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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1068, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Soil protection and rehabilitation for food security (ProSo(i)l)', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 6338, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Ecociate Consultants (Ecociate Consultants) - India', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 6338, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Ecociate Consultants (Ecociate Consultants) - India', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 6338, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Ecociate Consultants (Ecociate Consultants) - India', '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

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

In the cattle shed management system, the cattle shed should be constructed with an elevated concrete floor that slopes slightly toward a cow urine collection point. The collection point should be equipped with a drainage system to easily remove cow dung and urine.
An elevated concrete floor for cow dung and urine collection can improve hygiene, and waste management, and reduce labour costs in cattle sheds. Collected cow urine and cow dung can be used to prepare biological inputs and compost for nutrient and pest management in agriculture.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Cattle shed management technology, including the use of a concrete elevated floor for cow dung and urine collection, is a cost-effective and efficient technology to support the natural farming system. This technology can be applied in both natural and human environments. In natural environments, such as rural or agricultural areas, cattle sheds are typically used for dairy and farmyard manure production. The use of this technology can improve the hygiene of cattle and their environment, reduce waste and pollution, and promote the sustainable use of natural resources. The cow dung and urine so collected can be used as fertilizer to improve soil quality, and the improved hygiene of the cattle can reduce the risk of diseases spreading to other animals or humans. The use of this technology can help to reduce the negative impacts of cattle farming on the surrounding environment, such as odours and pollution. It can also improve the hygiene of the cattle and their environment, which is important for both animal welfare and public health.

Traditionally farmers were constructing the floors of cattle sheds using mud and soil. These floors absorb the cow urine and the movement of animals also makes holes in it because of that cow urine and cow dung are used to get filled in these halls. Which made the entire floor unhygienic for both animals and farmers. Because of such surfaces, it was very hard to clean these sheds. The use of an elevated floor made with cement-concrete and a waste management system can help to keep the cattle shed clean and dry, which can reduce the risk of disease and infection among the animals. The collection and disposal of cow dung and urine can help preventing environmental pollution, reducing the negative impacts of cattle farming on the surrounding area, and promoting sustainable use of natural resources. The use of a concrete elevated floor can make cleaning the cattle shed faster and easier, reducing labour costs and improving the efficiency of the farming operation.

Technical specifications for the construction of cattle sheds can vary depending on factors such as the size of the herd, local environmental regulations, and available resources. However, in general, the main characteristics and elements of cattle shed management technology are designed to promote animal welfare, hygiene, waste management, and sustainability. Proper cattle shed management technology can provide a comfortable and safe environment for the animals, which can reduce stress and promote animal welfare. Proper waste management and ventilation can help to minimize unpleasant odours from the cattle shed, which thus reduces negative impacts on the surrounding community.

Establishing and maintaining cattle shed management technology requires a combination of technical expertise, labour, and resources. By investing in these inputs, farmers can promote sustainable and efficient cattle farming practices and improve the health and welfare of their animals.

The collected cow urine and cow dung are the main resources for preparing the biological inputs and different types of compost for meeting the nutritional requirement of crops while also addressing the challenges of pest and disease management in a natural or organic farming system. The improved flooring of cow shed units has been a great intervention to replace and reduce the usage of synthetic fertilisers and pesticides in the project region.

The views of land users, such as farmers or livestock keepers, about cattle shed management technology, including the use of a concrete elevated floor for cow dung and urine collection, can vary depending on their experiences and perceptions. The interviewed land user liked or appreciated, cattle shed management for improving animal health and productivity, increasing farm profitability, cleaning the cattle shed easier and faster, reducing labour costs, improving efficiency, and for environmental benefits.

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

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.):

Initially, the project supported the farmers in the construction of cemented cow shed floors in a limited area. However, there has also been investment from the users either by putting extra funds to extend the area or by contributing labour.

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• conserve ecosystem
• create beneficial economic impact

• Control cattle diseases

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

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

No

Comments:

The intervention is mostly focused on improved cattle shed units. However, collected cow urine and cow dung are good for restoring the degraded agricultural land.

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

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

• No (Continue with question 3.4)

3.4 Water supply

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

• mixed rainfed-irrigated

Comments:

For irrigation, most of the farmers were dependent upon rain in the Kharif and Rabi season. Some of the farmers were using additional irrigation during critical crop stages by using water canals.

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• integrated crop-livestock management
• integrated soil fertility management

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

The implemented technology led to the management and use of waste for productive purposes. While it has improved the productivity of animals by reducing the occurrence of diseases, it has also enabled the preparation of organic inputs to replace the synthetic fertilisers in farming.

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Proper collection of cow dung and cow urine minimised run-off these substance and mixing with surface water used for various purposes including drinking water.

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 cow urine and cow dung in soil by mixing with other organic matters improves the soil health and also reduces the dependency on synthetic fertilisers and pesticides

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):

Indian Rupee

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

82.24

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Concrete floor construction for cattle shed	March
2.	Cattle shed roof development	April

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

If you are unable to break down the costs in the table above, give an estimation of the total costs of establishing the Technology:

28000.0

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

Gram Paryavaran Samiti and Prakritik Sansadhan Prabhandhan Samiti

Comments:

Village groups were formed for the implementation of the technology

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Cleaning of concrete floor	Once in a day
2.	Collection of cow dung	Once in a day
3.	collection of cow urine from the pit or drum	Twice in a week
4.	Fodder and drinking water provision	Twice in a day

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Design and technical specifications: The cost of the technology can vary depending on the design and technical specifications of the cattle shed, including the size and materials used.
Construction materials and labor costs: The cost of construction materials and labor can vary depending on local market conditions and availability.
Location: The cost of transporting materials and labor to the construction site can vary depending on the location of the farm.
Maintenance and repair costs: The cost of maintaining and repairing the cattle shed can also add to the overall cost of the technology.
Training and capacity building: Providing training and capacity building to farmers and workers on proper cattle shed management techniques can add to the overall cost of the technology.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

Comments and further specifications on topography:

The topography of the project area consists of a hilly area and a forest area. Mandla District is hilly and forested (Satpura hill range) and highly undulating with a narrow strip of cultivated plains in the valley portion of the river. The plateau is in the northern part formed by basalt, and east-west trending hills in the southern part. The highest elevation is 934 m amsl in the northern part, and the lowest is around 400 m amsl in the northwestern part of the area. The elevation of the studied block Bichhiya is 453 m amsl.
Source: District at a Glance; Ministry of Water Resources, Government of Madhya Pradesh

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 Testing Parameter status (Average) 2017-20 for the project areas is as follows. This data is based on the soil samples tested by the FES in its soil labs from the project villages.

Sail pH:-5.906548628; EC (electrical conductivity): 0.122993577: Soil Organic Carbon: 0:83%; Nitrogen:- 293.3696598; Phosphorus:- 25.77762582; Potassium (K):- 139.6696636: Sulphur

(S)-18.93457993; Zinc (Zn):-0.955246706; Boron (Bn):-0.490850376

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:

The groundwater status is within the safe limits as per the reports by the Government of Madhya Pradesh. People use water from rivers, streams, and traditional small wells for domestic purposes. In the absence of good vegetative cover, the rainwater washes off the fertile topsoil from the farmlands making the land barren and resulting in the siltation of ponds and other water bodies. Further, a heavy infestation of invasive species such as Lantana Camara compounds the degradation.

The studied block Bichhiya is in a better position in terms of stage of groundwater development with 17%, stage of groundwater development refers to the % of groundwater being used for various purposes from the available groundwater in that area e.g. net annual groundwater availability in Bichhiya block is 9087 ham (hectare meters) while the existing annual groundwater draft for all usage is 1523 ham, making it a 17% groundwater development stage, while the district average is 79%.
Source: http://cgwb.gov.in/District Profile/MP/Mandla.pdf

5.5 Biodiversity

Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

The cattle shed management unit or center is present nearby the forest area of Kanha National Park. There is high biodiversity present in the technology implementation area. Ecological assessment report in Mandla (where this Technology is applied) showed improved biodiversity on common lands under village governance compared to open-access or commons under government ownership. On average, the Shannon Diversity Index of managed common lands was 1.45 compared to 0.42 for the open access of ungoverned commons. Most of the sites under open access lands are infested by Lantana Camara, which is the main reason for the lower biomass and diversity of the ungoverned lands.

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, titled

Land use rights:

• individual

Water use rights:

• communal (organized)
• individual

Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

Yes

Specify:

Some of the land parcels are ancestral land units while some have been transferred into private ownership by the State Government over the years

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

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	increase or decrease	How does the Technology cope with it?
annual temperature		increase	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)?

Comments:

Low maintenance cost compared with benefits of higher animal productivity and hygienic living

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• 1-10%

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

• 0-10%

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
Reduced labour of urine and dung collection
Better animal management

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Reduced GHG emission because of better handling of dung and urine
Increased productivity because of the use of animal manure

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?
High establishment cost	Subsidies and grants
Regular maintenance cost	Technological innovation

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Possibilities of disadoption because of maintenance cost	Increase returns of the units by extending new products from Urine and dung
No demand	Increase communication and extension on the benefits of different products from animals

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Repairing cattle shed floor

Available from where? Costs?

Foundation for Ecological Security, Mandla, MP, India

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

Cattle sheds: one intervention, several benefits for farmers

URL:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gd6u8yZ9DqY