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)

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)?

24/05/2017

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

Yes

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?

No

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Zero grazing by cut and carry feeding. The cows do not graze but are confined inside the stall, feed and water is provided for the animals.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Due to land fragmentation and conflicts, traditional grazing systems where animals are reared in open grasslands is no longer feasible and sustainable since grassland is limited and stray animals would destroy neighboring crops. Now small holders with limited land but diversified livelihoods have to utilize the available land in full capacity and sustainable ways. For dairy farmers, stall feeding is an innovative and promising system.
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 0.5 m above the ground surface to prevent contamination of the feed with dung and urine; and also ensure efficient feed intake.
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 such as ticks, and contagious diseases such as East Coast Fever. This practice also reduces land conflicts that would be caused by stray animals destroying crops of neighbors. The animal does 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, decompose and apply in both farmers’ crop and pasture fields. 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 if management is poor, parasites and diseases can also build up within the stall. Stall feeding requires feed preservation in the form of fermented pasture (silage) and/or dried pasture (hay); stored and to be used for feeding the animals during dry seasons when pasture is dry and of poor quality.
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 cut and carried Napier grass.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.4 Videos of the Technology

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

2.6 Date of implementation

Indicate year of implementation:

2014

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

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• create beneficial economic impact
• create beneficial social impact

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

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

Cropland:ca

3.3 Further information about land use

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

• rainfed

Comments:

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

If the Technology is evenly spread over an area, indicate approximate area covered:

• < 0.1 km2 (10 ha)

Comments:

Barn, area where napier grass is planted, cut and carried.

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Cut and carry

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

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, rake , tauplin and polythene paper.

Slope: Gentle slope.

4.3 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology area

other/ national currency (specify):

UGX

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

3803.0

4.4 Establishment activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing
1.	looking for land where to plant pasture	Agronomic	During the first rainy season
2.	Looking for labour to clear the land, planting	Agronomic	Once in a year(April-June)
3.	Looking for seed	Structural	once before establsihment
4.	Planting the pasture	Structural	Daily after establishment
5.	Initial construction of the stall	Structural	Once before establishment
6.	Initial construction of of feeding and drinking troughs	Structural	Once before establishment
7.	Putting the cow/s in the stall	Other measures	Once after establishment
8.	Feeding and watering	Management	Daily

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 for transporting wood and cement	Persons	25.0	5000.0	125000.0	70.0
Labour	Labour for preparing and planting fields	Persons	45.0	5000.0	225000.0	30.0
Labour	Labour for constructing stall	persons	12.0
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	Mucuna	Pieces	1.0	20000.0	20000.0	100.0
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
Construction material	Nails	kgs	10.0	3500.0	35000.0	100.0
Other
Other	Grass to thatch the stall	bundles	24.0	2000.0	48000.0	100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					1610000.0

Comments:

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
6.	Reseeding	Agronomic	During the rainy season
7.	Replanting of pasture	Agronomic	During the rainy season
8.	Cutting and carrying the grass to the animal	Other measures	Daily after establishment
9.	Collection of manure	Other measures	Daily
10.	Applying manure to the garden	Agronomic	Daily
11.	Making silage and hay	Agronomic	During the wet season

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	3.0	5000.0	15000.0	70.0
Labour	Hired labour on monthly basis	Persons	2.0	150000.0	300000.0	30.0
Equipment	Hoe	Pieces	10.0	10000.0	100000.0	100.0
Equipment	Rake	Pieces	2.0	7000.0	14000.0	100.0
Equipment	Tauplin	Pieces	1.0	35000.0	35000.0	100.0
Equipment	Polythene	Rolls	1.0	25000.0	25000.0	100.0
Plant material
Plant material	pasture for planting	Bundles	43.0	10000.0	430000.0	100.0
Other	Pesticides (monthly)	litres	2.0	12000.0	24000.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					943000.0

4.8 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Labour costs for establishing and maintaining the technology.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

5.3 Soils

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

No

5.5 Biodiversity

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

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

Land use rights:

• individual

Water use rights:

• communal (organized)

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Water availability and quality

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Soil

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

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

Gradual climate change

Gradual climate change

	Season	Type of climatic change/ extreme	How does the Technology cope with it?
annual temperature		increase	moderately

Comments:

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)?

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

Comments:

Once established the farmer needs only to pay for labour to cut and carry grass and make silage and hay only.

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%

Comments:

Motivated by NGO.

6.6 Adaptation

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

Yes

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 seeks 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 require skills on how to make concentrates.	Train the land user on how to make concentrates.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information