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)

Book project: where people and their land are safer - A Compendium of Good Practices in Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) (where people and their land are safer) {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 869, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'HEKS (Hilfswerk der Evangelischen Kirchen Schweiz) (HEKS (Hilfswerk der Evangelischen Kirchen Schweiz)) - 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

1.5 Reference to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Approaches (documented using WOCAT)

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Multi-Nutritional Blocks for livestock are an alternative animal feed for all seasons. They are a concentrate of nutritious elements prepared from crop residues such as stalks, pods, etc.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Livestock rearing is the second biggest economic activity in Niger after farming. It substantially contributes to food security by providing substantial income to pastoralist households. However, due to the increasing pressure on grazing land because of recurrent drought and proceeding land degradation livestock rearing is becoming more and more difficult, which again accentuates the vulnerability of pastoralist households. The annual fodder balance for livestock, which is depending on the amount of rain, is regularly showing a deficit, thereby weakening the animal food security. Even though the animals consume not more than 30% of dry biomass, the supply is insufficient in most years, hence, the digestible nitrogen intake required for growth and the production of milk, and the requirements of vitamin A and E are not covered. Phosphorus is also an essential element for the metabolism, and must be supplied in sufficient quantity, because the deficiency of these elements in the food intake jeopardizes the survival of the animals. This necessitates to find food supplements which can raise the quality level of the animal feed.
Considering these rather critical and recurrent fodder deficits in Niger, the FAO, in collaboration with the National Agronomic Research Institute of Niger (INRAN), has initiated and tested the technique of the production of multi-nutritional fodder blocks . Agricultural by-products like stalks from millet, sorghum, maize or rice straw are crushed and mixed with micro-nutrients (phosphorus, salt), vitamins and binders (gum arabic, cement), and are compacted in a way that the product can be nibbled by herbivorous animals.
Sahelbio (financed by HEKS/EPER (Swiss Church Aid)) has taken on this technology in a project supporting the food security of rural households by agro-ecological intensification in the department of Mayahi. The production units for the blocks are located in the villages, and are managed by the village committees. The fodder blocks are produced in the form of pyramidal-shaped bricks, or in a form adapted to the needs of the households. The main equipment for producing the bricks includes shredders, mixture containers, molds, scales, and small tools and implements. The blocks are sold locally or at the markets, and thus constitute a source of additional income.
The fodder blocks constitute an alternative for the supplementary feeding of the animals in the period between harvests, or in years with critical fodder deficits. In this way, the blocks enable an increase of the milk and meat production, and the dependency on imported food decreases. Apart from the advantages for the animals, the technology offers the possibility to recover crop residues, while encouraging the population to engage in measures to maintain a vegetation cover (mobile fencing, storage of stalks, weed control, a.s.o.).

2.3 Photos 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

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through projects/ external interventions

Comments (type of project, etc.):

The technology is introduced by a development project in cooperation with the producers.

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts
• create beneficial economic impact

• Mitigate the livestock food crisis and improve the production and productivity of herbivores

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

Comments:

Main crops (cash and food crops): Millet, sorghum, groundnut, sesame

Main animal species and products: Goats, sheep, cattle, donkeys

3.4 Water supply

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

• rainfed

Comments:

Most of the ingredients (stalks, pods, fruits ...) are harvested after the rainy season.

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• pastoralism and grazing land management
• integrated crop-livestock management
• improved plant varieties/ animal breeds

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

This technology enables to recover crop residues while decreasing losses.

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

The animals enable that the soil is fertilised with manure.

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

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

• reduce land degradation

Comments:

The technology aims to provide a quality feed to the animals, which contribute in turn to the fertilisation of the soils through manure.

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology unit

other/ national currency (specify):

CFA franc

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

550.0

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Shredding of stalks	From December to May
2.	Measurement of input quantities	From December to May
3.	Mixing of inputs in a container	From December to May
4.	Moulding of blocks	From December to May
5.	Drying of blocks	From December to May
6.	Sale	From December to May

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	Production of blocks	person-days	4.0	1000.0	4000.0	100.0
Equipment	Shredder		1.0	700.0	700.0
Equipment	Bucket		4.0	300.0	1200.0
Equipment	Container		2.0	800.0	1600.0
Equipment	Mould		1.0	400.0	400.0
Equipment	Gas-oil	litre	1.0	400.0	400.0
Equipment	Motor oil	litre	1.0	300.0	300.0
Equipment	Mat	piece	1.0	50.0	50.0
Plant material	Stalks of millet or sorghum	kg	3.0	200.0	600.0	100.0
Plant material	Cowpea tops	kg	4.0	200.0	800.0	100.0
Plant material	Bran	kg	4.0	200.0	800.0	100.0
Plant material	Salt	kg	1.0	175.0	175.0	100.0
Plant material	Acacia pods	kg	1.0	150.0	150.0	100.0
Plant material	Kalgo pods	kg	1.0	150.0	150.0	100.0
Plant material	Cement	kg	1.0	125.0	125.0	100.0
Plant material	Water	litre	150.0	2.0	300.0	93.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					11750.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					21.36

If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:

The project has financed the equipment.

Comments:

The costs refer to the manufacturing of 20 kg of fodder blocks.

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Shredding of stalks	From December to May
2.	Measurement of input quantities	From December to May
3.	Making of blocks	From December to May
4.	Mixing of inputs in a container	From December to May
5.	Moulding of blocks	From December to May
6.	Drying of blocks	From December to May
7.	Sale	From December to May

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	Production of blocks	person-days	4.0	1000.0	4000.0	100.0
Equipment	Gas-oil	litre	1.0	400.0	400.0	100.0
Plant material	Stalks of millet or sorghum	kg	3.0	200.0	600.0	100.0
Plant material	Cowpea tops	kg	4.0	200.0	800.0	100.0
Plant material	Bran	kg	4.0	200.0	800.0	100.0
Plant material	Salt	kg	1.0	175.0	175.0	100.0
Plant material	Acacia pods	kg	1.0	150.0	150.0	100.0
Plant material	Kalgo pods	kg	1.0	150.0	150.0	100.0
Plant material	Cement	kg	1.0	125.0	125.0	100.0
Plant material	Water	litre	150.0	2.0	300.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					7500.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					13.64

Comments:

The annual cost depends on the production level.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Ingredients, diesel

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

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Predominantly illiterate

5.7 Average area of land used 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)

Comments:

Access to land is through inheritance, purchase or pawning.

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Climate and disaster risk reduction

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?
seasonal temperature	dry season	increase	very well
other gradual climate change	variability of the rainfall (increase of extreme rainfall events, anomalies between the seasons)	increase	very well

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
drought	very well

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

• 11-50%

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

• 0-10%

Comments:

The implementation of the technology requires sizeable assets like shredders, which are not easy to realise in a rural environment where means of subsistence are often lacking.

6.6 Adaptation

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

No

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Increase of livestock production (breeding, milk, meat...); This technology enables to generate income.
The livestock has a higher value;
This technology enables to generate income.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Transfer of skills;
Tackling food insecurity through the quality of food supply;
Improvement of the living standard of the producers.

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?
Sales difficulties, lack of entrepreneurial spirit	Establishment of a marketing mechanism;
The large sensitivity of the fodder blocks to fungi	Optimal drying of the products

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Low production	Command of commercial technologies and good coverage of local markets

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

Boosting agricultural production to prevent food crises

URL:

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/emergencies/docs/Niger_ERCU_Bulletin_1.pdf

Title/ description:

Niger: multi-nutritional densified blocks for livestock

URL:

http://www.waapp-ppaao.org/sites/default/files/fiche_bmn_2.pdf

Title/ description:

THE TECHNOLOGY OF MULTI-NUTRITIONAL BLOCKS IN NIGER

URL:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MH7qfQnFuYE