:


Kosh village , Goma parish Unyona sub-county , Nwoya district


Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
Scaling-up SLM practices by smallholder farmers (IFAD)
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
CDE Centre for Development and Environment (CDE Centre for Development and Environment) - Switzerland

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?


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


1.4 Declaration on sustainability of the described Technology

Is the Technology described here problematic with regard to land degradation, so that it cannot be declared a sustainable land management technology?


2. Description of the SLM Technology

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Dairy Animals are confined inside the stall, feed and water is provided for the animal. The systems is also referred to as zero grazing or cut and carry system of livestock management since the animals do not graze.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology


In this practice, a Friesian cow and its calf are confined inside the built stall. The stall has four partitions. A Calf room, milking pallor, feeding and drinking area and sleeping room. Within the feeding area is placed a wooden box of width 0.5m, length 1.5m and height 0.3m; into which feed is put for the animal. A half drum that can hold 80 liters of water is also put inside the feeding area. Both the wooden feeder and half drum are raised to a height of 0.5m above the ground surface.
The farmer cultivated 1 acre of Napier grass (elephant grass), which provides adequate feed for the demands of the cow (75-100 kg of fresh grass per day). The Napier grass is cut, chopped and put inside the wooden box, while water is fetched from the stream and put into the half drum.
Through this method, the animal movement is restricted. This reduces the exposure to parasites and diseases, and land conflicts. The animal do not waste energy to look for pasture and water, hence milk productivity is enhanced. Manure is also deposited within the feeding area and thus easy to collect. Animals do not need to be attended to, hence farmer has more time to rest and carry out other activities.
However, a lot of labor is required for cutting and chopping the grass, and carrying the feeds and water especially during the dry season. Treatment of animals and maintenance of the stall is costly and due to poor management, parasites and diseases can also build up within the stall. Stall feeding requires feed preservation in the form of silage and/or hay.
To sustain this technology, the land users can supplement the feed through cultivating multipurpose tree species (Calliandra spp and Grivellia spp), leguminous forages such as lablab spp and macuna beans. Non conventional feeds such as kitchen wastes (cassava, sweet potato and banana peelings) can also supplement the pasture.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.4 Videos of the Technology

Comments, short description:

Video showing Stall feeding for fresian cow for animal manure




Kosh village , Goma parish Unyona sub-county , Nwoya District

Name of videographer:

Issa Aiga

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



Region/ State/ Province:

Northern Region,Uganda


Map showing the technology site in Northern Uganda

2.6 Date of implementation

Indicate year of implementation:


If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:
  • less than 10 years ago (recently)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:
  • through projects/ external interventions
Comments (type of project, etc.):

Do not know name of the project

3. Classification of the SLM Technology

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

  • create beneficial economic impact
  • livelihood restoration

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

Grazing land

Grazing land

Intensive grazing/ fodder production:
  • Cut-and-carry/ zero grazing
Main animal species and products:

Fresian cow, milk production, manure and calf

If land use has changed due to the implementation of the Technology, indicate land use before implementation of the Technology:


3.3 Further information about land use

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:
  • rainfed

Use tap water from neighbour(brother) who pump under ground using generator.

Number of growing seasons per year:
  • 2
Livestock density (if relevant):

cow =1 . calf =1

3.4 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

  • integrated crop-livestock management
  • integrated soil fertility management
  • Stall feeding

3.5 Spread of the Technology

Specify the spread of the Technology:
  • evenly spread over an area

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

agronomic measures

agronomic measures

  • A2: Organic matter/ soil fertility
management measures

management measures

  • M1: Change of land use type
  • M2: Change of management/ intensity level
other measures

other measures


Cut and carry

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

chemical soil deterioration

chemical soil deterioration

  • Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content (not caused by erosion)
  • Cs: salinization/ alkalinization
physical soil deterioration

physical soil deterioration

  • Pc: compaction
  • Pu: loss of bio-productive function due to other activities

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

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

4. Technical specifications, implementation activities, inputs, and costs

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology






Kaheru Prossy



4.2 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing

The stall should be 3 m tall, approximately with 4 rooms 1st floor for calf, second one for milking 3rd for sleeping and the 4th for feeding and drinking water

The Inputs required for this technology include: concrete wall built with cement, , wood (makonko), grass or iron roof, wooden box of about 1.5x0.5 m, half drum of about 80 litres both raised at 50cm above the floor

Slope: Gentle slope

4.3 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:
  • per Technology area
Indicate size and area unit:

1.5 acres

other/ national currency (specify):


Indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (if relevant): 1 USD =:


Indicate average wage cost of hired labour per day:


4.4 Establishment activities

Activity Type of measure Timing
1. Clearing and preparing land Agronomic During the first rainy season
2. Planting pasture Agronomic Once in a year(April-June)
3. Constructing stall Structural once before establsihment
4. Roofing Structural Once in a year
5. Concreting Structural once in year but keep repairing
6. Feeding and Providing water Structural Daily after establishment

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 labour Persons 74.0 5000.0 370000.0 70.0
Labour Hired Persons 14.0 5000.0 70000.0 30.0
Equipment Hoe Pieces 2.0 10000.0 20000.0 100.0
Equipment Panga Pieces 1.0 7000.0 7000.0 100.0
Equipment Spranger Pieces 1.0 10000.0 10000.0 100.0
Plant material Elephant grass bundles 5.0 100000.0 500000.0 100.0
Plant material lab lab Pieces 4.0 5000.0 20000.0 100.0
Plant material Bruchena Pieces 360.0 500.0 180000.0 100.0
Plant material Mucuna Pieces 1.0 20000.0 20000.0
Construction material Timber Pieces 40.0 3000.0 120000.0 100.0
Construction material Cement bags 10.0 30000.0 300000.0 100.0
Construction material Logs Pieces 60.0 3000.0 180000.0 100.0
Other Grass bundles 46.0 2000.0 92000.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology 1889000.0

Some seed like Macuna and brucheria was provided for free

4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

Activity Type of measure Timing/ frequency
1. Weeding pasture Agronomic Three times per year
2. Repairing of stall Structural once after establishment and when need
3. Treatment of cow Management When need arises(sick)
4. Insemination Agronomic Once in two years
5. Spraying Management Twice per week

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 Labour on daily basis Persons 2.0 5000.0 10000.0 70.0
Labour Hired labour on monthly basis Persons 1.0 150000.0 150000.0 30.0
Equipment Hoe Pieces 10.0 10000.0 100000.0 100.0
Plant material
Plant material Grass bundles Bundles 43.0 10000.0 430000.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology 690000.0

4.8 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Treatment of diseases.

5. Natural and human environment

5.1 Climate

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
Specify average annual rainfall (if known), in mm:


Specifications/ comments on rainfall:

Two rainy season separated by about two weeks and dry spell and dry season of 4 weeks

Agro-climatic zone
  • sub-humid

5.2 Topography

Slopes on average:
  • flat (0-2%)
  • gentle (3-5%)
  • moderate (6-10%)
  • rolling (11-15%)
  • hilly (16-30%)
  • steep (31-60%)
  • very steep (>60%)
  • plateau/plains
  • ridges
  • mountain slopes
  • hill slopes
  • footslopes
  • valley floors
Altitudinal zone:
  • 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.
Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:
  • not relevant

5.3 Soils

Soil depth on average:
  • 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):
  • medium (loamy, silty)
Soil texture (> 20 cm below surface):
  • fine/ heavy (clay)
Topsoil organic matter:
  • medium (1-3%)

5.4 Water availability and quality

Ground water table:

5-50 m

Availability of surface water:


Water quality (untreated):

good drinking water

Is water salinity a problem?


Is flooding of the area occurring?


5.5 Biodiversity

Species diversity:
  • low
Habitat diversity:
  • low

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Sedentary or nomadic:
  • Sedentary
Market orientation of production system:
  • mixed (subsistence/ commercial
Off-farm income:
  • less than 10% of all income
Relative level of wealth:
  • average
Individuals or groups:
  • individual/ household
Level of mechanization:
  • manual work
  • mechanized/ motorized
  • women
  • men
Age of land users:
  • youth
  • middle-aged

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

  • < 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
Is this considered small-, medium- or large-scale (referring to local context)?
  • medium-scale

Inherited land

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

Land ownership:
  • individual, not titled
Land use rights:
  • individual
Water use rights:
  • communal (organized)

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
technical assistance:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
employment (e.g. off-farm):
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
roads and transport:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
drinking water and sanitation:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
financial services:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good

6. Impacts and concluding statements

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts


crop production

Comments/ specify:

Using manure from the stall.

fodder production

Comments/ specify:

0.5 acre improved pasture but lack management.

animal production

Quantity before SLM:

3 litres of milk per day

Quantity after SLM:

10litres of milk per day

Comments/ specify:

Increased milk production.

production area

Comments/ specify:

Additional fodder.

land management

Comments/ specify:

Ggrowing of fodder trees.

Water availability and quality

water quality for livestock

Comments/ specify:

But has had no much effect.

Income and costs

expenses on agricultural inputs

Comments/ specify:

Planting material

farm income

Comments/ specify:

Sale of milk.

diversity of income sources

Comments/ specify:

More products for sale (grass, milk, manure).


Comments/ specify:

Feeding animal.

Socio-cultural impacts

food security/ self-sufficiency

Comments/ specify:

Income received from sale of milk is used for buying food.

community institutions

Comments/ specify:

Especially in savings and credit (SACCO).

Ecological impacts


soil loss

Comments/ specify:

Restricted movements of cattle.

soil compaction

Comments/ specify:

Less tampering with the soil.

nutrient cycling/ recharge

Comments/ specify:

Manure and fallowing.

soil organic matter/ below ground C

Comments/ specify:

Due to application of manure.

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

damage on neighbours' fields

Comments/ specify:

No zero grazing

impact of greenhouse gases

Comments/ specify:

No bio gas production

6.3 Exposure and sensitivity of the Technology to gradual climate change and climate-related extremes/ disasters (as perceived by land users)


The land user requires more knowledge and skills for sustainability of this technology

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?
Short-term returns:


Long-term returns:

very positive

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?
Short-term returns:


Long-term returns:

very positive


Very difficult to put all the money in this investment.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

  • 1-10%
Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many have did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?
  • 0-10%

Motivated by NGO.

6.6 Adaptation

Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?


If yes, indicate to which changing conditions it was adapted:
  • climatic change/ extremes
Specify adaptation of the Technology (design, material/ species, etc.):

During the dry season, the land user seek fodder from the swamps.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
The technology is good at providing income for household needs.
The technology is replicable in other areas and helps diversify income source because of the many products derived from the technology.
Does not require labour to attend to it for 12 hours in a day unlike those technologies that concern cultivation. This means the farmer has more time to do other activities in a day.
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Appropriate for low maintenance costs.
The technology does not promote conflicts among land users.

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

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view How can they be overcome?
High costs of treatment. Reduce risk of infection and infestation.
Veterinary services expensive and not easily available. Training of local trainers to support extension.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
The technology is not sustainable if not well manged by the land user. Improve management of the technology.
Requires day to day monitoring of diseases. Engage household labour to keep alternating.
The land user does not provide concentrates to the technology. Train the land user on how to make concentrates.

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys


  • interviews with land users


Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all