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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 13, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Catastrophic shifts in drylands (EU-CASCADE)', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1085, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'University of Basilicata - Italy', '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

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Application of manure in valuable pastures to increase grass recover and reduce shrub encroachment

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

This is a technique used on animal husbandry farms with either deep litter housing systems (sheep and goat manure) or manure heaps (cattle manure). Manure spreading is carried out twice a year but on different land.
In the case of deep litter housing systems fresh straw is continuously spread over soiled litter in layers. After around six months the deep litter bedding is removed and mechanically spread on pasture lands or arable land.
In the case of cattle farms animal waste is transferred daily to the farm’s manure heap where it is left to decompose for at least a year. Also in this case straw is added for the animals’ comfort and hygiene and is added to the manure heap together with faeces.
Once the manure is ready it is spread on areas of land which can be farmed using mechanical means In the case of arable cropland manure is immediately buried by ploughing, in the case of pasture land it is spread at the beginning of autumn and left on the surface without ploughing (if not occasionally a harrow might be used to break down the manure to increase even distribution and penetration).

Purpose of the Technology: Increase growth of palatable species, increase value of grazing area

Natural / human environment: The technique is an agronomic measure which is applied on meadows, pastures and cropland in an area with a sub-humid climate, moderate scope and shallow clayey soil.
As to the context of production, it is characterised by a medium level of mechanisation (only the most demanding operations are carried out using mechanical means), the production system is essentially mixed, a small part is destined for personal consumption whilst the bulk of production is destined for local markets. The property is predominantly privately owned but also includes some public land, especially in the case of pasture land. Most farms in the area are livestock farms whilst the agricultural component is destined exclusively for private consumption.

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

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)

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)

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Decrease of value of pastures due to under grazing and shrub encroachment
Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Decrease of value of pastures due to under grazing and shrub encroachment
Semi-nomadism / pastoralism: Shepherds use the area for summer grazing and move downhill in winter
Mixed: (eg agro-pastoralism, silvo-pastoralism): A reduced number of farmers cultivate their field for fodder and pastures

Grazingland comments: Sheep and goats are the most valuable livestock

Type of grazing system comments: Sheep and goats are the most valuable livestock

Livestock density (if relevant): > 100 LU /km2

3.4 Water supply

Comments:

Water supply: rainfed, mixed rainfed - irrigated

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• integrated soil fertility management

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Main measures: agronomic measures

Type of agronomic measures: manure / compost / residues

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Main type of degradation addressed: Bs: quality and species composition /diversity decline

Secondary types of degradation addressed: Bl: loss of soil life

Main causes of degradation: other human induced causes (specify) (Undergrazing, decrease in land use and land management), labour availability (Between 1970m and 1980 industrial activities in the region pushed people to abandon farming activities)

Secondary causes of degradation: population pressure (The change in the economic activity induced a massive depopulation)

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

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

• prevent land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

other/ national currency (specify):

euro

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

0.74

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Emptying of deep litter bedding or manure hap	2 per year
2.	Spreading of manure on 3 hectares of pasture land	2 per year
3.	Hire of manure spreader	2 per year

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	Emptying of deep litter bedding or manure hap	ha	1.0	324.3	324.3	100.0
Labour	Spreading of manure on 3 hectares of pasture land	ha	3.0	972.9	2918.7	100.0
Labour	Hire of manure spreader	ha	1.0	283.78	283.78	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					3526.78
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					4765.92

Comments:

Machinery/ tools: manure spreader

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Assuming that the production of manure (as described above) happens on farm, the critical point of the application of the technique is the availability of equipment for spreading. The largest farms buy the equipment spending from 35,000 to 40,000 euro depending on the machines’ working capacities. The smaller farms (which represent the vast majority) rent this equipment (from third parties) twice a year at an overall cost of around €70 an hour.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

5.3 Soils

If available, attach full soil description or specify the available information, e.g. soil type, soil PH/ acidity, Cation Exchange Capacity, nitrogen, salinity etc.

Soil fertility is medium-low
Soil drainage/infiltration is good
Soil water storage capacity is medium

5.4 Water availability and quality

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Availability of surface water is medium (minimum during month of September and October)

5.5 Biodiversity

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Land users applying the Technology are mainly common / average land users

Difference in the involvement of women and men: Active farmers are present only males; women are not actively involved in land management.

Population density: 10-50 persons/km2

Annual population growth: negative; 2%

90% of the land users are average wealthy.
10% of the land users are poor.

Off-farm income specification: Most of the off farm income derives from public sector, i.e. Municipality, Mountain Community, Region and other public bodies. Very few farmer members run local shops or handcraft.

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:

• communal/ village
• individual, titled

Land use rights:

• communal (organized)
• individual

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

Other ecological impacts

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

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
local rainstorm	well
local windstorm	well

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
drought	well

Hydrological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
general (river) flood	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 maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

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

• 91-100%

Comments:

10% of land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support

Comments on acceptance with external material support: Part of the implementing farms have adopted the technology thanks to support in buying ad hoc machinery

90% of land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support

There is a little trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

Comments on adoption trend: High cost of fuel are reducing the rate of adoption given the high machinery requirements

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
It’s the only natural way to fertilize pasture and croplands. This avoids the use of chemical fertilizers and external inputs. This also provides great beneficial effects on the milk/meat quality through better grass. How can they be sustained / enhanced? Providing subsides both to machinery and organic production

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The farms try to concentrate their activities and so they try to improve local (close by) pastureland. The technology increases the grass productivity and so helping farms to reduce time of grazing. How can they be sustained / enhanced? Supporting ad hoc machinery and equipment.

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?
This is considered as a heavy work (mainly dirty). The use of machinery is the only way to implement it	No way

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
The technology is difficult to apply on very steep slope lands	No way