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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1060, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Rehabilitation of Degraded Agricultural Lands in Kandy, Badulla and Nuwara Eliya Districts in the Central Highlands of Sri Lanka', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 6305, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Faculty of Agriculture, University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka (AGRI.PDN) - Sri Lanka', '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:

Crop-livestock integration improves nutrient circularity, and soil productivity technology improves nutrient recycling and soil productivity in the land and SLM practices are reducing land degradation

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

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Crop-livestock integration improves nutrient circularity and soil productivity: solid and liquid organic fertilizers prepared from cow manure are incorporated to soil or sprayed on leaves of vegetables and tea.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Dairy cattle farming is common in the Dolluwa area of the central province of Sri Lanka. Farmers typically have 3-4 cows on about 2-3 hectares for both milk consumption and sales. The landowner interviewed did not formerly adhere to best practices: cows were grazed in woodlands, and water and supplementary feed were not provided as needed. Housing was inadequate. Farm waste wasn’t properly recycled. The farm is located on steep land without adequate soil conservation for annual crops and tea. There was heavy dependence on chemical fertilizer. As a consequence, milk production was below average and crop yields had declined. Besides, there was reservoir pollution due to effluent washed downslope.
New technology was developed to increase milk and crop production by integrating animal–crop management strategies while enhancing nutrient circularity within the farm, and improving soil productivity and environmental quality.
The landowner was first enrolled in the Rehabilitation of Degraded Agricultural Land Project (RDALP) of the UN’s FAO in 2018. The first priority was soil conservation for the steep areas under tea. SLM practices thus combined contour cropping and bunding. Following this, an integrated crop-livestock system was initiated. The RDALP and Fonterra Pvt. Ltd. helped the landowner to build a modern cowshed with infrastructure to provide feed and water. Thereafter, cows were stall-fed: grazing was completely stopped. Cow manure is collected and stored in heaps for 2-3 weeks before incorporating into soils. In the same shed, compost is prepared by mixing manure with crop residues and kitchen/ homegarden waste. Cattle urine and wastewater is directed to a cement tank where it is mixed with specific types of leaves; it is fermented and applied as liquid fertilizer and biopesticide. Manure is used mainly for fast-growing vegetables, while compost is applied to annuals, particularly at planting, and to tea once every three months. Liquid fertilizer is applied to tea seven days before harvesting.
This package requires adequate land for a cattle shed, and for a recycling system to prepare compost and liquid fertilizers. In addition, there must be enough labour for the whole process. The key inputs include materials for the shed, associated infrastructure, and a sprayer to apply liquid fertilizers.
The major benefit is recycling waste to generate useful products – while ensuring circularity of nutrients between crop and animal production systems: thus supporting a “bioeconomy”. Soil conservation practices and the nutrient sources described have improved soil fertility and productivity for overall sustainability. Milk yields have more than doubled, and the tea harvest more than trebled.

(1) Where is the Technology applied?
On steep terrain: tea is cultivated lower down and there are reservoirs in the valley.
(2) What are the purposes/ functions?
•Provide food security
•Increase efficiency of livestock production
•Promote overall nutrient cycling
•Partially substitute chemical fertilizers and pesticides with organic manure
•Generate high-quality organic manure and compost to improve soil fertility
•Control contamination of river water
(3) What are the benefits/ impacts of the Technology?
•Reduced susceptibility of crops to pests/ diseases
•Improved quality of food and water
•Slowed land degradation and restored soil fertility
•Reduced risks
•Economically feasible and rapid impact
(4) What do land users like/
•Reduced risk
•Increased income
•Reduction in cost of production
(5) ...dislike
•Damage to crops by wild animals.
•Higher cost for dairy farming (feed)

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:

2019

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.):

Rehabilitation of Degraded Agricultural Land Project (RDALP) of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations in 2018

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• protect a watershed/ downstream areas – in combination with other Technologies
• reduce risk of disasters
• create beneficial economic impact

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

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

Yes

Specify mixed land use (crops/ grazing/ trees):

• Agro-pastoralism (incl. integrated crop-livestock)

3.3 Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

• Yes (Please fill out the questions below with regard to the land use before implementation of the Technology)

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

Yes

Specify mixed land use (crops/ grazing/ trees):

• Agro-pastoralism (incl. integrated crop-livestock)

3.4 Water supply

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

• mixed rainfed-irrigated

Comments:

Mainly water requirements are fulfilled by natural water sources in the land

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• integrated crop-livestock management
• integrated soil fertility management
• waste management/ waste water management

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

The land is very prone to soil erosion. Therefore several SLM measures were introduced to prevent soil erosion and improve the productivity of the land.

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Zero grazing reduced soil erosion by animal trampling

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:

Application of decomposed organic manure increased tea and vegetable production, proper disposal of farm waste prevents water pollution in reservoirs, prevention of application of chemical fertilizer reduces soil deterioration and water pollution

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 area

other/ national currency (specify):

Sri Lankan Rupees

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

330.13

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Establishment of soil conservation measures	Before rainy season
2.	Establishment of cattle shed	After establishment of soil conservation measures
3.	Establishment of compost shed	Before rainy season
4.	Establishment farm waste disposal system	After establishment of compost shed
5.	Planting crops	With the onset of rain
6.	Application of compost	At and after planting crops
7.	Foliar application of liquid fertilizers	After planting crops

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	Establishment of cattle shed	person days	7.0	4400.0	30800.0	100.0
Labour	Establishment of compost shed	person days	6.0	2000.0	12000.0	100.0
Labour	Establishment of disposal system	person days	2.0	1200.0	2400.0	100.0
Labour	Prepearation of Stone bunds	person days	5.0	1000.0	5000.0	15.0
Equipment	Establishment of 'SALT' method (combined SLM measures on slopes)	person days	5.0	1000.0	5000.0	15.0
Plant material	Vegetable seeds	gram	10.0	100.0	1000.0	100.0
Plant material	Gliricidia stalks	1 stalk	1000.0	3.0	3000.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Compost	1 bag	25.0	125.0	3125.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Cattle manure	1 bag	25.0	125.0	3125.0	100.0
Construction material	Establishment of cattle shed (roofing sheets, bricks, cement, sand..)	unit	1.0	118645.0	118645.0	16.0
Construction material	Establishment of compost preparation unit (roofing sheets, bricks, cement, sand..)	unit	1.0	34560.0	34560.0	15.0
Construction material	Establishment of liquid waste disposal system (roofing sheets, cement, sand..)	unit	1.0	16500.0	16500.0	40.0
Construction material	Large bins to collect liquid waste		2.0	4500.0	9000.0	100.0
Other	cable		18.0	890.0	16020.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					260175.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					788.1

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

Rehabilitation of degraded agriculture land project (RDALP) and local funds

Comments:

The initial cost for establishing cattle shed with a filtering system and compost shed was higher. But the majority of the initial cost was covered by RDALP and local funds. Land users covered 30% of the establishment costs for soil conservation measures. Eg: the SALT method, stone bunds

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Cleaning of drains in tea land - removing weeds and sediments	After rainy season (twice a year)
2.	Lopping of trees established as SALT and shade trees of tea land	Before land preparation in each growing season
3.	Minor renovations of cattle shed and composing unit	Once in a year
4.	Replace bins used to collect liquid waste	Whenever broken

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	Cleaning of drains in tea land - removing weeds and sediments	Person days	6.0	1200.0	7200.0	100.0
Labour	Lopping of trees established as SALT and shade trees of tea land	Person days	4.0	1200.0	4800.0	100.0
Labour	Minor renovations of cattle shed and composing unit	Person days	3.0	1200.0	3600.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Application of compost and cattle manure	bag	25.0	125.0	3125.0	100.0
Construction material	Increase the area of the cattle shed (all included)		1.0	17800.0	17800.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					36525.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					110.64

Comments:

Maintenance activities are fully covered by the land owner.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

The cost involved in intensive labour is higher than for inputs on a daily basis

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

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Nilambe water reservoir is located in the valley and provides water for drinking and irrigation purposes. Part of the micro-catchment of the surface water body/reservoir is occupied by farms where intensive agriculture, homegardens and cattle rearing are practised. Limited soil conservation practices, overuse of agrochemicals and improper waste management have led to contamination of water

5.5 Biodiversity

Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

The forested and scrubland area is about tree species and species of shrubs. In addition, grass species as medicinal plants are also growing. Local and imported varieties of fruits avocado, guava, mango, banana, pomegranate, orange, lemon and tree and bush type of local fruits are grown. Local varieties of cardamom, cinnamon, pepper, nutmeg and other locally used spices such as coriander, mustard etc. have been grown in the home garden. Vegetables often grown include cabbage, beans, lettuce, cucumber, radish, tomato etc. In the tea land, two shade tree species, gliricidia and albizzia

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

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:

• individual

Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

Yes

Specify:

The land belongs to a land user. Land use rights are passed down from generation to generation. Land use rights, water usage rights are based on a traditional legal system

Comments:

Because of the traditional legal system land use rights, and water usage rights are not free for all. Land users are able to implement and maintain technology without any disturbance occurring due to land and water usage rights

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

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Climate and disaster risk reduction

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

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
drought	well

Biological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
epidemic diseases	moderately
insect/ worm infestation	moderately

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:

According to the land user’s perspective implementation of this technology provided net benefits from tea, vegetables and dairy farming compared with establishment and maintenance cost. In the beginning, land users had to invest substantial amount of money to establish this technology. However, short-term and long-term returns could cover the cost involved in establishment and maintenance of the technology.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• single cases/ experimental

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

The technology was introduced to about 10 farms but except one land user, others were unable to spend on developing technology irrespective of partial funds generated from other sources.

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

• 0-10%

Comments:

No farmer was able to afford to develop technology by their own.

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
After providing a proper shed for cows, it was possible to provide adequate feed and water for easy consumption of cows. This led to a significant increase in milk production.
Direct application of cow dung and liquid organic fertilizer for tea and vegetables led to an increase in crop yields and improved soil fertility.
As benefits are higher in monetary terms in comparison to the costs of investment for this technology, neighbourhood farmers who rear animals are encouraged to follow this technology.
Reduction in chemical fertilizer usage reduced the cost of production.
With the implementation of new technology, the number of pests and diseases incidences declined.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
This technology is easy to promote on the farmland due to the low cost involved and multiple benefits are visible. This technology has changed the attitudes of farmers that dairy farming could be profitable and support crop cultivation.
Before implementing this technology landowners had to work outside to earn money. As the income increase with the establishment of the technology, landowners could spend more time on other farming activities onsite .
Modernization of cattle farms enable zero-grazing so that land user was able to spend additional time for other farming activities.
The landowner does not need to depend on government or private sector funds to improve their farming activities.

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?
Crops and fruits are often damaged by wild animals. Therefore the maximum profits cannot be achieved.	The landowner is with the opinion is that damage caused by wild animals could be stopped by constructing a steel fence around the land. However, farmer is unable to afford or such as the cost is very high.
Establishment of this technology requires considerable amount of money which is beyond the income and purchasing power of farmers with low income.	Providing partial funding by government or private sector organizations would help farmers to initiate the establishment of at least one or two components of technology.
Attitudes of neighboring farmers on dairy farming should be changed as a profit oriented business.	Introducing training programs and demonstrations at the successful farm would encourage other farmers to use the technology.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
The landowner does not record profits that earn from his farming activities. He doesn’t have a good idea about the overall income of his farming activities per month.	The landowner should change attitudes toward income recordings.
People should be aware of these SLM technologies, SLM knowledge and benefits.	Government and private sector should invest in and implement SLM training programs.
Limited availability of modern technologies in cattle farming and crop cultivation affordable to middle income farmers.	Modernize farming with biogas technology, harvest tea with the cutter, prepare wormy compost and compost tea for tea cultivation.
Lack of properly established marketing channel for selling products.	Improve the product quality, or technology to develop value added products targeting supermarkets.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Sustainable management practices for agricultural lands in the central highlands of Sri Lanka

Available from where? Costs?

rehabilitation of degraded agricultural land project office, food and agricultural organization of the United Nations Peradeniya Sri Lanka

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Project News: Fertile Soil

Available from where? Costs?

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

Controlled livestock grazing for soil fertility improvement [Uganda]

URL:

https://qcat.wocat.net/en/wocat/technologies/view/technologies_2761/