This is an outdated, inactive version of this case.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

Modern Intensive Livestock Management. [Uganda]

Gwoko dyang cak

technologies_2143 - 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)

SLM specialist:

Sabiti Kidega Faith

Gulu Uganda Country Diary Farm

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 6, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Scaling-up SLM practices by smallholder farmers (IFAD)', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 155, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'CDE Centre for Development and Environment (CDE Centre for Development and Environment) - Switzerland', 'template': 'raw'}

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

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

Comments:

A highly successful example intensive zero-grazing of dairy cattle. The hybrid stock is progressively adopted to the climatic conditions of northern Uganda using selective gene replication technologies. Only female calves are produced on this farm through artificial insemination using sexed semen. Between February and April 2017, the herd increased from 54 to 63.

2. Description of the SLM Technology

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Intensive zero-grazing of hybrid dairy Hybrid (Holstein Friesian) cattle to produce a constant high yield of milk all-year around.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The productivity of modern intensive livestock management systems in northern Uganda is highly constrained by increasing household land shortage, poor quality pastures and rampant spread of livestock pests and diseases. Thus a large number of improved cattle are reared in closed systems where they are fed, treated and supervised. Some bulk feeds are grown on the same farm and the manure from the livestock housing units is used to improve soil fertility and crop yields of the same farm.

Improved breeds of cattle (75% Friesian and 25% local) are reared in paddocked land area of an average in 8 hectares, within which the animals are fed, watered and managed with medication. Approximately 25% of this land area is devoted to livestock structures, in which up to 64 Friesians are kept. The rest of the land is planted with improved pastures as well as other crops such as maize (Zea mays), cowpeas (Vigna unguiculata), fruit trees and vegetables. Manure is collected daily from an assembly point and applied to the crops. Improved pastures are also used for silage. The system further provides manure, which is valuable for soil fertility improvement in crop fields. Moreover, the confinement of the livestock system helps to reduce conflicts experienced in traditional free range grazing areas.

The approach and materials used in this intensive dairy cattle rearing system in northern Uganda closely follows specification for dairy cattle barns in New Zealand (www.simpleshelter.co.nz/). When properly implemented, the financial returns are substantial in the long term. However, establishment costs are relatively high for most average smallholder farmers in northern Uganda. The sustainable land management (SLM) benefits from this system justify its adoption, although carbon balance needs to be independently assessed.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

General remarks regarding photos:

On 20 acres of land 5 are built up while 15 are cropland. Maize and cowpeas are the main crops used as fodder. An orchard, banana plantation and a couple of fish ponds complete the sustainable food cycle.

2.4 Videos of the Technology

Date:

10/05/2017

Location:

Gulu District Northern Uganda

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

Country:

Uganda

Region/ State/ Province:

Northern region

Further specification of location:

Gulu district

Specify the spread of the Technology:
  • applied at specific points/ concentrated on a small area
Comments:

Map showing technology site in Northern Uganda.

2.6 Date of implementation

Indicate year of implementation:

2007

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:
  • 10-50 years ago

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

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

Started this innitiative after retiring from Heifer International Project as a Veterinary doctor.

3. Classification of the SLM Technology

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

  • improve production
  • reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
  • conserve ecosystem
  • create beneficial economic impact

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

Cropland

Cropland

  • Annual cropping
Number of growing seasons per year:
  • 3
Specify:

3 seasons achieved through innovative "dry-cropping".

Grazing land

Grazing land

Intensive grazing/ fodder production:
  • Cut-and-carry/ zero grazing
  • Improved pastures
Comments:

Several overlapping technologies have been designed to create a sustainable mixed crop and livestock agricultural system.

3.4 Water supply

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

Three cropping seasons are managed from two seasons of rainfall through an innovative early planting philosophy referred to as "dry-planting", which splits the long rainy season into two. The three-season crop production system is necessary to ensure the production of enough fodder for the animals. 63 cows may be managed on the limited acreage using this system.

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

  • integrated crop-livestock management
  • integrated soil fertility management

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

agronomic measures

agronomic measures

  • A1: Vegetation/ soil cover
  • A2: Organic matter/ soil fertility
vegetative measures

vegetative measures

  • V4: Replacement or removal of alien/ invasive species
structural measures

structural measures

  • S9: Shelters for plants and animals
management measures

management measures

  • M2: Change of management/ intensity level
  • M4: Major change in timing of activities
  • M6: Waste management (recycling, re-use or reduce)
Comments:

The intricate combination of agronomic, vegetative and management measures is necessary for sustaining the farm.

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

soil erosion by water

soil erosion by water

  • Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion
soil erosion by wind

soil erosion by wind

chemical soil deterioration

chemical soil deterioration

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

physical soil deterioration

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

biological degradation

  • Bc: reduction of vegetation cover
water degradation

water degradation

  • Ha: aridification
Comments:

Use of disc harrowing reduces soil disturbance that could lead to destruction of soil structure and induce water erosion during heavy rainfall episodes.

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

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

Use of Animal manure.

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

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

{'additional_translations': {}, 'content_type': 'image/jpeg', 'preview_image': '/media/5e/0/5e0f39d1-f2c0-4bd0-b1d4-e0af51288933.jpg', 'key': 'Technical drawing', 'value': '/media/98/6/98679758-ca39-4f24-87fc-6815bc505bf4.jpg', 'template': 'raw'}
Author:

Kaheru

Date:

24/05/2017

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

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

Livestock Unit (LU)

Specify dimensions of unit (if relevant):

1 Heifer

other/ national currency (specify):

UGX

If relevant, indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (e.g. 1 USD = 79.9 Brazilian Real): 1 USD =:

3400.0

Indicate average wage cost of hired labour per day:

5000

4.3 Establishment activities

Activity Timing (season)
1. Find and buy land Anytime, before establishment
2. Survey land to get map especially for gradient and soils Anytime, before harvesting
3. Remove all tree cover and stumps Dry season
4. Disc Ploughing Dry season
5. Plant Maize Rainy season
6. Build silage bunker Anytime
7. Construct Animal Barns Anytime
8. Identify water source anytime
9. Construct and fill water storage tanks Just before stocking
10. Procure and stock in-calf cows After harvest of first crop of maize

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit Total costs per input % of costs borne by land users
Labour Procure stock Pieces 10.0 200000.0 2000000.0 100.0
Labour Survey and map land Pieces 1.0 23000000.0 23000000.0 100.0
Labour Slash, cut trees, remove stumps Person-days 60.0 5000.0 300000.0 100.0
Equipment Plant maize Person-days 10.0 5000.0 50000.0 100.0
Equipment Weed maize Person-days 20.0 5000.0 100000.0 100.0
Equipment Cut maize to make silage Person-days 20.0 500.0 10000.0 100.0
Equipment Tractor, pump, water tank, piping Pieces 1.0 7500000.0 7500000.0 100.0
Plant material Maize seed Kg 325.0 5000.0 1625000.0 100.0
Fertilizers and biocides NPK fertilizers Kg 1500.0 3000.0 4500000.0 100.0
Construction material Prefabs, roofing, bricks, sand, cement and construction costs Pieces 1.0 5000.0 5000.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology 39090000.0
If you are unable to break down the costs in the table above, give an estimation of the total costs of establishing the Technology:

58000.0

Comments:

After retiring from active service, he acquired a huge loan from bank. The project has paid back the loan.

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

Activity Timing/ frequency
1. Harrowing Dry season
2. Planting Dry season (dry planting) and wet season
3. Harvesting (cutting stalks for silage) Wet season
4. Silage making Wet season
5. Vaccination Continuous
6. Deworming Continuous
7. Milking and milk selling Continuous
8. Maintenance of machinery Continuous
9. Maintenance of barns Continuous

4.6 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 persons days paid monthly persons 50.0 150000.0 7500000.0 100.0
Fertilizers and biocides Vaccines monthly 1 30.0
Other Servicing and mainting equipemnt monthly 1 30.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology 7500000.0

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Labour and equipment takes most of the costs. Labour and equipment maintenance is routine monthly.

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:

1350.00

Specifications/ comments on rainfall:

2 seasons of rainfall.

Agro-climatic zone
  • humid
  • 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%)
Landforms:
  • 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 (> 20 cm below surface):
  • medium (loamy, silty)
Topsoil organic matter:
  • high (>3%)
  • medium (1-3%)

5.4 Water availability and quality

Ground water table:

5-50 m

Availability of surface water:

medium

Water quality (untreated):

good drinking water

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

No

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Water is pumped from underground for domestic use and for the animals.

5.5 Biodiversity

Species diversity:
  • medium
Habitat diversity:
  • medium

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Sedentary or nomadic:
  • Sedentary
Market orientation of production system:
  • commercial/ market
Off-farm income:
  • less than 10% of all income
Relative level of wealth:
  • rich
Individuals or groups:
  • individual/ household
Level of mechanization:
  • animal traction
  • mechanized/ motorized
Gender:
  • women
  • men
Age of land users:
  • youth
  • middle-aged
Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

He is a trainer in diary production and management in Gulu district facilitated by Northern Uganda Social Action Fund (NUSAF).

5.7 Average area of land used 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
Comments:

Average households in Gulu district have equal or more land than the land held by this farmer.

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

Land ownership:
  • individual, not titled
Land use rights:
  • individual
Water use rights:
  • individual
Comments:

Enclosed area with strict management.
Land ownership is individual but not titled because the land user has not started on the process of acquiring the title.

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

health:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
education:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
technical assistance:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
employment (e.g. off-farm):
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
markets:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
energy:
  • 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

Production

crop production

decreased
increased
Quantity before SLM:

Subsistence

Quantity after SLM:

Enough to feed over 60 hybrid cows.

Comments/ specify:

Maize and cow peas as feed supplements.

crop quality

decreased
increased
Quantity before SLM:

0

Quantity after SLM:

Bananas and fruit orchard introduced

Comments/ specify:

Application of manure.

fodder production

decreased
increased
Quantity before SLM:

0

Quantity after SLM:

Enough for 60 cow all-year around

fodder quality

decreased
increased
Quantity before SLM:

None

Quantity after SLM:

Feeds over 60 cows

Comments/ specify:

Planted maize and cow peas.

animal production

decreased
increased
Quantity before SLM:

0

Quantity after SLM:

>60

risk of production failure

increased
decreased
Quantity before SLM:

Dependent on rainfall availability

Quantity after SLM:

Managed crop and water production

product diversity

decreased
increased
Quantity before SLM:

Cereals only

Quantity after SLM:

Mixed crop and livestock production

production area

decreased
increased
Quantity before SLM:

20 acres

Quantity after SLM:

20 acres

land management

hindered
simplified
Quantity before SLM:

Communal

Quantity after SLM:

Individual

Comments/ specify:

Application of animal manure from the cows

Water availability and quality

drinking water availability

decreased
increased
Quantity before SLM:

0

Quantity after SLM:

Pumped from underground water.

drinking water quality

decreased
increased
Quantity before SLM:

None available

Quantity after SLM:

Safe drinking water for humans and livestock.

water availability for livestock

decreased
increased
Quantity before SLM:

None

Quantity after SLM:

Available

water quality for livestock

decreased
increased
Quantity before SLM:

None

Quantity after SLM:

Safe, clean drinking water.

Income and costs

expenses on agricultural inputs

increased
decreased
Quantity before SLM:

Tractors/ dairy industry tools and machinery

Quantity after SLM:

Hand hoe

farm income

decreased
increased
Quantity before SLM:

Subsistent

Quantity after SLM:

Commercial

diversity of income sources

decreased
increased
Quantity before SLM:

Subsistence

Quantity after SLM:

Dairy products

workload

increased
decreased
Quantity before SLM:

20 -50 employees

Quantity after SLM:

Single households

Comments/ specify:

Enough employees employed to work on farm.

Other socio-economic impacts

Decreased
Increased
Quantity before SLM:

No training facility for the community

Quantity after SLM:

Dairy farming training and extension for community

Socio-cultural impacts

food security/ self-sufficiency

reduced
improved
Quantity before SLM:

Subsistence

Quantity after SLM:

Surplus production

health situation

worsened
improved
Quantity before SLM:

Low

Quantity after SLM:

High

land use/ water rights

worsened
improved
Quantity before SLM:

None

Quantity after SLM:

Individual pumped water

cultural opportunities

reduced
improved
Quantity before SLM:

No training center in area

Quantity after SLM:

High-end veterinary training and extension facility

SLM/ land degradation knowledge

reduced
improved
Quantity before SLM:

No record

Quantity after SLM:

Proper records including digital research weather station

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

water quantity

decreased
increased
Quantity before SLM:

High runoff

Quantity after SLM:

High retension

water quality

decreased
increased
Quantity before SLM:

None

Quantity after SLM:

Available drinking water

surface runoff

increased
decreased
Quantity before SLM:

No management measures

Quantity after SLM:

Management measures in place

Soil

soil moisture

decreased
increased
Quantity before SLM:

Low

Quantity after SLM:

Very high

Comments/ specify:

Increased ground cover ensures high soil moisture on cropland.

soil cover

reduced
improved
Quantity before SLM:

None

Quantity after SLM:

Planted grasses, cereals, legumes and fruit trees

nutrient cycling/ recharge

decreased
increased
Quantity before SLM:

None

Quantity after SLM:

Farmyard manuring

soil organic matter/ below ground C

decreased
increased
Quantity before SLM:

Not managed

Quantity after SLM:

Properly managed through "turning"

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

biomass/ above ground C

decreased
increased
Quantity before SLM:

A few crops during rainy season

Quantity after SLM:

Intensive fodder cropping to meet needs for dairy farming

animal diversity

decreased
increased
Quantity before SLM:

No animals

Quantity after SLM:

Cows on dairy farm

Climate and disaster risk reduction

emission of carbon and greenhouse gases

increased
decreased
Quantity before SLM:

Dairy Farm Production

Quantity after SLM:

Subsistence crop production

Comments/ specify:

Dairy cows emit methane and mechanisation involves burning fossil fuels both of which leave a bigger carbon footprint than the is counterbalanced by the crops that are grown for forder. Good management of the plant biodiversity at the stream banks helps offset the carbon footprint somehow but may not be sufficient

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

impact of greenhouse gases

increased
reduced
Quantity before SLM:

Dairy farming

Quantity after SLM:

No livestock

Specify assessment of off-site impacts (measurements):

Generally, the economic and social benefits far outweigh the environmental costs. The technology is a good SLM practice.

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 increase or decrease How does the Technology cope with it?
annual temperature increase very well
seasonal temperature dry season increase very well
annual rainfall decrease well
seasonal rainfall wet/ rainy season decrease well

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it?
local rainstorm very well
local thunderstorm very well
local hailstorm well
Climatological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it?
heatwave moderately
drought well
Biological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it?
epidemic diseases very well

Other climate-related consequences

Other climate-related consequences
How does the Technology cope with it?
reduced growing period well

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

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

negative

Long-term returns:

very positive

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

slightly negative

Long-term returns:

very positive

Comments:

The technology is highly productive in the medium to longer term.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

  • single cases/ experimental
If available, quantify (no. of households and/ or area covered):

1

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

Technology is quite expensive and requires external support to establish.

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.):

Hybrids which combine high milk yield and tolerance for local weather conditions are being bred in preference to original 75 percent parent stock.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Environment is controlled to create microclimate suitable to technology.
Technology creates an isolated complete ecosystem.
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Once established, the technology is extremely profitable.
Opportunities established for training extension delivery personnel through demonstration of good practices.

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?
Inputs make technology quite expensive. Calculate economic profitability carefully to maintain efficient production.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
Combining intensive productivity with training carries the risk of introducing animal diseases from the high flux of visitors. Disinfection basins have been placed at various points on the farm.

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys

3 (Land User, Project Manager, Extension Service Provider).

  • interviews with land users

2

  • interviews with SLM specialists/ experts

2

  • compilation from reports and other existing documentation

1 (info@simpleshelter.co.nz).

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

27/04/2017

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

None

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

None

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules