SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND FARMERS’ PERCEIVED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

OF CALLIANDRA CALOTHYRSUS IN UGANDA

(A case study of Mukono and Kabale Distriscts)

BY

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN

AGROFORESTRY /FORESTRY OF MAKERERE UNIVERSITY

May 2004

DECLARATION

This thesis is my original work and has not been submitted before for any degree in any

other university.

Signed_________________________________________

MAWANDA FRED ADRIAN

Date

_________________________________________

This thesis has been submitted for examination with my approval as the university

supervisor

Signed_________________________________________

ASSOC. PROF. DR. W. GOMBYA-SSEMBAJJWE

Date_________________________________________

This thesis has been submitted for examination with my approval as the university

supervisor

Signed_________________________________________

DR. FRANZEL STEVEN

Date_________________________________________

Mawanda Fred, May 2004

ii

DEDICATION

This thesis in dedicated to the Lord, Jesus Christ, my wife, children, parents and innumerable

friends.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This publication is an output from a research project funded by the United Kingdom for the

benefit of developing countries. The views expressed are not necessarily those of DFID.

Project R6549, Forestry Research Programme.

The dissertation would have been impossible to prepare without the help of a number of

people. I am deeply indebted to my supervisors, Dr. Gombya-Ssembajjwe (Makerere

University) and Dr. Steve Franzel (World Agroforestry Centre) and to Janet Stewart (Oxford

Forestry Institute) for her contribution in reviewing of the proposal and dissertation.

I am grateful for the generous contribution of Vi-Agroforestry Project for sponsorship of the

first year studies, and to Kulika Charitable Trust for second year sponsorship.

I would not have achieved this or much less without the enduring patience and love from my

wife Pauline Tumugonze Mawanda who cheerfully endured the emotional burden of being

married to a student and daughter Ruth Mawanda and sons Paul and Timothy Mawanda who

quite often missed my love. I am grateful to my parents Appolinari Kisekka Mawanda and

Cate Nakyobe for giving me a foundation in life and standing with me this far.

I extend my thanks to all my enumerators and all who assisted in data coding and entry, and

my course mates whose constructive criticism, continuous encouragement and support and

hard work helped me work hard. May God bless you all.

iv

ABSTRACT

Calliandra calothyrsus Meissner (Calliandra) is a shrub that grows up to 12 metres in height

and has been promoted in Uganda since 1987 by research organisations and NGOs, mainly

for soil conservation and firewood. The overall objective of the study was to determine the

potential and current socio-economic and farmers’ perceived environmental impacts of

Calliandra at the plot, household and community levels. The specific objectives were to

determine the primary reasons for planting and the primary benefits derived from Calliandra;

to assess the cost of Calliandra seedling production and assess the costs, returns, and

economic impact of Calliandra use as fodder; and to establish farmers' own perceptions of the

economic and environmental impacts of Calliandra.

A questionnaire was administered to 93 households to determine the reason for planting and

the benefits from Calliandra. The economic profitability of planting Calliandra was assessed,

and the incremental cost and benefits in milk production estimated. Data were collected on

nine Calliandra nurseries. Data on labour were collected using recall and observation

methods. Three farmers' workshops were held in Mukono District, and three in Kabale

District, to determine farmers' perceptions of the environmental impacts of Calliandra. A total

of 59 farmers, of whom 47 were adopters, attended the workshop in Mukono, while 52

farmers, of whom 27 were adopters, attended in Kabale.

The various purposes for which Calliandra has been promoted and initially planted are not the

same as the primary or most important benefit derived by the farmers. Forty two per cent of

the farmers in Kabale initially planted Calliandra calothyrsus for soil fertility improvement,

28% to protect the farm fields against erosion, and 27% for fodder while only three percent

had planted it to get stakes for climbing beans. However, the benefit considered by 44% of

the farmers to be the most important was fodder. Those who said that the most important

v

benefit derived from Calliandra was soil erosion control and soil fertility improvement were

20% in each case while 10% cited stakes for climbing beans as the main benefit. Only three

farmers considered firewood to be the main benefit, one mentioned the sale of wood, and one

perceived no benefits from Calliandra.

Supplementation of basal feed with Calliandra and substitution of diary meal with Calliandra

is a profitable venture. Partial budgets economic analysis showed that in the case of

supplementation a net present value (NPV) of US $ 132.80 to 172.85 and a net benefit per

year after the first year of US $ 62.41 to 81.19 were realised. The annualised net benefit,

considering the establishment cost as depreciation, is US $ 56.91 to 74.33. For the

substitution scenario, a higher NPV of US $ 194.75 to 209.39, and a net benefit per cow per

year after the first year of US $ 96.64 to 104, were realised. The annualised net benefit in this

case, again considering the establishment cost as depreciation, was US $ 91.13 to 98.13.

Sensitivity analysis showed that extra milk production of two litres per animal per day would

give the highest positive percentage change in NPV and annualised net benefit of 55% and

59% respectively.

Most farmers in both districts have experienced positive economic, social and environmental

benefits from Calliandra, but a few farmers had negative experiences. For example in Kabale

only 10.7% of the farmers had experienced negative effects of Calliandra: these included

competition with other crops, and destruction of soil characteristics. Calliandra was said also

to harbours birds, which may destroy other crops. In Mukono, those who had experienced

negative impacts associated with creating a hard pan on the topsoil were 4.3%.

Calliandra is a useful multipurpose shrub in Uganda whose promotion should be encouraged

in order to realise its full benefits in rural livelihoods. However, the quantification of all the

vi

impacts of Calliandra would require use of a multidisciplinary approach to impact

assessment.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION..................................................................................................ii

DEDICATION....................................................................................................iii

ABSTRACT.........................................................................................................v

TABLE OF CONTENTS...................................................................................vii

LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................x

LIST OF FIGURES.............................................................................................xi

LIST OF ACRONYMS......................................................................................xii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION...................................................................1

1.1 General...........................................................................................................................1

1.2 Problem Statement.........................................................................................................4

1.3 Justification....................................................................................................................5

1.4 Objectives.......................................................................................................................61.4.1 Overall objective................................................................................................61.4.2 Specific objectives.............................................................................................71.4.3 Hypotheses.........................................................................................................7

1.5 Limitations to the study..................................................................................................7

1.6 Assumptions...................................................................................................................8

1.7 Scope of the Study.........................................................................................................8

1.8 Structure of the thesis.....................................................................................................8

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................9

2.0 General...........................................................................................................................9

2.1 Importance of agroforestry.............................................................................................9

2.2 Use of Calliandra in agroforestry systems...................................................................112.2.1 Importance of Calliandra-based agroforestry systems on livelihoods.............112.2.2 Calliandra use as a fodder................................................................................122.2.3 Calliandra use for soil fertility management and conservation........................15

2.2.3.1 Methods used in soil fertility management and conservation......................152.2.3.2 Impact - Soil fertility increase......................................................................192.2.3.3 Economic profitability of Calliandra use in soil conservation.....................20

2.2.4 Use of Calliandra as a fuelwood......................................................................202.2.5 Other benefits derived from Calliandra............................................................21

2.3 Environmental Impacts of Calliandra..........................................................................22

2.4 Social Impacts of Calliandra........................................................................................23

viii

2.5 Limitations of using Calliandra in agroforestry...........................................................232.5.1 Biophysical limitations....................................................................................232.5.2 Socio-economic factors affecting adoption of Calliandra................................24

CHAPTER THREE: STUDY AREA AND METHODS...................................26

3.0 General description of the study areas.........................................................................26

3.1 Methods........................................................................................................................273.1.1 Reconnaissance survey.....................................................................................273.1.2 Formal Surveys................................................................................................28

3.1.2.1 Household survey.........................................................................................283.1.2.2 Economic profitability (case studies)...........................................................293.1.2.3 Farmers’ perceived impacts.........................................................................30

3.2 Data analysis................................................................................................................303.2.1 Household survey.............................................................................................303.2.2 Economic profitability.....................................................................................32

3.2.2.1 Input-output analysis for Calliandra seedling production............................323.2.2.2 Partial budgeting for Calliandra use as fodder.............................................323.2.2.3 Net Present Value.........................................................................................343.2.2.4 Sensitivity analysis.......................................................................................35

3.2.3 Acceptability....................................................................................................363.2.4 Farmers perceived impacts...............................................................................37

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS...........................................................................38

4.1 Socio-economic characteristics of households with Calliandra, Kabale......................384.1.1 Type of household............................................................................................384.1.2 Other socio-economic characteristics of the households.................................384.1.3 Household assets..............................................................................................394.1.4 Education of household head...........................................................................404.1.5 Occupation of household members..................................................................404.1.6 Main sources of income for the household......................................................414.1.7 Changes in revenue from farm products..........................................................424.1.8 Involvement and on-farm decision making......................................................434.1.9 Memberships to groups and access to services................................................44

4.3 Planting of Calliandra..................................................................................................464.3.1 Reasons for planting Calliandra.......................................................................474.3.2 Source of seedlings..........................................................................................474.3.3 Methods of Calliandra establishment...............................................................484.3.4 Ownership of Calliandra..................................................................................484.3.5 Participation by gender in planting and management of Calliandra................484.3.6 Management of Calliandra...............................................................................49

4.4 Benefits derived from Calliandra.................................................................................50

4.5 Economics of Calliandra production............................................................................514.5.1 Cost of producing Calliandra seedlings...........................................................514.5.2 Cost of planting Calliandra and maintenance in the field................................54

4.6 Use of Calliandra as fodder..........................................................................................544.6.1 Fodder availability and coping strategies in the dry season.............................554.6.2 Feeding with Calliandra...................................................................................58

ix

4.6.3 Economic Impact of Calliandra on milk production........................................624.6.4 Sensitivity analysis...........................................................................................654.6.5 Commercialisation of Calliandra.....................................................................67

4.7 Calliandra use in soil fertility management.................................................................67

4.8 Calliandra use for firewood..........................................................................................70

4.9 Social impact of Calliandra..........................................................................................71

4.10 Other impacts from use of Calliandra as fodder......................................................724.10.1 Improved household welfare............................................................................724.10.2 Better quality cow dung..................................................................................734.10.3 Calliandra harbours birds.................................................................................73

4.11 Limitations to increasing the impacts of Calliandra................................................73

4.12 Negative aspects of Calliandra.................................................................................75

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION.......................................................................77

5.1 Socio-economic and contextual characteristics of households with Calliandra..........77

5.2 Production of Calliandra seedlings..............................................................................80

5.3 Use of Calliandra..........................................................................................................825.3.1 Economic profitability for supplementation and substitution with Calliandra 85

5.3.1.1 Sensitivity analysis.......................................................................................875.3.2 Use for soil fertility management.....................................................................875.3.3 Use as firewood................................................................................................88

5.4 Acceptability................................................................................................................88

5.5 Limitations to increased impacts from Calliandra.......................................................895.5.1 Socio-economic limitations..............................................................................895.5.2 Biophysical limitations.....................................................................................905.5.3 Policy limitations.............................................................................................91

CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................93

6.1 Conclusions..................................................................................................................93

6.2 Recommendations........................................................................................................94

REFERENCES...................................................................................................96

Appendix 1: Sub-Counties, parishes and villages surveyed..........................................106Appendix 2. A sample of a questionnaire used during the data collection process.......107Appendix 3: Bare root Calliandra seedling production in Kabale.................................115Appendix 4: Economics of Potted Calliandra Seedling Production in Kabale..............116Appendix 5: Coefficients and prices used in partial budget economic analysis............117Appendix 6 Impacts of Calliandra from farmers workshops.........................................118Appendix 7: Limitations to planting more/ or realising more impact............................119Appendix 8: Recommendations from farmers...............................................................119

x

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3. 1 Summary of study area features, environment and farming systems.....................26Table 3. 2 Partial budget format...............................................................................................34

Table 4. 1 Type of households with Calliandra.......................................................................38Table 4. 2 Other socio-economic characteristics of the households........................................39Table 4. 3 Land holding of farmers with Calliandra................................................................40Table 4. 4 Major farming enterprises in 2002..........................................................................42Table 4. 5 Involvement and decision-making in on-farm activities in male-headed households

..........................................................................................................................................44Table 4. 6 Nature of groups participated in by farmers with Calliandra..................................44Table 4. 7 Sources of Credit.....................................................................................................45Table 4. 8 Source of information on Calliandra.......................................................................46Table 4. 9 Initial reasons for planting Calliandra by farmers in Kabale..................................47Table 4. 10 Participation in planting and management of Calliandra in the male-headed

households........................................................................................................................49Table 4. 11 Most important perceived benefit derived from Calliandra, Kabale....................50Table 4. 12 Complete list of benefits from Calliandra and the number/percentage of

households reporting each benefit in Kabale...................................................................51Table 4. 13 Cost of labour and other inputs for production of 2000 Calliandra seedlings. 52Table 4. 14 Cost of planting Calliandra Seedlings..............................................................54Table 4. 15 Source of forage for livestock (Kabale)...........................................................55Table 4. 16 Sources of fodder in the dry season......................................................................56Table 4. 17 Partial Budget: Calliandra use as a supplement in milk production, Kabale........62Table 4. 18 Partial Budget: Calliandra use as a substitute for diary meal in milk production,

Kabale..............................................................................................................................63Table 4. 19 Partial Budget: Calliandra use as a supplement in milk production, Mukono......64Table 4. 20 Partial Budget: Calliandra as a substitute for diary meal in milk production,

Mukono............................................................................................................................65Table 4. 21 Percentage change in NPV...............................................................................66Table 4. 22 Percentage change in Annualised Net Benefit.................................................67Table 4. 23 Soil and water conservation structures used in Kabale.........................................68Table 4. 24 Method of Calliandra use in soil fertility management....................................70

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3. 1 Study Area: Location of Kabale & Mukono Districts and sub-counties studied. .27

Figure 4. 1 On-farm sources of income for the households with Calliandra...........................42

xii

LIST OF ACRONYMS

0C - Degrees Centigrade

AFRENA Agroforestry Research Network for Africa

AHI - African Highlands Initiative

BOU - Bank of Uganda

C.O.U - Church of Uganda

DFID - Department for International Development, U.K.

FORRI - Forestry Resources Research Institute, Uganda

ha - hectare

HPI - Heifer Project International

ICRAF - International Council of Research in Agroforestry

Kg - Kilogram

m - metres

mm - milli metres

N - Number of respondents

NARO - National Agriculture Research Organisation, Uganda

NGO - Non-government organisation

NRSP - Natural Resources Systems Programme

UBOS - Uganda Bureau of Statistics

Ug shs - Uganda shillings

UNDP - United Nations Development Program

xiii

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

1.1.1 Agroforestry systems

Agro forestry is a collective term for land use systems in which woody perennials are

deliberately grown on the same piece of land as agricultural crops and/or animal components

(Nair, 1993).Calliandra calothyrsus Meissner (Calliandra), a species native to Central

America and Mexico, is a multipurpose shrub or small tree (2 -12 m high) with pink-red

flowers that is widely planted in agroforestry systems. Among the components in an

agroforestry system, there are both ecological and economic interactions taking place with

social implications. These interactions take many different forms, resulting in both positive

and negative outcomes to the farmer (Nair, 1993). The aim of most agroforestry systems is

therefore to optimise the positive outcomes in order to obtain higher, more diversified and

more sustainable production systems from the limited resources than is possible with other

systems of land use (Huxley, 1984). Agroforestry gives land-use a multipurpose approach

towards sustained agricultural production. It also aims at input substitution, food security,

improved stability against short-term changes (reduced risk), and income generation.

A scientific approach to agroforestry has only been developed in the past twenty years, with

technologies intended to address land use conflicts and/or developmental and environmental

problems. All agroforestry systems including those with Calliandra have benefits and

opportunities as well as costs and constraints. In order to demonstrate to decision-makers the

possible repercussions or trade-offs that result from alternative courses of action in

implementing one agroforestry system over the other (or not implementing it at all),

1

economic analysis is used (Follis, 1993). Such economic examination of alternative

agroforestry systems can assist decision-making by offering a common monetary standard of

measurement between alternatives (Arnold, 1983; Gittinger, 1982). In the case of the

individual farmer, economic analysis can help to ascertain whether or not agroforestry can

increase productivity and farm income, and improve livelihoods in relation to traditional

land-use agricultural activities. From a macro-economic perspective, economic analysis can

show the expected economic outcomes of agroforestry interventions, to determine whether

the net contribution to society can justify the expenditures incurred (Gittinger, 1982).

1.1.2 Calliandra in Uganda

Calliandra tolerates a wide range of climatic and soil conditions, but is affected negatively by

frost and acidic soils. The plant is not tolerant of low oxygen tensions in waterlogged

situations (Galang, 1988) and does not grow well on poorly drained calcareous soils.

Calliandra is a fast-growing tree, which can provide economic and environmental benefits in

a short time (nine months to two years) making it easily acceptable to farmers. It can be

grown in different niches on the farm: farmers in Uganda prefer to plant it on boundaries and

soil conservation structures (Nyeko, 2003). Good management reduces its competition with

other crops for above- and below-ground resources (Palmer et al., 1989; ICRAF, 2001).

Calliandra has been widely promoted in Uganda by various organisations such as ICRAF-

FORRI (NARO) since 1988, and by NGOs such as Heifer Project International (HPI) and its

intermediaries operating in 25 districts, Send-a-Cow (23 districts), Africa 2000 (10 districts

since 1990), Vi-Agroforestry Project (in 2 districts, since 1992), World Vision (22 districts

with 1-3 sub-counties in each district) and the Uganda Land Management Project (in four

districts). The various organisations cover up to 80% of the country where there are farming

2

households, however the proportion of farmers reached varies widely in the districts of

operation, from three to fifteen percent.

The ICRAF-FORRI Agroforestry Research and Development Project had its initial focus in

Kabale, in the Kigezi Highlands, and later expanded to Mukono District on the Lakeshore

belt of Lake Victoria. The aim of the project is to improve livelihoods and ecosystem

functions through the diversification of agroforestry systems. In Kabale and Mukono, farmers

use Calliandra fodder in zero grazing (cut-and-carry) systems. It is estimated that 700,000

Calliandra seedlings have been planted every season since 1998 in Kabale District

(Agroforestry Trends, 1999). Calliandra is also widely promoted in other parts of Uganda by

other agencies. For example, Vi-Agroforestry Project has been distributing seed to farmers in

Masaka and Rakai Districts for the last ten years: in 2001 alone, a total of 1,574 kg was

distributed while in 2002 it was 1,197 kg and in 2003 the total amount distributed increased

to 2,309 kg (information from Vi organisation records and staff).

In Uganda, there are regular feed shortages and droughts and therefore under such conditions

subsistence feeding, mainly poor quality grasses and crop residues results in reduced live

weight and low productivity of livestock. The severe nutritional limitations are further

associated with delayed age at first calving, increased interval between parturitions, increased

non-productive life of animals and herd wastage. Therefore, during times of feed shortages,

foliage from shrubs and trees such as Calliandra have a great value as they supply dietary

nitrogen (Kabirizi, 2003).

3

1.2 Problem Statement

Many development projects are financed with public funds and a significant proportion fail to

achieve their main objectives (Valadez and Bamberger, 1994). It is therefore essential to

assess the potential and actual impacts of research and development initiatives. The great

majority of agroforestry research to date has concentrated on the biological and physical

factors that affect productivity rather than the economic and environmental value of

agroforestry. There is a serious lack of reliable information, based on actual farm conditions,

about the economic benefits and costs inherent in many agroforestry systems (von Platen,

1991; Follis, 1993). The cost of production of Calliandra seedlings and the costs and benefits

of its use as fodder for supplementation and substitution, as well as other impacts experienced

under farm conditions, were the main focus of this study.

Although a number of farmers have adopted Calliandra in Kabale (Gerrits, 2000), the

enormous potential benefits of Calliandra and other trees for smallholders still remain largely

unrealised in both the study districts (Kabale and Mukono) due to the low numbers of trees

planted per farmer, for example, in Kabale, adopting farmers have planted an average of 320

trees (Gerrits, 2000), yet the recommended number for feeding a dairy cow throughout the

year is 500 trees (Paterson et al. 1996). Secondly, there is lack of knowledge among farmers

on how to use and manage the species. There are also many other outstanding questions. For

example, who depends on planting of Calliandra? Are they rich or poor? Male or female?

How does the use of Calliandra in agroforestry systems affect the incomes and welfare of

farmers, especially the poor? The study was an attempt to answer these socio-economic

questions and to quantify the actual, and determine the potential, socio-economic impact of

Calliandra on farmers' household welfare in Mukono and Kabale Districts.

4

1.3 Justification

There are several important justifications for this study:

1. Several of the agroforestry systems that have been tested using on-farm trials in Mukono

and Kabale have shown positive results in terms of biophysical aspects and productivity

increases at the plot level. However, little is known about the socio-economic impacts at the

household level. For instance, observations made elsewhere (in Masaka and Rakai Districts)

by Vi agroforestry staff and Mukasa (2003) have shown that farmers have complained about

stiff Calliandra competition with bananas.

2. There is a lack of information on (a) the financial returns over time, (b) the labour

requirements, and (c) the opportunity costs of land and crop yield for Calliandra-based

agroforestry systems. Therefore, the profitability of agroforestry systems based on Calliandra,

towards poverty alleviation, are unknown. Early adoption of technologies is mainly by well-

off farmers, so the technology may have had little impact on the poorer farmers in the

community. This study tried to fill this information gap by applying economic analysis both

to primary data collected from farmers in the field, and to existing experimental data on the

contribution of Calliandra.

3. There is little information on whether the incorporation of Calliandra in farming

systems has contributed to environmental protection through planting, managing or changing

land and other resource use practices. The study assessed the current and potential socio-

economic and environmental impacts of Calliandra, as perceived by the farmers.

4. The generation of technologies that meet the needs of users is a necessary condition

for the success of agricultural research. Only if farmers use the technologies developed

5

through agricultural research, can research make an ultimate impact on the key goals of

poverty alleviation, conservation of natural resources, and food security. Since not all outputs

from research do indeed fully meet the needs of users, ongoing assessment of the use and

impact of research provides crucial information. Moreover, even where innovations achieve

widespread adoption and impact, they may not meet the needs of all farmers. In such cases,

studies of adoption and impact can supply crucial information on the patterns of adoption,

identifying who is by-passed by an innovation (Berdegue and Nazif, 1988). 

5. In Uganda, political support for agroforestry's contribution to the Plan for

Modernisation of Agriculture (PMA) requires that the cost effectiveness of various

agroforestry technologies be demonstrated at the farm level. This study attempted to generate

evidence that Calliandra-based agroforestry systems are cost effectiveness and that Calliandra

has a role to play in the realisation of the goal of the PMA, i.e. ‘eradication of poverty

through profitable, sustainable and dynamic agricultural and agro-industrial sector’

(MAAIF/MFPED, 2000). Impact assessment is an essential requirement for achieving

sustainable development. By integrating the economic, environmental and social dimensions

of development into policy and project processes, it assists in advancing international and

national development targets for long term sustainability.

1.4 Objectives

1.4.1 Overall objective

The overall objective of the study is to determine the potential and current socio-economic

and farmers’ perceived environmental impacts of Calliandra at the plot, household and

community levels.

6

1.4.2 Specific objectives

The specific objectives are:

i) To determine the primary reasons for planting and primary benefits derived

from Calliandra;

ii) To assess the cost of Calliandra seedling production and the costs, returns, and

economic impact of Calliandra use as fodder;

iii) To establish farmers' own perceptions of the economic and environmental

impacts of Calliandra.

1.4.3 Hypotheses

In line with the specific study objectives, the following hypotheses were made:

i) Calliandra is a useful tree and meets the needs of farmers, although the

primary reasons for its initial planting may be different from the primary uses

at the time of utilisation;

ii) The economic benefits derived from establishment, management and use of

Calliandra for fodder, outweigh the costs incurred in its establishment,

management and use;

iii) There are more farmers who have experienced positive economic, social and

environmental impacts of Calliandra than those who have experienced

negative ones.

1.5 Limitations to the study

Environmental impacts could not be quantified. The data rely on farmers’ perceptions, which

were, however, cross-checked with secondary data from studies done elsewhere.

7

1.6 Assumptions

It was deemed necessary to make assumptions about data collected and its analysis and the

following assumptions were made:

i. Selection of farmers for the study is representative of study area.

ii. The data are accurate and reliable.

iii. The tools used for data collection are accurate.

1.7 Scope of the Study

The study aims to assess the impact of Calliandra-based agroforestry systems, most of which

have been tested by ICRAF/AFRENA in Kabale and Mukono Districts. In these districts, the

focus is on sites at which there has been longer exposure to the Calliandra-based

technologies. In Mukono, the study focuses on fodder banks (the main use for which

Calliandra has been promoted in this area), while in Kabale the focus is on hedgerows

(contour hedges), fodder banks and rotational woodlots.

1.8 Structure of the thesis

This thesis is divided into six chapters. The present chapter (Introduction) provides

background information to the study, an overview of the research problem, and justifications

for the study. The objectives, hypothesis, limitations and assumptions are also presented in

Chapter 1. A literature review is presented in Chapter 2. The study area and methods are

described in Chapter 3. The results are presented in Chapter 4 and then discussed in

Chapter 5. The conclusions and recommendations are given in Chapter 6. Summaries of the

raw data are presented as appendices.

8

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0 General

Modern agroforestry is based on improved management and organisation of traditional

agroforestry practices to give better results backed by scientific knowledge as a way of

addressing problems associated with increased population pressure and land shortage.

Calliandra-based agroforestry systems are among the modern systems used in different parts

of the world.

2.1 Importance of agroforestry

Agroforestry provides goods and services to the farmer. The main service roles include soil

conservation, creation of a favourable microclimate, and societal benefits through the

multitude of traditional roles that trees play in many civilisations. Other service roles include

nitrogen fixation (although nitrogen-fixing plants do not enrich the soil if most of the fixed N

is removed from the site, as in the case of fodder); increased water retention capacity of the

soil due to frequent loosening of the topsoil layer; and substantial reduction of weed

competition when crops are tended. There are several products from multipurpose trees, and

these can be used for subsistence or income generation, helping farmers to diversify

production and so reduce risk (Torquebiau, 1992).

Agroforestry practices seek to address the problem of deforestation and to achieve a positive

ecological interaction between the components of the system and the environment (especially

the microclimate). At present, the problem of deforestation is intensifying, with trees being

cut down at a faster rate than they are being replaced. Moreover, the demand for fuelwood

9

and other tree products is rising as population increases. Deforestation may also lead to loss

of habitat for wildlife, and eventually to their extinction and hence loss of national heritage;

to shortages of forest products such as timber, poles, firewood, charcoal and medicines; and

ultimately to environmental degradation and erosion of genetic resources (NEMA 1996). In

Mbale decreased fodder availability due to restricted access to forests led to a decrease in

number of animals owned by households.

Farming practices have to change if the land is to continue producing food for the ever-

increasing population, for example continuous cultivation of the same fields leads to a decline

in the productivity of the land and monoculture farming, coupled with the use of chemical

fertilisers and pesticides, has an adverse ecological effect (Torquebiau, 1991).Agroforestry

can prevent a decline in soil fertility and productivity, which is an added motivation for

practising it. Furthermore, the productivity of many tree products is superior on farms, as

opposed to natural wooded land, because of farmer management (F. Place, pers. comm.

2002).

Trees and shrubs are an important source of nutrition for livestock. Fodder trees (browse or

top feed), are an effective insurance against seasonal feed shortages. They are used to

supplement the quantity and quality of basal feeds such as grasses and crop residues (Lefroy

et al. 1992). Fodder trees are less affected by dry conditions, owing to their extensive root

systems and longer life spans (Abel et al. 1997). Incorporation of trees and shrubs for fodder

in smallholder farming and intensive systems is gaining ground in Uganda.

10

2.2 Use of Calliandra in agroforestry systems

Calliandra has been introduced in farming systems as a multi-purpose shrub. There are many

reasons for growing it on one's farm. These include 1) fuelwood, 2) stabilising soils and water

conservation structures, 3) soil fertility improvement, 4) fodder supplement for ruminant

livestock, 5) secondary production (bee forage, stakes for climbing beans and tomatoes), and

6) income generation through sale of wood, fodder and seed (Palmer et al., 1989; AFRENA,

2000; ICRAF, 2001). Calliandra also provides several secondary products. It flowers

prolifically and is a favoured source of nectar for honeybees. The honey produced is

considered to be of high quality (Nadiar, 1979), with a bittersweet flavour (Duke, 1983).

Processed into leaf meal, it has shown promise as a protein source for livestock (Nadiar,

1979).

2.2.1 Importance of Calliandra-based agroforestry systems on livelihoods

The economic viability of agroforestry systems has to be considered with regard to the

benefits they can provide to farmers in Uganda. Calliandra can increase nutrient availability,

improve crop output or, as fodder, increase milk production and so contribute to food

security. Food insecurity is of major concern to Ugandans, as it is an important indicator of

poverty (MFPED, 2000). Smallholder production of food crops has been declining. Uganda

has a high rate of infant stunting and mortality. Food insecurity, and particularly the inability

of the smallholder sector to maintain or increase levels of food output, has been attributed to

serious shortages of arable land, the low levels of technology practised by most smallholders

(World Bank, 1995; MPED, 2003) and weaknesses in the delivery of agricultural and forestry

services (MAAIF, 2000). Incorporation of Calliandra in the farming system can contribute

towards reversal of these negative trends through its many uses in the farming system.

11

2.2.2 Calliandra use as a fodder

Calliandra leaf material contains 17-28% crude protein (dry matter basis) (Macqueen et al.,

2001) and can be used for dairy feed supplementation. Its use as a supplement to basal feeds,

which in Uganda consist mainly of Napier and other grasses and crop residues, increases the

overall protein content of the fodder ration and thereby increases milk production. Calliandra

improves milk production of both dairy cattle and dairy goats. In on-farm experiments with

dairy cows under East African conditions, 3 kg of fresh Calliandra leaves provided a similar

response in milk yield and butter per cent to 1 kg of commercial concentrate, increasing milk

production by roughly 0.75 litre under farm conditions, although response varied depending

on such factors as the cow's health and the quality of its basal diet (Paterson et al. 1996; O'

Neill et al. 2001). However, in a separate on-station experiment with sheep and goats, when

concentrate or Calliandra was used in the same relative proportions as a supplement to Napier

grass (without additional concentrate), the concentrate gave significantly better animal

performance than Calliandra (Tuwei et al, 2003).

A cow needs to be fed roughly 6 kg of fresh leaves every day, while a goat needs about 0.7

kg. Increased milk production improves the nutritional status of households by increasing the

proportion of milk in the diet. For those households that sell milk, income increases; and if

prices become lower as a result of increased supply, poorer households also become able to

afford to buy milk (Franzel et al., 1999, Wambugu et al., 2001, Franzel et al., 2003).

Calliandra can also be fed to other types of livestock such as sheep, rabbits and chicken,

which are more affordable to poorer households (although care must be taken with non-

ruminants to feed Calliandra in small amounts, to avoid problems with toxicity due to

tannins). Other feeds with high levels of condensed tannins are known to have anthelmintic

(de-worming) properties (Robertson et al., 1995; Molan et al., 2000).

12

To harvest 6 kg of fresh leaves every day on a sustained yield one needs to plant about 500

Calliandra trees at a spacing of 0.5 m (1.5 ft), making 250 m (800 ft) of hedge (Paterson et al.

1996; ICRAF, 2001a). Tuwei et al (2003) reported annual forage (leaf biomass production)

yields of Calliandra of 13-15 t/ha/year (DM) in Embu, Kenya. Previous studies have already

demonstrated the economic benefits of supplementation with Calliandra. In the first year, a

small investment by farmers was required in planting labour and purchase of seedlings. This

amounted to US $ 7.00 for the 500 shrubs needed (Franzel et al. 2003). Supplementary

feeding of 6 kg of fresh Calliandra fodder on a daily basis to a diary cow through a 10 month

lactation period gave a net benefit of up to Ug shs 230,100 (US $ 122.32) per cow per year,

beginning in the second year. This is as a result of increased milk production, assuming an

increase of 10% over base milk yields. Feeding 2 kg dry Calliandra day -1 as a supplement

throughout the lactation period increased milk production by about 450 kg yr-1 (Franzel et al.,

2003).

In the same study, partial budget economic analysis showed that by feeding Calliandra as a

substitute, the farmer saved money that would otherwise have been spent on buying and

transporting 730 kg of dairy meal during the year. In the partial budget, assessing Calliandra

as a substitute for dairy meal, incremental benefits per year after the first year were over 14

times higher than incremental costs. The net benefits per cow per year during years 2-5 were

Ug shs 266,500 (US $ 141.68). In other words using Calliandra increased farmers' annual

income by about US $ 120-142 per cow per year (Franzel et al., 1999; O'Neill et al., 2001;

Franzel et al., 2003). These figures are based on the substitution rates (of Calliandra for

concentrate) determined by the study of Paterson et al. (1996).

13

Tree legume leaves are commonly fed to improve the utilisation of low quality grasses and

crop residues in tropical areas. For example, goats in Zambia maintained on poor quality

pasture hay lost weight (-20g/day), but gained weight (24g/day) when provided with

supplements of Calliandra (140g DM/day) (Waterfall, 1993). Similarly, Palmer and Ibrahim

(1996) found that increasing levels (0 to 35% DM) of fresh Calliandra leaves in a diet of low

quality hay increased the live weight gain of sheep from -27g to 52g/day.

Studies in Australia and Indonesia in the early 1990s suggested that forage of Calliandra had

higher nutritive value when fed fresh. When leaf material of Calliandra was fed fresh to

sheep, voluntary intake was 59g dry matter/kg W0.75 (W0.75 is the metabolic weight of the

animal), but for dried leaves it was only 37g dry matter/kg W0.75 (Palmer et al., 1994). More

recent research, however, suggests that there is usually no significant negative effect of

drying on animal production (Tuwei et al., 2003).

For non-ruminants, the high tannin content of Calliandra results in less positive effects on

animal nutrition than is achieved with ruminants. Supplementation of poultry feed with

Calliandra tends to increase feed intake and reduce egg production, although at low levels of

supplementation yolk colour is improved (ICRAF, 2001). Calliandra is a source of carotene,

which is used to maintain yolk colour in commercially produced eggs (Nadiar, 1979).

Inclusion rates of Calliandra in poultry diet greater than 5% decreased the number of eggs

produced per chicken. Yolk colour was markedly improved at 5% level and it was concluded

that 5% Calliandra leaves was the maximum level of inclusion consistent with the

maintenance of production (Macqueen et al., 2001).

14

2.2.3 Calliandra use for soil fertility management and conservation

2.2.3.1 Methods used in soil fertility management and conservation

a) Use as green manure

As early as 1941, the Dutch colonial forest service in Indonesia highlighted the potential of

Calliandra for fallow or in mixture with crops, for the supply of green manure (Verhoef,

1941). In Cameroon, a 52% increase in grain yields when Calliandra was used as green

manure prompted 52 farmers to join a programme of alley crop evaluation (Tonye et al.,

1995). Contrasting reports, however, have shown that the species can also sometimes be

associated with poor crop yields (Heineman, 1996; Heineman et al., 1997; Macklin, 1990).

There is also contradictory evidence regarding the effect of Calliandra on soil pH and

aluminium saturation. Heineman et al. (1997) found that Calliandra mulch lowered soil pH

and raised level of soil aluminium. This is direct contrast to the study carried out in Burundi

by Wong et al (1995). They found that Calliandra pruning, harvested from pure stands and

applied to test plots of maize and beans, decreased the concentration of aluminium in the soil

relative to control plots. A corresponding increase in grain yield was also observed which

was attributed to reduced aluminium toxicity in the test plot. Similarly, Noble and Palmer

(1998) found that Calliandra ash (dried and ground leaf material) caused less soil

acidification than ash from Leucaena or Stylosanthes species.

b) Erosion control and stabilisation of soil conservation structures

In Kabale, traditional continuous cropping practices on non-stabilised bench terraces without

organic or inorganic inputs have resulted in decreased yields. This deterioration of the natural

resource base has increased rural poverty, malnutrition and inability to meet other basic

needs. The ICRAF project and other partner NGOs promote contour hedges of shrubs,

15

including Calliandra, for erosion control and rotational woodlots/fallows, mainly on the upper

terraces, as well as for soil fertility replenishment and wood production. However, a good

contour hedge will take 2 to 3 years to establish well. Where these hedgerows were

established, the soil was 14 cm higher than on fields without hedges after two years. Up to

360,000 tons of soil would be conserved by 500 km of contour hedges (Siriri et al., 2000).

Calliandra has a dense, extensive and deep root system, making it suitable for erosion control

on slopes and stabilisation of soil and water conservation structures (ICRAF, 2001). The deep

root system plays a recognisable role in holding soil together if planted along soil

conservation structures at a close spacing of 0.5 m. It can also be combined with Napier grass

on terraces (Angima et al. 2001, ICRAF, 2001), for example by planting adjacent to lines of

Napier grass on 1'fanya juu' and 2‘fanya chini’ terraces (ICRAF, 2001).

Research on the impact of contour Calliandra-Napier hedges in the Kianjuki catchment area

in central Kenya indicated more soil conservation by hedges than in a non-hedged control, on

slopes of both 20% and 40%. For three seasons (1997 long and short rains and 1998 rains), a

seasonal average of 20 mg ha-1 and 118 mg ha-1 of soil were lost from the conserved plots

compared to 157 mg ha-1 and 151 mg ha-1 for control plots on the 20% and 40% slopes

respectively. Maize production on plots with hedges on the 20% slope was on an average 8%

less than the control plots; while on the 40% slope, maize yield was 8% higher for plots with

hedges compared to the control. The increase on the 40% slope could be attributed to a

longer-term trend of reduced run off and soil loss (Angima et al. 2001).

1 ‘Fanya juu’ is when the soil from a water-harvesting channel is used to form a ridge on the upper side of the channel

2 ‘Fanya chini’ is when the soil from a water-harvesting channel is used to form a ridge on the lower side of the channel.

16

Over a 10-season study period, the combination of Napier grass and Calliandra in contour

hedges oriented perpendicular to the slope in the maize field was demonstrated to provide a

sustainable agroforestry technology combining soil and water conservation with production

of high quality fodder. After the initial two hedge establishment seasons, hedges were

effective in reducing runoff and soil loss (O' Neill et al., 2001).

Rosecrance et al (1992 b) also reported that four years of mulch application from Calliandra

hedges to crop rows measurably improved soil water holding capacity and bulk density. A

small percentage of precipitation may be lost by the soil, however, when rain is intercepted

by tree species and evaporates. Pidjinaita and Pramono (1998) recorded 56% of rainfall

reaching the surface soil under Calliandra hedges as opposed to 64% for bare land after run-

off and evapotranspiration. Vasquez (1987) recorded lower moisture content under Calliandra

pasture than under pure Panicum maximum pasture (42.7% and 51.4% respectively).

On steep hill slopes (24-340) in the forest buffer zone of the Blue Mountains of Jamaica,

following clearance of secondary forest, the relative impacts on surface run off, soil erosion

and soil properties of three land use treatments were compared: bare (maintained weed-free

without cultivation), agriculture (pure maize), and agroforestry (maize inter-cropped with

Calliandra contour hedges). The forest provided good protection against surface run off,

which was consistently less than 0.2% of rainfall, and against soil erosion losses, which were

less than 500 kg ha-1 yr-1. Agroforestry was also effective in conserving water, with a 45%

reduction in run off compared with agriculture (pure maize), and soil, with erosion reduced

by 35%. Agricultural productivity was also higher by 45% in the plots with contour

hedgerows and maize grain weights were up by 63% higher per plant (McDonald et al,

2001). In a similar experiment in Rwanda, Konig (1992) found that soil losses on bare fallow

17

land (with a slope of 28%) totalled 55.7 t ha-1 yr-1. On agroforestry plots with Calliandra

hedges and the fodder grass Setaria splendida, losses amounted to less than 12.5 t ha-1 yr-1.

In Kabale, more than 75% of the Calliandra has been planted in hedges on farmland to reduce

soil and water movement on steep slopes. The impact of these hedges is evident when

comparing neighbouring fields with and without hedges. There is accumulation of top soil on

the up slope side of the hedge, causing terraces to start forming on the field with hedges,

while the field without hedges shows evidence of soil and water movement in the form of

gullies (Kakuru et al.2001).

c) Calliandra use in fallow

Improved fallows or rotational woodlots of Calliandra grown for two years have also been

observed to replenish soil fertility, and subsequently to increase crop yields on degraded

terrace sections (Agroforestry Trends, 1999). In a researcher-managed experiment in Uganda,

maize yield after the fallow significantly increased from 1.6 t ha -1 in the traditional

continuous cropping system to about 5.9 t ha-1 in the Calliandra fallow systems. During the

two years of fallows or rotational woodlots, about 26 t ha-1 of firewood was also produced

(Siriri & Raussen, 2002). This allows poor farmers who usually cannot set land aside for

separate woodlots to produce their own firewood and poles.

It has been reported that Calliandra is not a good fallow species because of a slow

decomposition rate and slow nutrient release, caused by high levels of polyphenolics

(Handayato et al., 1994; Mafongoya, 1995; Lehmann et al., 1995). Studies in Uganda,

however, have shown that the high crop response to Calliandra fallows is partly due to the

roots’ ability to loosen the hard compacted soils on the upper terrace, as evidenced by the

18

enhanced water conductivity. This allows more water storage and the effective crop rooting

depth is increased (Siriri & Raussen, 2002).

In a study in Kabale, soil carbon increased following the adoption of improved fallows.

Compared to baseline, there was a significant (p<0.01) increase in soil carbon equivalent to

78% under improved fallow of Calliandra (Nakakaawa 2002). In the same study Calliandra

had the highest total mineral nitrogen (24.35 mg N kg-1) and the least anaerobic

mineraliseable nitrogen (3.87 mg N kg-1 day-1) compared to other land use systems (fallows

based on Sesbania sesban, Alnus acuminata, and continuous cropping). With an improved

Calliandra fallow, yields of sorghum and maize from farmer managed plots were 977 kg ha -1

and 2910 kg ha-1 respectively while those from continuous cropping were 781 kg ha-1 and

1515 kg ha-1 respectively. For the researcher-managed plots, maize yields were 2940 kg ha -1

with fallow and 865 kg ha-1 with continuous cropping (Nakakaawa 2002).

2.2.3.2 Impact - Soil fertility increase

Calliandra is fast growing even on poor soils, and has the ability to improve soil fertility, but

it does not do well on acidic soils (Franzel et al., 2001). It lives in symbiosis with rhizobium,

which forms nodules on the roots to fix nitrogen from the air, which is transferred to the

Calliandra plant. This helps the Calliandra to grow fast, and also leaves the soil more fertile

than before by releasing nitrogen in the soil (ICRAF 2001a). However, in the process of

removing fodder from a fodder bank, nitrogen and other nutrients are taken from the soil,

although the livestock manure and urine can be returned to the soil where the Calliandra is

growing. Through litter production and dense foliage, Calliandra also provides ground cover

and improves soil quality and productivity, making it suitable for rejuvenating degraded soils,

as found in the Kabale highlands.

19

2.2.3.3 Economic profitability of Calliandra use in soil conservation

A 2-year Calliandra fallow on non-phosphorus-deficient Haplic ferralsols (FAO) resulted in

improved soil fertility on only the degraded upper two-thirds of the terraces, and not on the

lower and more fertile parts. There was an increase of mineral nitrogen from 9.5 mg kg-1 in

continuous cropping systems to 13.1 mg kg-1 in Calliandra fallow. Net benefits over the

whole terrace system show negative annual returns under continuous cropping system but

high net returns of US $157 ha-1 yr-1 in the Calliandra fallow system (compared to US $39 ha -

1 yr-1 for natural fallow). On the heavily degraded upper terrace, the Calliandra system

resulted in positive annual net benefits of US $111, whereas neither natural fallow nor the

continuous cropping system were profitable, both resulting in negative returns (Siriri &

Raussen, 2002). Nakakaawa (2002) got similar results in a separate study in the same area.

The establishment of Calliandra calothyrsus rapidly shades out weeds and improves the soil

physical and chemical properties (Macqueen et al, 2001). Use of Calliandra helps to put to

use sites that are unproductive and is economically profitable.

2.2.4 Use of Calliandra as a fuelwood

In Uganda over 90% of the population uses firewood (NEMA 1996). Normally firewood

consumption ranges between 15 and 20 kg of air-dry firewood per household per day. If left

uncut, Calliandra produces high quality fuelwood (ICRAF, 2001). The wood burns better and

has less smoke if well dried. Because the moisture content of Calliandra wood is relatively

low (9-12%), it is easy to dry (Palmer et al, 1994). Calliandra is a good source of fuelwood

because of its fast growth, good calorific value and its ability to coppice. Annual wood yields

have been reported in the order of 15 - 40 t ha-1 with annual coppice harvests continuing for

10-20 years (Wiersum and Rika 1992). In Indonesia it is cut for fuel after a year's growth and

20

harvested annually for the next 15-20 years (Duke, 1983). In Uganda, however, wood

production has been observed to decrease after 8-10 years.

The wood of Calliandra is of intermediate density, having a specific gravity between 0.5 and

0.8 (volumetric mass of 510-780 kg/m3) and a calorific value of about 4,500-4,750 kcal/kg

(NRC, 1983; Yantasath et al., 1985; Lowry and Macklin, 1989; Chanstrasiri, 1998). It is

therefore a good fuelwood. The provision of good quality firewood from Calliandra grown

on-farm reduces the burden, especially for rural women and children, of collecting firewood

from distant places; saves money for those who would otherwise buy firewood; and increases

time for leisure or other developmental activities. Calliandra burns well and can also be used

for charcoaling. It converts to charcoal with a yield of approx. 35% and the charcoal has a

fuel value of 7200-7580 kJ / kg (Syachri 1982; NRC, 1983; Chanstrasiri, 1998). Estimates

suggest that 1ha of Calliandra calothyrsus can yield up to14 tons of charcoal (FPRI, 1977).

2.2.5 Other benefits derived from Calliandra

1. Stakes

Stakes produced by Calliandra are good support for other plants such as climbing beans

(Phaseolus spp.) and tomatoes. In Rwanda, Calliandra has been used as a support for beans.

The beans benefited from both the shade and the support afforded by the Calliandra (Graf,

1987). In this system, Calliandra may be planted at densities of between 1m x 1m and 1.5m x

1.5m to allow the production of green manure for the subsequent crop of beans.

2. Honey

In areas of Java with well-established Calliandra trees, 1.3kg/colony/month of honey has

been harvested from hives containing the bee Apis cerena (Crane et al 1984). In addition, the

21

presence of hives may also increase pollination in adjacent agricultural crops. Supplementary

benefits of honey production include the reforestation of critical areas (particularly to protect

important watersheds), the supply of fuelwood, and development of improved relations

between villages and the state forestry services (Poedianto, 1980).

3. Pulp

Calliandra wood is suitable for pulp making. Its cellulose content is about 44-56%. Fibre

length in the main stem averages between 0.66-0.84 mm but may be as long as 1.3 mm, the

lumen diameter is 17.4-18.44 and the fibre-wall thickness is 4.39-6.00. (Palmer et al, 1994).

2.3 Environmental Impacts of Calliandra

Increased availability of firewood on-farm reduces human pressure on surrounding bush land

and forests, which results in conservation of biodiversity off-farm. Calliandra trees are

planted around state forestlands in Java to protect timber trees from being destroyed. By

providing forage and firewood, they reduce illegal wood cutting in the forest and also help to

control the spread of ground fires, which are common in Imperata grass areas (Palmer et al,

1994).

Planting of Calliandra may also help to conserve biodiversity on-farm, in that the other trees

may be given a chance to grow as the fast-growing Calliandra grows and is utilised. On the

other hand, more trees may be cut on-farm to make space for Calliandra. The environmental

benefits of Calliandra relating to soil and water conservation, as well as improvement of soil

quality, are discussed in Section 2.2.3.

22

2.4 Social Impacts of Calliandra

There may be gender differences in the perception of the benefits of Calliandra. In Embu,

men plant the Calliandra trees, while women care for the diary animals. Therefore, the men

see the fertility and erosion benefits of the technology, while women are more aware of the

impacts of better feed on their cows and milk output. On the other hand, soil erosion and

wood benefits of Calliandra appeared to be appreciated equally by men and women

(Kristjanson et al. 2001).

2.5 Limitations of using Calliandra in agroforestry

The decision to adopt or not to adopt a new agricultural technology by farmers is based on

the physical conditions of the land, together with the socio-economic conditions of the area in

which they are to be applied (Sheng, 1984).

2.5.1 Biophysical limitations

Calliandra competes with crops if pruning is neglected (Gerrits 2000). It has an extensive root

system that can result in competition with crop plants for water and nutrients. Annual or

seasonal harvesting can also deplete nutrients from the soil. Dierolf et al (1989) described the

root distribution from Calliandra hedges and a cowpea crop in an alley cropping system.

They found that 78% of the total fine root weight was found in the top 0-15cm of the soil

with further 9% in the 15-30cm layer immediately beneath. Roots were still obtained at

150cm depths (below the depth normally associated with food crops) suggesting that the tree

may be able to recycle nutrients from deeper soil levels.

Brook (1992) reported that the growth rate of Calliandra hedges in an alley cropping

experiment in Papua New Guinea decreased the yield of sweet potatoes through shading

23

(before pruning), owing to their rapid growth rate. In addition, the brittle branches tended to

break and fall over the sweet potato plants causing some damage on the crop. Evensen et al,

(1995) also noted the problem of crop shading by Calliandra hedges in west Sumatra, where

the species gave high leaf yields of up to 3.18 t ha-1 yr-1 under contour hedges system. On an

Ultisol in Sumatra, Hariah et al (1992) observed that whilst Calliandra hedges spaced at 4m

produced more biomass and supplied more nitrogen than a number of other species, they

needed regular, intense pruning to avoid shading of the inter-crop.

In Reunion, Cattet (1996) and Tassin et al (1995) reported positive effects on water

conservation up to 50cm from Calliandra hedges, particularly uphill from the hedge, with

increased pore diameter and hydraulic conductivity at saturation. However, the relatively

high levels of polyphenols (tannins) present in the leaves of Calliandra slow the rate of

microbial breakdown of the organic matter thereby reducing its value as a soil ameliorant

(Gutteridge, 1992).

In Calliandra woodlots there can be increased susceptibility in harvested areas to water and

wind erosion. Another potential problem is that Calliandra attracts domestic ruminants,

leading to browsing damage to the trees and crops wherever protective measures against free-

ranging livestock are lacking. A biological limitation to the uptake of Calliandra by farmers is

that, although it begins producing seeds in its second year, unfortunately the shrubs produce

relatively little seed and collecting is laborious (Wambugu et al.2001).

2.5.2 Socio-economic factors affecting adoption of Calliandra

Agroforestry systems may entail opportunity costs of land for occupied space and have a

negative impact on yield of nearby crops (Place, 1995). In the case of Calliandra see section

2.5.1. Some of the social factors limiting adoption of Calliandra are common to most

24

agroforestry systems. These include reduced land holdings due to growing populations, and

increased demand for limited resources. Secondly, some farmers are wary of the risks

associated with trying new farming techniques and technologies of which they have no

experience. The other factors are high illiteracy levels and the lack of resources to employ

modern farming techniques (Nair, 1993).

Insecure tenure rights or lack of access to markets are likely to limit the adoption of any of

the technologies used (DFID and NRSP, 1999). In Uganda, however, tenure rights seem not

to affect adoption of Calliandra, since it is considered a shrub and short-lived, unlike longer–

term, more valuable tree species. In Masaka the integration of animals in the farming system

has increased the rate of adoption of Calliandra, which was previously seen as a competitor

with bananas (Mukasa, 2003).

Agroforestry is a developmental tool and a scientific discipline, which under good

management of the components can effectively increase ecological and economic

sustainability of existing land use systems. Agroforestry interventions also contribute to

various aspects of the social and cultural environment. While agroforestry is not a solution

for all problems associated with current land use, its distinguishing attributes arising from the

combination of production with protection functions give it the potential to meet some or all

of the above expectations, given appropriate situations (Muschler and Bonnemann, 1997).

25

CHAPTER THREE

STUDY AREA AND METHODS

3.0 General description of the study areas

Table 3. 1 Summary of study area features, environment and farming systems

Features Environmental and farming systems

Mukono Kabale

Location 320 55’ E, 00 42’ N 290 45’ E to 300 15’ E, 10 15’ S

Area 14,242 square kilometers 1,827 square kilometers

Relief and Climate 1,158 to 1,219 (mean ca

1300mm) above sea level,

bimodal rainfall

1,219 to 2,347 asl, average temp.

17.5 0C. Rainfall 1,000 to

1,480mm pa

Soils Typical ferralsols Ferralitic sandy clay loams (70%)

Topography and drainage Lakeshore of L. Victoria Hilly landscape interlaced with

narrow and broad valleys

General Description Banana- coffee farming system Mainly annual mixed crop

farming

Main Crops Coffee, sugar cane, tea,

vanilla, banana, cassava, sweet

potatoes, beans, maize, finger

millet, groundnuts, sorghum,

soybeans, cowpeas

Sweet potatoes, Irish potatoes,

sorghum, beans, pigeon peas,

vegetables (tomatoes and

cabbages)

Livestock Cattle, goats, sheep, pigs Cattle, goats, sheep

Population Density 264 people per square

kilometer

290 people per square kilometer

Average farm size (hectares) 1.9 0.05-9.1, av. 0.15; no 7 = (1.05)

Household size 4.1 people 4.2 people

The people and the economy Food crops, cash crops, fruits

and vegetables, and diary

farming, fishing on Lake

Victoria

Food crops, cash crops, fruits and

vegetables, fishing on Lake

Bunyonyi, and diary farming

Sources: Mugisha (1996), Bekunda (1999), UBOS 2002

26

IKUMBA

MUKOBUBARE

BUFUNDI

KAMWEZI

RUBAYA

MAZIBA

KASHAMBYA

HAMURWA

BUHARA

RWAMUCUCU

KAHARO

BUKINDA

KAMUGANGUZI

KITUMBA KYANAMIRA

K.C

BWEMA BUGAYA

NAIRAMBINTENJERU

NGOGWE

KKOME ISLANDS

BUIKWE

SEETA

WAKISI

BUSAMUZI

NYENGA

GOMA

NAGOJJE

NTUNDA

NAKISUNGA

KASAWO

KYAMPISI

NAJJEMBE

KAWOLO

NABBALE

NAKIFUMA

KAYUNGA NJERU TC.LUGAZI TC.

MUKONO TC.

10 0 10 20 Kilometers

Goma

BubareBuharaBukindaKaharoKamuganguziKitumbaKyanamira

Study Sub-Counties

Kabale District

Mukono DistrictLegend

Adapted from ESRI Data and Produced by Waiswa Daniel, Forestry-Makerere University [waiswa@forest.mak.ac.ug] 10/5/04

In 2002, Mukono district had an urbanization level of 15.9% while Kabale had 3.8% as

compared to the national average of 12.2%. Between 1991 and 2002, Mukono had a

population growth rate in Uganda of 2.72% while Kabale had only 1.05% compared to the

national growth rate of 3.39% (UBOS, 2002).

3.1 Methods

3.1.1 Reconnaissance survey

A reconnaissance survey, involving 10 farmers in each district, was done in both districts of

the study area in order to familiarise the research team with the study areas, draw up the

sampling frame and design the study instruments, and continue the development of focused

study methodologies. The issues identified during the reconnaissance survey were

Figure 3. 1 Study Area: Location of Kabale & Mukono Districts and sub-counties studied

27

investigated in more depth during the subsequent formal survey after pre-testing the study

instruments.

3.1.2 Formal Surveys

3.1.2.1 Household survey

A questionnaire was administered to 93 adopting households in Kabale. Mukono District was

left out of the household survey since there were too few farmers to give an adequate sample

size. Farmers who had established any of the Calliandra-based agroforestry systems in at least

one parcel of their farms, and had been practicing the technology for not less than two years,

were considered as adopters. The aims of the survey were to determine the reasons for

planting and the perceived benefits from Calliandra, as well as the nature and extent of

Calliandra adoption.

Households were randomly selected from a list provided from the ICRAF database, while the

villages were selected from the seven sub-counties (See Appendix 1), where the technologies

were first introduced. Farmers were selected at random from lists provided by ICRAF staff. A

structured questionnaire (See Appendix 2) was used for the field interviews and self-

administered. Socio-economic data on farmers' households was collected to provide

information on resources, household composition by age and gender, gender and education of

household head, decision making in the household, sources of income, access to services like

extension and credit, land and household assets. Information pertaining to Calliandra

considered number of shrubs planted, use, management, negative aspects, seed/seedling

sources, presence of own seed sources, constraints to planting more, and recommendations to

ensure increased impact. Information was also collected on farming enterprises in the

previous year.

28

3.1.2.2 Economic profitability (case studies)

The study examined the operation of nine individual nurseries in Kabale. These were selected

from a list of nineteen provided from field workers. Five farmers raised bare root plants, and

four raised potted seedlings. Extensive interviews with the farmers were conducted on the

nursery production, input use and costs for their operations (Appendix 3 & 4).

Data on labour use in the nursery for the different nursery operations (as listed in Appendices

4 & 5), planting of Calliandra in the field, maintenance and harvesting were collected

combining two methods, i.e. farmers’ recall and researcher observation. The farmers’ recall

method estimates work rates indirectly and it involved asking farmers to remember how

much labour was used to complete a specific task. This was done by standing in the field after

the task was completed and asking what was done, who participated, and how long each

person was present each day. This method was used in 12 households. Labour data collection

by observation, where work rates were directly monitored through on-farm observation of the

amount of work done, who participated, the time taken and the area covered, was also done in

12 households using designed forms.

Data for economic analysis of Calliandra fodder use was collected in eight cases in each

district. These were not necessarily the same farms that had been part of the household

surveys in Kabale. All inputs and outputs were identified, quantified and valued using current

market prices. Information on prices was also collected from selected farmers and key

informants at the community level to get current farm gate prices and market prices.

Seasonality was taken into account by asking about prices in times of scarcity and abundance.

29

3.1.2.3 Farmers’ perceived impacts

Three farmers' workshops were held in each of the study districts. One workshop was

conducted in each of the three parishes (See Appendix 6) in one sub county that was

identified by the field staff as having had the earliest introduction of Calliandra. A total of 59

farmers, of whom 47 were adopters, attended the workshop in Mukono, while 52 farmers, of

whom 27 were adopters, attended in Kabale.

Farmer workshops were used to determine farmers' own perceptions of the advantages or

disadvantages of Calliandra use and the positive and negative impacts (social, economic and

environmental) of technologies using Calliandra (Kristjanson et al., 2000). The workshops

were used to collect information on important effects of practices, “invisible effects” such as

secondary effects on other enterprises, indicators that farmers would use to evaluate the

impact of adoption, and clarification of possible constraints to adoption and increased impact

(Franzel et al., 2001).

Interviews were also conducted with key informants including government officials and

government agencies engaged in production, NGOs and ICRAF/AFRENA scientists.

Biophysical data was obtained mainly from secondary sources. Data for growth

characteristics of Calliandra was obtained from both primary and secondary sources.

3.2 Data analysis

3.2.1 Household survey

The analysis examined the different reasons for planting Calliandra, the technologies and

methods used in its cultivation and management, and the benefits derived using percentages

30

and frequencies. Comparisons were then made between the most important reason for

planting and farmers’ perceptions of the most important benefit derived.

3.2.2 Wealth ranking (WR)

Wealth is the access to and control over important biophysical, economic, social, cultural and

political resources. Since farm management strategies are affected by the degree of access to

and control over resources, wealth is one important socio-economic criterion by which

farmers may be grouped, in order to understand their differing needs and capabilities in

adopting a practice or technology. In order to differentiate the wealth groups among farmers

adopting Calliandra a list of indicators similar to those used by Nielsen et al. (1995) and

Guinand (1996) in Kabale was used. These were used to group farmers into five categories

(very poor, poor, medium, rich and very rich).

The indicators used in WR included: 1) amount of cultivatable land (number of parcels and

total land size); 2) number and type of livestock; 3) household type/gender of household

head; 4) formal education (education level of the household head); 5) occupation/job

(primary occupation of husband and wife), main source of income for the household; 6)

membership of group(s); 7) availability of capital to invest (access to credit); and 8)

household assets including means of transport and house type (roof and wall construction

materials). Analysis was based on a scoring system on a scale of 1-5, the poorest being 1 and

the richest 5, for each of the indicators. An average was computed for each farmer and a

wealth category allocated.

31

3.2.2 Economic profitability

3.2.2.1 Input-output analysis for Calliandra seedling production

Input-output analyses were used for nursery seedling production to establish the cost of

seedlings in the nursery (Franzel et al. 1996; Franzel et al.2001).

3.2.2.2 Partial budgeting for Calliandra use as fodder

Partial budgeting is a method of organizing data and information about the costs and benefits

from some change in the technologies being used on the farm. Partial budgets (Gittinger,

1982; CIMMYT, 1988) were made for fodder use of Calliandra since it has limited impacts

on the costs and returns of milk production as an enterprise. Partial budgets are not used to

estimate the total income and costs for each of the technologies being considered. The goal is

rather to estimate the difference in benefits or losses expected from the technologies. The

partial budget is thus a way of analysing differences in costs and benefits of two or more

competing enterprises or technologies.

In this study, the first step was to state the farmers' objectives. In the case of supplementation

the farmers’ objective was to increase milk production, while in the case of substitution it was

to reduce the costs of inputs by using cheaper alternatives. The second step was to make a

detailed description of the technology or enterprise. This was concerned only with those

things that changed from the existing technology to the proposed one. The second step

included:

(i) Determining the 'unit of analysis', in this case it was one cow and for the Calliandra

seedlings it was 500 shrubs needed to feed one cow on a sustained yield basis for a

year.

(ii) Identifying all operations that were/will be performed (the elements in the

production process that are different, such as purchased inputs and different labour

32

requirements). For Calliandra, these included seedling production, transportation

and planting in the field, including land preparation and maintenance (weeding).

For animals, they included labour for cutting and feeding.

(iii) Using data, where available, estimating the quantities (quantify inputs that are

different for the technologies) of inputs for each operation (i.e., labour)

(iv) Determining the 'field price' of purchased inputs, labour, and concentrates whether

it is a cash cost or an opportunity cost (i.e., quantity used times field price) for each

input. The price is multiplied by the number of units to get a total cost for that

input.

(v) Using available data, quantifying all outputs that are different (in this case, milk)

and valuing them.

(vi) Determining a 'field price' for all outputs, whether sold or used by the household.

The price is multiplied by the number of units to get a total value for the particular

benefit.

(vii) Organising this information as outlined in Table 3.2 below, resulting in a

presentation of information such as is given in Tables 4.15 to 4.18.

33

Table 3. 2 Partial budget format

1. Additional benefits: List the items of income from the new technology that will not be received

from the existing technology.

2. Reduced costs: List the items of expense for the existing technology that will be avoided

with the new technology.

3. Subtotal increases Add lines 1 and 2.

4. Reduced benefits: List the items of income from the existing technology that will not be

received from the new technology.

5. Additional costs: List the items of expense from the new technology that are not required with

the existing technology.

6. Subtotal decreases: Add lines 4 and 5,

7. Difference A positive (negative) difference indicates that the net benefits the existing

technology by the amount shown of the new technology exceed (are less

than) the net benefits of.

Source: Based on Boehlje and Eidman [1984: p. 237]

3.2.2.3 Net Present Value

In order to analyse the profitability of the technologies, biophysical and financial net benefits

were estimated by comparing results from Calliandra-based systems with those from

alternative systems. For fodder, the comparison was between Calliandra supplementation and

substitution of purchased diary concentrates. Analysis involved the use of financial (based on

costs and returns that farmers face) and net present value (NPV), (Franzel et al.2001). NPV

is the difference between discounted benefits and discounted costs. The average values for

costs and returns across sampled farmers were used to compute NPVs (Franzel et al.2001).

NPV Process for determining the most profitable practice:

Step 1: Forecast current and future cash flows for alternative practices, supplementing with

Calliandra (alternative A vs. B) and substituting diary meal with Calliandra

(alternative C vs. D).

Step 2: Estimate the discount rate (opportunity cost of capital)

34

Step 3: Apply the NPV formula (below)

Step 4: Rank the different NPVs of different alternative practices (if NPVA<NPVB) and (if

NPVC< NPVD)

NPV Equation:

3.2.2.4 Sensitivity analysis

Sensitivity analysis (SA) is important in decision making and in developing

recommendations for decision makers, better communication, increased understanding or

quantification of systems, and model development. For this study the focus of the SA was on

the first three uses. Since the parameter values and assumptions of any economic analysis /

model are subject to change or to error, SA was done to investigate these potential changes

and errors and their impact, i.e. the difference they make to the conclusions drawn from the

economic analysis. Though the study used current market prices, costs, productivity and

technology, there is uncertainty about their future values. SA gives information that is

important in developing flexible recommendations which depend on circumstances, for

example through testing how robust the base solution is in the face of different parameter

values, and identifying critical values where the base strategy changes. It is also important in

identifying sensitive or important variables. Secondly, SA gives information for increased

understanding or quantification of the system by estimating the relationship between input

NPV = Net Present Value

GBt = Benefits in year t

Ct = Cost in year t

r = discount rate

n = planning horizon or life of project

35

and output variables, and lastly how much worse off the decision makers would be if they

ignored the changed circumstances and stayed with the original base or some other strategy

(Pannell, 1997). In the case of this study the key question concerned two strategies:

supplementation of basal feed with Calliandra and substitution for diary meal. Prices were

varied according to changes observed over the past years and from data collected by UBOS,

and percentage changes of NPV and annualized net benefit for each strategy from the base

analysis were calculated.

Sensitivity analysis was used (FAO, 1992; Gittinger, 1982) to assess the effect of changes in

key parameters such as input-output coefficients, discount rates, or prices of inputs and

outputs (Franzel et al, 2001). Sensitivity of returns to investment costs, recurrent costs, and

differences in milk yields were also estimated, and through sensitivity analysis a range of

prices or costs at which a technology becomes profitable were suggested.

Economic analysis looks at society as a whole and uses market prices of inputs and outputs

while financial analysis looks at the individual farmer and values inputs and outputs at prices

farmers face (Gittinger, 1992). In this study economic analysis is used, therefore in situations

where some inputs like seed of Calliandra and polythene tubes are given free to the farmers,

the market prices of these inputs are used and not the zero-cost of these items to the farmers.

3.2.3 Acceptability

Acceptability was ascertained by examining whether farmers continued using or expanded

use of Calliandra based practices.

36

3.2.4 Farmers perceived impacts

Qualitative data collection and analysis were used to explore the reasons why some

households have planted and benefited from Calliandra-based technologies, while others have

not. In order to understand this qualitative aspect of the study on the social, economic and

environmental impacts (experienced and perceived impacts) the analysis used words,

expressions and perceptions from the farmers.

37

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS

The overall objective of the study was to determine the potential and current socio-economic

and farmers’ perceived environmental impacts of Calliandra in the study area.

4.1 Socio-economic characteristics of households with Calliandra, Kabale

The sample size of ninety-three farmers was interviewed in Kabale, the results using wealth

ranking and categorization using indicators as described in section 3.2.2 show that most

(77%) of the farmers with Calliandra were in the medium wealth category, 16% were rich

and 7% poor.

4.1.1 Type of household

Type of household refers to the gender of the household head and marital status. Most

(80.6%) households with Calliandra in Kabale were from male-headed and married

households as seen in Table 4.1 below.

Table 4. 1 Type of households with Calliandra

Type of household Frequency Percent

Male-headed, married 75 80.6

Female-headed, single, widow or divorced 14 15.1

Male-headed, single or widower 2 2.2

Female-headed, husband away 1 1.1

Child-headed (< 18 years) 1 1.1

Total 93 100

4.1.2 Other socio-economic characteristics of the households

The average age of the household head in Kabale was 52 years, with 60% of the household

heads age ranging between 23 years and 55 years, while the average number of people in the

38

households was 7.8. Out of the average number of people in the household there was an

almost equal mean distribution of males and females above 15 years (15 years taken as the

working age) and of children (8-14years).

Table 4. 2 Other socio-economic characteristics of the households

Characteristic N Min. Max. Mean Std. Error

Age of household head 92 23 90 51.99 1.30

Total no. of people in the household 93 3 13 7.84 0.28

Children of 8 -14 years in the household 79 1 7 2.58 0.16

Males, of 15 years 88 1 5 2.63 0.14

Females, of 15 years 90 1 6 2.57 0.14

No. of years in school for the household head 93 0 23 7.22 0.54

No. of parcels of land owned 93 1 50 11.55 1.08

Distance to nearest market (km) 93 0.4 27 5.63 0.48

Distance to nearest trading centre (km) 88 0 15 1.34 0.23

Distance to nearest tarmac road (km) 93 0 17 4.54 0.45

4.1.3 Household assets

The farmers with Calliandra in Kabale had houses with walls of wattle (72%), bricks (26%)

or wood (2%), while the roofs were made of iron sheets (92%) or thatch (8%). The other key

household assets included radio (95%), lantern lamp (81%), bicycle (61%), wheelbarrow

(33%), and kerosene stove (30%). Eight percent had a hurricane lamp and an equal

percentage had a car, while three percent had motorcycles (these were among the rich

households).

The average land holding for households with Calliandra was 1.8 ha (SD 2.5; median 1.2 ha).

Most with Calliandra farmers had land holdings between 1.1.to 2.0 ha. The Table 4.3

summarises total land holdings per farmer by category. The land situated around the

homestead in Kabale was on average 0.29 ha (SD 0.27; median 0.20)

39

Table 4. 3 Land holding of farmers with Calliandra

Farm size (ha) Frequency Percentage

0.1 - 1.0 1 1.1

1.1 - 2.0 59 64.8

2.1 - 3.0 20 22.0

3.1 - 4.0 3 3.3

4.1 - 5.0 6 6.6

5.1 2 2.2

Total 91 100

The most common land holding was 0.8 ha. The average number of parcels owned by a

household was 12: the number ranged from 1 to 50 and the mode was 10 parcels, which

shows a high degree of land fragmentation. In the male-headed households 71% of the land

was owned by the husband, in 16% of households it is jointly owned by both husband and

wife, in 7 % of the by the whole family and in 1% by the father of the household head.

4.1.4 Education of household head

The average number of years in school for the household head was seven. Thirty-nine percent

of the farmers were educated to primary seven level (seven years in school), or less, 26 % had

S1 to S4, 8 % had higher than S4 and 5.4 % had received university education, including one

Ph.D. Seventeen percent had no formal education.

4.1.5 Occupation of household members

Among the male-headed households with Calliandra in Kabale, 60% of the men were

primarily occupied in crop farming. Twenty percent had a salaried job (public or private

sector), 8% were doing casual work, 5% were involved in trading, 5% in livestock farming,

1% were artisans and 1% mechanics. Less than a half of the men (48%) had any secondary

occupation: this was generally livestock farming (33%) or arable crop farming (25%), but

40

also included trading (8%), salaried job (8%), professional private job (3%), beer brewing

(6%), and bee keeping (3%). The remaining 14% were engaged in a range of activities

including Reverend in church, charcoal burning, timber selling and pension.

The primary occupation of the women in the male-headed households was again mainly crop

farming (92%). Five percent had a government job, and 1% was engaged in casual work,

livestock farming or education (as students) in each case. Only 28% of the women had any

secondary occupation. The secondary occupation of 57% of these was livestock farming,

14% were small-scale traders, 10% were engaged in crop farming and 19% were in other

occupations (salaried job, local government councilor, church service or living on pension).

In the female-headed households, which were 16% of all the households surveyed, the

primary occupation for 93% of the households was crop farming all was crop farming and

7% had a professional salaried job, while those who had a secondary occupation were 47% %

and this was livestock farming for 57%, crop farming 14%, trading 14% and casual work

14%.

4.1.6 Main sources of income for the household

Most farmers were involved growing staple crop production in the different seasons of 2002

as their major enterprises, and a few looked at livestock production as their major enterprises,

see Table 4.4 below.

41

Table 4. 4 Major farming enterprises in 2002

Major Enterprises in 2002 Season 1 (%) Season 2 (%)

Staple crop production 88.5 85.2

Vegetable production 3.8 3.8

Fallow 2.7 4.9

Livestock production (pasture or planted fodder) 2.7 2.7

Fruit production 0.5 1.1

Woodlot for poles 0.5 0.5

Calliandra only 1.1 1.6

Most farmers derived their income from the farm (81.5%), and this was either from crops or

livestock farming while 18% got most of their income from off-farm sources (See Fig. 4.1).

Figure 4. 1 On-farm sources of income for the households with Calliandra

4.1.7 Changes in revenue from farm products

The revenue from farm products for most households (73%) had increased over the last four

years, while 22% reported a decline and the rest had remained the same over the period. The

main reasons given for an increase in revenue from farm products included use of manure

(52%), adoption of new methods of farming including use of shrubs like Calliandra (35%),

use of improved seeds (3%), and increased soil fertility (3%). In addition, one person gave

42

each of the following reasons: growing crops that are high value and in demand (for example

French beans), diversified production, income from trees and tree products, and increased

labour availability.

Among the farmers who had experienced a decrease in farm revenue, the main reasons given

were unpredictable seasons (25%), loss of soil fertility (35%), market fluctuations and low

prices (20%). Five percent gave each of the following reasons: old age, lack of labour,

inability to grow more crops due to size of land.

4.1.8 Involvement and on-farm decision making

The Table 4.5 below summarises the main on-farm activities. The first column shows the

household member that is mainly involved in farming and the others show household

members’ roles in decision-making.

Though men were primarily employed in crop and livestock farming (See Section 4.1.5), they

were not mainly involved in farming in the households as shown in Table 4.5 (explanation in

discussion). Decision-making in livestock management were largely made by men (52%) as

compared to 36% male who were involved in decision-making on planting of Calendar.

43

Table 4. 5 Involvement and decision-making in on-farm activities in male-headed households

Household member

Mainly involved in farming

(%)

Decision making activityLivestock

(%)Crops(%)

Soil conservation

(%)

Use of newtechnologies

(%)

Planting of Calliandra(%)

Husband 4 52 3 3 9 36Wife 69 11 72 71 61 29Husband & wife

15 22 17 17 22 25

Son/ Daughter

5 3 4 5 5 5

Whole family 3 - - 1 - -

Husband & Son

1 3 - - - -

Wife & daughter

1 - - - - -

Farm manager

1 3 1 - -

Other relatives

1 6 3 1 3 5

4.1.9 Memberships to groups and access to services

Most of the farmers (93%) were members of a co-operative society, a community/village

association, or another group with an economic objective. The nature of the groups in which

farmers participated is summarised in Table 4.6.

Table 4. 6 Nature of groups participated in by farmers with Calliandra

Nature of group Count (N = 86) Percentage of cases

Village association 41 48

Group with an economic objective 35 41

Two Wings Agroforestry Network (TWAN) 21 24

co-operative societies 10 12

TWAN is a local women’s development and micro-finance organisation

In the households with members in groups, the breakdown of group members was as follows:

wives, 40%; wife and husband, 29%; husbands, 22 %; daughters, 6%; wife and daughter, 1%;

44

and sons, 1%. Access to other services included credit. Eighty six percent of the farmers had

received credit in the last 4 years, in several cases from more than one source. Table 4.7,

below, summarises the sources of credit.

Table 4. 7 Sources of Credit

Sources of Credit were Count (N=91) Percent of cases

Local group 42 54

Micro-finance institution 23 30

Bank 9 12

A private trader or company 7 9

TWAN 5 6

A friend 4 5

Co-operative society 1 1

All the farmers in the household survey in Kabale had also received information on

agroforestry, soil and water conservation, maintenance and improvement of soil fertility, and

on how to overcome fuelwood scarcity. Most (95.6%) had also received information on how

to improve fodder quality and overcome fodder scarcity. They had learnt about Calliandra

from development officers working with the NGOs and research institutions listed in Table

4.8.

Almost an equal percentage of males (38%) and females (35%) first came to know about

Calliandra in male-headed households. The others said it was both husband and wife (16%)

while in other households it was daughters (7%), mother 1%), and father (3%) who had first

come to know about Calliandra.

45

Table 4. 8 Source of information on Calliandra

Institution Frequency Percent

ICRAF 57 61

AFRICARE 13 14

AFRICA 2000 10 11

HPI & C.O.U 3 3

ICRAF/UNDP 3 3

TWAN 2 2

AFRICARE & HPI 1 1

AHI 1 1

ICRAF & AFRICARE 1 1

KIGEZI DAIRY COOPERATIVE 1 1

NARO 1 1

Total 93 100

In Mukono, Kilowooza, most of the farmers had learnt about Calliandra from Heifer Project

International (HPI) in 1999. HPI supplied Calliandra seeds and seedlings, and trained the

farmers in animal husbandry and better use of Calliandra. Another organisation, the Uganda

National Farmers’ Association, has also trained farmers on Calliandra use through meetings

and seminars or workshops.

4.3 Planting of Calliandra

Thirty percent of the farmers had first planted Calliandra between 1988 and 1997, 42% in

1998, 21 % in 1999, and 7 % in 2000-2001. The average number of trees planted on the first

occasion was 167. The average number of times that farmers had repeated planting was two.

Thirty-three percent had expanded their planting once, 28% twice, 3% three times, 9% four

times, 6% five times, 2% eight times and 1% twelve times. Seven percent had not expanded

their planting. In this study the average number of trees of Calliandra was 560 (mode = 100)

per household. In Kabale there was an average increase in planting of 17% (SD= 0.9%;

median 27%) from the initial planting. In Mukono, some farmers were expanding every rainy

46

season or whenever possible. Some farmers observed that they did not have to do any soil

fertility improvement to ensure good establishment since “Calliandra is a soil fertiliser itself”.

4.3.1 Reasons for planting Calliandra

Calliandra has been widely promoted by the ICRAF-FORRI project, as well as by

collaborating non-governmental and governmental organisations, for soil conservation to

reduce soil erosion and water runoff on the denuded slopes of the Kabale highlands. In

Mukono, in contrast, it has been mainly promoted as a fodder tree.

Table 4. 9 Initial reasons for planting Calliandra by farmers in Kabale

Primary reason for planting Calliandra Frequency Percent

To improve soil fertility 39 41.9

To protect the fields from erosion 26 28.0

To provide fodder 25 26.9

To provide stakes for climbing beans 3 3.2

Total 93 100

In Mukono, the main purpose of planting Calliandra was fodder for cows, goats and in a few

cases for pigs and chicken, followed by firewood (because it grows and dries fast),

improvement of soil fertility, and medicinal uses. Some farmers in Mukono planted fodder

trees to meet HPI requirements, in expectation of getting a heifer.

4.3.2 Source of seedlings

Several farmers got seed or seedlings from more that one source. The seedlings planted by

the farmers were mainly provided by ICRAF (67%). Other institutions included AFRICARE

(17%), AFRICA 2000 (16%), HPI (5%), TWAN (2%) and NARO (1%).

47

4.3.3 Methods of Calliandra establishment

In Kabale, the establishment of Calliandra was mainly (97.8%) by seedlings obtained from

organisations, while the remainder (2.2%) was by direct sowing. No farmers participating in

the household survey had used wildings or had raised the Calliandra in nurseries on their

farm (though in the case studies farmers had their own nurseries with Calliandra, and several

were growing excess which they gave to other farmers). The source of these seedlings was

from research and development organisations (See section 4.3.2). In Kabale, Calliandra was

mainly planted in hedgerows (92.5%), in fodder banks (plots of land solely for the production

of fodder) - 19.4%, woodlots (33.3%), rotational woodlots (10.8%) and scattered

intercropping (5.4%). Several farmers used more than one technology in the planting of

Calliandra. In contrast to Kabale, in Mukono the main method of establishment was by

seedlings grown in nursery beds or wildings (picked from the farms). The shrubs were

planted mainly by scattered intercropping in bananas and coffee plantations, boundary

planting, hedgerows, and one farmer had a wood lot.

4.3.4 Ownership of Calliandra

Calliandra planted on-farm was owned by the whole family in 74% of the households; while

in some households it was owned by the wife (11%), husband (11%), or by a child (4%).

4.3.5 Participation by gender in planting and management of Calliandra

In the male-headed households, both men and women, with a slightly higher number of

women involved, planted Calliandra in the field: see Table 4.10.

48

Table 4. 10 Participation in planting and management of Calliandra in the male-headed households

Household member Planting Management

Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

Wife 25 34 17 23

Husband 22 29 12 16

Wife and Husband 18 25 21 28

Wife / Husband and house helper - - 4 6

Daughter/ Son 3 4 6 8

Wife and son - - 2 3

Mother of household head 2 3 1 1

Family 2 3 8 11

Hired manager 1 1 - -

Co-wife - - 1 1

Other relatives - - 2 3

Total 73 100 74 100

In male-headed households, the Calliandra is most usually managed by both husband and

wife (28%) or by the wife (23%).

4.3.6 Management of Calliandra

Most of farmers cut the Calliandra for fodder at a height of 0.5 m, while some cut it at ground

level and some as high as 2.5 metres. Cutting for firewood was also mainly at ground level

although some farmers cut it at 0.3 metres. Cutting Calliandra for use in soil fertility

improvement was also similar in many ways to cutting for fodder, with some farmers cutting

it at ground level and others as high as 3.6 metres.

In Mukono farmers said they managed Calliandra in order to increase its productivity. The

management techniques employed included pruning and applying manure. This was not

specifically for the Calliandra, but it benefited from the manure applied to other plants.

Farmers said there was a difference in yield of biomass when Calliandra is cut at different

49

heights. Cutting short (about 10 cm from the ground) was said to yield more biomass. Other

farmers were pruning at a height of 1 m.

4.4 Benefits derived from Calliandra

Table 4.11 shows the most important benefit of Calliandra identified by each respondent. The

primary reasons for planting Calliandra were for soil fertility (Table 4.9) but the benefit

considered to be the most important was fodder (Table 4.11).

Table 4. 11 Most important perceived benefit derived from Calliandra, Kabale

Primary benefit derived from Calliandra Frequency Percent

Animal fodder 41 44

Soil erosion control 19 20

Improves soil fertility 19 20

Stakes 10 11

Firewood 3 3

Trees to sell 1 1

Total 93 100

Apart from the above benefits, an open-ended question gave up to 22 benefits derived from

Calliandra in Kabale (Table 4.12).

50

Table 4. 12 Complete list of benefits from Calliandra and the number/percentage of households reporting each benefit in Kabale

Benefit Count (N=93) Percentage of cases

Animal fodder 75 81.5

Firewood 72 78.3

Improves soil fertility 72 78.3

Fencing 70 76.1

Stakes 64 69.6

Intercrops well with other crops & grasses 20 23.3

Increased milk yield production 19 20.7

Increased crop production 18 19.6

Green manure 14 15.2

Trees to sell 9 9.8

Sale of seeds 9 9.8

Feed for dry season 7 7.6

Thicker milk (higher butterfat content) 6 6.5

Improved body condition of animals 5 5.4

Sale of firewood 5 5.4

Improved health of animal 4 4.3

Soil erosion control 4 4.3

Highly palatable 3 3.3

Beauty 3 3.3

Saves money on dairy meal 1 1.1

Bee forage 1 1.1

Suppresses weeds 2 2.3

In Mukono, the benefits from Calliandra also included attraction of bees, which were said to

be important for pollination.

4.5 Economics of Calliandra production

4.5.1 Cost of producing Calliandra seedlings

The study of individual nurseries, five with potted seedlings and four with bare root seedlings

revealed the summaries of labour inputs and costs and cost of other non-labour inputs as

indicated in the Table 4.13.

51

Table 4. 13 Cost of labour and other inputs for production of 2000 Calliandra seedlings

Potted seedlings Bare root seedlings Nursery

preparation Maintenance Cost of other

inputs Nursery

preparation Maintenance Cost of other

inputs Man days 16 23 2 7Ug shs 16000 23000 41580 2000 7000 25456US $ 8.84 12.23 22.11 1.06 3.72 12.79Cost per seedling Ug shs 43 (US $ 0.023) Ug shs 18 (US $ 0.010)N.B. One man-day = 8 hrs and costs Ug shs 1000 approx. US $ 0.53 (average exchange rate for 2002-2003 from Bank of Uganda, US $ 1= Ug shs 1881,). Other inputs amounts and their cost are in Appendix 3 & 4.

During establishment some farmers mix sand and organic manure in the soil, while others do

not. The soil comes from the farmers’ own land; some farmers prepare their own organic

manure, and others buy it. The nursery activities and the number of farmers that were

practising each method are attached in Appendix 3 & 4. The average cost of inputs apart from

labour, which include seed, organic manure, wood for construction and shading in the

nursery, polythene tubes, nails, sand and the cost of maintaining the land under nursery, are

also indicated in Appendix 3. The net cost for maintenance of land under nursery (excluding

the costs of seed and labour) was Ug shs 41,580, while for bare-rooted plants the average cost

of Ug shs 25,456. The average area occupied by Calliandra nurseries was 7m 2 for both potted

seedlings and bare-rooted plants. Most farmers got seed free from ICRAF, some from

AFRICARE and a few collected or bought seed. Though it is recommended to pre-treat seed,

only one farmer did it. Lack of seed pre-treatment increases the time taken to germinate by 7

to 14 days. There were no farmers using mineral fertilizers, nor using Calliandra inoculum.

Maintenance of potted seedlings took 23 man-days and cost Ug shs 23,000, while bare-rooted

seedling production took 7 man-days and cost Ug shs 7000. The number of days spent in a

nursery is shorter for bare-root stock (average 76 days) than for potted seedlings (average 89

days).

52

The average cost per potted seedling is Ug shs 43 (US $0.023) while for bare-rooted plants it

is Ug shs 18 (US$ 0.010). In Kabale only two farmers had bought seedlings of Calliandra, at

Ug shs 5 and Ug shs 10 per seedling respectively, while the price in Mukono varied from Ug

shs 50 to 1000 per seedling. In Mukono, apart from those who got free seedlings from HPI,

two farmers bought from private nurseries at Ug shs 500 per seedling, while others bought

from fellow farmers at Ug shs 200 per seedling, or got them for free. The price of Calliandra

seedlings was higher when it had just been introduced and the nursery owners got some

additional income, but the nurseries are no longer in existence because there is increased

availability of seedlings from fellow farmers at a lower cost or even free of charge.

Due to poor timing of sowing and labour allocation in the planting season, some farmers

maintain seedlings in the nursery for two seasons, and this increases the cost while reducing

survival in the field. After one season in the nursery, the survival of potted seedlings in the

field, in Kabale, was on average higher (93%, reported by five farmers) while that of bare-

rooted plants (60%, reported by four farmers). If seedlings are kept in the nursery for two

seasons, the cost for bare-rooted plants increases to Ug shs 21 per seedling, and for potted

seedlings to Ug shs 55 representing increases of 24 % and 31% respectively, while the

survival for potted seedlings goes down to 70% and for bare-rooted plants it can be as low as

30%. The activities that increase are watering (for which the total cost doubles), weeding and

root pruning or shoot pruning, whose total cost triples. The problem of overstay of seedling in

the nurseries has to do with timing of sowing in relation to the time of planting, as well as

labour allocation in the family during the rainy season.

53

4.5.2 Cost of planting Calliandra and maintenance in the field

Apart from the cost of producing the seedlings, the farmers experience other costs of

transportation of the seedlings to the field (this is cost of time spent but not actual cash used)

transport, planting them in the field and weeding them in the field. The costs of these

activities are summarised for both districts in Table 4.14

Table 4. 14 Cost of planting Calliandra Seedlings

Activity Kabale Mukono

Ug shs US $ Ug shs US $1. Transporting 100 seedlings from nursery to own farm (N= 12; 3) 159 0.085 328 0.1742. Planting in the field for 100 seedlings (N=12; 7) 739 0.392 940 0.500

3. Weeding of 100 shrubs (N=7; 3) 546 0.290 705 0.375N.B: Figures for N in the parentheses stand for the two districts, Kabale and Mukono respectively

In order to increase productivity, farmers in Kabale and Mukono weed twice in the first year

and once in the second and third year. Some also prune at 0.3m to 1m. One rich and educated

farmer in Mukono applied phosphate fertiliser to Calliandra to increase its productivity. Poor

harvesting methods (such as plucking using the hands to harvest fodder) and termites were

both said to reduce the productivity of Calliandra.

4.6 Use of Calliandra as fodder

The farmers who used Calliandra for fodder were 81.5% from the household survey in

Kabale . The other sources of forage for livestock and the percentages that were using them

are shown in Table 4.14 below.

54

Table 4. 15 Source of forage for livestock (Kabale)

Sources of forage for livestock Count (N= 81) Percent of responses

Banana peelings 66 81.5

Sweet potato vines 66 81.5

Cut and carry grasses (other than Napier) 50 61.7

Cut and carry Napier grass 40 49.4

Direct grazing 31 38.3

Other crop residues (maize, beans, sorghum) 29 35.8

Browse (leaves, young shoots, and other vegetation) 10 12.3

Concentrates (feeds from shops) 3 3.7

Tree fodder other than Calliandra* 2 2.5

* Other tree fodder included Leaucaena trichandra and Acacia angustissima

Farmers in Kabale thus have varied sources of fodder for their livestock, depending on the

management system in place as well as availability of fodder at different times of the year.

4.6.1 Fodder availability and coping strategies in the dry season

Rating fodder availability in the household, 68% said it was scarce (N=77). Most of the

farmers (64.2%) faced fodder shortages at certain times of the year. In Kabale, six of the

eight farmers studied in-depth, faced fodder shortage, as did all the case study farmers in

Mukono.

In Mukono, many farmers experience fodder scarcity in the months of January, February,

July August and December where there is normally a drought. At these times the farmers

resort to collecting wild feed (grass/legumes) from the bush. Strategies to cope with fodder

shortages in the dry season included buying banana peelings at Ug shs 1000/sack from

neighbours, or Ug shs 1,500 from town. Wastes from brewed sorghum were also fed to the

animals; a 20-litre jerry can costs Ug shs 500 in the rainy season but the price doubles in the

dry season. The milk from animals fed on sorghum wastes is said to smell of alcohol, and its

55

life span is reduced by 2 hours. The cows are said to get drunk and the dung has a bad smell.

Farmers said that the dung from animals fed on sorghum wastes also has an “acidic” effect on

grass and crops. Fresh potato vines were also used, but they were said to contain sap, which

could be smelled in the milk. Banana suckers were also bought, at Ug shs 300 per sucker in,

Kabale. Banana peelings were bartered at 1 sack (approx. 30 kg) for 7 litres of milk. The

disadvantage with banana peelings collected from trading centres and food selling points is

that they may contain materials dangerous to animals, such as needles and nails. For those

farmers who do not have enough, neighbours sometimes give them feeds in return for 0.5-1.0

litres of milk. Shortage of fodder can also be due to lack of labour to collect it, which

sometimes is due in turn to old age.

In the household survey, farmers reported different coping strategies for overcoming fodder

scarcity, especially in the dry season. These are summarised in Table 4.16 below. Only

33.8% of farmers said that they purchased fodder, while most (66.3%) could not. Farmers

bought more than one kind of fodder, the purchased fodder included banana peelings/stems

(71%), concentrates (29%), Napier grass (10%), wheat bran (10%), sweet potato vines (10%),

maize kernels/residues (5%) and pyrethrum residues (5%). In Mukono, crop residues cost Ug

shs 300 per wheelbarrow load, which is approx. 30kg.

Table 4. 16 Sources of fodder in the dry season

Fodder coping strategy in the dry season Count (N= 40) Percentage of CasesCollect from swamps 10 25Buys fodder /concentrates/ crop residues 14 33.8Go uphill in the bush to collect grass 8 20Uses own crop residues 6 15Get free from friends 5 12.5Uses banana stems 4 10Feed animals on Napier grass 3 7.5Uses Calliandra 1 2.5

56

Apart from the sources of dry season fodder shown in Table 4.16, farmers also resort to

bartering (milk for fodder), others release the animals to freely graze, and some reduce the

amounts fed to the animals.

Availability of fodder in the dry season depends on good planning. Many farmers do not plan

for the dry season, ‘it is like it gets them unawares’ (Farmers’ workshop, Kabale). Sesbania

was said to give more milk than Calliandra, but it was said to be scarcer and to produce less

biomass. Other fodder legumes such as Lablab purpureus (Lablab) last a short time and no

other crops can be grown with them. Some farmers said Lablab does not withstand the dry

season and heavy harvesting. Others said that too much rain was also not good for it. One

farmer said Calliandra was weather-sensitive and takes time to plant and establish, but that

once it is established it is there permanently, unlike sweet potatoes, which need to be re-

planted after each harvest.

In Mukono, the main animal feed types include Napier grass, herbaceous legumes, banana

peelings, Leucaena leucocephala (Leucaena), and sweet potato vines, Sesbania, Gliricidia,

Ficus, Lablab and Calliandra. The main fodder trees are Calliandra, Gliricidia, and Leucaena

(which is susceptible to pests and diseases).

Farmers face scarcity of fodder in the months of January, February, March, July and August

and they cope by reducing the amount of feed given to the animals during this period and by

going to collect feed from the bushes and from neighbours who have fodder but no animals.

During periods of scarcity, some farmers’ animals feed on legumes such as Desmodium

(most farmers said that this is affected greatly by drought), banana peelings, Napier grass,

sweet potato vines, and leaves of Ficus natalensis, Sapium ellipticum and Calliandra. Farmers

said Calliandra would not become scarce in the dry season, but they have too few trees to

57

feed the animal throughout the year on a daily basis. However, the few trees they have give a

yield all through the year (fodder is available even in the dry season). Some farmers resort to

purchasing feed. The feeds purchased include Napier grass (0.1 ha at Ug. Shs 5000-10,000);

sweet potato vines (a pick up (vehicle of 1 ton) at Ug. Shs 3000, or a head load at Ug. shs

500). Calliandra fodder was neither bought nor sold (because it is not widely known as feed,

and because most farmers do not have enough to feed animals and have a surplus for sale).

4.6.2 Feeding with Calliandra

In Kabale, of the farmers that feed livestock with Calliandra, 91% reported a difference in

milk quantity, quality or both, while nine percent had not experienced any difference. Of

those who experienced a difference, 75% said they had got an increase in both milk yield and

butter fat content, 17% only noticed increased milk yield, 2% only noticed increased butter

fat content, and 6% said that the animal had produced two calves instead of one as

previously. Another farmer said the lactation period it had increased from three months to

eight months for his indigenous cow. The farmers said that the increase in the quality of milk

(high butter fat content) helps to market the milk faster than that of animals not fed on

Calliandra, however prices do not change with quality.

Though some farmers harvest Calliandra in the first six months, the average time of the first

harvest for all the farmers in the case studies was two years after planting in Kabale, and one

year after planting in Mukono. Most farmers in both districts feed the animals with Calliandra

in both the morning and the afternoon. While some feed either in the morning or afternoon,

only one farmer in each district fed in the morning only. In Kabale, seven of the eight farmers

fed their animals with Calliandra on a daily basis, whereas in the household survey only 19%

of the farmers with animals fed Calliandra on a daily basis (N=68). In Kabale, the average

58

number of days that animals were fed on Calliandra was 338 days in the case studies and 173

days in the household survey; the minimum was 24 days and the maximum 365 days. In

Mukono, only three of the eight case study farmers fed the animals with Calliandra on a daily

basis, and the average number of days on which Calliandra was fed in a year was 227.

According to the case studies, the average time taken to feed the animal (including cutting,

carrying and feeding) was 0.7 hours per day in Kabale and 0.5 hours per day in Mukono. For

some farmers, cutting takes only 25 minutes, but the total time spent depends on how they

feed the animals. Some pluck off the tender twigs only and discard the more lignified

branches, which takes more time. All the case study farmers in Kabale fed Calliandra fresh

while in Mukono two out of the eight farmers fed it dry. Farmers try to follow the

recommended proportion of 1/3 of the diet to be legumes, including Calliandra. However

there were several variations in the combination of feeds and the ratios used, depending on

the extension message. All the case study farmers in both districts fed Calliandra to the

animals even when they were in-calf. During the dry season, Calliandra biomass production

was said to decrease but fodder remains available.

The average amount of Calliandra fed to cows per animal per day among the case study

farmers was 6 kg of fresh weight in Kabale and 5 kg in Mukono. However the farmers’

workshops revealed that different farmers fed Calliandra in different proportions. Some

farmers fed 3 kg of protein rich legumes, that is, 4 ‘butasa’ of Calliandra to 60kgs

carbohydrates like Napier grass or other grasses (a ‘katasa’ (one) or ‘butasa’ (many) is a

container that farmers sometimes use for measuring). For other farmers the ration depended

on the live-weight of the animal: they fed 3kg of protein-rich legumes to supplement

carbohydrates, which weigh 1/4 of the animal’s live-weight. Some farmers ‘just give the

59

animal until it is satisfied’. Most farmers (seven out of eight) among the case studies in

Kabale and similarly in Mukono had enough Calliandra to feed the animals daily all the year

round; in Mukono the eighth farmer fed three times in a week, but for the whole year.

In Kabale, seven of the case study farmers had milk to sell; six sold it off-farm and one on-

farm, and on average 60% of the milk produced was sold. All the case study farmers in

Mukono sold some milk, four off-farm, three on farm, and one both on- and off-farm, 40% of

their milk was sold. The average milk price in Kabale was Ug shs 250 per kg, while in

Mukono it was Ug shs 400.In the Kabale household survey, of the 55 farmers who had

animals 71% were selling milk. Of these, 72% were transporting it and selling it off-farm,

18% were selling it at home, and 10% were selling both on-farm and off-farm.

The assessment of impact of Calliandra on milk production revealed that the average number

of Calliandra trees per farm was 2831 in Kabale and 288 in Mukono. The ranges were 200-

6100 and 100-7054 respectively. Most farmers had one lactating animal, although some had

more (maximum 3 in Kabale and 4 in Mukono). The average lactation period was eight

months in both districts.

Cows raised mainly under zero-grazing management produced an average of 15.4 and 11.3

litres per day in Mukono and Kabale respectively. The potential for well-managed crossbred

animals in Kabale is to produce 20 litres while in Mukono it is 25 litres. There are several

factors, which hinder the animals from realising their full productivity, one of which is the

quality of feeds. The basal meal for animals comprises Napier grass and sweet potato vines,

and in the dry season farmers resort to use of crop residues like maize and sorghum stovers,

bean haulm, ground nut tops and banana leaves, pseudostems and flowers (‘empumumpu’-the

60

big red bud which hungs downwards). A few farmers were able to afford concentrates, but

only two of the case study farmers were using them in Kabale. In the household survey in

Kabale, 33.8% of those who had animals in the household survey were purchasing feeds or

fodder, and 48% of these could afford concentrates. In Mukono, in contrast, all the studied

farmers were using concentrates. Other types of fodder bought in Kabale included banana

stems and peelings (71.4%), Napier grass and sweet potato vines (9.5% in each case). Several

farmers were buying more than one fodder or feed type.

Farmers who have crossbred animals observed the impact of Calliandra on milk yield: the

increase averages 1.14 litres in Mukono, and 1.44 litres in Kabale, with a possibility of an

increase of up to 2 litres in both areas. The lowest reported increase was 0.5 litres per animal

per day (average amounts of Calliandra fed are presented on page 33 paragraph 1). In

Mukono some farmers found it difficult to compare between feeding with Calliandra and not

because they '' have always had Calliandra''. Farmers in Mukono noted that feeding local

breeds with Calliandra does not give higher productivity. Some farmers feed Calliandra to

exotic goats: “a two months goat looks like a six months old”.

61

4.6.3 Economic Impact of Calliandra on milk production

Calliandra can be used to supplement or to substitute for the farmers’ basal dairy animal feed.

Partial budget analysis results of supplementary feeding of Calliandra resulting from an

average milk increase of 1.4 litres per animal per day in Kabale are summarised in Table 4.17

Table 4. 17 Partial Budget: Calliandra use as a supplement in milk production, Kabale

Extra Costs Extra Benefits Net BenefitsUg shs US $ Ug shs US $ Ug shs US $

Year 1Tree seedlings 22,575 12.00 Milk 0 0 0 0Transportation of seedlings

1,075 0.57

Planting labour 3,763 2.00Weeding 5,375 2.86Subtotal 1 32,788 17.43 0 0 -32,788 -17.43Year 2Weeding 2,500 1.33 Milk 172,800 91.87Cutting/feeding 35,131 18.68Subtotal 2 37,631 20.01 172,800 91.87 135, 169 71.86Year 3-5 are same as year 2Net Present Value = Ug shs 264,274 (US $ 140.50)Net benefit per year after year = Ug shs =124,205 (US $ 66.03)Annualized net benefits treating establishment cost as depreciation = Ug shs 113,242 (US $ 60.20)

In Kabale, the establishment cost for the shrubs is Ug shs 32,788 (US $ 17.43) if potted

seedlings are used. In Mukono the cost of seedlings, establishment (transportation to the field

and planting) and maintenance is Ug shs 40,850 (US $ 21.72). The increase in milk yield

does not increase the time required to milk “ when you have more yield it may take shorter”.

Table 4.18 summarises the partial budget results of substituting Calliandra for diary meal in

Kabale.

62

Table 4. 18 Partial Budget: Calliandra use as a substitute for diary meal in milk

production, Kabale

Extra Costs Extra Benefits Net Benefits

Ug Shs US $ Ug Shs US $ Ug Shs US $Year 1Tree seedlings 22,575 12.00 Milk 0 0Transportation of seedlings

1,075 0.57

Planting labour 3,763 2.00Weeding 5,375 2.86Subtotal 1 32,788 17.43 0 0 -32,788 -17.43

Year 2Weeding 2,500 1.33 Dairy meal saved 219,000 116.43Cutting/feeding 35,131 18.68 Transport of

dairy meal10,950 5.82

Interest on capital 1,916 1.02Subtotal 2 37,631 20.01 229,950 122.23 192,319 102.24Year 3-5 are same as year 2Net Present Value Ug shs 387,562 (US $ 206.04)Net benefit per year after year 1, Ug shs 192,319 (US $ 102.24)Annualised net benefits treating establishment cost as depreciation is Ug shs 181,355 (US $ 96.41)

One of the hindrances to increased animal productivity is access to quality feeds. Most

farmers (64%) experience fodder shortage, especially in the dry season. Apart from being a

source of protein for livestock, and available in the dry season (benefits expressed by the

farmers), Calliandra supplementation of basal fodders and its use as a substitute for diary

meal, are profitable ventures. Partial budget economic analysis shows that in the case of

supplementation a net present value (NPV) of Ug shs 264, 274 (US $ 140.50) and a net

benefit per year after the first year of Ug shs 124,205 (US $ 66.03) is realized. In this case the

annualised net benefits, considering establishment cost as depreciation, is Ug shs 113,242

(US $ 56.91). Under good management, the net benefit of US $1.35 can also be realised in

the first year. In the substitution case a higher NPV of Ug shs 387,562 (US $ 206.04) and a

net benefit per cow per year after the first year is Ug shs 192,319 (US $ 102.24). In this

second scenario the annualised net benefits considering establishment cost, as depreciation is

63

Ug shs 181,355 (US $ 96.41). Partial budget analysis results of supplementary feeding of

Calliandra resulting from an average milk increase of 1.1 litres per animal per day in Mukono

are summarised in Table 4.19

Table 4. 19 Partial Budget: Calliandra use as a supplement in milk production, Mukono

Extra Costs Extra Benefits Net BenefitsUg shs US $ Ug shs US $ Ug shs US $

Year 1Tree seedlings 26,875 14.29 Milk 0 0 0 0Transportation of seedlings 1,613 0.86Planting labour 4,838 2.57Weeding 7,525 4.00Subtotal 1 40850 21.72 0 0 -40,850 -21.72Year 2Weeding 3,500 1.86 Milk 226,176 120.24Cutting/feeding 47,450 25.22Subtotal 2 50,950 27.09 226,176 120.24 175,226 93.16Year 3-5 are same as year 2Net Present Value Ug shs 343, 970 approx. US $182.86Net benefit per year after year, Ug shs 161,567 approx. US$ 85.89Annualised net benefits treating establishment cost as depreciation, Ug shs 147,907 approx. US$ 78.63

The partial budgets for Mukono are summarised in Tables 4.19 and 4.20. The NPV in

Mukono for the supplementation situation is higher than that in Kabale by US $ 40.05, and

for the substitution case by US $ 14.64.

64

Table 4. 20 Partial Budget: Calliandra as a substitute for diary meal in milk production, Mukono

Extra Costs Extra Benefits Net BenefitsUg Shs US $ Ug Shs US $ Ug Shs US $

Year 1Tree seedlings 26,875 14.29 Milk 0 0Transportation of seedlings 1,613 0.86Planting labour 4,838 2.57Weeding 7,525 4.00Subtotal 1 40,850 21.72 0 0 -40,850 -21.72Year 2Weeding 47,450 25.22 Dairy meal saved 240,900 128.07Cutting/feeding

3,500 1.86Transport of dairy meal 18,980 10.09Interest on capital 2,166 1.15

Subtotal 2 50,950 27.09 259,880 138.16 208,930 106.75Year 3-5 are same as year 2Net Present Value Ug shs 461,680 approx. US $ 245.44Net benefit per year after year 1 Ug shs 212,272 approx. US $ 112.85Annualised net benefits treating establishment cost as depreciation Ug shs 190,978 approx. US $ 101.53

Several important points regarding the economics of Calliandra production emerged from the

farmers’ workshops held in Kabale. In addition to the increase in milk production observed as

a result of feeding animals on Calliandra, income can also be generated through the sale of

Calliandra seeds (1 kg for Ug Shs 20,000 = US $ 10.63). On the other hand, costs of

establishment and management are very high. Management includes watering, weeding,

manure application, protection, labour minimum Ug Shs 15,000 a month. However, this is a

cost to the farmers who plant Calliandra but a benefit to the labourers. Farmers commented

that this labour cost is not only for Calliandra, but also for all the other crops they may have

on the farm.

4.6.4 Sensitivity analysis

The effects of variations (uncertainty) in the prices of milk and diary meal; in discount rates

(10% and 30%); and in level of milk increase per animal per day, using an average lactation

65

period of 305 days (the average in the study is 240 days in the case of Kabale and 248 days in

Mukono) and a life span of the project of 10 years (the discounting uses a five year period),

are presented in Table 4. 21 below. The results show an increase in NPV of 107% in Mukono

in case milk production increases to 2 litres per animal per day where the average farm gate

price of milk is Ug shs 400 and 55% increase in NPV in Kabale where the price is Ug shs

250. Extra milk production of 0.5litres per animal per day reduces the NPV by 98% in Kabale

while in Mukono it reduces by 80%.

Table 4. 21 Percentage change in NPV

Supplementation SubstitutionKabale Mukono Kabale Mukono

Base analysis (NPV) 264,274 343,970 387,562 416,679

Sensitivity Analysis Change in NPV (%)Milk price 30% 42 43 - -Dairy meal 30% (Ug shs 390 /kg) - - 37 37Discount rate, 10% + 36 + 36 + 39 + 36Discount rate, 30% -24 -24 -24 -24Extra Milk production, 2.0kg/day +55 + 107 - -Extra Milk production, 1.0kg/day -43 -17 - -Extra Milk production, 0.75kg/day -68 -49 - -Extra Milk production, 0.5.0kg/day -98 -80 - -Lactation period (305 days) +38 +33 - -Period of analysis, 10 years +61 + 61 +60 +60

The results of the sensitivity analysis show that the lowest percentage increase in annualised

net benefit (ANB) in Kabale is given by the increase in the period of analysis from five to

ten years while the highest is given by extra milk production of 2 litres per animal per day

while in Mukono the same extra milk production gives the lowest increase in ANB while the

highest is given by a discount rate of +30% (See Table 4.22 below).

66

Table 4. 22 Percentage change in Annualised Net Benefit

Supplementation SubstitutionKabale Mukono Kabale Mukono

Base analysis (Annualised net benefit) 113,242 147,907 181,355 195,271

Sensitivity AnalysisChange in Annualised net benefit

(%)Milk price 30% 46 46 - -Dairy meal 30% (U 390 Sh/kg) - - 36 37Discount rate, 10% 0 0 0 0Discount rate, 30% 0 + 115 0 0Extra Milk production, 2.0kg/day + 59 + 28 - -Extra Milk production, 1.0kg/day -47 -53 - -Extra Milk production, 0.75kg/day -73 -73 - -Extra Milk production, 0.5.0kg/day -100 -94 - -Lactation period (305 days) +41 0 - -Period of analysis, 10 years + 6 +35 +2 0

4.6.5 Commercialisation of Calliandra

Small-scale commercialisation of sale of fodder has been observed in parts of Masaka, where

farmers who do not have livestock grow Calliandra to sell to those who have livestock but

cannot produce enough fodder. Calliandra firewood, seed, seedlings and stakes for climbing

beans are also sold in different parts of the country. In Mukono five farmers had left some

trees to grow for seed production (5 to 100 trees), though seed collection is difficult to time.

Those who have managed to collect and sell seed have sold it at Ug Shs 4,000 (US $ 2.16 per

kilogram). Farmers noted that the trees left for seed production have reduced fodder

production.

4.7 Calliandra use in soil fertility management

The most common soil and water conservation structures in Kabale were are terraces, used in

81.3% of the cases. All the measures used are summarised in Table 4.23 below.

67

Table 4. 23 Soil and water conservation structures used in Kabale

Type of structure Count (N=91) Percent of casesTerracing

74 81.3

Hedge 36 39.6

Retention ditch 26 28.6

Grass strip 23 25.3

Unploughed strip 18 19.8

Fanya juu 13 14.3

Fanya chini 3 3.3

Earth bunds 2 2.2

Banana strip1 1

1.1

1Banana strips are linings of banana stems, fibres and dry leaves laid across the slope or land.

Among the hedges used as soil and water conservation structures (N=36), the following

combinations were used: pure Calliandra (64%), Calliandra interplanted with elephant grass

(11%), elephant grass (8%), Calliandra with Setaria grass (6%), Datura spp. (‘ekimuli’) (6%),

Euphorbia (3%), Calliandra plus elephant grass and Grevillea robusta (3%). Water

harvesting techniques, with several farmers with using more than one technique, included

water holes (71.4%), retention ditches (40.3%) and fanya juu (1.3%).

Most of the Calliandra was planted near or at the homestead. The topographical location of

these plots at the homestead was near the valley bottoms (57%), on the hillside (30%) or on

the hilltops (13%). When considering the location of all plots (those at the homestead and

those far away) with Calliandra, 94.6% were on the hillside, 73.1% in the valley bottom, and

31.2% were on the hilltop (some farmers had more than one plot with Calliandra).

The soil fertility of the plots at the homestead was perceived as ‘very good’ (42%), ‘good’

(49%), ‘fair’ (6%), or ‘poor’ (3%). Eighty-seven percent perceived the soil fertility of the

plots at the homestead to have increased over the last four years, 6% said it had decreased,

68

4% could not tell, while 3% said it had remained the same. Perceived soil fertility for all the

plots (N.B. respondents had more than one plot, and thus multiple responses) with Calliandra

90.3% were good, 59.1% were very good, 38.7% were fair and 10.8% were poor. Soil

fertility over last four years across all the plots was said to have increased by 91% of the

farmers, to remain the same by 5%, and to decrease by 2%. Two percent were undecided.

Soil fertility amendments commonly used in Kabale included animal manure (cited by 82%

of farmers), green manure (75%) and compost (66%). Other soil fertility improvement

practices used, by less than 50% of the farmers, were crop rotation (33%), use of crop

residues (32%), others including ash, mulch, poultry manure and fallowing (5%) and artificial

fertiliser (2%). In Kabale, Calliandra is used in soil fertility management by 95% of the

farmers in one or more of the ways listed in Table 4.24. In Mukono farmers were not

applying Calliandra directly as green manure, and some farmers said that the soil below the

Calliandra crowns forms a hard pan that makes it difficult for water to penetrate into the soil.

The farmers were using Calliandra to reinforce soil and water conservation structures because

it is deeper-rooted than agricultural crops and therefore not easily washed away. It therefore

reduces soil erosion and increases soil fertility as well as soil depth. For those farmers that

had planted Calliandra with a spacing of 0.5m between the plants in a hedge said that this was

not an effective measure as the spaces between the plants allow water pathways. From the

farmers’ workshops it was said that it takes one year in Mukono and two years in Kabale to

see an impact on soil characteristics as a result of Calliandra.

69

Table 4. 24 Method of Calliandra use in soil fertility management

Method Count (N= 91) Percent of responses

Green manure 26 28.6

Used in compost 5 5.5

Both green manure & compost 58 63.7

Reinforcing soil & water conservation structures 31 34.1

Rotational woodlots 6 6.6

4.8 Calliandra use for firewood

In Kabale, the woody biomass that remains after feeding the Calliandra to the animals is

mainly used for firewood by 51% of farmers. The other uses of the remaining materials after

feeding animals were used for compost (28%), stakes (six percent), and green manure (six

percent) of the households. Two percent said they have no use for the remaining woody

biomass. Thirteen percent of the farmers who had Calliandra never used it for firewood (used

only for fodder). In Mukono, harvesting Calliandra for firewood was said to be possible after

one year though farmers do not usually leave it to grow exclusively for firewood but use the

woody biomass left after feeding the livestock.

In Kabale, most farmers (47%) said they had enough firewood in their homesteads while 46%

reported it as scarce and 7% as very scarce. The source of firewood for most of the

households (82%) was on-farm. Twenty six percent of the farmers had left any Calliandra to

grow to a good size for firewood.

In Misindye, Mukono, the species mainly used for firewood included Eucalyptus, Coffee,

Senna spectabilis, Guava, and Calliandra. Of these Calliandra was said to be the poorest

firewood, and it is used to cook simple and light meals. Calliandra ranks last because it is said

70

to give weak firewood (burns very fast), though this may be due to the fact that the wood is of

small diameter, consisting of the young twigs and branches that remain after feeding animals.

4.9 Social impact of Calliandra

In Kabale, most of the farmers raised seedlings in excess of their own requirements. They

give away the surplus to neighbours free of charge because their concern is the protection and

management of a whole catchment area. The catchment approach provides greater protection

of the individual farms if the conservation measures are carried out on a whole catchment.

Apart from realising this, the social ties within the local community are increased as a result

of the free sharing of the Calliandra seedlings. Free seedlings of Calliandra encourage

farmers who are otherwise difficult to convince about the advantages of incorporating

Calliandra in the farming system. Men mainly manage the nurseries; in only one case out of

eight a woman was involved. Farmers’ workshops in Kabale revealed that planting of

Calliandra has improved relationships through social reciprocation like assisting each other

with free firewood, exchanging milk for Calliandra fodder, increased working together in

groups and responsibility sharing. However, social disputes and bad feeling between

neighbours may result if animals belonging to one farmer graze another farmer’s land yet on

the other hand, increased fodder availability as a result of planting Calliandra has led to

increased zero-grazing thereby reducing communal grazing and disputes that would arise.

In Mukono, even some farmers who had only a few Calliandra gave fodder to their fellow

farmers in exchange for milk or just for being wished blessings. Social ties are thus improved

through sharing Calliandra fodder with neighbours. Social reciprocation was less pronounced

in Mukono as compared to Kabale. Impacts of Calliandra and the area they had been

experienced are summarised in Appendix 6).

71

4.10 Other impacts from use of Calliandra as fodder

In Kabale, apart from increased milk as a result feeding Calliandra to cows, five farmers out

of eight also mentioned better animal health, three observed better animal body build-up, and

only one commented about increased butterfat content. Farmers also feed Calliandra to goats,

rabbits and older trees used to hang beehives while the flowers provide sources of nectar.

In Mukono farmers reported similar results to those in Kabale, with seven farmers out of

eight reporting both increased milk yield and butter fat content, two better animal health and

one better body build up of animals. Other farmers said that Momordica foetida (‘akabombo’)

had the same impact. Farmers appreciated an increase in milk yield, but more so the increase

in quality, with the use of Calliandra. Some farmers had not observed increase in milk yet but

had observed the increase in butterfat content as a result of feeding with Calliandra.

Calliandra was also said to have an impact on the indigenous animals, one farmer said that

the lactation period was previously three months, and after starting feeding with Calliandra it

increased to four months. Appendix 6 summarises the social, economic and environmental

impacts of Calliandra from the farmers’ workshops.

4.10.1 Improved household welfare

During the farmers' workshop held at Kilowooza-Mukono, farmers said that household

nutrition improved among the adopters of Calliandra. This was seen in increased frequency of

eating bananas (‘matooke’) and vegetables: a household with Calliandra can eat bananas at

least four times per week as compared to once or twice before planting, as well as greens

such as ‘nakati’ (Solanum spp.) and onions on daily basis. There is a general improvement in

the status and well being of the households that can also be seen in the appearance of the

house hold members (they look more healthy and there is reduced incidence of sickness). The

72

improvement in family welfare is caused by income from sale of milk and the nutritional

effect to the household members is a result of drinking more milk themselves and milk being

available to more people in the households other than the youngest members and the

household head, as well as the ability to buy better food.

4.10.2 Better quality cow dung

Calliandra was said to contribute to organic manure production. Animal waste (dung) is very

rich in nutrients; farmers in Kilowooza had not realised this but learnt it from trainers.

However, they had observed heavier and more solid cow dung. Calliandra feeding was said to

give soft and high quality manure, which is easy to remove (pliable), and less fibrous.

4.10.3 Calliandra harbours birds

Birds nest in Calliandra trees and may destroy other crops, especially sorghum. These birds

are attracted to nest in Calliandra so as to feed on the many insects, especially the bees that

collect nectar from the flowers of Calliandra. As a result of feeding on the bees, the birds

were said to destroy the flowers leading to poor seed production from the Calliandra.

4.11 Limitations to increasing the impacts of Calliandra

In the Kabale household survey, perceived limitations to the establishment of Calliandra

included animal grazing (45%), shortage of seeds/seedlings (19.4%), and birds destroying

flowers (16.1%). Others said the researchers were still just experimenting and so they would

not expand on a technology that they are not sure about while other farmers lacked nearby

land where they would expand plant Calliandra (14%). The other limitations to increased

planting were drought 11% and lack of technical back up were (1.1%). Twelve percent said

there was no limitation.

73

Several factors limited the expansion of Calliandra in Kabale. Since the Calliandra was said

to increase soil fertility, farmers have planted it mainly on the plot(s) considered to be of low

fertility/ infertile (27%), or to stop erosion (20%). Farmers who wanted fodder banks (24%)

said that for this reason they needed the Calliandra on the plots at the homestead or nearby.

Some farmers (3%) wanted to fence off their land. Social problems such as theft were feared

by 4% of the farmers and so they only planted the Calliandra on those plots that they could

easily supervise. Nineteen percent feared destruction from animal browsing, and 1%

uprooting by neighbours. Twelve percent of the farmers said that they lacked enough

seedlings to plant on other plots while 7% said they were experimenting to compare plots

with and without Calliandra. Only 2% had Calliandra on all their plots. One percent feared

shading effect of Calliandra on other crops (N=92). Among the 93 farmers in Kabale, 46%

had left some Calliandra shrubs to produce seed with an average of 21 trees (minimum one,

which was also the mode, and maximum 300).

The most important reasons why farmers were not feeding their animals with Calliandra on a

daily basis (N=41) were that they had too few plants (53.7%), or that other fodder

supplements were available (22%). The reason given in 5% of the cases was the belief that

Calliandra is not good for animals on a daily basis. Other reasons given included lack of

time/labour to harvest leaves; the perception that animals do not like it on a daily basis, or

that they have refused to eat Calliandra and need changes in diet; that some of the fodder

from Calliandra is stolen; or that labourers or other household members did not take care of

it. Some farmers only used Calliandra during periods of feed shortage. Those who had local

breeds and were using extensive management did not feed animals on Calliandra at all.

In Mukono, Kilowooza, the main reasons given for other farmers not planting Calliandra

included laziness, and failure to attend training/seminars in improved agriculture/livestock

74

management because they are more interested in money-lending projects that give faster

returns. Other farmers were fearing to plant Calliandra, despite its advantages, because they

had heard that it bring pests (banana weevils and nematodes) and that the leaves “suffocate”

the young shoots of banana suckers causing them to die (N.B.: The farmers had not

experienced this but had only been told). For this reason the farmers preferred to plant

Calliandra on boundaries. Others, however, feared conflicts with neighbours if their animals

ate the boundary trees or if the neighbour experienced negative effects. They therefore

preferred to plant inside the farms rather than on the boundary. Other reasons given for not

planting Calliandra included small land size (average land size in the area was estimated to be

2 acres), and lack of knowledge on where and how to plant and manage Calliandra. Some

farmers believed that animals do not need a lot of Calliandra and that a few shrubs would

suffice.

4.12 Negative aspects of Calliandra

From the household survey in Kabale, most farmers (89.1%) had not experienced any

limitation or negative impact of Calliandra. Among the limitations, given by only 10.9% of

the farmers interviewed, were competition with crops and destruction of soil characteristics

observed as a result of creating a hard pan on top of the soil near the Calliandra (2% in each

case), low seed production (1%), social disputes resulting from browsing (3.3%), Calliandra

harbouring birds which destroy other crops, for example sorghum (3.3%), and birds

destroying flowers of Calliandra (16 %). A few farmers (2%) complained about difficulty in

timing seed collection, and that Calliandra trees are weak and cannot even be climbed by

children to collect seed. An equal percentage said that it was ‘acidic’, referring to tannins.

75

Although it was never mentioned, among the negative aspects, that Calliandra takes up space,

89% of farmers said that they would use the land for other crops if they had not planted

Calliandra. These included Napier grass or other fodder (48%), food crops such as sorghum,

beans, maize, vegetables or sweet potatoes (25%), other trees like such as Eucalyptus or

Sesbania (14%), natural fallow (1%) and Euphorbia (1%). Eleven percent of the farmers said

they would have no other use for the land.

76

CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION

The discussion concentrates on the socio-economic and contextual characteristics of farmers

who have adopted Calliandra; its planting, use and acceptability among the farmers included

in the household survey; the economic analysis of seedling production using data from the

case studies; and information gathered at the farmers’ workshops.

5.1 Socio-economic and contextual characteristics of households with Calliandra

The contextual and socio-economic characteristics of the farmers likely to affect wide adoption

have been identified as and therefore limit the impact of Calliandra in the study area. These

include household characteristics (gender, age and education level of the household head, family

size, wealth); farm characteristics (size of land, location and perceived soil fertility status); and

contextual characteristics (membership of a group, access to extension services, main source of

income – on-farm or off-farm - and number and type of livestock) (CIMMYT, 1993).

Wealth ranking analysis indicated that Calliandra technologies were concentrated in the

medium and high wealth categories, with few adopters from poor households similar to

Franzel et al. (2002). In both study areas livestock is a key wealth indicator and it is the

households in the medium and rich categories that have livestock, especially cows managed

with zero grazing. Wealthier farmers are also usually among the innovators and early

adopters, since they have access to resources (land, labour, capital) (CIMMYT, 1993). The

study has revealed that in Kabale most of the households with Calliandra (75%) were male-

headed. The study showed a proportion similar to, but lower than, Nyeko’s in 2003 (77%), in

the same area while Franzel et al. (2002) found a higher percentage of male-headed

households (91%) in a different area. The proportion of male and female-headed households

77

among adopting farmers in this study is similar to the overall national proportion of male-

headed and female-headed households (MFPED, 2003). This is in agreement with the finding

of Mukasa (2003) that there was no statistically significant difference (p>0.05) in Calliandra

adoption between male-headed and female-headed households in Masaka and Rakai Districts.

Ownership of productive resources, especially land, is limited, and women are often excluded

from decision-making in many agricultural activities (MAAIF, 2000). However this study

revealed from the analysis of gender participation that women in households with Calliandra

are not excluded from decision making on Calliandra and others aspects of farming. The fact

that Calliandra use is not dominated by either gender could be due to its lack of

commercialisation, usually men dominate crops with commercial value. There are several

alternatives to Calliandra for all the uses for which it is being promoted, but Calliandra has

several advantages over the alternatives that are available locally due to its multipurpose

nature.

The average household size for Calliandra adopters in Kabale (7.8) was consistent with the

value (8.0) reported by Nyeko (2003). In both cases households with Calliandra were found

to be much larger than the national average (4.7) or the average for Kabale (4.1) (UBOS,

2002). The average land size (1.8 ha) was found to be lower than in previous studies in

Kabale by Nyeko (2003) who found an average land size of 2.3 ha. The land situated around

the homestead in Kabale in this study (0.3 ha) was six times lower than that found among

Calliandra adopting farmers by Franzel et al. (2002). This means that the total average land

size for a farmer in Kabale would be enough to plant the 500 shrubs needed to feed a diary

cow since this requires a perimeter of 500 m (for planting at 1 m spacing), which would

usually available on a 1.5.ha plot. However, the average land around the homesteads would

78

not be enough to plant the necessary number of shrubs just on the perimeter so additional

planting in other niches apart from boundary planting, or on plots outside the homestead, has

also to be done. Planting on plots outside the homestead increases the risk of destruction of

the shrubs from free grazing animals and also means additional labour transportation to cut

the Calliandra for feeding the animals. Many farmers have not been able to plant enough

Calliandra to feed animals throughout the year because they have been unwilling to take the

risk of planting on plots located outside the homestead.

Number and type of livestock, though partially accounted for in the wealth ranking, deserves

special mentioning here. Due to fodder scarcity and the requirement of some organisations

promoting diary (Heifer Project International) that farmers receiving improved cows have

adequate fodder, small scale farmers with improved cows, or planning to get one, have been

forced by need to plant Calliandra. If well explained in simple terms to the farmers, the

economic analysis information would strengthen the extension message and facilitate faster

adoption.

Eighty-two percent of the farmers with Calliandra derived their income from the farm (either

from crops or from livestock farming). Since the farm is their primary source of income as

well as their primary employer, they would do all that is possible to use them to produce all

they need while at the same time protecting them. Farmers, who put much effort into

management in order to increase production, can also accommodate labour-intensive

activities. The management of the small plots of land has become more intensive since 1988

with introduction of new land management technologies like composting. This explains why

the revenue from farm products for most households increased over the last four years.

79

The study revealed that 93% of the farmers belonged to groups. This is in agreement with

other studies (Lucila et al., 1999; Gerrits, 2000) which showed that membership of a group

increases the possibility to adopt a new technology. In groups there is peer influence as well

as greater retention of information (farmers tend to listen to the same message from an

extension agent and remind each other of what was said and done), mutual support through

advice, and in some cases labour sharing. In addition groups provide opportunities to access

information and inputs such as seed, since some organisations offering extension services to

farmers require this.

The study has revealed that at least 96% of the farmers had received advice on a farming

technology involving Calliandra. Access to extension services is important during the early

stages of farmer experimentation with a technology (Adesina et al., 2000). However, Mukasa

2003 found out that too much contact with farmers who are taking up the technology could be

counter productive, as is leaving the farmers before they experience a full cycle of the

technology (Mukasa, 2003).

5.2 Production of Calliandra seedlings

Planting of Calliandra seedlings in the study area was initially from development/research

agencies (See section 4.3.2). Similar to Nyeko’s 2003 findings the main method of

establishment was from seedlings. Farmers have since been encouraged to start raising their

own seedlings in home nurseries to ensure sustainability. Results of the seedling production

costs are consistent with those of Koech, 2004 in Kenya. Even if only 50% of the seedlings

raised by bare roots survive, the cost is equal to that of potted seedlings, but since the

reported survival of bare root seedlings is higher than that (60%). Since most households are

already labour constrained, it would be worthwhile to look at other measures that would help

80

farmers raise bare root seedlings in order to reduce the labour requirements (relative to

raising potted seedlings).

Seedlings overstay in nurseries, as a result of poor timing of nursery activities such as

watering, weeding and root/shoot pruning. The overstaying increases the cost of production

of the seedlings and reduces their survival in the field. The cost of seedlings is increased as a

result of additional tending operations and the survival in the field is reduced due to the

higher shoot to root ratio and damage to the rooting system during transplanting. Overstaying

of seedlings in the nursery is caused by a number of factors, including the delivery of seeds to

the farmers from distributing agencies, and labour allocation on the farm (the number of

people involved in nursery work). Despite the fact that Calliandra growing and management

on the farm usually involves the husband and wife more or less equally, nursery activities

were mainly taken on by the men in the individual nurseries. This creates a problem when the

manager is not around for some time or is sick. Training in nursery management is needed to

ensure reduced management costs to the farmers and ensure a higher survival of seedlings,

this training should involve the whole family, so that other family members can take part and

can carry on nursery operations when the main person involved is not there.

At the time of the study farmers who were raising more seedlings than they needed were

giving them away free of charge. Yet promotion of Calliandra with all its benefits would

create commercialisation of the species. In Mukono it would be possible to sell a seedling for

Ug shs 50, which would cover the nursery operations and yield some profit. In some

nurseries in neighbouring districts (for example Wakiso and Kampala), seedlings are bought

at Ug shs 200. In Mukono, farmers complain that the high cost of seedlings is a hindrance to

planting more Calliandra. Establishment of a nursery with potted seedlings costs eight times

81

more than one with bare root seedlings. Ways to reduce the cost of establishment, such as

proper timing of sowing and direct seeding need to be developed.

The subsidy of seeds and polythene tubes by NGOs like AFRENA and AFRICARE reduces

the cost to the farmers. It should be noted, however, that subsidies are not a sustainable

option since they create dependence among the recipients. Even without subsidies seedling

production would still be profitable at Ug shs 50 subsidies in areas near Mukono. In Kabale

farmers would be reluctant to do anything that would involve spending extra cash. In cases

where they have bought Calliandra seedlings, they usually buy a few, wait for them to set

seed, and multiply from these, which could reduce the genetic base. Establishment costs

could be further reduced if the survival of seedlings is increased, especially for bare root

seedlings.

Farmers studied on nursery establishment were not using Calliandra inoculum and the soil

that was used was not from near old Calliandra trees and therefore could not have contained

Calliandra-specific rhizobium to enable it to nodulate. Inoculation of Calliandra is important

for increasing seedling growth, foliage production, root and nodule biomass, and phosphorus

and potassium concentrations. Likewise Bekunda (1993) there was significant difference in

dry matter yield, total N yield and nitrogen derived from the atmosphere between inoculated

and non-inoculated Calliandra. Non-inoculated Calliandra formed ineffective nodules.

5.3 Use of Calliandra

Calliandra has been promoted in Uganda for a range of purposes. Once they have planted

Calliandra, farmers draw on their experiences to decide what they perceive as its most

important benefit. In Kabale, this was not always the same as their original reason for

82

planting. Originally, farmers planted Calliandra for various purposes in Kabale were soil

fertility improvement, protection of the farm fields against erosion, fodder, and stakes for

climbing beans (in order of importance as expressed by farmers). However, at the time of the

study fodder was being considered as the most important benefit. Other benefits, in order of

importance, were soil erosion control, soil fertility improvement, stakes for climbing beans,

firewood and wood for sale. In contrast, in Mukono, the most important reason for planting

Calliandra was fodder, followed by use as firewood and thirdly, soil fertility management.

These benefits were in agreement with the study by Nyeko (2003). Other uses cited by Nyeko

and not found in this study were planting around apiaries for bee forage; around fish ponds to

prevent or reduce silting in the ponds; while Mukasa, 2003 found Calliandra used for staking

of bananas; and wood for constructing utensil dryers, kitchens and small houses for livestock.

Calliandra is thus not only being adopted in the study area; farmers in the light of their

experiences with Calliandra are also adapting its use.

Calliandra was preferred over alternative fodder sources such as Vernonia amygdalina,

Gliricidia, Leucaena, and mulberry (Mukono only) because it yields more biomass, and is

preferred by animals. If fed to animals, Calliandra also increases milk yield and reported

butterfat content. According to Kabirizi (2003), 46% of the farmers reported this in Masaka

while this study reveals that 75% did so in Kabale. This may be due to the experience of

Calliandra use as fodder being more recent in Masaka than in Kabale. Farmers appreciate the

increase in milk quality from Calliandra even more than the increase in yield. In Mukono,

some farmers had not observed increase in milk yield but all had observed the increase in

butter fat content as a result of feeding with Calliandra. In Kabale the reverse was true, i.e.

more farmers had experienced increase in milk yield and fewer had observed increased

butterfat content. Again, this may be due to the longer experience of farmers in Kabale with

83

Calliandra, although some farmers in Mukono had also had Calliandra throughout and did not

have ‘before’ and ‘after’ or ‘with’ and ‘without’ situations to compare.

Farmers refer to Calliandra as ‘medicinal’ because it is rich in protein and as a result, feeding

it to animals can increase the growth rate and overall performance of the animals and assist in

resistance to diseases (Robertson et al., 1995, Kabirizi, 2003). It was also said to ‘de-worm

animals”, which may be true since other feeds with high levels of condensed tannins are

known to have anthelmintic (de-worming) properties (Robertson et al., 1995; Molan et al.,

2000). If so, this would reduce the cost of veterinary services, which was cited by Busingye

(2003) as the principal constraint faced by farmers engaged in zero grazing enterprises.

Calliandra fodder was said to weigh more than other fodder types, that is, ‘a small branch can

give a lot of fodder’ (farmer in Mukono). Calliandra is available in the dry season, even

though its biomass production decreases. It can be also dried and fed to animals as dairy meal

during the dry season. Calliandra is thus available throughout the year, though none of the

farmers had enough plants to feed it throughout the year on a daily basis.

Many farmers experience fodder shortages, and resort to anything that the animals can eat to

keep them alive. More research is needed on the nutritional value of these feeds and their

impact on animal productivity. An economic analysis is also needed to compare these other

feeds with Calliandra, and so enable farmers to carry out informed decisions. For example a

study by Busingye (2003), using a linear programming model, showed that the optimal

feeding combination that would give highest milk yields was elephant grass supplemented by

Calliandra, banana peelings, sweet potato vines and brewer’s waste. Measures to reduce the

cost of seedlings should be put in place by field extension staff through training and

development of other establishment methods, such as improving survival of bare-root stock.

84

Apart from reducing production costs this would help farmers raise Calliandra from a wider

genetic base than the present strategy of buying one to five trees and using seed from these to

plant on the whole farm. On-farm research should also address direct seeding of Calliandra in

both technical and economic terms. This could be one way to reduce the production cost by

reducing labour requirements. Direct seeding during the dry season, just before the rains (dry

sowing), would help to distribute the limited labour over a longer period, rather than

concentrate all the activities in the rain season.

5.3.1 Economic profitability for supplementation and substitution with Calliandra

Partial budget analysis showed positive NPVs for both supplementation and substitution with

Calliandra. An earlier study by Franzel et al., 2002, indicated that supplementation and

substitution of Calliandra would give higher NPVs, of up to US$ 122.32 and 141.68

respectively. This study did not, however, take into consideration the costs of planting (including

transportation of the seedlings) and maintenance (especially weeding), which were included in

this study. Households with at least 500 shrubs, who are feeding the animals the minimum

requirement of 6 kg of Calliandra per animal per day, realize a positive NPV from

supplementation and substitution. Given that farmers in Kabale feed diary animals on Calliandra

for a large part of the year (an average of 173 and 338 days in a year, according to the household

survey and case studies respectively), this implies that the actual increase in income is US$

62.94-122.98 and US$ 92.31-180.34 for the supplementation and substitution scenarios

respectively. In Mukono, the animals are fed on Calliandra for an average of 227 days in a year,

giving actual increases in income of US$ 107.50 and US$ 130.22 for the supplementation and

substitution scenarios respectively. The increase in income realized in Kabale was 47% of the

potential, and in Mukono, it was 62%. NPVs vary between supplementation and substitution

because the price of milk is different in the case supplementation from the price of diary meal,

85

which is used in the case of substitution. Also NPVs vary between Kabale and Mukono because

the price of milk is lower in Kabale than in Mukono, giving lower NPVs. For values of the

coefficients used in each district see Appendix 6.

Higher NPV could be realised with good management of the shrubs. If this is done, farmers

can start realising benefits from the first year, which would give the farmers an added NPV if

harvesting for fodder started six months after establishment and the farmer fed the animal for

ninety days in the first year. In order to realise the highest possible NPV for the substitution

scenario, which would give an increment of 2 litres of milk per animal per day (in the study

by Busingye (2003) other feed supplementation showed an increase of 3.75 litres per cow per

day) good overall management of the animal is also required. Good management includes

good feeding, clean environment, good sleeping environment, and steaming up one month

before delivery.

Calliandra agroforestry technologies need a small capital input to buy seeds or seedlings.

However, any modest increase in household income resulting from supplementation of daily

feed or substituting diary meal with Calliandra is likely to be used to meet essential needs

such as medicine, school fees and clothing. Farmers (60%) in Masaka reported improved

household income, with a higher proportion of men than women, implying that most of the

income from increased milk production goes to the men. Yield-increasing and cost-reducing

technologies like those using Calliandra are reversing the negative trends in production and

per capita income and are also environmentally friendly, contributing to reduced pressure on

natural resources like forests through provision of the various benefits.

86

5.3.1.1 Sensitivity analysis

The sensitivity analysis showed that when Calliandra is used as a supplement there is a

possibility of increasing the NPV by 55%, and the annualised net benefits by 59%, if the milk

production increased by 2 kg per animal per day. If the lactation period increases from 240

days in Kabale or from 248 days in Mukono (used in the base analysis) to 305 days, the

increases are 38% and 41% for the NPV and annualised net benefits respectively. Other

studies have shown the average lactation period to be 305 days, while for Busingye it was

225 days, but among the case study farmers it was lower due to breeding done earlier than the

recommended two months after calving.

If one assumes a 30% reduction in the milk price, there is a reduction in the NPV of 42%, but

using Calliandra would still be profitable. In the substitution case, a reduction of 30% in the

price of diary meal would result in a reduction of 37% in the NPV. If one assumes that 1 kg

of dry Calliandra gives an increase of 0.5 litres of milk (as some farmers reported), the NPV

reduces by 94-98%.

5.3.2 Use for soil fertility management

Feeding of Calliandra to the animals adds fertility to the soil. The production of good quality

manure as a result of feeding to the animals is seen in the appearance of the cow dung that is

more solid and dark; this could be due to the presence of high levels of nitrogen, which has a

low rate of mineralisation. In Mukono, for use as soil fertility improver (applying green

manure or for direct nitrogen fixation in the soil), farmers preferred Albizzia chinensis, Ficus

natalensis (‘Ficus’) and Sesbania sesban (in that order) to Calliandra. This could also be due

to the years of exposure to the species. Though Ficus does not fix nitrogen, farmers’

experience and research has shown that soil around Ficus trees is more fertile than that

87

further away from the trees.

5.3.3 Use as firewood

In a study by Kabirizi, (2003) in Masaka, 48% of the men and 76% of the women appreciated

the importance of Calliandra as firewood in addition to fodder as compared to an overall 78%

from this study citing firewood as an important benefit. Calliandra grows fast and dries fast as

firewood, and compares well in these terms with species such as Senna spectabilis. However,

there were also complaints about the poor firewood quality of the woody biomass that

remains after cutting for fodder or for green manure. This was mainly due to the fact that

most farmers had not grown Calliandra primarily for firewood and were never leaving it to

grow to a reasonable size to serve this purpose. The small sticks that remain are weak and do

not last long during cooking, and therefore make poor firewood. These findings are consistent

with those of Mukasa (2003).

5.4 Acceptability

Calliandra under good management has been proven to increase yield by increasing soil

fertility in Kabale under good management as reported by respondents and evidenced by

(Siriri et al., 2000). Secondly, use of Calliandra is economically profitable in Kabale and

Mukono as a supplement to diary animal basal feed and as a substitute to diary meal. The

profitability of its use as fodder compensates for the perceived competitive nature of the

shrub (a result of poor management). The short time needed to realise the benefits, and the

high visibility of the technology’s effects, especially on milk quantity and quality, also

increase the potential impact of the technology. The acceptability of Calliandra is shown by

the expansion of planting by the initial farmers. In addition to the social impacts of Calliandra

88

farmers’ workload searching for feed is reduced, especially in the dry season, which

primarily benefits women, this was also reported by Kabirizi, 2003. Realisation of all these

benefits should contribute to increased adoption, but non-adopting farmers are lacking

information on the species. Some of the other factors contributing to low-adoption (and thus

impact) of the species are discussed in the next section.

5.5 Limitations to increased impacts from Calliandra

5.5.1 Socio-economic limitations

Though land holdings are smaller in Kabale than in Mukono, the land size limitation to the

planting of Calliandra was emphasised more in Mukono than in Kabale. This could be due to

the difference in farming systems (in Kabale there are more annual crops, while in Mukono

there are more perennials). It may also be due to the extension message given, and longer

exposure to the technology in Kabale, where the multiple roles of Calliandra-based

technologies are more visible and better known. Also, the terrain is hillier, so the need for soil

conservation is greater and the impact more easily realized and therefore even farmers with

small plots of land therefore plant several shrubs.

The constraints to increased impacts of Calliandra were investigated and the cost of seedling

production assessed in this study and it was found out that the benefits from Calliandra

outweighed the cost of seedling production. However in the study by Busingye, 2003 using

linear programming, Calliandra was found to be an expensive feed resource compared to

banana peelings (0.04 kg) and sweet potato (1.4 kg) obtained at a minimum cost of Ug shs

19, while Calliandra was Ug shs 63 per kg (Busingye, 2003).

89

5.5.2 Biophysical limitations

Among the limitations to the establishment of the shrub was drought. Mortality due to

drought was mainly a result of poor timing of sowing. This could be reduced by extension

staff advising farmers as to when sowing should take place, and also by developing methods

for sowing in dry weather (‘dry sowing’). Dry sowing would assist to spread out the farm

activities over a longer period prior to the rains since one reason for poor timing of sowing

was that so many farming activities are concentrated in the same period.

Another limitation is shortage of seeds and/or seedlings. This can be addressed by educating

farmers to raise their own seed. A seed tree can be left every ten metres in a hedge rather than

managing the whole hedge at the same height and for a single purpose. Secondly farmers

could be linked to the seed market through the organisations working with them, and

specialised training for farmer seed collectors could also be organised.

There are several organisations for example AFRENA, AFRICARE, CARE, TWAN and

individuals promoting the species, and contradictory information is sometimes being

disseminated. This can confuse farmers and therefore lead them to reject the technology.

Calliandra is also sometimes confused with other species that resemble it and have similar

purposes, such as Leucaena species. The extension services’ role can be improved through

partnerships and networking between all stakeholders in the farming sector operating in a

given area. These partnerships can assist in building a harmonised knowledge base on new

practices in order to ensure their increased adoption. Such partnerships have proved useful in

the dissemination of Calliandra-based technologies in Central and Western Kenya (Franzel et

al., 2002).

90

5.5.3 Policy limitations

Some limitations have to be addressed through bye-laws and policy interventions, such as the

major limitation due to animal grazing. Since Calliandra is now seen as a tree that is best

planted on plots near home, there is a need for bye-laws to help protect farmers’ fields even

when they are far off. This might also be achieved by a catchment approach to conservation

where all people in a given catchment are sensitized and take a collective responsibility

towards each other’s fields as in Bubare, Kyantobe village, Bubare sub-county, Kabale

District. The catchment approach considers the whole watershed that is being affected by soil

erosion. One farmer’s efforts cannot control erosion unless all the farmers in the area

(different owners of land along the slope) use soil and water conservation measures. As this

area is very similar to the other parts of the district, the experience could be easily transferred

to other areas.

Further research is needed into the economics of allowing animals to freely graze. If zero

grazing was shown to be a more profitable option, and this was clearly presented to farmers

as part of the extension message, it would reduce the current prevalence of free grazing,

which results in destruction of the shrub and limits the potential for its promotion. The issue

of milk marketing constraints limiting the profitability of Calliandra, especially in Kabale,

also needs to be addressed. Even with a price as low as Ug shs 250 per litre farmers make a

profit on milk. The profitability could be increased by wider adoption of cost-saving

technologies, facilitated by more information reaching end-users and policy makers.

Secondly, campaigns to facilitate local consumption of milk could be encouraged to increase

the demand for milk. For instance, the government could make a provision for all school

children to have free milk while paying the farmers.

91

Researchers should ensure close communication with farmers at all stages, including

notifying them when experimentation is over so that they do not continue to think that “ the

researchers were still just experimenting’. Limitations to expansion and increased impact of

Calliandra and recommendations for expansion and increased impact as expressed by the

farmers are summarised in Appendix 7 & 8 respectively.

92

CHAPTER SIX

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The overall objective of the study was to determine the potential and current socio-economic

and farmers’ perceived environmental impacts of Calliandra at the plot, household and

community levels. The specific objectives were to determine the primary reasons for planting

and primary benefits derived from Calliandra; assess the cost of Calliandra seedling

production and the costs, returns, and economic impact of Calliandra use as fodder; and to

establish farmers' own perceptions of the economic and environmental impacts of Calliandra.

6.1 Conclusions

The following conclusions can be drawn from this study:

(i) Calliandra is a very useful shrub, which is being accepted in the study area, as shown

by its adoption and the adaptations of its use. The planting of Calliandra involves both

husband and wife equally, and an almost equal proportion of male and female-headed

households have been reached. Those who mainly benefited directly from Calliandra were of

the medium wealth category.

(ii) The cost of Calliandra seedling production is modest, and in view of the benefits from

increased milk production it is a worthwhile investment for farmers. Including the cost of

production of seedlings in the economic analysis, the use of Calliandra as a supplement to

basal feed diet or for diary meal substitution increases the incomes of the households that use

it.

(iii) Apart from the economic impact on milk production, there are several other positive

social and environmental impacts that have been experienced by the farmers, including social

93

reciprocation and soil conservation. Although these are subject to socio-economic,

biophysical and policy limitations, their benefits outweigh any negative effects.

6.2 Recommendations

The recommendations are intended to increase the scaling up of use and impact of Calliandra,

not only in the study area but also in the country as a whole:

i) More promotion of Calliandra use as fodder, in view of the clear benefits

demonstrated should be encouraged by government in its Plan for the Modernisation of

Agriculture and by extension service providers through the National Agricultural Advisory

Services and NGOs.

ii) The use of Calliandra as fodder should target not only farmers with cows but also

those without cows. Those without cows can grow it and either sell to those with animals in

times of scarcity or barter it for milk. This would widen the social impact of Calliandra, and

also increase the availability of fodder.

iii) More training and sensitisation should be done on the use of the species, by

researchers for extension staff who should in turn train farmers (focusing on those that can

pass on the knowledge to fellow farmers). For this to be done, there must be a clear and

consistent extension message among the extension staff and farmers who have been using the

shrub, as they are sources of information for other farmers. Producing extension materials on

Calliandra in the local languages could facilitate this. Development of partnerships among

researchers and development workers would also assist in harmonising extension messages

and approaches. There is a need to include in the extension strategy a holistic look at

94

Calliandra-based agroforestry interventions and provision of different options to farmers and

extension staff.

iv) Researchers a need to study the reproductive biology of Calliandra in Uganda so

as to understand its seeding pattern and advise the farmers accordingly, especially in relation

to maximising successful pollination and to timing of seed collection and handling. Seed

collection should be also initially facilitated through specialised training of seed collectors

(individuals or groups), who should be linked to tree seed markets.

v) Although provision of seeds free of charge to farmers is an added incentive in the

promotion of Calliandra in new areas, this should go hand-in-hand with an extension message

that encourages farmers to grow their own seed, to promote long-term sustainability as well

as increased impact. Free seed should not be given out in areas where Calliandra is already

planted and well known, as it will only discourage farmers from leaving trees for seed and

create a dependency on donors. Survey results showed that farmers often lacked seed, and

that only a few farmers who had planted Calliandra had left some trees as sources of seed.

vi) It is risky to promote individual species; and within a species, the use of various

provenances must also be promoted. Research and evaluation is needed into the utilisation,

nutritional value and potential for improving soil fertility of indigenous trees found in

farmlands, in order to increase the biodiversity of fodder trees.

95

REFERENCES

Abel, N., Baxter, J., Campbell, A., Cleugh, H., Fargher, J., Lambeck, R., Prinsley, R.,

Prosser, M., Reid, R., Revell, G., Schmidt, C., Strizaker, R. and Thorburn, P., 1997.

Design principles for farm forestry: a guide to assist farmers to decide where to place trees

and farm plantations on farms. Barton, ACT, Rural Industries Research and Development

Corp.

Adenisa, A.A., Mbila, D., Nkamleu, G.B., Endemana, D., 2000. Econometric analysis of

the determinants of adoption of alley farming by farmers in the forest zone of Southwest

Cameroon. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 80(3): 255-265.

AFRENA, 2000. Useful trees for farming: Calliandra calothyrsus. AFRENA, Kampala.

Angima S.D , O' Neill M.K and Stott D.E., 2001. On-farm Assessment of Contour Hedges

for Soil and Water Conservation in Central Kenya. International Centre for Research in

Agroforestry, Nairobi, Kenya.

Arnold, J.E.M., 1983. Economic considerations in agroforestry. Agroforestry Systems 1:

299-311.

Bekunda, M.A., 1993. Response of some nitrogen fixing tree seedlings to rhizobium cross-

inoculation. African Crop Science Journal 1 (1): 25-29

Bekunda, M., 1999. Farmers’ responses to soil fertility decline in banana-based Cropping

systems of Uganda. Managing Africa’s Soils No.4. International Institute for Environment and

Development, London.

Berdegue, J. and Nazif I., 1988. Sistemas de Produccion Campesinos. GIA, Santiago

Boehlje M.D. and Eidman V.R., 1984. Farm Management. John Wiley and Sons, New

York, USA.

Brook, R.M., 1992. Early results from an alley cropping experiment in the humid lowlands

of Papua New Guinea. Nitrogen Fixing Tree Research Reports 10: 73-76.

96

Busingye, P., 2003. Optimal use of feed resources for zero-grazing diary enterprises in

Wakiso District, Uganda. MSc. Thesis, Makerere University , Kampala.

Cattet, R. 1996. Use of Calliandra calothyrsus to protect andisoils in Reunion island.

Cahiers Agricultures 5: 157-160. Centre for Soil and Agroclimate Research (CSAR) field

stations. USAID, Scarborough, USA. 29 pp.

Chantrasiri, S. 1988. Fast growing nitrogen-fixing trees as MPTs for fuelwood and charcoal

on small farms. In: D. Withington, K.G. MacDicken, C.B.Sastry, and N.R. Adams (eds.).

Multipurpose tree species for small-farm use. Proceedings of an international workshop held

November 2-5, 1987

CIMMYT, 1988. From Agronomic Data to Farmer Recommendations: An Economics

Training Manual, Revised Edition. Economics Programme, International Maize and Wheat

Improvement Center, Mexico, D.F.

CIMMYT, 1993. The adoption of Agricultural Technology: A guide for Survey Design.

Mexico, D.F.

Crane, E., Walker, P. and Day, R., 1984. Directory of Important World Honey Sources.

International Bee Research Association (IBRA). London, UK. 68 pp.

DFID and NRSP, 1999. Forest/Agriculture Interface Production System. DFID.

Dierolf, T.S., Arya, L.M. and Yost, R.S., 1989. Root distribution in an alley cropping

system. Nitrogen Fixing Tree Research Reports 7: 9-11.

Duke, J.A., 1983. HANDBOOK OF Energy Crops. Unpublished.

Evensen, C.I., Dierolf, T.S. and Yost, R.S., 1995. Decreasing rice and cowpea yields in

alley cropping on a highly weathered oxisol in west Sumatra, Indonesia. Agroforestry

Systems 31: 1-19.

Follis, M. B., Jr., 1993. Economic Considerations. In : Nair P. K. R., 1993. An Introduction

to Agroforestry Kluwer Academic Publishers. Netherlands

97

FPRI, 1977. The possibility of Kaliandra wood as a source of energy. Special report of the

Forest Products Research Institute (FPRI). Bogor, Java, Indonesia. 24 pp.

Franzel S., Coe R., Cooper P., Place F., and Scherr S. J., 2001. Assessing the adoption

potential of agroforestry practices in sub-Saharan Africa. Agricultural Systems, 69: 37-62

Franzel S. and Scherr S.J., (Ed.) 2002. Trees on the farm; Assessing the adoption potential

of agroforestry practices in Africa. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.

Franzel S., Arimi H, Karanja J., and Murithi F., 1996. Calliandra calothyrsus: boosting

milk production and income for farm families in Embu. In: Proceedings of the First National

Agroforestry Conference, Muguga, Kenya, March 1996.

Franzel, S., 1999. Socioeconomic factors affecting the adoption potential of improved tree

fallows in Africa. Agroforestry Systems 47: 49-66.

Franzel, S., Arimi, H., and Murithi, F., 2002. Calliandra calothyrsus: Assessing the early

stages of adoption of a fodder tree in the highlands of central Kenya. In: Franzel, S. and

Scherr, SJ, (eds) Trees on the Farm: Assessing the Adoption Potential of Agroforestry

Practices in Africa. CABI, Wallingford, UK, pp. 125-144.

Franzel, S., Arimi, H., and Murithi, F., and Karanja J., 1999. Calliandra calothyrsus:

Assessing the early stages of adoption of a fodder tree in the highlands of central Kenya.

AFRENA Report 127. ICRAF, Nairobi, Kenya.

Galang, M.C., 1988. The effect of water logging on the growth of eight leguminous trees and

shrub. Research Report, Master of Agricultural Studies, The University of Queensland.

Gerrits A., 2000. Adoption of Calliandra in Kabale District, Benefits and Constraints.

AFRENA Report No. 132. AFRENA Project, Kabale-Uganda.

Gittinger J.P., 1982. Economic Analysis of Agricultural Projects. The World Bank. The

Johns Hopkins University Press, USA.

Graf, W., 1987. Agrosilviculture in research on beans. Hojas de Frijol 9: 5-7.

Guinand, Y., 1996. A method to help select farmers for on-farm agroforestry trials, based on

wealth ranking. AFRENA Report no. 102. ICRAF: Nairobi. 32 pp.

98

Gutteridge, R.C., 1992. Evaluation of the leaf of a range of tree legumes as a source of

nitrogen for crop growth. Experimental Agriculture 28: 195-202.

Handayanto, E., Cadisch, G. and Giller, K.E., 1995. Manipulation of quality and

mineralization of tropical legume tree prunings by varying nitrogen supply. Plant and Soil

176: 149-160.

Hariah, K., Van Noordwijk, M., Santoso, B. and Syekhfani, M.S., 1992. Biomass

production and root distribution of eight trees and their potential for hedgerow inter-cropping

on an ultisol in southern Sumatra. Agrivita 15: 54-58.

Heineman, A.M., 1996. Species selection for alley cropping in Western Kenya: system

management, nutrient use efficiency and tree-crop compatibility (1988-1995). D.Phil. thesis.

Oxford University, Oxford, UK 450 pp.

Heineman, A.M., Otieno, H.J.O., Mengich, E.K. and Amadalo, B.A., 1997. Growth and

yield of eight agroforestry tree species in line plantings in Western Kenya and their effect on

maize yields and soil properties. Forest Ecology and Management 91: 103-135.Tree

Research Reports 1: 24-25.

Huxley, P.A., 1984. Education for Agroforestry. United Nations University, Tokyo, Japan.

ICRAF, 2001. Calliandra calothyrsus, Nursery establishment and management. A pamphlet

for farmers and extension staff No. 1 . ICRAF, Nairobi.

Kabirizi, J.M.L., 2003. Calliandra calothyrsus as a dry season protein supplement for dairy

cattle in Uganda Paper presented at the “Training Workshop on Tree Fodder as a contribution

to dairy enterprise production and sustainable agriculture”held on 1st August 2003 at the

Forestry Research Institute (FORI), Kifu, Mukono district.

Kakuru A., Ngombi B.F. , and Persell P.M., 2001.Agroforestry Development Activities in

Kabale district: A case AFICARE - Uganda Food Security Initiative (UFSI)

Koech, S. 2004. Socio-economic analysis of fodder: The case of Calliandra and Desmodium

in smallholder dairy farms of Embu District, Kenya. MSc thesis (draft) Department of

Agricultural Economics, Egerton University, Njoro, Kenya

99

Konig, D., 1992. The potential of agroforestry methods for erosion control in Rwanda. Soil

Technology 5: 167-176.

Kristjanson, P., Place F., Franzel S., and Thornton P.K., 2001. Assessing research impact

on poverty: the importance of farmers' perspectives. Agricultural Systems, Vol. 72(1): 73-92.

2002.

Lefroy, E. C., Dann, P. R., Wildin, J.H., Wesley Smith, R.N. and McGowan, A.A., 1992.

Trees and shrubs as sources of fodder in Australia. Agroforestry systems 20, 117-139.

Lehmann, J., Schroth, G. and Zech, W., 1995. Decomposition and nutrient release from

leaves, twigs and roots of three alley-cropped tree legumes in central Togo. Agroforestry

Systems 29: 21-36.

Lowry, J.B. and Macklin, W., 1989. Calliandra calothyrsus - an Indonesian favorite goes

pan-tropic. NFT Highlights 88-02. NFTA, Hawaii, USA.

Lucila, M., Lapar, A., and Pandey, S., 1999. Adoption of soil conservation : the case of the

Philippine uplands. Agricultural Economics 21. 241-256. Elseiver Science B.V. Manilla.

MAAIF/MFPED, 2000. Plan for Modernisation of Agriculture: Eradicating Poverty in

Macklin, B., 1990. Agroforestry technologies in transmigration communities of Sitiung,

West Sumatra: present systems, suggested improvements and constraints to further

development. USAID consultancy report based on visits to the Indonesian

Macqueen, D.J., Norton, B.W. and Stewart, J.L., 2001. Use and management. Chapter 5 in

Chamberlain, J.R. (ed.): Calliandra calothyrsus: an agroforestry tree for the humid tropics.

Tropical Forestry Paper 40, pp. 37-51. Oxford Forestry Institute, U.K.

Mafongoya, P.L., 1995. Multipurpose tree prunings as a source of nitrogen to maize (Zea

mays L.) under semi-arid conditions in Zimbabwe. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Florida,

Gainesville, FL.

Mc Donald M. A., Stevens P.A. and Healey J.R., 2001. Contour Hedgerows of Calliandra

calothyrsus Meissn. for Soil and Water Conservation in the Blue Mountains of Jamaica.

100

Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries (MAAIFF), 2000. National

Agricultural Advisory Services Programme (NAADS); Master Document of the NAADS

Task Force and Joint Donor Groups. MAAIF, Entebbe.

Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development (MFPED), 2000. Uganda

Participatory Poverty Assessment Report: Learning from the Poor, Kampala: MFPED.

Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development (MFPED), 2003. Uganda

Poverty Status Report, 2003. MFPED, Kampala.

Molan, A.L., Hoskin, S.O., Barry, T.N., and McNabb, W.C., 2000. Effect of condensed

tannins extracted from four forages on the viability of the larvae of deer lungworms and

gastrointestinal nematodes. The Veterinary Record, 147, 44-48.

Mugisha, O. R., 1996. Uganda districts information handbook. Kampala, Uganda: Fountain

Publishers Limited.

Mukasa, C.M., 2003. Adoption of Calliandra calothyrsus and Sesbania as agroforestry tree

species in Masaka and Rakai Districts. MSc. Thesis. Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda

Muschler R.G. and Bonnemann, A., 1997. Potentials and limitations of agroforestry for

changing land-use in the tropics: experiences from Central America. Forest Ecology and

Management 91 (1997) 61-73. Elsevier Science B.V.

Nadiar, S., 1979. Knowing the "land of honey" Gunung Area. Duta Rimba 5, 33, 15-19.

Nair P.K.R., 1993. . An Introduction to Agroforestry by Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Netherlands

Nakakaawa C.A., 2002. Carbon Sequestration Potential and Economics of Improved

Agroforestry Fallow Systems for Restoring Degraded Soils in Kigezi highlands. Kabale,

Uganda. MSc.thesis, NORAGRIC.

National Environment Management Authority, 1996. State of the Environment Report for

Uganda. NEMA, Kampala.

National Research Council, (NRC), 1983. Calliandra: a versatile small tree for the humid

tropics. Report of an ad hoc panel of the advisory committee on Technology Innovation

101

Board on Science and Technology for International Development, National Research

Council, National Academy Press, Washington D.C., USA. 52 pp.

Nielsen F, Guinand Y, Okorio J., 1995. Farmer participatory diagnostic research:

Lakeshore banana-coffee land-use system of Uganda. ICRAF, Kampala, Uganda (105 pp).

Noble, A.D. and Palmer, B., 1998. Elemental composition and ash alkalinity of selected

tropical legume species. Unpublished Progress Report. ACIAR Project No. LWR1/96/196.

CSIRO, Townsville, Australia. 24 pp.

Nyeko P., 2003. Farmers’ experiences in the management and utilisation of Calliandra

calothyrsus in Uganda. A consultancy report , World Agroforestry Centre, Uganda.

O’Neill M.K., Tuwei P.K., Karanja G.M., and Okoba B., 2001. Fodder Dissemination for

Soil Conservation and Cash Generation in the Central Kenyan Highlands. Sustaining the

Global Farm.

Palmer B., Macqueen D.J. and Gutteridge, R.C., 1994. Calliandra calothyrsus – a

multipurpose tree legume for humid locations. Ps. 65-74 in Gutteridge, R.C. and Shelton,

H.M. (eds): Forage Tree Legumes in Tropical Agriculture. Wallingford, U.K., CAB

International.

Palmer, B., Bray, R.A., Ibrahim, T.M. and Fulloon, M.G., 1989. Shrub legumes for acid

soils. In: E.T. Craswell and E. Pushparajah (eds.). Management of acid soils in the humid

tropics of Asia. ACIAR Monograph No. 13, Canberra, Australia. pp. 36-43.

Pannell D.J., 1997. Sensitivity analysis of normative economic models: theoretical

framework and practical strategies. Agricultural economics 16, 139-152. Elsevier Science

Publishers B.V., Amsterdam.

Paterson, R.T., Roothaert, R. Nyaata, O.Z., Akyeampong, E., and Hove, L., 1996.

Experience with Calliandra calothyrsus as a feed for livestock in Africa. In Evans, D.O. (ed.)

Proceedings Of An International Workshop On The Genus Calliandra, 23-27 January 1996.:

Winrock International, Bogor, Indonesia.

Pidjiharta, A. and Pramono, I.B., 1988. Effect of vegetation on water transfer. Buletin

penelitian hutan, pusat penelitian dan pengembangan hutan 499: 1-9.

102

Place F. pers.comm. 2002. An economist and researcher with World Agroforestry Centre,

Nairobi.

Place F., 1995. Cost-benefit Analysis of Selected Agroforestry Technologies in the Southern

Africa AFRENA (Agroforestry Research Network). ICRAF, Nairobi.

Poedianto, M., 1980. Calliandra plantation and bee keeping at Gunung Arca. Perum

Perhutani research report No. KT. 14-80. Jakarta, Java, Indonesia. 16 pp.

Robertson, H.A., Niezen, J.H., Waghorn, G.C., Charleston, W.A.G. and Jinlong, M.

(1995). The effect of six herbages on liveweight gain, wool growth and faecal egg count of

parasitized ewe lambs. Proceedings N.Z. Soc. Animal Prod. 55, 199-201.

Rosecrance, R.C., Rogers, S. and Tofinga, M., 1992. Effects of alley cropped Calliandra

calothyrsus and Gliricidia sepium hedges on weed growth, soil properties and taro yields in

Western Samoa. Agroforestry Systems 19: 57-66.

Satin, M.S., 1998. A Socio-economic Evaluation of Live Fencing and Windbreak

Agroforestry Technologies in Kaolack, Senegal. MSc thesis, West Virginia University.

Sheng, T.C., 1984. Problems of Agroforestry in Land-Use Planning. United Nations

University, Tokyo, Japan.

Siriri D. & Raussen T., 2002. The agronomic and economic potential of tree fallows on

scoured terrace benches in the humid highlands of Southwestern Uganda. Agriculture,

Ecosystems and Environment, 1969 (1992) 1-11. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.,

Amsterdam.

Siriri D., Raussen T., and Poncelet P., 2000. The development potential of Agroforestry

technologies in Southwestern Uganda. Agroforestry Trends 2000. AFRENA, Kampala.

Spencer, D.S.C., Byerlee, D. and Franzel S., 1979. Annual Costs, returns, and seasonal

labour requirements for selected farm and non-farm enterprises in rural Sierra Leone.

Working Paper No. 27. Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University,

East Lansing, Michigan.

103

Syachri, T.N., 1982. Some properties of woods and agricultural wastes as an energy source.

Laporan BPHH/FPRI Report 162: 17-22.

Tassin, J., Perret, S. and Cattet, R., 1995. Alteration in the porosity of an andisol in

Reunion under a hedge of Calliandra calothyrsus. Bois et Forets des Tropiques 245: 91-99.

Thomas, D, Sumberg, J.E., 1995. A review of the evaluation and use of tropical forage

legumes in sub-Saharan Africa. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 54:151-163.

Tonye, J., Duguma, B. and Tiki-Manga, T., 1995. Stepwise approach to alley cropping

technology development and transfer in the forest zone of Cameroon. Agroforestry Systems

28: 269-278.

Torquebiau E., 1991. Agroforestry Concepts, ICRAF.Nairobi.

Torquebiau E., 1992. Are tropical agroforestry home gardens sustainable? Journal of

Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 41 (1992). Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.,

Amsterdam.

Tuwei, P.K., Kang’ara J.N.N., Mueller-Harvey I. , Poole J., Ngugi F.K.and Stewart J.L.,

2003. Factors affecting biomass production and nutritive value of Calliandra calothyrsus leaf

as fodder for ruminants. Journal of Agricultural Science (Cambridge) 141:113-127.

UBOS, 2002. Uganda Population and Housing Census 2002. Provisional Results. UBOS

Kampala. Uganda, Government Strategy and Operational Framework, Kampala:

MAAIF/MFPED.

Valadez J. and Bamberger, M. 1994. (Eds.). Monitoring and Evaluating Social

Programmes in Developing Countries.The World Bank, Washington D.C.

Vasquez, W., 1987. Effecto de Calliandra calothyrsus sobre las caracteristicas fisicas del

suelo. Silvoenergia 23: 1-4.

Verhoef, L., 1941. Preliminary results with some Leguminosae introduced from Central

America. Tectona 34: 711-736.

von Platen, H.H., 1991. Economic evaluation of agroforestry systems of cacoa (Theobroma

cacao) with laurel (Cordia alliodora) and poro (Erythrina poeppigiana) in Costa Rica. In :

104

Sullivan et al. (eds), Financial and Economic Analyses of Agroforestry Systems: Proceedings

of a workshop held in Honululu, Hawaii, USA., July 1991, pp.174-189. Nitrogen Fixing Tree

association, Paia, Hawaii, USA.

Wambugu C, Franzel S, Paul Tuwei P and Karanja G., Aug 2001. Scaling up the use of

fodder shrubs in Central Kenya. Development in practice, 11(4) pp 487-494.

Wiersum, K.F. and Rika, I.K., 1992. Calliandra calothyrsus Meisn. In: E. Westphal and

P.C.M. Jansen (eds.). Plant resources of South-East Asia 4. Forages. Pudoc, Wageningen,

Holland.

Wong, M.T.F., Akyeampong, E., Nortcliff, S., Rao, M.R. and Swift, R.S., 1995. Initial

responses of maize and beans to decreased concentrations of monomeric inorganic

aluminium with application of manure or tree prunings to an Oxisol in Burundi.Plant and

Soil 171: 275-282.

World Bank, 1995. Uganda Social Sectors. The World Bank, Washington, D.C.

Yantasath, K., Supatanakul, W., Ungvichian, I., Chamsawad, S., Chantrasiri, S.,

Patanavibul, S., Hyakitkosol, C., Prompetchara, S., Pithakarnop, N. and Chalermklin,

P., 1985. Tissue analysis and heating parameters of nitrogen fixing trees. Nitrogen Fixing

Tree Research Reports 3, 53-56.

105

Appendix 1: Sub-Counties, parishes and villages surveyed

Sub County Parish Village No. of farmers visited

BUBARE (N=22) Kashenyi Kitabugika 2

Kakore Kyantobe 1

Kagarama Kyarujumba 9

Butobore Kyantobe 10

BUHARA (N=11) Rwene Nyakabongo 3

Buhara Bugarama 2

Buhara Kigugo 1

Buhara Kashaki 1

Buhara Kyase B 2

Rwene Ruhiza 1

Rwene Kihanga 1

BUKINDA (N=4) Karorwa Khongati 1

Nyabirerema Kakatunda 1

Karorwa Kishongati 2

KAHARO(N=2) Bugarama Hakatooma 1

Kaharo Kariba 1

KAMUGANGUZI (N=21) Buranga Rukaranga 8

Buranga Rushebeya 3

Buranga Kabarisa 3

Buranga Buranga 1

Kabarisa Kamuganguzi Tc 1

Buranga Nyakarindi 2

Kasheregenyi Buranga 1

Kasheregenyi Nyakarindi/Kabarisa 1Kasheregenyi Nyakasarara 1

KITUMBA (N=6) Butare Kazigazigyi 1

Karubanda Kama/Runyanjoka 1

Karubanda Karubanda 1

Karubanda Runyajoka 1

Bushuro Mwisi 1

Karubanda Omukirya Sale 1

KYANAMIRA (N=27) Kyanamira Rwanyabiboga/Nyabiboa 3

Nyabushabi Ihimbi/Ihembe 4

Muyumbu Muruhita 1

Nyabushabi Nyakabungo 2

Nyabushabi Kayorero 1

Muyumbu Ituza 1

Nyakagyera Nyabikoni 1

Nyakagyera Kabisha 1

Nyabushabi Kayerero 1

Muyumbu Nyakiju 1

Muyumbu Kabura 1

Nyabushabi Rujanjala 3

Nyakagyera Mupuhinta 1

Nyakagyera Nyakahita 1

Muyumbu Kabura 1

Nyabushabi Gwenkima 2

Muyumbu Kirwa 1

Muyumbo Ntungamo 1

Total (N) 93

106

Appendix 2. A sample of a questionnaire used during the data collection process

STUDY OF THE SOCIO- ECONOMIC & ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF USING CALLIANDRA CALOTHYRSUS FOR FODDER IN KABALE DISTRICT SECTION A- PART I: IDENTIFICATION PARTICULARS

1. Name of the interviewer_________________________________________________2. Date of Interview_______________________________________________________3. Name of sub county_____________________________________________________4. Name of Parish ________________________________________________________5. Name of the village_____________________________________________________6. Name of Head of Household______________________________________________7. Questionnaire ID:______________________________________________________

SECTION A- PART II: SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE HOUSEHOLD

1. Gender of person being interviewed 1. Female 2. Male2. Age of respondent _____________________________________________________3. Relationship of the interviewee to the household head? ________________________4. Type of household (Circle the right code)

1. Male-headed, married2. Male-headed, single or widower3. Female-headed, single, widow or divorced4. Female headed, husband away5. Child headed6. Other (specify)

5. Age of the household head? _____________________________________________6. Level of education for the household head _______No of years in school [ ]7. How many people are in your household? [ ]8. How many children of 8 to 14 years are in your household? [ ]9. How many males, of 15 years and above are in your household? [ ]

10. How many females, of 15 years and above are in your household [ ]11. What is principal occupation of the household members?

Member of house hold The nature of jobPrimary Occupation Secondary Occupation

Codes for primary and secondary occupation1. Professional private job 8. Farming (crops)2. Professional government job 9. Livestock farming 3. Other salaried position 10. Student4. Casual work 11. Local medicine man5. Beer brewing 12. Other artisan6. Bee keeping 13. Other (specify)7. Trader

12. Where do you get the most income in this household? 1. On-farm (crop) 2. On farm (livestock) 3. Off-farm

13. (i) How do you compare the revenue from farm products now and four years ago? 1. Increased 2. Decreased 3. Same 4. Don’t know

107

(ii) Main reason for the answer above____________________________________(N.B.- the first reason given by the farmer is not necessarily the main one)

SECTION A- PART III: DECISION-MAKING IN THE HOUSEHOLD

14. Who makes the decisions concerning livestock management? ___________________15. Who makes the decisions concerning crops to grow? __________________________16. In the household, who is mainly involved in the farming? ______________________17. Who makes the decisions concerning soil fertility replenishment? ________________18. Who makes the decisions concerning use and adoption of new agricultural technologies or

practices?___________19. Who made the decision to plant Calliandra?__________________________________

Codes for Qsns. 14 to 181= Wife 6= Mother2= Husband 7= Father3= Co-wife 8= Househelper/ farm labourer4= Son 9= Hired Manager5= Daughter 10= Others ( specify)____________________________

SECTION A- PART IV: ACCESS TO SERVICES

20. (i) Have you received extension services on any of the following?

Extension service Yes No If yes, specify type of organization/ & Name1. Agroforestry/forestry

2. Maintenance and improvement of soil fertility3. How to overcome fuelwood scarcity in the last four years? 4. Improving fodder quality/ overcoming forage scarcity

21. (i) Is there anyone in this household who is a member of a cooperative society or a community / village association or a group with an economic objective? Yes [ ] No [ ](ii) If yes, which ones

1.Cooperative society 2. Community / village association 3. Group with economic objective4.Others

(iii) In the household, what is the status of the member to the household head__________

22. (i) Have you received access to credit (including financial & inputs in kind) in the last four years? 1. Yes 2.No(ii) If yes, where did you get it?

1.Member of household 5. Microfinance institution2.A friend 6. a private trader or company3.Bank 7. Local group4.Cooperative society or another 8. Other (specify)

23. What is the distance in km to the nearest market /trading centre? _______________________ 24. What is the distance in km to the nearest tarmac road? _____________________________

108

SECTION B- PART I: CALLIANDRA ESTABLISHMENT, MANAGEMENT, USE, & EXPERIENCE25. Who first came to know about Calliandra in the household?___________________________26. From what source, did you come to learn of Calliandra use?

1. Development officer or from research, Name of institution:_________________________________2. Other farmers3. NGOs, Name of NGO:_________________________________________________________________4. Others (specify)

27. What was the primary reason for planting it on your farm?____________________________1. to improve the soil 4. to provide fodder2. to protect your field 5. to provide firewood3. to increase the yield 6. others (specify)______

28. Method of establishment 1.Seedlings 2.Direct sowing 3.Wildings29. (i) Source of seedlings/seed/wildings?______________________________________

(ii) If bought, how much a seedling? _______________________________________30. Who planted the Calliandra trees? _________________________________________31. Calliandra was planted as (circle): 1. Hedgerow 2. Fodderbank 3. Scattered intercropping 4. Woodlot32. How many metres / no. of Calliandra trees do you have in your field? (it is better to measure hedgerow to know

the exact length)

Fodder bank Hedgerow Rotational woodlot

Scattered Intercropping

Area plantedMetresSpacingNo. of trees

33. Who manages the Calliandra trees? ________________________________________34. i) Cutting height for fodder:______________________________________________

ii) Harvesting for firewood_______________________________________________iii) Harvesting for soil fertility improvement_________________________________

35. Who owns the Calliandra on the farm? 1. Husband 2.Wife 3.Child 4. Family

36. Progress made in planting and expansion of Calliandra Species of fodder tree

Year of first planting

No. of trees planted at first planting

No. of times planted since first planting

No. of trees now Number of trees producing seeds now

Calliandra

37. What limitation have you encountered when establishing Calliandra? 1) Drought 4) Lack of technical back up 2) Unavailability of seeds/seedlings 5) Others (Specify)…………… 3) Inadequate seeds/seedlings

109

38. What positive aspects of Calliandra have you noted (benefits realized by the farmer?

Benefits Circle right code RankNone 0Increased crop production 1Increased milk yield production 2Thicker milk (higher butterfat content) 3Improved body condition of animals 4Improved health of animal 5Saves money on dairy meal 6New production 7Firewood 8Construction wood 9Animal fodder 10Feed for dry season 11Highly palatable 12Green manure 13Improves soil fertility 14Improves soil characteristics 15Soil erosion control 16Fencing 17Trees to sell 18Bee forage 19Stakes 20

Beauty 21

Other (specify) 22

39. What negative aspect of Calliandra have you noted……………………..0) None1) Competition with crops2) Occupy part of land that would otherwise be used for other crops3) Takes too long to grow.4) Gives few seeds5) Social disputes resulting from browsing6) Calliandra harbors birds which destroy other crops7) Destroys soil characteristics8) Other (Specify)………………..

110

SECTION C: LAND & PLOT CHARACTERISTICS40. Who owns land in this house hold_______________________________________________________41. Number or parcels of land owned by this household_________________________________________42. Approximate size of farm (sum of all parcels)______________________________________________43. Plot characteristics, distance to plot, and farming enterprises (those with Calliandra)

Plot Characteristics Plot 1(at the homestead)

Plot 2 Plot 3 Plot 4 Plot 5 Plot 6 Plot 7

Size (acres)

Distance from household (km)

Planted with Calliandra #

Topographical location(1=hill top; 2= hill side; 3= valley bottom

Perceived soil fertility(1=Very good; 2= good; 3=fair 4=poor; 5= very poor)Soil fertility over last 4yrs(1=Increased; 2= Decreased; 3=Same; 4=Don’t knowMajor enterprise in 2002 1st Season

2nd season

Codes for major farming enterprise 1. Food production 6. Livestock production (pasture or planted fodder)2. Fruit Production 7. Woodlot for poles 3. Vegetable production 8. Woodlot for fuelwood4. Poultry (+ products) 9. Fallow5. Cash crop production 10. Other (specify)

44. Why did the farmer decide to plant some plots with Calliandra and not the others?______________________________________________________45. What else would the farmer use the land he / she planted with Calliandra for? _________________________________________________________

111

SECTION D - SOIL FERTILITY MANAGEMENT

46. Methods for soil fertility improvement soil and water conservation structures & water harvesting techniquesType of soil fertility improvement practice

Type of structure Water harvesting techniques

1.Fertilizer 1. Terracing, 1. Water holes2.Crop residues 2.Earth bunds 2. Water pans3.Green manure 3.Fanya juu 3. Retention ditches4.Animal manure 4.Banana strip 4. Roof catchment5.Crop rotation 5. Unploughed strip 5. Other6.Compost 6. Stone line7.Other 7.Grass strip

8. Retention ditch9. Hedge (specify spp.)10. Other

47. Do you use Calliandra is soil fertility management/soil & water conservation? 1. Yes 2. No

48. In soil fertility improvement or soil and water conservation, Calliandra is used as 0) None 1) green manure 2) Used in compost 3) Both 1& 24) Reinforcing S& W structures 5) Other (specify)

49. (i) How do you compare the overall soil fertility of plots planted with Calliandra, now and before planting Calliandra? 1) Increased 2) Decreased 3) Same 4) Don’t Know

50. Any other observed impact of Calliandra on soil where it is planted?

SECTION E: CALLIANDRA USE FOR FODDER 51. Indicate number cows or goats kept in the farmCows Number

Males FemalesFed on

Calliandra [Y/N]

Management System1=Intensive; 2=Semi intensive; 3= Extensive

Local breeds Adults

Young ones

Improved breeds Adults

Young onesGoatsLocal Adults

Young OnesImproved breed Adults

Young ones

52. Other livestock on-farm:Livestock No. Fed on Calliandra[Y/N]PoultryPigsRabbitsOthers (Specify)

53. Normal milk yield from cow at peak period, # litres per day ________________________54. i) Do you feed with Calliandra on a daily basis? Yes [ ] No [ ]

ii) If no, why?________________________________________________________________

112

iii) Frequency of feeding Calliandra______________________________________________55. i) Is there any difference in milk quantity / quality as a result of feeding with Calliandra?

Yes [ ] No [ ]ii) If yes, what is the difference?1) Increased milk yield 2) Increased butter fat content 3) Both 1 &2 4) Other (Specify)____

56. i) Do you sell any milk? 1. Yes 2. No

ii) What proportion of the milk do you usually sell daily? ________________________57. Where do you sell the milk? 1) At the farm 2) Offfarm

58. How do you rate fodder availability in this household?1) Very scarce 2) Scarce 3) Enough

59. Where do you get forage/feeds for your livestock? Main Types of feed Circle right codeDirect grazing 1Cut and carry Napier grass 2Cut and carry other grasses 3Browse ( feed on leaves, young shoots, and other vegetation) 4Banana peelings 5Swet potato vines 6Other Crop residues 7Other Tree fodder other than Calliandra (specify tree species) 8Concentrates (feeds from shops) 9

60. Are there times in the year you are short of forage? 1. Yes 2. No.

61. i)If yes , how do you manage to overcome forage shortage during periods of scarcity? ii) Do you purchase any animal feed/fodder 1. Yes 2. No

iii) If yes, which ones?___________________________________________________62. After you have fed Calliandra to the animals, what do you do with the woody biomass?63. Have you left some Calliandra to grow to a good size just for firewood? 1. Yes 2. No.

64. Is firewood a problem to the household?1) Very scarce 2) Scarce 3) Enough

65. i) Where does the household get most of its firewood? 1. On farm 2. Off farm

66. From the farmer point of view, what are some of the limitations from realising more impact from Calliandra?_____________________________________________________________

67. Recommendations from the farmer on how to increase the impact of Calliandra____________

SECTION G: Physical capital67. Which of these items do you own?

Item No.CarMotorcycleBicycleRadioWheel barrowKerosene stoveLantern lampOptimus (pressure) lamp

68. Type of houseHousesType of roof for main houseType of wall for main house

113

Type of roof Type of walls1= thatch 1= mud2= iron sheets 2= wood3= tiles 3= stone/brick4= not applicable 4= iron sheets

SECTION H/1-OTHER REMARKS (answered privately by the enumerator soon after the interview) 1. In your opinion, how would you rank the household’s wealth category (health and clothing) [ ]

1 = rich 2 = average 3 = poor

2. Overall, how did the respondents give answer to the question? _ _ [ ]1= willingly 2 = reluctantly 3 = with persuasion 4 = it was hard to find/ get answers

3. How often do you think the respondent was telling the truth? ______________ [ ] 1 = rarely 2 = sometimes 3 = most of the times 4 = all the times

4. Reliability index: how reliable do you think information you have is? ________[ ]1 = very high 4 = low2 = high 5 = very low3 = average

(this index corresponds to the level of reliability of the interview. Translation difficulties, contradictions… can appear during the interview. 5. How do you judge the farmer's knowledge and experience with Calliandra? ____ ]

1 = very high2 = high3 = average4 = low5 = very low

114

Appendix 3: Bare root Calliandra seedling production in Kabale

Four farmer/ nurseries studied; average no. of potted seedlings produced was 2000Activities AverageA. Nursery preparation N Man days Ug shs1. Carrying out site preparation 4 0.39 3912. Preparing the soil 1 0.13 1253. Mixing soil and manure 4 0.24 2454. Collecting sand, digging and carrying 2 0.16 1565. Mixing soil & sand 1 0.03 316. Watering soil during mixing with sand (including collecting water)

2 0.06 57

7. Covering with banana leaves 3 0.14 1358. Shading after germination 4 0.66 6569. Sowing seed 4 0.15 146Sub-total 1 1.94 1,943

B. Maintenance and disposal1. Wateringa) Watering (before germination) 4 1.39 1,389b) Watering (after germination) 4 2.74 2,7372. Weedinga) Weeding (seedbed) 4 1.22 1,219b) Weeding (transplant bed) 3 1.02 1,0163. Root pruning 2 0.19 1884. Shoot pruning 1 0.42 417

Sub-total 2 6.96 6,964

C. Prices of labour and inputs Quantity (Ug shs)1. Seed 4 200 g 8,0002. Manure 3 0.03 m3 4003. Wood for nursery construction, branches for shading 4 5 poles 4,7504. Cost of maintaining land under nursery 4 7 m3 11,406

5. Nails 1 0.5 kg 7006. Sand 1 0.015 m3 200Sub-total 3 25,456

Grand Total 34,363Cost of production of a bare root seedling of Calliandra is Ug shs = 18, approx. US $ 0.010

* 1 man day = 8hrs, costs Ug shs 1000 approx. US $ 0.50

115

Appendix 4: Economics of Potted Calliandra Seedling Production in Kabale

Five farmers / nurseries were studied. These raised an average of 2000 seedlings. A day contains how many hours on average:

Activities AverageA. Nursery preparation N Man days Ug shs1. Carrying out site preparation 5 0.39 4262. Drawing lines with ropes 3 0.13 1383. Mixing soil and manure 5 0.12 1314. Collecting sand, digging and carrying 2 0.15 1655. Mixing soil & sand 4 0.18 1936. Watering soil during mixing with sand ( inclu.collecting water) 4 0.08 837. Covering seed bed with banana/eucalyptus leaves 5 0.31 3448. Shading after germination 4 0.43 4689. Filling polythene bags 5 8.06 8,86910. Constructing nursery 4 0.18 19311. Treating seed 1 0.01 912. Sowing seed 5 0.16 18013. Transplanting 5 5.86 6,442Sub-total 1 16.03 17,637

B. Maintenance and disposal1. Wateringa) Watering (before germination) 5 2.86 3,145b) Watering (after germination) 5 10.43 11,478c) After transplanting 1 0.45 4952. Weedinga) Weeding (seedbed) 4 0.63 696b) Weeding (transplant bed) 5 3.74 4,1143. Root pruning 5 4.41 4,851Sub-total 2 22.53 24,779

C. Prices of other inputs Quantity (Ug shs)1. Seed 5 245 g 9,8002. Manure 5 0.051 m3 6803. Wood for nursery construction, branches for shading, 5 4 poles 6,1004. Cost of maintaining the land under nursery 5 7 m3 14,1005. Polythene tubes 5 2 kg 10,0006. Nails 3 0.5 kg 7007. Sand 1 0.015 m3 200Sub-total 3 41,580

Grand Total 83,996Cost per potted Seedling of Calliandra is Ug shs 43 approx. US $/ seedling 0.023

1 man day = 8hrs, costs Ug shs 1000 approx. US $ 0.50

116

Appendix 5: Coefficients and prices used in partial budget economic analysisItems Values Units Data source

Kabale MukonoLactation period 240 248 days Farmers’ case studiesDays fed Calliandra or dairy meal 365 365 days Farmers’ case studiesDairy meal/day/cow 2 2 kg AFRENA, KabaleCalliandra/day/cow equiv. 6 6 kg wet AFRENA, KabaleCalliandra equiv. 2 2 kg dry AFRENA, KabaleCalliandra trees/m 2 2 trees Farmers’ case studies, Key InformantsCalliandra leafy biomass production/m hedge/yr. Year 1 1 1 kg dry AFRENA, KabaleCalliandra leafy biomass production/m hedge/yr. Years 2-5 3 3 kg dry Paterson et al.1996Calliandra hedge in metres required/cow 243 243 m hedge Computed from aboveCalliandra shrubs required/cow 487 487 shrubs Computed from aboveMilk output/kg dry Call. 1.4 1.1 Litres of milk Farmers’ case studiesTree survival rate 0.93 0.93 Farmers’ case studies, potted seedlingsDiscount rate 20% 20% AssumptionTrees Surviving after plating 500 500 Base, Paterson et al.1996

PricesMilk (farm gate) 250 400 Ug shs/litre Farmers’ case studies

Dairy meal 300 330 Ug shs/kg

Kabale Ug. Sh 9000 /30 kg bag, Mukono is 23,000/ 70 kg bag Farmers & Key informants

Transport of meal 15 26 Ug shs/kgUg. Sh 500 /30 kg bag; Ug. Sh 1500 /70 kg bag

Transport of seedlings 2 3 Ug shs/ tree Farmers’ case studies, for pottedCost of potted seedlings 42 50 Ug shs/tree Computed from study on nurseries

Annualised value of fixed capital (estab. cost) 10963 13659 Ug shs

y Use of capital recovery formula (Spencer et al., 1979)

LabourWage 138 250 Ug shs/hr Farmers case studies, Key InformantsCalliandra cutting and feeding 0.7 0.5 hr/day Farmers’ case studiesCalliandra planting 7 9 Ug shs/ tree Computed from case studiesCalliandra weeding 5 7 Ug shs/ tree Computed from case studies

Base model: Farm with 500 trees and one dairy cow, 5 year time period.No extra milk produced when you substitute Calliandra for dairy meal. The amount of Calliandra substituted for the amount of dairy meal was calculated in such a way to keep the milk production constant.y Annualised value of fixed cost for seedling establishment for 500 shrubs is given by K = ( rv)/(1-(1=r)-n) where K is the annual service user cost, v is the original (acquisition) cost of the fixed capital asset, r is the discount rate and n is the expected life of the asset. The depreciation on capital and the opportunity cost of capital is costed using this procedure (Franzel, et al., 2002).

117

Appendix 6 Impacts of Calliandra from farmers workshopsDistrict/ Sub county Mukono/ Ggoma Kabale/ KyanamiraParish Seeta Bukerere Masindye Muyumbu Bwababa Nyabushabi

Impact IndicatorImproved status and well being of households.

Look more healthyReduced incidence of diseasesAfford educating children

* ** *

* *

* * * * * *

* *Quality organic manure production hence increased yields.

Heavier and more solid cow-dungEasy to remove and less fibrous.

* * * * * *

* *

Increased milk yield and quality

Increased milk supplyIncreased yield(1 basin of fresh Calliandra=1-1.5 litres)Increased butter fat content

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

Improved animal health

More resistance to diseasesIncreased fresh and muscle of animalsIncreased growth rate

* *

* *

* * * *

Soil conservation and fertility improvement

Erosion controlLand slides controlledInfiltration Vs run-offBlack soilsPresence of nodules Increased crop yields Improved soil texture

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* ** ** *

* ** ** *

* *

Improved relationships through social reciprocation

Sharing fodderAssisting each other with firewoodGiving free seedlings for fodderWorking together in groupsSharing responsibility

* ** *

* *

* *

* * * *

* ** *

Increased zero grazing

Reduced communal grazing and conflicts that arise from them

* *

Social disputes resulting from grazing in Calliandra fields

Quarrels between owners of the field and persons grazing animals

* * * * * *

High establishment and management costs.

Watering, weeding, manure application, harvesting.

* * * *

High labour costs Minimum of Shs 15,000 per month.

* * * *

Calliandra trees harbour birds which destroy crops especially sorghum

* * * * * *

‘Calliandra dries soil’

* *

Low calorific value of the firewood.(mainly from those Calliandra used as stakes that are generally harvested when young)

* *

Calliandra is said to cause blot in animals.

* *

118

Appendix 7: Limitations to planting more/ or realising more impact

Limitations to planting more/ or realising more impactCount (N=91)

Percent of responses

Percent of cases

Destruction by grazing animals especially in fallow land 63 37 69Trees do not produce seed 46 27 51Theft of Calliandra e.g. by grazers, neighbours 14 8 15Birds destroy young Calliandra flowers 11 6 12Lack of awareness on use and management of Calliandra 11 6 12Drought 6 4 7Land shortage 3 2 3Moles and black aunts destroy Calliandra 3 2 3Poor information on seed collection 3 2 3Destruction of seedlings in the nursery e.g by rats 2 1 2

Diseases which attack the trees and dry 2 1 2Picking seeds is difficult 2 1 2Animals do not like it daily 1 1 1Birds destroy seeds before they explode 1 1 1Poor timing / planted during dry season 1 1 1Some trees wither and dry 1 1 1Uprooting 1 1 1

Appendix 8: Recommendations from farmers

Recommendations from farmers Count (N=88)

Percent of Responses

Percent of Cases

Government, LCS, Project should put in place bye-laws to control grazing

50 33 57

Project to provide seeds/ seedlings 40 27 46Educate farmers on use, management, raising seedling, growing of CC

20 13 23

Encourage farmers to grow seed trees, pick own seed, 12 8 14Disease & control measures e.g provision of spray pumps, use of ash, trees to kill moles

8 5 9

Protection of fields where Calliandra is planted 5 3 6Timely planting and management of Calliandra 5 3 6Encourage zero grazing 4 3 5Improve / use good technical harvesting methods for Calliandra 2 1 2Researchers should stop giving empty promises to farmers 1 1 1Project should put measures to control birds 1 1 1Researchers should be done to find out why some trees fail to seed yet they flower

1 1 1

No recommendation 1 1 1Provide animals to those who have planted Calliandra 1 1 1

119