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

{'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': 6112, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'National Agricultural Research Organisation (NARO) - Uganda', 'template': 'raw'}

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

23/01/2018

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:

The technology helps improve soil fertility and maintain soil moisture in a banana plantation by using diluted cow dug from a zero grazing kraal.

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

The irrigation fertilizer system is an innovation designed to distribute manure and water in a banana plantation. A kraal (livestock zero grazing shed) with a cow dung reservior, set up uphill and connected with pipes to deliver diluted cow dug to a banana plantation downslope. This reduces the labor required for waste management at the Kraal while maintainig soil fertility.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The Kraal (livestock zero grazing shed) was initially designed with a waste management system to hold cow dug in a reservoir for 1 to 2 months before being used in a 2-acre garden as manure. However, the farmer faced challenges transporting and distributing manure to the garden which was tedious and time wasting.

The dung from 4 cows is first mixed with water at a ratio of 1 (dung): 3 (water) as it drains into the reservoir producing approximately 1,500 litres of liquid manure monthly. Therefore, a pipe outlet was devised at the base of the cow dung reservoir to transport the waste 50m down-slope into 3 other reservoirs (each 2×1×1m, l×w×h) evenly distributed within the garden. These reservoirs store the liquid manure until the farmer wishes to fertilize the garden.

The garden preparation starts with clearing the weeds and then excavating small trenches that direct the flow of the liquid manure to any direction of interest in the garden. At different points along the flow in the trenches, the farmer opens tributaries leading to pits dug at least 0.75 m away from the banana plantains of interest. The pits made are normally approximately of 12.5 litres capacity. The trenches, tributaries and pits are then covered with soil after a day. This integrated fertilizer-irrigation system can only be possible on farms established on a gently sloping terrain. To set up the system one must have an animal house or any other source of animal dung uphill. The source must be able to provide enough dung to sustain the gardens established downhill.

Alternatively, the system can also be set up with a biogas plant replacing the cow dung reservoir to produce biogas for domestic energy supply and the slurry being used as manure. In case of such modification, the biogas should be set up at a slightly elevated position to give the liquid digestate a gravity force to flow to the garden. A foundation is excavated and a mixing chamber (50 litres capacity) constructed at some distance away from the farm house as well as 3 reservoirs to store the digestate (of a capacity at least 400 litres each) sited in the garden. An outlet pipe is fixed at the bottom of the mixing chamber through which the slurry can be channelled into the garden after the fermentation process producing biogas has stopped.

The construction process of the system without the biogas plant cost the farmer labour worth USD $ 13.44, construction materials were USD $ 251.04 and equipment USD $ 32.25. According to the farmer, the system is averagely expensive in the short run but profitable in the long run.

The system eases waste management and reduces costs of labour. The farmer, over the last 3 seasons realized improvement in the number of banana bunches harvested from averagely 50 to 60 bunches per month. The bunch weight also increased from 8-15Kg to 10-25Kg on average which is important for food security and livelihood.

The impacts of drought on the plantation have reduced compared to the time before adopting the technology. The farmer recommends upscaling since it is easy to manage, it improves productivity and is environment friendly. The major challenge is lack of enough cow dung supply from the kraal and scarcity of water in the dry season. A rainwater harvest system may be constructed to collect and provide water for diluting the cowdung.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.4 Videos 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:

2016

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through land users' innovation

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

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

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

3.3 Further information about land use

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

• rainfed

Number of growing seasons per year:

• 2

Specify:

March - May and Sept - Nov

3.4 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• integrated crop-livestock management

3.5 Spread of the Technology

Specify the spread of the Technology:

• evenly spread over an area

If the Technology is evenly spread over an area, indicate approximate area covered:

• < 0.1 km2 (10 ha)

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

The system helps in proper management of animal dung for improving soil fertility and soil moisture through the water mixed to form the liquid bio manure matter.

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

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

• prevent land degradation
• restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land

4.2 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing

The cowdung reservior of 2 cubic meters (with a capacity of 2000 litre slurry per month). A doom plastic pipe outlet at the bottom of the reservoir drains into the hand dug channels. Trenches of about 0.25 m diameter are constructed to directly drain the flow of the liquid waste to any direction of interest in the plantation. At different points along, tributaries are made leading to points atleast 0.75 m away from the foot of the banana plant. When the trenches fill up, they are left for a day before covering them with soil as manure.

4.3 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology area

other/ national currency (specify):

Uganda shillings

Indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (if relevant): 1 USD =:

3638.0

4.4 Establishment activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing
1.	Excavation of the main reservior	Structural	Best done during the dry season
2.	Construction of the reservoirs	Structural	Best done during the dry season
3.	Establishment of under ground doom pipe	Structural
4.	Excavation of cannals within the plantation	Structural	When its time to fertilize the plantation

4.5 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	Labour	Man day	3.0	17000.0	51000.0	100.0
Equipment	Hoe hire	pieces	2.0	5000.0	10000.0	100.0
Equipment	Panga	pieces	1.0	9999.0	9999.0	100.0
Equipment	Hammer	pieces	1.0	50000.0	50000.0	100.0
Equipment	Wheel barrow hire	pieces	1.0	50000.0	50000.0	100.0
Construction material	Cement	60kg bags	13.0	29000.0	377000.0	100.0
Construction material	Sand	1 tonne trips	2.0	70000.0	140000.0	100.0
Construction material	Bricks	1 tonne trip	1.0	270000.0	270000.0	100.0
Construction material	Doom pipe	Meters	2.0	15000.0	30000.0	100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					987999.0

4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing/ frequency
1.	Washing the cow dug into the kraal	Management	Daily
2.	Mixing water and manure	Management	Daily
3.	Construction of trenches and pits in the garden	Structural
4.	Release of manure into the garden and covering of the pits and trenches	Management	After the pits have filled with slurry

4.7 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	Labour to clean the cow shed and the reservoir and drain it	Man day	1.0	17000.0	17000.0	100.0
Labour	Labour to excavate temporary drains	Man per month	2.0	150000.0	300000.0	100.0
Equipment	Spade	piece	1.0	50000.0	50000.0	100.0
Equipment	Hoe	piece	1.0	50000.0	50000.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					417000.0

Comments:

The land user runs the whole facility with his family and the equipment required are readily available. The maintenance costs shown have indicative character for situations in which no family members are available.

4.8 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Establishment of the reservoirs and the labor required to construct them

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• convex situations

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

5.7 Average area of land owned or leased by land users applying the Technology

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

Land ownership:

• individual, titled

Land use rights:

• individual

Water 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

Income and costs

Ecological impacts

Soil

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	Type of climatic change/ extreme	How does the Technology cope with it?
annual temperature		increase	well
seasonal temperature	wet/ rainy season	increase	well
seasonal rainfall	wet/ rainy season	decrease	well

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

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

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
heatwave	well
drought	well

Other climate-related extremes (disasters)

other (specify)	How does the Technology cope with it?
	well

Other climate-related consequences

Other climate-related consequences

	How does the Technology cope with it?
extended growing period	well
reduced growing period	well
Soil moisture loss	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

• 1-10%

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

• 90-100%

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.):

The farmer intends to establish a waterreservoir for rain water harvesting

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Less labour required to manage waste at the cattle kraal
The system allows easy manuring of the banana plantation
The system enables increase in soil moisture for the banana plantation

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The digester from the biogas plant releases slurry free of microbes hence reduces possible infections

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?
The system requires constant water supply hence it might be affected by long drought spells due to water scarcity	Construction of water reservoirs

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
The system requires use of enough dung supply from the cows and water which may not be available in the dry season	Establishment of a rain water harvesting system to reserve and provide water though out the year

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Fertilizer Information System for Banana Plantation , Yu Shin Shuen November 2017

Available from where? Costs?

Open access

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

Livestock Waste-to-Bioenergy Generation Potential in Uganda: A Review

URL:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321116494_Livestock_waste-to-bioenergy_generation_potential_in_Uganda

Title/ description:

Three farmers’ experiences with putting farm waste to good use

URL:

https://www.monitor.co.ug/uganda/magazines/farming/three-farmers-experiences-with-putting-farm-waste-to-good-use-1541896