Smallstock Manure Production [Togo]
- Creation:
- Update:
- Compiler: Julie Zähringer
- Editor: –
- Reviewer: Alexandra Gavilano
Houré bow
technologies_955 - Togo
View sections
Expand all Collapse all1. General information
1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT
When were the data compiled (in the field)?
20/08/2007
The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:
Yes
2. Description of the SLM Technology
2.1 Short description of the Technology
Definition of the Technology:
Smallstock manure production technology is an easy and efficient method to produce organic fertilizer for the conservation and improvement of soil fertility.
2.2 Detailed description of the Technology
Description:
The main item within this practice is the so-called fosse fumière - a 1-2 m deep and 3-4 m diameter circular pit, enclosed by a stone wall. The pit has a double function: it is the place where manure is produced and it serves as shed for small ruminants (goats, sheep), particularly to avoid uncontrolled grazing /browsing during the cropping season (from April until November). Animals are fed in the fosse, and they drop their faeces, which together with chopped organic material accruing from the kitchen and field activities, piles up in the pit for decomposition. The fosse is partly roofed to provide optimal micro-climatic conditions: partial shading, partial exposure to sunlight and appropriate moistening through rainfall. Inside the pit, one or more circular terraces (0.5 m high, 0.5 m wide) serve as resting area for the animals. The terrace riser need to be plastered or reinforced with stones, particularly in case of loose soil, to avoid damage caused by animal trampling. After decomposition the manure is removed from the pit and distributed on the fields beginning of each cropping season (March). Then straw bedding is renewed and the process starts from scratch. During the dry season from December to March smallstock is left to graze freely on the fields and pastures.
2.3 Photos of the Technology
2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment
Country:
Togo
Region/ State/ Province:
Kara
Further specification of location:
Lassa
Map
×2.6 Date of implementation
If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:
- more than 50 years ago (traditional)
2.7 Introduction of the Technology
Specify how the Technology was introduced:
- as part of a traditional system (> 50 years)
Comments (type of project, etc.):
The technology was early traditional and passed from father to son. It was improved in 1987.
3. Classification of the SLM Technology
3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied
Mixed (crops/ grazing/ trees), incl. agroforestry
Comments:
Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): soil fertility decline
3.3 Further information about land use
Number of growing seasons per year:
- 1
Specify:
Longest growing period in days: 180
Longest growing period from month to month: May-October
3.5 Spread of the Technology
Comments:
Total area covered by the SLM Technology is 0.15 m2.
3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology
management measures
- M2: Change of management/ intensity level
agronomic measures
- A2: Organic matter/ soil fertility
Comments:
Main measures: agronomic measures, management measures
Type of agronomic measures: manure / compost / residues
3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology
chemical soil deterioration
- Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content (not caused by erosion)
Comments:
Main type of degradation addressed: Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content
3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation
Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:
- reduce land degradation
- restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land
Comments:
Main goals: mitigation / reduction of land degradation
Secondary goals: rehabilitation / reclamation of denuded land
4. Technical specifications, implementation activities, inputs, and costs
4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology
4.2 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing
Dimensions and main components of a manure production pit: (1) open part of the roof; (2) covered part of the roof; (3) stone wall; (4) poles (holding the roof); (5) terraces (where animals can rest)
Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: moderate
Technical knowledge required for land users: low
Main technical functions: increase in organic matter, increase in nutrient availability (supply, recycling,…)
Manure / compost / residues
Material/ species: compost (mixture of animal faeces and vegetative scraps
4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities
Activity | Type of measure | Timing/ frequency | |
---|---|---|---|
1. | Continuous depositing and piling up of vegetative material (dung, kitchen waste, crop residues) | Agronomic | |
2. | Let decompose the organic material inside the pit. Twice a year (between April and November) the material is actively mixed for aeration | Agronomic | Twice a year (between April and November |
3. | Distribute the manure on the fields (during rainy season) | Agronomic | during rainy season |
4.7 Costs and inputs needed for maintenance/ recurrent activities (per year)
Comments:
Machinery/ tools: shovel, cutlass, rope, mattock,
4.8 Most important factors affecting the costs
Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:
Main cost-relevant factor is labour. Material such as stones and straw are available on the farm (no monetary costs)
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
Agro-climatic zone
- sub-humid
Thermal climate class: tropics
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.
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)
Topsoil organic matter:
- low (<1%)
5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology
Market orientation of production system:
- mixed (subsistence/ commercial
- subsistence (self-supply)
Individuals or groups:
- individual/ household
Level of mechanization:
- manual work
Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:
Population density: 200-500 persons/km2
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)?
- small-scale
5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights
Land ownership:
- individual, titled
Land use rights:
- leased
- individual
6. Impacts and concluding statements
6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown
Socio-economic impacts
Production
crop production
production area
Income and costs
farm income
workload
Socio-cultural impacts
food security/ self-sufficiency
SLM/ land degradation knowledge
Ecological impacts
Soil
soil moisture
nutrient cycling/ recharge
soil organic matter/ below ground C
6.3 Exposure and sensitivity of the Technology to gradual climate change and climate-related extremes/ disasters (as perceived by land users)
Comments:
Technology not much affected by climatic extremes or changes.
6.4 Cost-benefit analysis
How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?
Short-term returns:
slightly positive
Long-term returns:
positive
How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?
Short-term returns:
slightly positive
Long-term returns:
positive
6.5 Adoption of the Technology
Comments:
100% of land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support
60 land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support
There is a moderate trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology
Comments on adoption trend: depending mainly on the availability of livestock
6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view |
---|
Production of green manure How can they be sustained / enhanced? maintenance of the pit |
Increase of crop yield through fertilization How can they be sustained / enhanced? renewal of litter |
Rehabilitation of degraded soils |
Limited animal roaming and destroying of crops How can they be sustained / enhanced? corrall livestock in the pit |
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? |
---|---|
Manual construction is very labour-intensive | mechanized excavation |
Air pollution through smelly animal dung | add products which attenuate the smell; establish the manure pit outside the residential area |
Accident risk for children | establish the manure pit outside the residential area |
Links and modules
Expand all Collapse allLinks
No links
Modules
No modules