-l INSTITUT SENEGALAIS DE RECHERCHES AGRICOLES
PROJET DE RECHERCHE AGRICOLE BASEE SUR
LA GESTION DES RESSOURCES NATURELLES
q (NRBAR)
RAPPORT DE MISSION DE MONICA FISHER
THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT OF
STABLING TECHNOLOGY IN THE KOLDA REGION
JUIN/AOUT 1996
FINAL REPORT IN ENGLISH
c
4
En collaboration avec
I’Agence des Etats-Unis pour le Dheloppement International (USAID)
Num&o du Projet USAID: 685-0285
et
le Consortium pour le D&eloppement International (CID)
c
Num&o du Contrat USAID: 685-0285-C-00-2329-00

---

ISRA
RAPPORT SOMHAIRE DE CONSULTATION A COIJRT TERME
PROJET/SOURCE DE FINANCEMENT: Projet NRDAR
NOH DU CONSULTAT:
Monica Fisher
AGENTS RESPONSABLES:
ISRA:
Adama Faye
PROJ-ET:
Thomas Cusack
DEBUT DE LA CONSULTATION:
DATE: 6/10/96
EEURE: 5:30 pm
FIN DE LA CONSULTATION:
DATE: a/8/96
HEURE: lo:50 pm
MISSION ET TERHES DE REFERENCE:
Finaliser l'analyse socio-&conomigue des subventions NRE$AR R04
et R09.
1) faire une revue critique et la synthese des rapports existants
sur l'impact de la stabulation dans les regions de Kolda et de
Kaolack.
2) ecrire un rapport de recherche de 1'ISRA (francais et anglais)
base sur l'analyse socio-economigue de la stabulation gui &tait
faite en 1995.
3) elaborer la composante economigue du rapport final de la
subvention R04.
4) completer les fiches techniques de la subvention R04.
5) determiner
un plan pour terminer la recherche sur la
stabulation.
6) collecter les donnees necessaires pour finaliser les rapports
mentionnes plus haut.
7) reviser la methodologie utilisee dans l'etude de 1995 et
finaliser un manuel h l'usage des chercheurs de 1'ISRA.
TACHES ACCOKPLIES:
1) collecte de donnees dans 5 villages de la region de Kolda du
02 au 21 juillet 1996 (objectif 7 des tennes et references)
2) co-rhdaction de 3 rapports de recherche de 1'ISRA sur la
technologie de stabulation:

---

c .
,
-
(i) Une analyse de la rentabilite de la stabulation dans la
region de Kolda - 1996
(ii) Une analyse de la rentabilite de la stabulation dans la
region de Kolda - 1996
(iii) L'adoption et 1'Adaptation de la stabulation par les
paysans de la region de Rolda - 1994/1996
Les 3 documents repondaient aux objectifs 1, 2, et 3 des Termes
de Refbrence.
3) collaboration avec les chercheurs de 1'ISRA pour completer les
fiches techniques de la subvention R04 ( objectif 4 des termes
de Reference)
RENCONTRES AU DEBUT ET A LA FIN DE LA HISSION:
Au debut: ISRA: Adama Faye et Papa Dieye (ISRA/Kolda) 17/6/96 et
;I
avec Tom Cusack 10/6/96
A la fin: ISRA: Papa Nouhine Dieye 26/6/96
IMXWENTS JOINTS:
Termes de Reference
Kmploi de temps
Rapport(s) du consultant
TRAVAIL DE SUIVI PREW:
Nous suggerons pour une collaboration future avec les chercheurs
de 1'ISRA:
(1) de travailler avec Papa Nouhine Dieye pour ddvelopper un
manuel de stabulation destine aux paysans. Ce manuel fournira aux
paysans les instructions &tape par &tape sur la pratique de la
stabulation ainsi que l'information concernant les resultats
qu'ils peuvent esperer de l'utilisation de cette technologie.
Chaque page contiendra ou bien la photographie ou l'image et le
texte Bcrit dans la langue locale et le francais.
(2) de travailler avec Adama Faye pour ecrire un article de
journal sur l'adoption de la stabulation. Les donnees requises
sont disponibles dans les rapports de terrain de l'annee 1995.
(3) travailler avec Moustapha Kebe et M'bene Faye (ISRA/Bambey)
pour terminer le manuel dur la methodologie du budget partial
COMHENTAIRES DUCONSULTART:
SIGNATURE DU CONSULTANT:

---

CONNENTAIRES DES AGENTS RESFONSABLES:
SIGNATURE DE L'AGENT RESPONSABLE DE L'ISRA ATTESTANT QUE LE
TRAYVAIL EST SATISFAISANT:
SIGNATURE DU CHEF' D'EQUIPE DU PROJ-ET NRBAR:
DATE:

---

TEXMESDEREFERENCEPOURLACONSULTATIONDEMONICAF'ISHER
PREVUEDUlOJUlNAU OSAOUT,1996
@RAFTREDIGELElLMAIl996)
I.
I N T R O D U C T I O N
Monica Fisher a travaille au Senegal et aux Eta&Unis avec I’ISRA sur l’analyse socio-economique de la
subvention NRBAR R04 entre jam&r et juillet, 1995. Elle a travaille avec Adama Faye, Abdoulaye
Fall, Tom Cusack et 1’Cquipe phuidisciplinaire a Kolda. La premiere etape du travail (la colleote de
donnees socio-economiques et l’elaboration d’un rapport de recherche sur les r&ultats de la subvention
R04) etait finalis& en @et 1995, et le rapport en anglais dishiibud La deuxieme &ape est l’objet de
cette proposition
Le consultant et cette assistance sent p&us dans le plan de travail de 1995 sous forme d’activites
suivantes: page 15: 2.(k):( 1) - etudes socio-economiques
page 26: 11, 18 - analyses des technologies sur les subventions NRBAR
IL
OBJECTIFS
Aider Adama Faye, Papa Dieye, Fatima Dia, Abdoul Diallo, les &pripes phuidiscipliuaires 21 l’URR -
Haute casamance/Senegal orientale, et a l’URR - Sud basin aracbidier, et et le personnel de l’ISRA a:
-
A
Faire la revue critique et la synthese des rapports existants portant sur l’impact de la stablisation
(et les autres technologies agriculture/elevage lies avec le stab&x&on) en milieu reel a Kolda et a
Kaolack.
B .
Elaborer un rapport de recherche en f%tncais de la premiere &tpe de l’&ude.
C .
Elaborer un rapport final de la subvention R04, avec les analyses socio-&conomiques.
D .
Elaborer les fiches techniques de la subvention R04.
E.
Elaborer un article scient&Iue sur les r&ultats.
F.
Decider d’un programme pour tertniner les etudes avec la troisi&ne &tape.
G.
Collecter des don&s necetsakes pour term&r ces an&es et rapports
H .
Reviser la methodologie utili&e et elaborer un draft manuel de methodologie.
EL
PLANDETRAVAIL
Rencontrer et travailler avec l!ISRA, en r&tlisant les object& ci-dessus mention&s La vi&e sera
coordonnee par Adama Faye et Tom Cusack
Iv.
PLANBXATION DE LA VISITE
1OJUN arrivee i Dakar
11JUN rencontre avec le DG, DS, Adama Faye, Moustapha KebC, les autres agents de PISRA,
USAID: revision des termes de reference.
I
12-21JUN a Kolda et Kaolack: determination des contenus des documents p&us, revue de la
documentation, preparation de la collecte des do&es
22-29JUN i Dakar pour Claborer un premier draft des documents p&us sur R04
1111
Ol-26JUL: Ia collecte des don&s necessaires sur le terrain
27JUL08AOU: elaboration des rapports de visite (B.,C.,D., en draft f?nal, et les autres en draft
preliminaire). plan de travail pour la prochaine &ape finalise
08AOU depart de Dakar

---

V.
BUDGET
$
1. Voyage EU-Dakar-EU:
3000
I
2. Per diem 22 joumkes @ $60 (chambre de passage)
1320
3. Per diem 37 joumtes @ $100 (sur le terrain)
3700
I
Hebergement (chambre de Passage)
0
4. Fournitwe, papeterie
1000
5.l4fisc.
980
-
TOTAL
$10,000

---

ISRA
LETTER !iXWMARY RIWORT FOR SHORT-TEXM CONSULTANCY
PROJET/SOURCE OF FUNDING: NRBAR Project
NAME OF CONSULTANT: Monica G. Fisher
RESPONSIBLE OFFICERS:
ISRA: Adama Faye
PROJECT: Thomas Cusack
ARRIVAL DATE: 6/10/96
TIME:
5:30 pm
DEPARTURE DATE:
a/a/96
TIME:
lo:50 pm
SUMMARY OF PURPOSE OF THE CONSULTANCY:
To complete the socio-economic analysis for subventions NRBAR R04
and R09.
SUMMARY OF TERMS OF REFERENCE:
(1) Critical review and synthesis of existing reports related
to the impact of stabling in the Regions of Kolda and Kaolack.
(2) Write an ISRA research report (french and english) based on
the socio-economic analysis of stabling that was conducted in
1995.
(3)
Provide the economic component for the final report for
subvention R04.
(4) Complete fiches techniques for subvention R04.
(5)
Complete a scientific article with the results of the
research on stabling.
[6) Determine a plan for finishing up the research related to
stabling.
(7) Collect the data necessary to complete the above mentioned
reports.
(8) Revise the methodology used in the 1995 study and complete
a manual to be used by ISRA researchers.
WORK ACCOMPLISHED
(1) Collected data in 5 villages in the Region of Kolda from 7/2
- 7/21, 1996 (Terms of Reference Objective 7)
(2) Co-authored 3 ISRA research reports on the technology of
stabling:

---

li
(9
An Analysis of the Profitability of Stabling in the
Region of Kolda - 1994
(ii)
An Analysis of the Profitability of Stabling in the
Region of Kolda - 1996
(iii) The Adoption and Adaptation of Stabling by Farmers in
I
the Region of Kolda - 1994/1996
The 3 documents fulfil1 Objectives 1, 2, and 3 of the Terms
of Reference.
(3) Worked with ISRA researchers to complete fiches techniques
of subvention R04 (Terms of Reference Objective 4).
INITIAL/EXIT MEETINGS:
Initial: ISRA: Meeting with Tom Cusack on 6/10/96
Meeting
with
Adama
Faye
and
Papa
Dieye
(ISRA/Kolda) on 6/17/96
Exit: Meeting with Papa Dieye on 7/26/96
RELATED DOCUHEWTS ATTACHED:
I
Detailed Terms of Reference
-
Time Sheet itinerary
Consultancy
Report: The 3 above mentioned ISRA research
reports
FOLLOW UP:
The following are suggestions for future collaborations with ISRA
researchers:
(1) Work with Papa Dieye to develop a "stabling manual" for
distribution to farmers.
This manual would provide farmers with
step by step instructions on how to practice stabling as well as
information concerning the results they can expect from use of
this technology.
Each page would contain either a photograph or a picture and text
written in the local ethnic language and french.
(2) Work with Adama Faye to write a journal article on the
adoption of stabling.
The required data is available from
fieldwork in 1995.
(3) Work with Moustapha Kebe (ISRA/Dakar) and M'bene Faye
(ISRA/Bambey) to complete a manual on the partial budget
methodology.
COMMENTS OF THE CONSULTANT:
SIGNATURE OF CONSULTANT:

---

.
-

‘
COMMENTS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICERS:
II
SIGNATURE OF ISRA RESPONSIBLE OFFICER THAT WORK SATISFACTORILY
COMPLETED: ea
I
SIGNATURE OF NRBAR CHIEF OF PARTY:

---

L
I
Projet de Recherche Agricole Bake
THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT
OF STABLING
IN THE REGION OF KOLDA
3
An Analysis of the Profitability of Stabling in the Region of Kolda, 1994
(DOCUMENT 1)
3
An Analysis of the Profitability of Stabling in the Region of Kolda, 1996
(DOCUMENT 2)
5
The Adoption & Adaptation of Stabling by Farmers in the Region of Kolda, 1994/1996
(DOCUMENT 3)
I
Monica Fisher, NRBAR Project
Papa Nouhine Dieye, ISRWKolda
I
Adama Faye, ISIWDakar
August 1996
DOCUMENT 1
collaboration with
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
and
I ‘Ihe Consortium for International Develnment (CID)

---

I
A. INTRODUCTION:
m the past decade, soil degradation, decreased availability of land, and a disengagement
ofthe state (which has meant the end of subsidies and credit for agricuhural inputs) have
made it increasingly difficult for farmers in Senegal to provide for the subsistence needs of
their families. Indeed, between 1979-1992 the annual growth rate of food production per
capita in Senegal was -. 2% (WorId Development Report, 1994). In order to help farmers
increase their productivity, and in line with the Government of Senegal’s (GOS) national
objective of food selfsufliciency, the Institut Senegalais de Recherches Agricoles (ERA)
is promoting research to identity, develop and diffuse low-cost, natural resource-based
technologies or practices which address the specific needs and situations of Senegaiese
farmers.
Since the late 198Os, ISRAKolda has been involved in research and extension of
stabling technologies in the Upper Casamance, where the majority of the rural population
is engaged in agro-pastoral activities. Stabling is a technological package which is
-
practiced during the dry season and consists of the stable, a food supplementation, an
animal health care program, and a new method of producing manure.
h&ially, stabling was promoted as a means to produce a manure of high quality and
quantity which could substitute for or complement other soil maintenance practices (use of
I
chemical fertilizer, Mow, the parcage). At present, ISRAKolda is promoting the use of
manure stables for the more general purpose of helping farm households to secure
subsistence needs in a sustainable manner through an improved integration of livestock-
cropping practices.
Research on the part of ISRNKolda has found that stabling has the potential to
provide farm households with substantial benefits (Fall and Faye, 1989; Fall and Faye,
1992; ISRAKolda, 1993; Faye, Dieye and Seye, 1995; Dieye, Diatta, Faye, Diallo and
Babene, 1996). In terms of livestock production, stabling can contribute to the improved
health of livestock, increased rniIk production, improved reproductive performance, and
I
fatter animals. And, through the sales of milk and titter animals, stabling can enable
farmers to increase their household revenues. In terms of agricultural production. stabbug

---

2
can contribute to increased output through the provision of a manure of higher quality and
quantity, stronger&ster draft animals (Fall and Faye, 1989), and revenues earned Corn
sales of milk and meat can be used to purchase agricultural inputs. In turn, increased
agricultural production not only helps to secure household food needs and incomes, but
also complements livestock production with increased harvest residues which serve as an
import~t animsl food source.
&though research has found that there are important benefits associated with stabling,
it is not clear if these benefits cover the additional expenses and effort incurred by the
-
farmer. This study analyzes the benefits and costs of stabling with the objective of
determining if the practice of stabhng is profitable for farmers in the Region of Kolda. In
addition, the study will provide information concerning the sources and the levels of
additional revenues and costs, as well as the level of investment that is required to practice
-
stabling.
B. TEE DATA:
This study concerns 6 villages in the Region of Kolda and a total of 60 households.’
‘Ihe 6 villages may be categorized into 3 different axes based on geographic location:
l West Z&e (Dialoukolon):
Bantaneountou Maounde
N’Dangane
Sare Samboudiang
l East Zone (Dabo):
Dialambere
Medina Koundje
l Northeast Zone (VeIingara): Mankacounda
The 6 villages were selected by ISR4 researchers based on the following criteria:
existence of relatively abundant numbers of households which practice stabling, and
representativeness of the diverse reasons that households stable their livestock. In 4
‘Househoids here are defined a~ a production and consumption unit. In some cases this uaz, a nuclear
family. in other cases an atended family

---

3
villages, households practice stabhng primarily so that they can increase milk production.
These villages are near urban centers and are part of per-i-urban milk production programs
either with ERA or Sodefitex. In another village households practice stabling for the
purpose of producing manure that can be used in their village’s biogas plant, and as
fertilizer for horticulture gardens. In another village households are prim&y interested in
fattening their livestock so that they may be sold for more money.
Household selection was done in the following manner. First enumerators conducted a
census of all households in the 6 villages. From this census the sampling frame was
derived which is defined as all households that posess livestock. The 6 villages were then
grouped into 3 axes, according to geographic location. In each axis 20 households, 10
which stable and 10 &tich do not stable, were selected by a stratified random sample.”
Techniques used to collect data for the analysis inchrded: household interviews,
interviews with village chiefs, interviews with women market gardeners, measurement of
local production units, and interviews with Kolda butchers.
The main source of data were the household interviews.
At each household the
husband and first wiEe were interviewed by trained enumerators with use of a
questionnaire with questions related to agricultural production, livestock production,
stabling, and general household characteristics.
In addition to the above-mentioned data sources, data from ISRAKolda research was
also used to fill in data gaps and in cases where it was believed that the data from the
household interviews was inaccurate.
I
C. Tm P.IRTC4L Bt?)GETLVG MODEL:
A partial budgeting model was developed to determine the marginal benefits, marLgina
I
costs and the net benefits (marginal benefits minus marginal costs) associated with each of
I
three representative stable types (defined in next section) for the dry season of 1994.

---

4
Three steps were involved: clearly detig the alternative hestock practices, quantifying
the potential marginal benefits and costs, and calculating the net economic benefits.
Defining the Alternative Livestock Practices:
The first step was to define clearly each of the altematbe farm practices. Here we
consider four alternative livestock practices for the dry season: the traditional practice
(used for comparison with each of the stabling technologies), and three distinct stable
types.
Under the traditional practice, livestock roam freely during the days of the dry season
in search of their food and water; they are not fed a food supplement. In the evenings,
they are tethered to fence posts on crop fields. The deposited manure paddies remain on
the field and are later broken down and spread by Earmers.
The only animal health care
provided is the I’monde” treatment, a mixture of cooking salt and various forest herbs used
as an anti-parasite treatment and a vitamin supplement.
The practice of stabling is a change Corn the traditional method in four ways. Fm,
animals are kept in stables during the evenings. The stable is bnilt primariIy of materials
collected in the forest, may have a cemented or non-cemented floor, may have a root be
built under a tree for cover, or have no cover at all. Second, each animal is fed a food
supplement of cotton seed cake, harvest residues and food stocks collected Corn the forest
(the quantities vary). A third difberence is that stabled animals receive vaccines,
trypanoside treatment, and anti-parasite medication according to the doses and at the
times prescribed by vete rimuians at ISRAKolda and Sodefitex. Finally, manure is
dzpositsd in the stable and farmers brin,o maize residues. forest brush and u-ater to mix
uith the manure. We diiinguish between three stable tqpes o\\\\ned by farmers in the
suney on the basis of the stable floor type and thenumber of animals stabled.3
It is
expected that each type of stable has associated with it different levels of benefits and
costs. Type I stables have a dirt floor, with 2-6 stabled animals. Type II stables have a

---

5
dirt floor, with 8- 12 stabled animals. Type lII stables have a cemented floor, with 16-24
animals.
Quantifying the Marginai Benefits and Costs:
The second step in the partial budgeting model involved quantifjring the marginal
benefits and costs associated with the new practice. Benefits in the partial budgeting
model are here categorized into two main types: (a) increased revenues and (b) decreased
expenses. We also categorize costs in terms of two main types: (c) decreased revenues
I
(d) increased expenses. The potential benefits and costs were identified from a literature
I
review of ISRAKolda studies (for a summary of these studies see Fisher, 1995),
discussion vyith ISRA researchers, and fieldwork, Then, data collected from the
household interviews and ISRAXolda data were used to quanti@ the benefits and costs.
The MarAnal Benefits
Increased Revenues:
-
Stabling can result in increased production of milk, calves, agriculture, heavier animak,
and ener_g?r.
Each type of increased production has economic v&e to households
whether the production is home-consumed or commerciakd
1) Increased milk production: To determine the miIk production increase associated with
stabling, comparisons were made between the quantity of milk produced by stabled
and non-stabled cows from the same herd during the 1994 dry season (available from
the household questionnaires). On average, stabled cows produced 421 liters (Type
I). 533 liters (Type n) and 1.599 liters (Type III) more than non-stabled animals
kin? the 1994 stablins period. The milk production data is disaggregated by the
quantity home-consumed and the quantity commercialized. Increased production that
was consumed within the household was vtied at 100 CFA per liter, which is the
amount per liter one would have to pay to purchase milk in the villages in 1994.
To

---

6
value increased revenues, the amount sold was multiplied by the price received (from
questionnaires), generally 150 CFA but sometimes 125 CFkJ
2) increased calving: Improved rreproductive performance was valued using information
available from ISR4Kolda. The results of the 1992 study found that stabled cows had
shorter calving intervals than non-stabled cows, 548 versus 572 days respectively.
This implies a 6.57 percent increase in the number of births per year per stabled cow.
To calculate the benefit of increased calving, .0657 was multiplied by the number of
cows in each household times the average price for a calf(available from survey of
Kolda butchers, March 1995).
3) Increased agricultural production resulting from the use of stable manure: Stable
manure was vahed in terms of its chemical fertilizer equivalence, based on estimates
fkom Hamon ( 1972) and as applied by Fall and Faye ( 1992).5 Hamon estimated that
about 38% of the amount of manure left on fields is lost due to sun exposure. Thus it
was assumed that stabling contriiutes to a 38% increase in the quantity of manure.
Infiormation about the quantity of manure produced in each stable is available from the
questionnaires and was used to calculate the manure increase associated with stabling.
The increased quantity for each household was then multiplied by .082 to attain its
equivalence in NPK (14/7/7).
This figure was then multiplied times the price of NPK
(14/7/7) for the 1994 wet season (available from SENCHIM).
4) Increased agTkx&ural production associated with stonger/healthier draft animals: The
practice of stabling can also lead to increased agricultural production through the
provision of stronger/f&&x drawl animals (Fall and Faye, 1989) which make it possible
to extend the area under cultivation and complete necessary field operations in a more
timz1y manner. The effect on agricultural production could not be determined due to
lack of necessary data, therefore this benefit was not inchded in the analysis.
’ Although stabling is practiced during the dry season. studies have found that it yields increased milk production
throughout the year. We did not include benefits of milk production during the growing seasa~~ because data for
quantity ofmilk produced by cows during the growing season is not disaggregated by stabled versus non-stabled
cows.
’ io masurz thz &tit of>able manure on ag,kultural production requires w-session analysis. The nzcfossary
data was not available to do this &ectively.

---

7
5) Heavier livestock: To calculate the marginal benefit of fatter animals, the number
of stabled steers and bulls (from questionnaires) was multiplied by the potential weight
gain of 447 g per day (from Fall and Faye, 1992) times the number of days the animais
were stabled in 1994 (from questionnaires). This figure was then vtied at the price per
kilogram for steers or bulls (from survey of butchers in Kolda, 1995).6
6) Energy Production: In the village of Dialambere, farmers initially began stabling
their livestock primarily for the purpose of producing manure to operate a biogas plant,
which was installed by ENDA Tiers Monde in 1991. Unfortunately the biogas plant
has not been functioning since early 1994 and therefore the v&e of energy production
was not included in the analysis.’
Decreased Expenses:
There are at least two potential decreased expenses
1) Decreased expense for chemical fe If stable manure is substituted for chemical
fertlizer, households can save a substantial amount of money. However, this was not
inchtded in the analysis because farmers had diflicuhy remembering how much
chemical fertilizer they applied to their crops before they began stabling.
2) Decreased expense of maintaining herd: The decreased expense of maintaining a herd
-
was caIcu!ated based on Fail and Faye (1992) who found that the survival rate of
stabled animals versus non-stabled animals was 99.5 and 92.5 percent respectively.
I
This implies that stabling may lead to about a 7 percent decrease in the number of
animal deaths per year. Assumiug households want to keep their herd size constaut,
and have the ability to do so. each year a fanner xvould save the following amount:
Savings = .07 * the number of animals stabled * the market price of animals
6 Gains from increased weight ofmilk COWS was not valued since miIk cows wuuld be the last animals sold due
to their importance for providing miik for home consumption and income. Gains hn increased weight of calves
was not valued because the data available from price of calves Has in per calf. tither than per kilogram units.
F&x. 19~5 mstutkd the bm&ts ofentirs production in the analys:~. valumg manure for the b;ops plant as
the cost of operating the biogas plant with pmchrsed gasoline.

---

8
This calculation was done with use of the number of cows. steers and bulls in the herd
(available &om household questionnaires) and the different prices of livestock.
The Marginal Costs:
Decreased Revenues:
Use of either of the three stabling technologjes increases the amount of labor time
required to perform livestock activities as compared to the traditional livestock practices.
The majority of the increased labor is performed by household members. Although there
is no monetary cost incurred, there is an opportunity cost associated with each household
member’s time. It may be the case that household members are giving up off-farm work,
or another type of production in order to perform stabling tasks. The activities involved in
stabling include:
1) Building the stable: Building the stable ahvays invoh-es di&g the manure pit,
putting up an enclosure and collecting building materials corn the forest. It may also
involve cementing the stable floor and building a roof Each year part or all of the
stable must be rebuilt. For non-cemented stables, the enclosure and roof must be
rebuilt and the trench redug. For cemented stables the enclosure and roof must be
rebuilt.
2) Collection of food f?om the forest: Before the start of the stabling period household
members collect food supplementation for the stabled animals and then store it on the
roof of the stable or in proximity to the stable. The collected food is either brush from
the forest or harvest residues.
3) The daily stable tasks: There are several daily tasks which are part of stabling and in
addition to the traditional livestock practice. These are performed by household
members and include: distriiution of the food supplement in the morning and evenings,
cleaning the stable, and adding water and straw to the stable manure.
4) Increami time spent milking COWS, transforming mik and commercializing milk: Other
additional time costs are related to the increase in milk production. Non-stabled
mimak often are not milked during the dry season to relieve stress from their food and
water deficit. Non-stabled cows that are milked ha\\-e been found to produce less milk
than stabled cows. The increased milk produced by stabled cows leads to increased

---

9
time spent milking and transforming milk. In addition. ifstabling leads to an increase
in milk sales, then there is also an increased time cost for selling milk.
II
5) Manure Application: Manuring fields with stabled manure requires more time than
manuring fields with the parcage method. This is mainly because household members
-
must collect the manure from the stable and then transport it to the fields, whereas
with the parcage method the manure is deposited on fields directly.
To vatie the decreased revenues associated with stabling, the amount of time spent by
men, women, and boys for the activities described above (from questionnaires) was
multiplied by estimates of the opportunity cost of their labor.
The opportunity cost of labor was calculated under two different scenarios.
Scenario I
valued the opportunity cost of labor in terms ofpotential earnings from alternative
income-generating opportunities. During the dry season, men and boys are occasionally
employed buildiug huts or fabricating bricks. The potential wage for such employment
was obtained f?om village chief% in each village. These figures were then reduced by 25%
for two reasons. First, opportuuities for such work are very limited. Second, it is
-
assumed that stabling and off-b work are not perfect substitutes, that men would prefer
to practice stabling rather than work for someone else. There are virtuaIly no
opportunities for ofMum employment for women, however women often cultivate market
gardens during the dry season. Interviews with women market gardeners provided
information to determine the opportunity cost of labor for women.’
Scenario II valued the opportunity cost of labor for men, women and children as zero.
Thus it is assumed, that there are no altemative employment opportunities off the Grm
during the dry season. and that leisure or time -spent on domestic astkities has no
economic value. It is expected that Scenario I overestknates and Scenario LI
underestimates the true opportunity cost, which lies somewhere between the hvo.
’ ri more accurate calculation of the opportu~~ity cost of labor for women would value the time Nomm. wd on
domestic activities since this occupies the bulk of *Oman’s time dtig the drl; season. Howzver. domestic
actit&s are ditficult to value as the> do not produ-a
L- goods which arc marl&d and it is rare For ho*s<hol;fj to pay
someone to perform such tasks for them.

---

1 0
Increased Expenses:
The increased expenses associated with stabling require a cash outlay. This may be
provided from the household’s savings, or loans from a credit institution, fiends or family
members. The increased expenses of stabling include:
1) The cost of the building materials: The cost of materials to build the stable is main@
the cost of cement. Most farmers that stable do not purchase materials to build the
stable, instead they collect building materials Corn the forest. The cost of building
materials is available Corn the household questionnaires.
2) The cost of the food supplementation: The cost of the food supplementation includes
the cost ofpurchased cotton seed cake, and the value of any food donations. The
cost for cotton seed cake is available Corn the household questionnaires. The quantity
of “donated” cotton seed cake is available Corn the questionnaires and was vahred at
the price per kilogram in 1994 (available &om Sodef3ex).g
3) The cost of animal medical care: This inchrdes expenses for vaccines and treatments
for the major diseases in the region. Although ISRAKolda provided animal medical
services for stabled animals free of charge in 1994, the amount it would have cost the
farmers was inchrded in the analysis because the ISIWKolda free medical program is
only temporary. Per animal costs of vaccines/treatments (from ISRAKokla) were
multiplied times the number of animals stabled in each household (questionnaires).
4) Wages for hired labor. Some households relied on hired labor to help with building
the stable and/or to collect food. Data for wages paid to hired laborers is available
from the questionnaires.

---

1 1
D. RESULTS OF THX PARTIAL BUDGETlNG MODEL:
I
The benefits and costs of stabling were quantified in the manner described above. For
each category of stable the average figures for the marginal benefits and costs is presented
(for readers interested in more detail, the partial budget spreadsheets are included in the
appendix).
The Marginal Benefits:
Table 1 on the next page presents the marginal benefits of stabling for each of the three
I
stable types. The principal benefit components of stabling are similar for the three types of
stables. The vale of the weight gain for bulls and steers is by E?r the major benefit of
stabling for Type II and Type III stables, making up 68% and 49% of the benefits
respectively. ‘The reason the weight gain for male adults makes up such a high percentage
of the benefits for Type II stables has to do with the fact that most of the tiers
possessing Type II stables are either from Medina Koundje or Mankacoumia and own a
relatively high number of steers and bulls. It is necessary to mention that since experiment
station data was used to value increased weight of animals, this is likely an overestimation.
The next most important benefit component is increased milk production contributing
56?41 (Type I), 18% (Type II), and 32% (Type ID). Increased milk production makes up
a higher percentage of the benefits for Type I stables since most of these farmers are Corn
the three villages which are part of the ISRAKOLDA per&ban milk production
program. These farmers are able to sell their milk at a higher price, the market price in
KoIda. The third most important benefit component. for the three stable types. is the
decreased death rate. Interestingly, although Sodefitex originally began extension
activities to promote stables as a means to produce higher quantity and quality manure,
manure has the lowest value for all three stable types.

---

12
Table 1: Marginal Benefits of Stabling
Note: The figures for benefits do not add up exactly due to rounding.
Farmers responses to attitudinal questions demonstrate their knowledge of the
benefits of stabling. Husbands and wives in households that stable were asked why they
began stabling. Each respondent provided several answers which are listed in Table 2.
Table 2: Responses to the question ‘why did you begin to stable your animals?”
Response
Percent of Men Who Gave
Percent of Women Who
Gave This Response
Gave This Response
Increased Milk Production
100
91
Strouger;Healthier Animals
94
88
Increased Manure Production
75
6 6
Increased Calving
25
1 6
Better Protection of Animals
3
6
Note: These do not sum to 100% because respondents listed several reasons.

---

1 3
The Marginal Costs:
Table 3 presents the marginal costs of stabling for each of the three types of stables
under Scenario I. The major expense for all three types of stables is the value of household
member’s time, making up 77%, 54% and 5 1% of the total costs for Type I, Type II and
Type III stables respectively. It is interesting that the total time costs for Type I stables
are higher than those for Type II stables, since Type II stables have on average more than
twice as many stabled animals. Perhaps those who own Type II stables are more eflicient
in carrying out the stable tasks, or it may be that some of the data are inaccuarate.
Table 3: Marginal Costs of Stabling Under Scenario I
Health care
1,228
2,440
6,282
Time cost for building
9,144
8,571
17,752
stable
Time cost for
5,283
3,441
4,283
collecting food
Time cost for
13,026
8,997
32,164
stable tasks
Time cost for
1,012
2,006
672
spreading manure
Tim cost for rnilkin~_,
47.2ss
212,663
36.2-8
transformixig,
selling milk
Total Marginal Costs
98,568 CFA
83,907 CFA
177,595 CFA
Note: The figures for benefits do not add up exactly due to rounding.

---

1 4
The second major cost is the cost of the food supplementation, 20% for Type I, 39% for
Type II and 21% for Type III. The cost of food per stabled animal is 4,629 CFA for Type
I stables, 3,492 CFA for Type II stables and 1,803 CFA for Type lII stables. It may be
that those who own Type II and Type UI stables have more household labor at their
disposal and/or live relatively close to the forests. Thus owners of Type II and Type III
stables may be able to feed their animals higher amounts of food obtained in the forest and
lower amounts ofpurchased cotton seed cake compared to those with Type I stables. .
0nly in the case of Type III stables is the cost of building materials a main factor (2 1% of
costs), due to the expense of cement.
Table 4 below presents the marginal costs of stabling for the three types of stables
under Scenario II. For Scenario II, the main expense for each type of stable is the cost of
the food supplementation. For Type I and Type II stablers, the cost of food is fhr above
the other major expenses, wages and medical costs. For Type ID stables, the cost of
materials is a major expense, because of the cost of cement.
TabIe 4: Marginal Costs Under Scenario II
Type Ill: Cemented
Stable w/ 1622
32,600 CFA
10.333
Health care
1,228
2,440
6,282
Total Marginal Costs
22.815 CFA
38.230 CFA
of Statding
86.374 CFA
Note: The figures for benefits do not add up exactly due to rounding.
Responses to questions from the household interviews provide additional evidence
concerning the monetary and time costs of stabhng. Table 5 presents the responses to the
question ‘What are the main disadvantages of stabling?” The table shows that monetary
and time costs are major disadvantages to stabling. The table also shows that the costs of
~rabiing are di&xent for men and women. For men, the main disadvantage of stabhng are

---

15
the monetary costs involved with feeding animals and medical care. For women, the main
I
disadvantage is the increased workload, followed by the cost of feeding animals and
-
difliculties collecting water for animals.
Table 5: Responses to the question ‘what are the main disadvantages of stabling?”
Disadvantage
Percent of men that gave
this resuonse
Expensive to feed animals
5 0
Building the stable is
12.5
9.4
expensive
Medical care is expensive
31.25
6.25
I
Increased workload
12.5
Building stable is time
15.6
consuming
Food collection is time
12.5
consuming
~
I.Xflicult to obtain water for
6.25
q&l&
I
Note: These do not sum to 100% because respondents liste several reasons.
The Average Net Benefits:
The average net benefits for each tq-pe of stable under the two different scenarios are
presented in Tables 6 and 7. Type II has the highest net gains per animal for both
scenarios: 28,736 CFA for Scenario I and 33,630 CFA for Scenario II.
It does not
appear that there are additional benefits to be gained by building a cemented stable.

---

16
Table 6: Total Net Benefit and Net Benefit per Animal for Scenario 1
Type II: Simple
Type III: Cemented
Stable w/ 8- 12
Stable w/ 16-22
animals (N=9)
animals (N=3)
ITotal Net Benefit 717 CFA 268,207 CFA 374,433 CFA
173 CFA
28,736 CFA
18,653 CFA
I
Table 7: Total Net Benef3 and Net Benefit per Animal for Scenario 2
Net Benefit per
18,353 CFA
33,630 CFA
23,048 CFA
Animal Stabled
P
For each type of stable and for each scenario, stabling yields net economic benefits. Net
gains vary by a large amount, behveen 717 CFA (Type I, Scenario I) and 165.553 CF..
(Type III, Scenario II). As stated previously, Scenario I likely overestimates the maq$naI
costs of stabling while Scenario If likely underestimates costs. The actual net benefits of
stabling for each type of stable probably lie somewhere in between these upper and lower
bounds.
For Type I stables under Scenario I, the net benefits are so modest that farmers may
not find it in their best interest to practice stabling. However, under Scenario II the net

---

17
benefits to Type I stables of 76,470 CFA, represents a substantial increase in household
consumption and revenues. In the survey the average yearly income for off-farm
employment was 90,000 CFA (N=15). This was for fitll time work as literacy trainers,
working for Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), and work as agricultural laborers.
Thus, households that stabled were able to earn about 1.5 times the amount (for Type I,
Scenario II) or more than 10 times the amount (for Type III, Scenario 2) that could be
brought in by full-time employment during the dry-season.
Stabling also has the potential to ensure that rural people do not go hungry during the
dry season and throughout the year. If milk production is increased, it can help decrease
the food deficit situation which occurs during the “soudure”. Table 8 provides estimates
of the potential contriiution of increased milk production. The results show that the
increased milk Erom stabled cows represented 39%, 43% and 44% of the recommended
daily allowance @DA) of milk for household members with Type I, Type II and Type Iii
stables respectively. lo
Table 8: Average RDAs and Increased Milk Production
Type I Stable
Type II Stable
Type III Stable
Household Milk
Requirements
9.9
11.2
13.9
(liters)
litcreased Milk
3.9
4.78
6.1
Production (liters)
Thz iutenienxd hrmzrs reco_gnize the relative scouomic akmqc of stabbing. I?lij is
reflected in the fact that 3 I of the 32 adopters had definite plans to continue the practice in
the fhure.
j” This was computed in the following manner:
( 1) RD.As for men, ktating women and chiIdren were obtained from WiIkrns (I 98 1).
(I!) These figures were then multiplied by the nuR~ber of men. women and children in the household and
then added up to rexh ri:-
“.a LJ=
Cwrts for tl~ hotisshs:d dS1~ r:t,~:ir:::~>:::~

---

18
E. RECOMMENJMTIONS:
The analysis performed in this report determined that stabling can provide farm
households in the Kolda Region with substantial net economic benefits. Based on
findings of the analysis and fielwork investigation we make the foflowing
recommendations.
In order to increase the ability of farm households to attain the maximum benefits
associated with stabling there are three recommendations:
1 ) Improvements in the meat marketing system: The main benefit of stabling was found
to be the value of fatter bulls and steers. The benefit from fatter livestock however is a
potential benefit, because at present the marketing system for meat is not well
developed in the region. Farmers who were interviewed stated that they sell meat
primxity during times of crop failure or for Muslim holy days. They claim that there
are &r too many intermediaries to make the marketing of meat profitable and thus
induce them to sell their animals. Others stated that transportation was a major
problem. As a result, it is common that animals are not sold until they are old and
command a lower market price.
2) Stabilization of the price of cotton seed cake or identification and dif%sion of food
supplement substitute(s): The partial budgeting model identied the cost of food
supplementation as one of the major costs of stabling. In addition, in the past several
years the price of cotton seed cake has experienced several sharp increases. Ifthe
costs continue to rise, it is likely that many Eumers wiIi abandon the practice or choose
not to adopt because the food supplementation costs will be prohiStive.
3 ) Promotion of T>-pe fl stables (medium capacity and non-cemented): The partial
budget model found that the most profitable stable type is Tyye II stables. This stable
type has an average of 9 animalq compared to the average of 4 animals for Type I stables,
and 2 1 animals for Tyye III stables. In addition to having higher net economic benefits per
stabled anhaL Tyye II is also much more economically feasible for a farmer to adopt
(compared to Type III stables) because it requires lower levels of monetary and time
inputs.

---

19
BIBLIOGRAPEI-Y
Adesina, A. and Moses Ziiah. 1993. Technology Characteristics, Farmers’ Perceptions and
Adoption Decisions: A Tobit Model Application in Sierra Leone. Agricultural Economics
9: 297-3 11.
I
Centre de Recherches Zootechniques de Kolda. 1993. Rapport AnnuelZ993. Senegal: Centre de
Recherches Zootechniques de Kolda.
Diallo, Amindou N.. 1992. Evaluation des Etables Fumieres en Haste Casamance.
SenegaL
I
Draw, Arona. 1994. Impact des Etubles Fumieres hts la A&se en Place d ‘une Ceinture
Laitiere Peri-Urbaine. Unpublished thesis for Docteur Veterinaire. Dakar: Universite
Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar.
Dieye, P.N., et. al. 1996. Valorisatiorl du Potentiel Pastoral Pour le Development de Systemes
Cerealieres Performants et Viables en Zone Sub-Humide du Senegal fiaute Casamance).
Ellis. Frank. 1993. Peasant Economics. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fall, Abdou and Faye Adama. 1989. Rapport de Suivi d’Etab1e.s Fumieres akns le Departement
de Kolda Senegal: Centre de Recherches Zootechniques de Kolda.
Fall, Abdou and Adama Faye. h@ 1992. Les Etables Fumieres en Zone d’Elevage &Betail
Trvprmtolerant au Sud& Senegal. Senegal: Centre de Recherches Zootechniques de
I
Kolda.
Faye, Adama, Papa Nouhine Dieye. and Cheikh Saadiiou Seye. February 1995. Les Etables
Fumieres en Zone Cotonniere du Senegal: Quelles Strategies Pour Une Adoption
Massive. Senegal: Centre de Recherches Zootechniques de Kolda.
Fiier, Monica G.. 1995. An Economic andSocio-Cultural Anaiysis of Nav Farm Technology:
il
The Case of Stabling in Senegal. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Oregon State University.
World Bank. 1994. 7ke World Development Report. New York: OxGord University Press.

---

20
APPENDIX: PARTIAL BUDGET SPREADSHEETS

---

21
MARGINAL BENEFITS OF STABLMG, DRY SEASON 1994
HHLD
STABLE
NUMBER
FLOOR
ST.4BLE
NUMBER
ID
OWNER
OF HHLDS. TYPE
CAPACITY ANIMALS
l=hhld. head
USING
l==cement
(#animals)
STABLED
2=son
S T A B L E . 2=non-cement
3=cooperative
101
1
1
2
4
4
102
1
3
2
10
4
201
1
1
2
4
4
202
2
1
2
4
5
203
1
1
2
7
6
204
1
1
2
3
7
302
1
1
2
4
4
303
1
1
2
6
3
304
1
1
2
10
4
305
1
1
2
6
3
609
1
1
2
5
5
610
1
1
2
6
6
Average
4.17
Type I Shbles
301
1
1
2
8
8
502
3
4
2
NA
11
506
3
3
2
14
9
601
1
1
2
20
9
602
1
1
2
N A
10
603
1
1
2
NA
8
604
NA
1
2
N A
9
606
1
1
2
N A
8
607
1
1
2
15
12
Average
9.33
Type Ii Stables
402,404,405
3
4
1
30
22
503
1
2
1
23
24
605
1
2
1
18
16
Average
20.67
Type I11 Stables

---

22
MARGINAL BENEFITS OF STABLING, DRY SEASON 1996
NuTklBER
NUMBER NUMBER
INCRE.9SE
INCREASE
INCREASE
DURATION STABLED STABLED STABLED
MILK
MILK
MILK
STABLMG
STEERS
BULLS
MILK COWS PRODN
PRODN
HOME-
PERIOD
PER DAY
DRY
CONSUMED
(&YS)
(liters)
SEASON
DRY SEAS
(liters)
(liters)
120
0
0
4
1.50
720.00
210.00
120
0
0
4
1.50
720.00
240.00
90
0
0
4
1.00
360.00
90.00
90
2
0
3
1.00
270.00
90.00
120
0
0
6
1.33
957.60
360.00
90
0
0
2
1.00
180.00
0.00
90
0
0
4
0.85
306.00
-54.00
120
0
0
3
1.00
360.00
120.00
130
0
2
2
1.50
360.00
120.00
120
0
0
3
1.00
360.00
120.00
90
0
0
5
0.10
45.00
45.00
120
0
0
6
0.57
410.40
308.00
107.50
0.17
0.17
3.83
1.03
420.75
148.25
120
0
0
8
0.84
806.40
194.28
120
6
1
4
0.3
441.60
440.00
120
6
0
3
0.96
345.00
343.00
90
4
1
4
0.50
lSO.00
180.00
120
6
0
4
1.29
618.46
369.23
120
2
2
4
0.25
120.00
-120.00
90
4
3
2
1.50
270.00
90.00
120
2
0
6
1.67
1202.40
600.00
90
4
2
6
1.50
810.00
810.00
110.00
3.78
1.00
4.56
1.05
532.65
323.17
125
5
0
17
1.22
2590.91
2165.91
90
6
1
17
0.50
765.00
765.00
90
6
0
10
1.60
1440.00
45000
101.6’
5.6'
0.33
11.6:
1.11
1595.6-1
1135.9:

---

23
MARGINAL BENEFITS OF STABLLNG, DRY SEASON 1994
I
VALUE
INCREASE
INCREASE MARKET
REVENUE
TOTAL
MILK
MlLK
hiILK SALES
PRICE
MILK
VALUE
HOME-
SALES
DRY
MILK
SALES
MILK PRODN
CONSUMED PER DAY
SEASON
(cfa)
(da)
(da)
(liters)
(liters)
34000.00
1.00
180.00
150.00
72000.00
96000.00
24000.00
1.00
480.00
150.00
72000.00
96000.00
9000.00
0.75
270.00
150.00
40500.00
49500.00
8999.9 1
0.67
180.00
150.00
27OOQ. 14
36000.05
36000.00
0.83
600.00
150.00
89999.96
125999.96
0.00
1.00
180.00
150.00
27000.00
27000.00
-5400.00
1.00
360.00
150.00
54000.00
J8600.00
11999.88
0.67
240.00
150.00
36000.18
48000.06
1’000.00
1.00
240.00
150.00
36000.00
48000.00
11999.55
0.67
240.00
150.00
36000.18
-tSOOO.O6
4500.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4500.00
40800.24
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
40800.24
14824.99
0.72
27250
40875.04
55700.03
19428.48
0.64
614.28
150.00
92142.72
111571.20
44000.16
0.00
0.00
125.00
0.00
44000.16
34499.88
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
34499.88
15000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
15000.00
36923.04
0.52
249.23
150.00
37384.56
74307.60
-12000.00
0.50
240.00
150.00
36000.00
24000.00
9ooo.00
1.00
180.00
125.00
22500.00
31500.00
60000.48
0.83
600.00
150.00
89999.64
15OOOo. 12
I
81000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 . 0 0
81000.00
32316.89
0.39
209.28
30891.88
63208.77
216591.25
0.20
425.00
100.00
42500.00
259091.25
76500.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
76500.00
45ooo.00
1.10
990.00
150.00
148500.00
193500.00
11x9-.OS
0.33
-171.6?
63666.67
1’6363.75

---

23
MARGINAL BENEFITS OF STABLING, DRY SEASON 1994
M C R E A S E M A R K E T
V A L U E
INCREASE PRICE
V A L U E
T O T A L
WEIGHT
PRICE
STEERS
WEIGE-IT
BULLS
BULLS
V A L U E
STEERS
STEERS
WEIGHT
BULLS
PER KG
‘WEIGHT
0.00
1000
0.00
0.00
1222
0.00
0.00
0.00
1000
0.00
0.00
1222
0.00
0.00
0.00
1000
0.00
0.00
1222
0.00
0.00
80.46
1000
80460.00
0.00
1222
0.00
80460.00
0.00
1000
0.00
0.00
1222
0.00
0.00
0.00
1000
0.00
0.00
1222
0.00
0.00
0.00
1000
0.00
0.00
1222
0.00
0.00
0.00
1000
0.00
0.00
1222
0.00
0.00
0.00
1000
0.00
107.28
1222
131096.16
131096.16
0.00
1000
0.00
0.00
1222
0.00
0.00
0.00
1000
0.00
0.00
1222
0.00
0.00
0.00
1000
0.00
0.00
1222
0.00
0.00
6.71
Loo0
6705.00
8.94
l222.
10924.68
17629.68
0.00
1000
0.00
0.00
1222
0.00
0.00
321.84
1000
321840.00
53.64
1222
65548.08
387388.08
321.84
loo0
321840.00
0.00
1222
0.00
321840.00
160.92
1000
160920.00
40.23
1222
-19161.06
210081.06
321.84
1000
321840.00
0.00
1222
0.00
321840.00
107.28
1000
107280.00
107.28
1222
131096.16
238376.16
160.92
1000
160920.00
120.69
1222
147483.18
308403.18
107.28
1000
107280.00
0.00
1222
0.00
107280.00
160.92
1000
160920.00
80.46
1222
98322.12
259242.12
184.76
1000
184760.00
44.70
1222
54623.40
239383.40
279.38
1000
279375.00
0.00
1222
0.00
279375.00
241.38
1000
241380.00
40.23
1222
49161.06
290541.06
241.38
loo0
241380.00
0.00
1222
0.00
241380.00
214.05
1000
15404c- 00
.
13.41
1"'
-mm
163S".K
1"0131.0:!

---

25
MARGUWL BENEF'ITS OF STABLMG, DRY SEASON 1994
VALUE
VALUE
VALUE
DE&EASE
MARKFiT DECREASE MARKET
DECREASE MARKET
DECREASE
DEATH
PRICE
DE.4THS
PRICE
DEATHS
PRICE
DEATHS
R4TE
c o w s
c o w s
STEERS
STEERS
BULLS
BULLS
(cfa)
(cfa)
em
0.07
40000
11200.00
50000
0.00
80000
0.00
0.07
40000
11200.00
50000
0.00
80000
0.00
0.07
40000
11200.00
50000
0.00
0.00
0.07
40000
8400.00
50000
7000.00
80000
0.00
0.07
40000
16800.00
50000
0.00
80000
0.00
0.07
40000
5600.00
50000
0.00
80000
0.00
0.07
40000
11200.00
50000
0.00
80000
0.00
0.07
40000
8400.00
50000
0.00
80000
0.00
0.07
40000
5600.00
50000
0.00
80000
11200.00
0.07
40000
8400.00
50000
0.00
80000
0.00
0.07
40000
14000.00
50000
0.00
80000
0.00
0.07
40000
16800.00
50000
0.00
80000
0.00
0.07
4oooo
10733.33
50000
583.33
80000
93333
0.07
4oooo
22400.00
5oooo
0.00
80000
0.00
0.07
40000
11200.00
5oooo
21000.00
8oooo
5600.00
0.07
40000
8400.00
50000
21000.00
0.00
0.07
40000
11200.00
50000
14000.00
80000
5600.00
0.07
40000
11200.00
50000
21000.00
0.00
0.07
40000
11200.00
50000
7000.00
80000
11200.00
0.07
40000
5600.00
50000
14000.00
80000
16800.00
0.07
16800.00
5oooo
7000.00
80000
0.00
0.07
40000
16800.00
50000
14000.00
11200.00
0.07
40000
12755.56
50000
13222.22
80000
5600.00
A 0.07
40000
47600.00
SO000
17500.00
80000
0.00
0.07
40000
47600.00
50000
21000.00
80000
5600.00
0.07
40000
28000.00
5OOOo
21Om.00
80000
0.00
n.n-
-lnnOO
11M6.6’
snnoo
19533.33
8OOfH-I
1866.67

---

26
MARGINAL BENEFITS OF STABLING. DRY SEASON 1994
TOTAL
VALUE
INCREASE
INCREASE MARKET
VALUE
QUANTITY
DECREASE
CALVING
NUMBER
PRICE
INCREASE
MANURE
DEATHS
RATE
CALVES
CALVES
CALVING
PRODUCED
(Cf-N
Ma
IN STABLES
(kg)
11200.00
0.07
0.264
40000
10560.00
1000.00
11200.00
0.07
0.264
40000
10560.00
750.00
11200.00
0.07
0.264
40000
10560.00
2500.00
15400.00
0.07
0.198
40000
7920.00
1500.00
16800.00
0.07
0.396
40000
15840.00
2750.00
5600.00
0.07
0.132
4 0 0 0 0
5280.00
750.00
11200.00
0.07
0.264
40000
10560.00
1750.00
8400.00
0.07
0.198
40000
7920.00
1500.00
16800.00
0.07
0.132
40000
5280.00
500.00
5400.00
0.07
0.198
40000
7920.00
1750.00
14000.00
0.07
0.33
40000
13200.00
2250.00
16800.00
0.07
0.396
40000
15840.00
1500.00
l2250.00
0.07
0.253
40000
10120.00
154 1.67
22400.00
0.07
0.528
4oooo
21120.00
1500.00
37800.00
0.07
0.264
4oooQ
10560.00
0.00
‘9400.00
0.07
0.198
40000
7920.00
149.50
30500.00
0.07
0.364
30000
10560.00
2000.00
32200.00
0.07
0.264
40000
10560.00
3750.00
29400.00
0.07
0.264
4oooo
10560.00
6250.00
36400.00
0.07
0.132
4oooo
5280.00
1750.00
23800.00
0.07
0.3%
4oooo
15840.00
2750.00
42000.00
0.07
0.3%
4oooo
1584O.od
4750.00
31577.78
0.07 0.300666667
40000
12026.67
254439
65 100.00
0.07
1.122
4ooOO
44880.00
80.50
74200.00
0.07
1.122
40000
44880.00
0.00
49ooo.00
0.07
0.66
4oooo
264oo.ocl
4750.00
61’66.6’:
0.0’:
0.965
40000
3S1’0
m 00
.
1610.17

---

27
MARGINAL BENEFITS OF STABLING, DRY SEASON 1994
INCREASE
NPK( 14/7/7)
VALUE
TOTAL
TOTAL
OVER
EQUIVALENCE
INCREASE
BENEFITS
BENEFITS/
TRADNL
erg)
MANURE
STABLMG
(kg)
PRODN
275.36
22.58
2325.71
120085.71
30021.43
206.52
16.93
174-t.28
119504.28
29876.07
688.41
56.45
5814.28
77074.28
19268.57
413.04
33.87
3488.57
143268.62
28653.72
757.25
62.09
6395.70
165035.66
27505.94
206.52
16.93
1744.28
39624.28
19812.14
481.88
39.51
4069.99
74429.99
18607.50
413.04
33.87
3488.57
67808.63
22602.88
137.68
11.29
1162.86
202339.02
50584.75
481.88
39.51
4069.99
68390.05
22796.68
619.57
50.80
5232.85
36932.85
7386.57
413.04
33.87
3488.57
76928.81
12821.47
424.52
34.81
3585.47
99285.18
24161.48
413.04
33.87
3488.57
158579.77
19822.47
0.00
0.00
0.00
479748.24
43613.48
41.17
3.38
347.69
394007.57
43778.62
550.72
45.16
-165 1.42
274092.48
3cM54.72
1032.61
84.67
8721.41
447629.01
U762.90
1721.01
141.12
14535.69
316871.85
39608.98
481.38
39.51
4069.99
385653.17
42850.35
757.25
62.09
6395.70
303315.82
37914.48
1307.97
107.25
11047.12
409129.24
34094.10
700.63
57.45
5917.51
352114.13
3743334
22.17
1.82
187.22
648633.47
29483.34
0.00
0.00
0.00
486121.06
20255.04
I307.97
107.25
11047.12
521327.12
32582.95
413.33
36.36
3714.78
55’02’.22
..-a
2T440.44

---

28
MARGINAL COSTS OF STABLMG, DRY SEASON 1994
HHLD. N U M B E R
DURATION MEN’S
BOYS
WOMEN’S C O S T
WAGES
ID
STABLED STABLING OPP.
OPP.
O P P .
BLDG.
PAID FOR
ANbLVS PERIOD
COST OF
COST OF
COST OF
MATERIALS STABLE
LABOR
LABOR
LABOR
(cm
CONSTR.
101
4
120
168.65
13.40
111.90
0.00
0.00
102
4
120
168.65
13.40
111.90
0.00
0.00
201
4
90
141.12
13.40
111.90
0.00
0.00
202
5
90
141.12
13.40
111.90
0.00
0.00
203
6
120
141.12
13.40
111.90
0.00
3500.00
204
2
90
141.12
13.40
111.90
0.00
0.00
302
4
90
145.83
13.40
111.90
0.00
0.00
303
3
120
145.83
13.40
111.90
0.00
3000.00
304
4
120
145.83
13.40
111.90
0.00
0.00
305
3
120
145.83
13.40
111.90
0.00
0.00
609
5
90
85.57
13.40
111.90
7500.00
7500.00
610
6
120
85.57
13.40
111.90
3000.00
3000.00
Average
4
875.00
Type I Stables
301
8
120
145.83
13.40
111.90
0.00
6750.00
502
1 1
120
135.29
13.40
111.90
0.00
0.00
506
9
120
135.29
13.40
111.90
0.00
0.00
601
9
9 0
85.57
13.40
111.90
2500.00
2500.00
602
10
120
85.57
13.40
111.90
2000.00
2000.00
603
8
120
85.57
13.40
111.90
0.00
3000.00
604
9
90
85.57
13.40
111.90
0.00
3000.00
606
8
120
85.57
13.40
111.90
0.00
5000.00
607
12
9 0
85.57
13.40
111.90
0.00
0.00
Avenge
9
500.00
Type II Stables
402.404.4
22
125
135.29
13.40
111.90
42000.00
0.00
05
503
24
90
135.29
13.40
111.90
25000.00
15000.00
605
16
90
85.57
13.40
111.90
30800.00
16000.00
Avtragt
21
32600.00
Type Ii1 Stables

---

29
MARGINAL COSTS OF STABLMG, DRY SEASON 1994
WAGES
T O T A L
COST
QUANTlTY PRICE
VALUE
TOTAL
COST
PAID FOR
WAGES
COTI’ON
FOOD
COTTON FOOD
COST
MEDICAL
II
F O O D
PAID
SEED
DONATED SEED
DON.4TION
FOOD
CARE
COLLECT
tcw
CAKE
0%)
C A K E
(cfa>
(cfa)
(da)
0.00
0.00
9600.00
40
40
1600.00
112OO.OO
1215.79
0.00
0.00
19200.00
0
40
0.00
19200.00
1296.00
0.00
0.00
15000.00
20
40
800.00
15800.00
1181.00
0.00
0.00
15000.00
30
40
1200.00
16200.00
1519.7-i
52.00
3552.00
25000.00
60
40
2400.00
27400.00
1884.00
0.00
0.00
3500.00
30
30
1200.00
4700.00
607.90
I
0.00
0.00
38000.00
40
40
1600.00
39600.00
1045.00
0.00
3000.00
15000.00
30
40
1200.00
16200.00
1091.00
0.00
0.00
21800.00
20
40
800.00
22600.00
703.00
0.00
0.00
28000.00
30
40
1200.00
29200.00
853.00
0.00
7500.00
24600.00
0
38
0.00
24600.00
1519.74
0.00
3000.00
1000.00
100
3
8
3800.00
4800.00
1833 69
1421.00
19291.67
1228.11
0.00
6750.00
70400.00
160
40
6400.00
76800.00
1898.00
0.00
0.00
20000.00
100
38
3800.00
23800.00
1519.74
0.00
0.00
47500.00
200
38
7600.00
55100.00
2735.53
0.00
2500.00
18000.00
0
38
0.00
lSOQO.00
2735.53
2000.00
4ooo.00
11000.00
200
38
7600.00
18600.00
3039.48
0.00
3000.00
35000.00
200
38
7600.00
42600.00
2431.58
0.00
3OOo.QO
4400.00
0
38
0.00
4400.00
1823.69
111
0.00
5000.00
35500.00
120
38
4560.00
40060.00
2431.58
0.00
0.00
14000.00
0
38
0.00
14000.00
3343.43
2694.44
32595.56
2439.84
0.00
0.00
27647.00
248
40
9920.00
37567.00
6686.85
0.00
15ooO.00
25000.00
75
3
8
2850.00
27850.00
7294.75
0.00
16000.00
38000.00
220
38
8360.00
46360.00
4863.17
1033333
37259.00
6281.59

---

30
I
MARGINAL COSTS OF STABLMG, DRY SEASON 1994
TOTAL
TOTAL
m
COSTS
COSTS
STABLING STABLING
SCENARIO II SCENARIO II
(CFA)
KFA)
I
12415.79
3 103.95
20496.00
5 124.00
1111
16981.00
4245.25
17719.74
3543.95
32836.00
5472.67
II
5307.90
2653.95
40645.00
10161.25
20292.00
6764.00
*
23303.00
5825.75
30053.00
10017.67
-II 119.7-1
8223.95
12623.69
2103.95
228 16.07
5603.36
85448.00
10681.00
253 19.74
2301.79
57835.53
6426.17
25735.53
2859.50
27639.18
2763.95
-18031.58
6003.95
9223.69
1024.85
47491.58
5936.45
17343.43
1445.29
38229.84
4382.55
86253.85
3920.63
75 144.75
3131.03
98023.17
6126.45
8647392
4392.70

---

31
I
MARGINAL COSTS OF STABLING, DRY SEASON 1994
MAN-
VALUE
BOYS
VALUE
TOTAL
MAN-
VALUE
HOURS
MAN-HOURS HRS
BOYS-HRS
TIME COSTS
HOURS
MAN-HRS
-
ST.ULE
STABLE
STABLE
STABLE
STABLE
FOOD
FOOD
CONSTR. CONSTR.
CONSTR CONSTR
CONSTR
COLL.
COLL.
Ma
(cfa)
(a
-
(cfa)
30
5059.58
0
0.00
5059.58
36
607 1.49
30
5059.58
0
0.00
5059.58
48
8095.32
I
59
8326.08
118
1580.61
9906.69
16
2257.92
109
15382.08
178
2384.3 1
17766.39
16
2257.92
39
5503.68
78
1044.81
6548.49
42
5927.04
-
4-l
6209.28
44
589.38
6798.66
16
2257.92
32
4666.56
48
642.96
5309.52
21
3062.43
26
3791.58
52
696.54
U88.12
21
3062.43
20
2916.60
40
535.80
3452.40
-
16
2333.28
49
7145.67
98
1312.71
8458.38
18
2624.94
123
10524.80
0
0.00
10524.80
21
1796.92
308
26354.79
0
0.00
26354.79
240
20536.20
I
9143.95
46
6708.18
46
616.17
7324.35
96
13999.68
10
1285.28
19
254.51
1539.78
0
0.00
58
7846.97
0
0.00
7846.97
28
3788.19
220
18824.85
110
1473.45
20298.30
40
3422.70
96
8214.48
0
0.00
8214.48
0
0.00
58
4962.92
13
174.14
5137.05
32
2738.16
112
9583.56
0
0.00
9583.56
24
2053.62
78
6674.27
0
0.00
6674.27
24
2053.62
114
9754.70
57
763.52
10518.21
24
2053.62
8570.77
281
38152.49
0
0.00
38152.49
68
9199.89
68
9199.89
0
0.00
9199.89
8
1082.34
64
5476.32
32
428.64
5904.96
30
2567.03
17752.45

---

32
MARGlNAL COSTS OF STABLMG, DRY SEASON 1994
BOYS-
VALUE
TOTAL
MAN-
BOYS-
MAN-
BOYS-
VALUE
BOYS-HRS
TIMECOSTS HRS
MAN-HRS
FOOD
FOOD
FOOD
FOOD
FOOD
CLEAN
CLEAN
STABLE
COLL.
COLL.
COLL.
DISTR
DISTR
STABLE
STABLE
TASKS
em
(cfa)
(CEa)
0
0.00
6071.49
80
0
30
0
18558.52
0
0.00
8095.32
60
0
80
0
23678.81
32
428.64
2686.56
23
45
30
0
7366.46
32
428.64
2686.56
23
0
30
0
7366.46
21
281.30
6208.34
40
80
30
60
9821.95
16
214.32
2472.24
23
23
30
0
7366.46
42
562.59
3625.02
0
30
23
45
3281.18
21
281.30
3343.73
60
60
60
0
17499.60
32
428.64
2761.92
60
120
30
60
13124.70
36
482.22
3107.16
30
30
40
40
10149.77
0
0.00
1796.92
23
0
90
0
9626.34
0
0.00
20536.20
120
0
120
0
20536.20
5282.62
0
0.00
13999.68
30
30
30
30
8749.80
40
535.80
535.80
0
30
0
60
0.00
0
0.00
3788.19
20
20
60
60
10828.81
0
0.00
3422.70
90
0
180
0
23103.23
0
0.00
0.00
120
0
60
0
15402.15
0
0.00
2738.16
40
40
15
15
4671.99
12
160.74
2214.36
12
0
6
0
1510.22
0
0.00
2053.62
36
0
40
0
6468.90
12
160.74
2214.36
30
0
45
0
6391.89
3440.76
0
0.00
9199.89
166
0
188
41
47859.72
0
0.00
1082.34
90
0
180
0
36528.98
0
0.00
2567.03
45
0
90
0
11551.61
4283.09

---

33
MARGINAL COSTS OF STABLMG, DRY SEASON 1994
VALUE
TOTAL
MAW
VALUE
BOYS-
VALUE
TOTAL
BOYS-HRS
TIMECOSTS HRS
M A N - H R S HFS
BOYS-HRS
TIME COSTS
ST.ULE
STABLE
8dANuRE
iwsuRJ2
?vlA?a.RE MANURE
M.lNmE
TASKS
TASKS
APPL.
APPL
APPL.
APPL.
(cfa>
(cfa>
(cfa>
(da)
0.00
18558.52
1
168.65
0
0.00
168.65
0.00
23678.81
2
252.98
0
0.00
252.98
602.78
7969.24
12
1693.44
24
321.48
2014.92
0.00
7366.46
12
1693.44
12
160.74
1854.18
1880.66
11702.61
20
2822.40
20
267.90
3090.30
301.39
7667.85
4
564.48
4
53.58
618.06
1000.61
4281.78
8
1166.64
8
107.16
1273.80
803.70
18303.30
4
583.32
8
107.16
690.48
2411.10
15535.80
2
291.66
4
53.58
345.24
93’.‘9
- -
11082.06
4
583.32
4
53.58
636.90
0.00
9626.34
8
684.54
0
0.00
684.54
0.00
20536.20
6
513.41
0
0.00
513.41
13025.75
1011.95
803.70
9553.50
8
1166.64
8
107.16
1273.80
1205.55
1205.55
0
0.00
16
214.32
214.32
107214
11900.95
3
405.88
3
40.19
446.06
0.00
23103.23
64
5476.32
32
428.64
5904.96
0.00
15402.15
72
6160.86
0
0.00
6160.86
731.37
5-103.35
16
1369.08
0
0.00
1369.08
0.00
1540.22
8
684.54
0
0.00
684.54
0.00
6468.90
4
342.27
0
0.00
342.27
0.00
6391.89
18
1540.22
9
120.56
1660.77
8996.64
2006.30
552.54
48412.27 NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00
36528.98
4
541.17
8
107.16
648.33
0.00
11551.61
16
1369.08
0
0.00
1369.08
3216428
672.47

---

34
MARGINAL COSTS OF STABLMG, DRY SEASON 1994
ADDNL.
VALUE
ADDNL.
VALUE
ADDNL.
VALUE
TtYI-AL
TIME
-mm
TIME
TIME
TIME
TIME
TIME COSTS
MILKIKG
MILKING
TRANSF.
TR4NSF.
SELLING
SELLING
ASSOC. WI
cows
cows
MILK
MILK
INCR MILK
ww
EK
(cfa)
120
20238.30
40
4431.2-I
360
60714.90
85384.44
90
15178.73
60
6714.00
360
60714.90
82607.63
90
6953.18
30
3323.43
270
38 102.40
48379.01
135
10429.76
45
5035.50
270
38102.40
53567.66
160
12330.30
40
4431.24
400
56391.55
73153.09
68
9525.60
15
1681.86
360
40284.00
51491.46
66
5220.19
22
2445.84
270
3616.65
11282.68
I20
9553.50
60
67 14.00
360
52498.80
68766.30
40
3 152.66
60
6714.00
360
4822.20
14688.86
120
9553.50
60
6714.00
360
52498.80
68766.30
11
1258.88
11
1258.88
0
0.00
2517.75
41
4565.52
20
2282.76
0
0.00
6848.28
47207.79
70
5597.55
35
3933.87
328
4388.46
13919.88
63
7034.03
63
7033.72
0
0.00
14067.75
49
55 15.55
49
5515.01
0
0.00
11030.56
28
3098.5 1
14
1549.42
0
0.00
4647.93
48
5323.08
48
5323.53
42
4648.10
15294.72
17
1692.30
9
959.16
360
30804.30
33455.76
180
20142.00
45
5035.50
270
23 103.23
48280.73
120
13428.00
50
5639.76
360
30804.30
49872.06
90
10071.00
30
3323.43
0
0.00
13394.43
22662.65
216
16036.69
263
29382.84
125
13987.50
59407.03
77
8560.35
38
4280.18
0
0.00
12840.53
90
10071.00
30
3323.43
270
23103.23
36497.66
36248.40

---

35
MARGINAL COSTS OF STABLING,
DRY SEASON 1994
-IurAL
TOTAL
COSTS
COSTS/
STAJ3LING
AI’m
SCENARIO I
SCENARIO I
@FA)
(CFA)
127658.47
3 1914.62
130190.3 1
35oa7.58
87937.4 1
21984.35
100961.00
20192.20
133538.82
22256.47
74356.17
37178.08
W17.81
16604.45
115883.93
38627.98
60087.22
15021.80
122103.80
40701.27
66270.09
13253.02
87412.57
14568.76
98568.13
2365635
131519.21
16439.90
42882.95
3898.45
92848.26
10316.47
83 112.65
9234.74
72711.69
7271.17
96133.9s
12016.87
71527.09
7947.45
112902.70
14112.84
51523.09
4293.59
83906.96
950350
241425.52
10973.89
135444.81
5643.53
155913.50
9744.59
177594.61
8787.34

---

Institut S&galais de
Rechexches Agricoles
--
Projet de Recherche Agricole Bask
sur la Gestion des Ressources Naturelles
(NRBW
THh SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT
OF STABLING
IN TJiIE REGION OF KOLDA
b
An Analysis of the Profitability of Stabling in the Region of Kolda, 1994
(DOCUMENT 1)
3
An Analysis of the Profitability of Stabbing in the Region of Kolda, 1996
(DOCUMENT 2)
Y-
The Adoption & Adaptation of Stabling by Farmers in the Region of Kolda, 1994/1996
(DOCUMENT 3)
By :
Monica Fisher, NRBAR Project
Papa Nouhine Dieye, ISRA/Kolda
Mama Faye, ISIWDakar
August 1996
In collaboration with
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
and
‘Ihe Consortium for International Development (CID)
-. -
-
--.--

---

A. INTRODUCTION:
In the past decade, soil degradation, decreased availability of land, and a disengagement
of the state (marked by the end of subsidies and credit for agricultural inputs) have made it
increasingly difIicult for tiers in Senegal to provide for the subsistence needs of their
families. Indeed, between 1979- 1992 the annual growth rate of food production per
capita in Senegal was -.2% (World Development Report, 1994). In order to help farmers
increase their productivity, and in line with the Government of Senegal’s (GOS) national
objective of food selGsu.fIiciency, the Institut Senegalais de Recherches Agricoles (ISRA)
is promoting research to identify, develop and difhrse low-cost, natural resource-based
technologies or practices which address the specitic needs and situations of Senegalese
farmers.
Since the late 1980s ISRAKolda has been involved in research and extension of
stabling technologies in the Upper Casamance, where the majority of the rural population
is engaged in agro-pastoral activities. Stabling is a technological package which is
practiced during the dry season and consists of the stable, a food supplementation, an
animal health care program, and a new method of producing manure.
Technical research on the part of ISRAKolda has identified the following potential
benefits of stabhng: increased milk production, increased calving, decreased death rate of
livestock, heavier livestock, stronger draft animals, and an increased quantity and quality
of manure (Fall and Faye, 1989; Fall and Faye, 1992; ISRAKolda, 1993; Faye, Dieye and
Seye, 1995; Dieye, D&ta, Faye, Diallo and Babene, 1996). Thus, stabling can provide
direct consumption benefits in the form of milk and meat products. It can also contribute
to increased agricultural production through the provision of a manure of higher quality
and quantity, and stronger draft animals. Likewise, revenues earned from the sale of milk
and meat can provide the needed cash to purchase agricultural inputs such as chemical
fertilizer and seeds. In turn, increased agricultural production means more harvest
residues, which serve as an important animal food source.

---

2
Of course there are also costs incurred in practicing stabling. These include: the cost of
materials to build the stable, the cost of the food supplement, the cost of
-
vaccines/medication, wages paid to hired laborers, and the opportunity cost of household
labor to perform the various stable tasks.
This study analyzes the economic benefits and costs of stabling with the intent of
determining de following:
1) Does stabling provide net economic benefits for farmers in the Region of Kolda?
In other words, are the additional benefits of sufIicient magnitude to cover the
additional costs?
2) What are the principle benefit and cost components of stabling?
1
3%. THE DATA:
Data for the study was collected during July 1996 in 5 of the 6 villages (Region of
Kolda) that were the sites of research for the 1995 study (Document 1). The 5 villages
may be categorized into 2 different axes based on geographic location:
l West Zone (Dialoukolon):
Bantancountou Maounde
N’Dangane
Sare Samboudiang
l
East Zone (Dabo):
Dialambere
Medina Koundje
The villages were selected by ISRA researchers based on the following criteria:
existence of relatively abundant numbers of farmers which practice stabling, and
representativeness of the diverse reasons for stabling livestock.
In the 3 villages of Dialoukolon fanners stable their animals primarily for increased milk
production for commercialization and home-consumption. These villages are near urban
centers and are part of per-i-urban milk: production programs either with ISRA or
Sodefitex
In the village of Dialambere, GIE members Ctially had a collective stable for
the purpose of producing manure for the village biogas plant. However, the biogas plant
broke down in 1994. Starting in 1996 the GIE members began stabling their animals in

---

3
individual stables for the purposes of milk production (home consumption) and manure for
agriculture and horticulture. In Medina Koundje, a GIE with 40 members possesses 3
stables for the purposes of milk production, fattening animals, and manure production.
Because this study had the objective of determining how tiers are actually practicing
stabling, only farmers who stable their animals were interviewed. As there are only 20
stables among the 5 villages, we chose to interview the owner(s) of each stable.
The lead author and an experienced enumerator visited each household on two
occasions. The first interview entailed a visit to the stable (to measure its dimensions, take
photographs, and get an idea of the variation in stable layouts), and a short inttiew
intended to determine iftiers are following the recommendations of ISRAKolda and
Sodefitex. The following week we made a second visit to the same farmers for a more
extended interview (20-30 mins.) which had two objectives: identification of the reasons
why farmers have adapted stabling in their particular manner, and collection of the data
necessary for a partial budget analysis.
In addition, a third questionnaire was used to interview four key informants (2 village
chief?, and 2 other farmers) in order to obtain more detailed information concerning
constraints to adoption of the research recommendations.
C. THE PARTIAL BUDGETlNG MODEL:
We used a partial budgeting model to determine the marginal benefits, the marginal
costs and the net benefits (marginal benefits minus marginal costs) of stabling in 1996.
Three steps were involved: clearly detig the alternative livestock practices, quanti$ng
the potential marginal benefits and costs, and calculating the net economic benefits.
Defining the Alternative Livestock Practices:
The first step was to define clearly each of the alternative f&m practices. Here we
consider two alternative livestock practices for the dry season: the traditional practice and
the practice of stabling. It should be noted that in the 1995 study (Document 1) we
distinguished between 3 different stable types on the basis of floor type and the number of
animals stabled. In this study we chose not to categorize stable types as we could not
identify a logical categorization. There does not exist a strong relationship between the

---

4
net benefits of stabling and the number of animals stabled, floor type, years the farmer has
practiced stabling, nor the region (Dialoukolon vs. Dabo) as is shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Correlation Coefficients’
Number of
Floor Type
Number Years
Region
Animals Stabled
and
Fracticed Stabliug
and
and Net Benefits
Net Benefits
and Net Benefits
Net Benefits
0 . 2 3
0.26
0 . 2 0
-0.21
Table 2 describes the main differences between the traditional livestock practices and
stabling. Readers interested in a more detailed description should refer to Document 3,
‘The Adoption and Adaptation of Stabling by Farmers in the Region of Kolda”.
Table 2: Dry Season Livestock Practices: Traditional and Stabling
Traditional Livestock
Stabliug
Practices
Night- time
l
Animals tethered to fence
l
Animals tied to posts in the
Habitat
uosts on crou fields
stable
Feeding
l
Animals eat only food they
l
Animals fed a food supplement
End at pastures
at the stable and also obtain
food on their own at pastures
Medical Care
l Animals given “monde”
l
Animals given four vaccines:
treatment - a mixture of
(1) Pasteurillose
cooking salt and various forest
(2) Charbon Bacteridien
herbs used as an anti-parasite
(3) Charbon Symptomatique
treatment and vitamin
(4) la Peste et la Perigneumonie
supplement
Contagieuse Bovine
l
Also recommended that animals
be given anti-parasite pills
Manure
l
Manure paddies deposited on
l
Manure deposited in stable
Production
fields during dry season
l
Straw and water are mixed with
l
At start of the agricultural
manure on regular basis
season paddies are broken
down and spread
’ The correlation coefficient ( r ) measures the linear relationship between two variables.
Lf r = 1 this indicates
a perfect positive linear relationship among the two variables; if r
= -1 this indicates a perfect negative linear
relationship; ifr = 0 there exists no linear relationship among the two variables.

---

Quantifying the Marginal Benefits and Costs:
The second step in the partial budgeting model involved quantifjing the marginal
benefits and costs associated with stabling. BeneWs and costs in the partial budgeting
model are here categorized as follows:
Benefits
costs
(a) Additional Revenues
(c) Reduced Revenues
(b) Reduced Costs
(d) Additional Costs
The potential benefits and costs were identified from a literature review of ISRAKolda
studies (for a summary of these studies see Fisher, 1995), discussion with ISRA
researchers, and fieldwork. Then, data collected from the farmer interviews and
ISRAKolda data were used to quant* the benefits and costs.
The Matinal Benefits
Additional Revenues:
Stabling can result in increased production of milk, calves, agriculture, and heavier
animals, Each type of increased production has economic v&e to households whether
the production is home-consumed or commercialized. Table 3 provides information for
how we valued each of these production benefits and the sources of the necessary data.

---

6
Table 3: Method for VahGng Increased Production
Benefit
How Valued
Data Source(s)
) Amount home consumed
B
Increased quantity of milk
ir&e of Increased
multiplied by village milk
Corn farmer interviews
Wr Production
price
D
Price data from farmer
B &nount commercialized
interviews
multiplied by price received
B
The figure for increased
l
Increased calving figure
number of births per year per
from Fall and Faye (1992)
Value of Increased
stabled cow (.066) was
l
Number of cows from
calving
multiplied by the number of
farmer interviews
cows times the average price
l
Price per calffiom key
ner calf
it&ormimt interviews
Value of Increased
D
Assumed stabling results in a
l
Figure of 38% obtained
Agricultural
38% increase in quantity of
from Hamon ( 1972)
Production
manure produced
l Figure for chemical
Resulting from use
B
Valued stable manure in
fertilizer equivalence from
o f
terms of chemical fxtilizer
Fall and Faye (1992)
Stable manme
equivalent (1 ton stable
l
Quantity manure produced
manure=82kgNPK)
from farmer interviews
l
Price of chemical fertibzer
(NPK 14/7/7) from key
informant interviews
l
For stabled cows or bulls that l Number of stabled bulls
were sold, we subtracted the
Corn farmer interviews
Value of
average market price fi-om
0
Potential weight gain of
Heavier Livestock
the amount the farmer
bulls obtained from Fall and
received
Faye (1992)
l
For bulls that were not sold,
l
Price data from key
we multiplied the number of
informant interviews
stabled bulls times the
potential weight gain ( 447
g/day) times the duration of
stablina period
The practice of stabling can also lead to increased agricultural production through the
provision of stronger/faster draR animals (Fall and Faye, 1989) which make it possible to
extend the area under cultivation and complete necessary field operations in a more timely
manner. This benefit was not included in the analysis due to lack of necessary data.

---

7
Reduced Costs:
There are at least two potential reduced costs: the decreased expense for chemical
fertilizer and the decreased expense of maintaining or increasing one’s herd. We did not
include the first of these because f3rmers had difliculty remembering how much chemical
fertilizer they applied to crops before they began stabling their animals. Stabling can result
in a reduction in the cost of maintaining or increasing the size of one’s herd because
stabled animals have a lower death rate than non-stabled animal~.~ Table 4 below
describes how we valued this decreased expense.
Table 4: Method for Valuing Decreased Expenses
Benefit
How Valued
Data Source(s)
l We multiplied the figure
l Figure for decreased
for percentage decrease
death rate from Fall and
in number of deaths
Faye (1992)
Decreased Expense of
times the number of
l Number ofanimals
Maintaining Herd
animals stabled times the
stabled f?om firma
market price of animals
interviews
l
Market price of
bulls/cows from key
informant interviews
’ This of course assumes that fanners have the desire and ability to increase or maintain their herd size.

---

The Mar&al Costs:
Reduced Revenues:
Stabling requires more labor time than the traditional livestock practices. The majority
of the increased labor is performed by the male household head, and his SO~S.~
The
I
activities involved in stabling include:
Building or reconstructing the stable (including collection of building materials)
Collection of food stocks and straw for stable litter
The daily stable tasks: giving animals food and water at least once per day, driving
animals to pasture, cleaning the stable, and adding water and straw to the stable
manure
Increased time spent milking cows, and commercializing milk
Adding straw and water to the stable litter on a regular basis
Transporting and applying manure to crop fields
Almost all of the interviewed farmers told us that there are no off-farm work
opportunities during the dry season, and that before they began stabling they relaxed
-
during the dry season. Thus we did not vahre household members’ time spent on stable
activities performed during the dry season. However, some of the stabling activities are
-
performed during the agricultural season and therefore compete with agricultural
production activities. For these activities there exists an opportunity cost of labor, the
value of agricultural production that would have been produced if the farmer had used his
time for agriculture production rather than stabling activities. Table 5 describes the
method we used to value reduced agricultural production.
3 In 1994 women were much more involved in stabling. They performed the following tasks (varied by village):
drawing water from wells for animals and for stable litter, milking cows, transforming milk, and selling milk. Now
women in the study villages are only involved in the drawing of water from wells.
It is not clear why such a change
in the division of labor has OCCLUT~

---

9
Table 5: Method for Valuing Reduced Agricultural Production
cost
How Valued
Data Source(s)
l
Multiplied the number of l
Time spent on stable
Reduced Agricultural
hours spent building
reconstrnction (digging
Revenues due to Time
reconstructing the stable
fosse, building enclosure
spent
times the potential
and roof) from farmer
Building/Reconstrncting
hourly wage for off-farm
interviews
Stable
work 4
l
Hourly wage for off-
farm work from Village
Chief Questionnaire
(1995 survey)
Reduced Agricuhural
l
Multiplied the number of l
Time spent on collection
Revenues due to Time
hours spent on each
from farmer interviews
Spent Collecting Food
these activities times the
l
Hourly wage for off-
Stocks and Straw
potential hourly wage
farm work from Village
for off-farm work
Chief Questionnaire
(1995 survey)
In addition there exists an opportunity cost for the time spent transporting and applying
manure to crop fields since these activities are performed during the agricultural season.
We were not able to value this because we did not have the necessary data.
Additional Costs:
The additional costs associated with stabling include the cost of building materials,
food supplementation, vaccines/anti-parasite pills, and wages paid to hired laborers. Table
6 describes how we quantified the cost of each of these items.
‘It would be more accurate measure of the oppoxtunity cost of labor in terms of the value of agricultural
production that was produced with an hour of male labor. This was not possible for this study because the necessary
data was not available.

---

1 0
Table 6: Method for Valuing Increased Expenses
cost
How Valued
Data Source(s)
.
Cost of building
Cost of Building Materials’
materials provided by
farmers in interviews
l
For each type of food
.
Quantity of food
Cost of Food
supplement (cotton seed
supplement and number
Supplementation
cake or sesame) we
of animals fi-om farmer
multiplied its price times
interviews
the quantity given to
l
Price data Tom key
each animal times the
informant Interviews
number of animals
l
For each type of vaccine
l
Number of vaccines per
we multiplied number of
stabled animal and
vaccines per animal
number of animals from
times the number of
farmer interviews
Cost of Vaccines
animals vaccinated times l
Cost of vaccines in
the cost of the vaccine
Dialoukolon from
ISRAKolda
l
Cost of vaccines in
Dabo from the auxiliary
veterinarian for the
village
l
Muhiplied total number
l
Number of anti-parasite
of anti-parasite pills
pills and the cost per pill
Cost of Anti-Parasite Pills
times the cost per pill
from farmer interviews
l
Or farmers provided the
overall figure for
amount spent on anti-
parasite pills
Wages Paid for Hired
l
Amount paid to hired
Laborers
laborers from farmer
interviews
’ AU of the interviewed farmers have been practicing stabliog for several years. All the materials used to rebuild
the stable are those which one may collect Tom the forest or fkom crop fields.
However, several farmers purchased
such items Tom other farmers rather than spending the time on collection.

---

1 1
E. RESULTS OF THE PARTIAL BUDGETING MODEL:
The benefits and costs of stabling were quantified in the manner described above. The
average benefits and costs are presented in the tables that follow.6 It is recommended that
readers refer to the spreadsheets (Appendix B) because there exists considerable variation
among the different stables, which is not apparent with average figures.
The Marginal Benefits:
Figure 1 on the next page displays the marginal benetits of stabling. By fkr, the most
important benefit component is increased milk production for home consumption and
\\
commercialization, which makes up 75% of the total bene&s. On average, each stabled
milk cow produced an additional 1.44 liters of milk per day. There is considerable
variation in the amount of benefits derived from milk production, and much of this
variation is related to region. In the 3 villages of Dialoukolon the benefits per stabled
animal (mean = 39,178 CFA) are higher than in Dialambere (mean = 18,462 CFA) for two
reasons. First, those in Dialoukolon are fortunate to be close to Kolda where there exists
a market for milk products and a higher market price than in the villages. In addition,
milk cows in Dialoukolon produce more milk per head than in Dialamb ere ( 1.5 3 versus
LOS liters per cow per day). This is not surprising given that the cows in Dialoukolon are
f&d a better food supplement than in Dialambere.
The second most important benefit component is the v&e of the animal weight gain,
making up 9% of the total benefits. Again there exists considerable variation between the
village regions. In Dialoukolon the average is only 11,367 CFA, because in these villages
-
only milk cows are stabled. Farmers rarely sell their milk cows because selling a cow this
year means less milk production next year. In Dialambere two hrmers stable bulls for the
I
purpose of fattening, and thus the value of the animal wei&t gain is much higher, 98,701
CFA
’ We did not include the cooperative stable in Medina Koundje in the averaging.

---

1 2
Figure 1: The Benefits of Stabling: Additional Revenues and Reduced Costs (in CFA)
rtH Value of Increased
Quantity Milk
II Value of Animal Weight ,
Gain
!
/
El Value of Increased
1
Calving
EI Value of Decreased Death
Rate
n Value of Increased
Quantity Manure
7 5 3
a 6,665
H27,118
U LU, J47
J
The least important benefit component is increased manure production. An average of
1686 kg of manure was produced in stables with a minimum of 450 kg and a maximum of
5000 kg (see spreadsheets). According to Fall and Faye (1992) farmers in the region use a
dose of about 5 ton/ha. This implies that the quantity of manure produced in stables can
be applied to only .09 to 1 hectare. Since we only have one figure for the quantity of
stable manure in Dialambere, we cannot make a comparison among the village regions.
However, it is expected that a higher quantity of manure is produced in the stables in
Dialambere because livestock remain in stables for a large part or all of the day during the
stabling period. In Dialoukolon animals spend most of the day at pasture and thus much
of the manure is lost. However, it is expected that the quality of manure is better in
Dialoukolon than in Dialambere because farmers in Dialoukolon produce manure more

---

1 3
effectively. In Dialambere none of the stables have a fosse and the farmers do not add
water or straw to the stable litter.
The Marginal Costs:
Figure 2 presents the marginal costs of stabling. By far the main cost of stabling is the
cost of the food supplement, which makes up 70% of the total costs. The food
supplement is so co@ because cotton seed cake cost 50 CFA/kg in 1996. The costs per
stabled animal are lower for farmers who fed some of their animals sesame (35 CFA/kg in
1996) . Also, in Dialambere some of the farmers have low food supplement costs because
they do not purchase any food, their animals eat only fane d’arachide.
Figure 2: The Costs of Stabling: Reduced Revenues and Additional Costs (in CFA)
FA Building Materials
q Food Supplement
El Vaccines/An&Parasi1
Pills
q Wages to Hired
Laborers
S Reduced Agricultural
Revenues
6.629

---

1 4
The second major cost is for wages paid to hired laborers which makes up 14% of the
total costs. Farmers hire laborers primarily to sell milk, reconstruct the stable, and collect
food supplement, straw and building materials.
Although we did not in&de the time costs of the daily stable tasks in the analysis, it is
interesting to see how much time is involved in stabling. F&es 3 and 4 show the amount
of time household members spent on the various stabling tasks, those which are performed
outside of the stabling period, and those which are performed daily during the stabling
period.
Figure 3: Average Labor Input for Annual Stable Tasks
(minimum, average and maximum hours spent by household members)
100
I
Rebuild Stable
Collect Food
Stocks & Straw
The zero fi,aures above are explained by the fact that several farmers paid someone to
perform these tasks. There exists considerable variation in time spent on collection of
food stocks and straw. In general, farmers in the village of Dialambere spent much more
time on collection than farmers in the villages of Dialoukolon. This is because in
Dialambere animals remain in the stable more hours per day than in Dialoukolon, and in
the case of two stables in Dialambere animals were not fed cotton seed cake and thus were
fed higher quantities of harvest residues.

---

1 5
Figure 4: Average Labor Input for Daily Stable Tasks
(minimum, average and maximum spent by household members)
5
4.5
2
4
; 3.5
;
3
ij 2.5
xk?l
2
g 1.5
4
1
0.5
0
Drive to
Fe&Water
Milk Cows
Sell Milk
I
Pasture
Driving animals to pasture has a zero minimum and low average because most farmers
let their animals go to pasture on their own. Time spent milking cows and selling milk
have zero minimums because several farmers paid a hired laborer to perform these tasks,
and not all fkmers sold milk. According to these figures stabling requires an average of
3.2 hours per day.
-
The Net Benefits of Stabling:
The net benefits of stablimg are presented in Table 7. The standard deviation figures
indicate that there is considerable variation among the different stables for net benefits and
net benefits per stabled animal. Indeed, ifwe refer to the spreadsheets we see that the
range of the net benefits is between 19,600 CFA (Moussa Sabaly, Sare Samboudiang) and
65 1,120 CFA (Seidou Diamanka, Sare Samboudiang). Some of this variation is explained
‘I
by the number of animals stabled. However, even the net beneftts per stabled animal vary
widely from 6,533 (Moussa Sabaly, Sare Samboudiang) to 52,9 11 (Abdoulaye Koita,
Dialambere)CFA/animal.

---

16
Table 7: Total Net Benefits and Net Benefits per Stabled Animal
(average figures, standard deviation in brackets)
Total Net Benefits
Net Benefits
(CFA)
per Stabled Animal
&FA/animal)
Average
232,350
33,193
(Standard Deviation)
(171,107)
(13,383)
F. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
In this study we determined that stabhng leads to increases in food production and
revenues for farmers in the Region of Kolda. In 1996, the case study Grmers obtained net
benefits ranging from 19,600 CFA to 65 1,120 CFA The main benems of stabling were
the v&e of increased milk production and the vahte of the animal weight gain. The main
costs were for the food supplement and wages paid to hired laborers.
For comparative purposes, the 1994 average year& income for off-farm employment
was 90,000 CFA (Tom 1995 survey). Thus the net benefits of stabling were equivalent to
one-fourth to 7 times the average yearly income. Also of importance is the potential
impact of stabling on the nutritional status of rural people. Stabling resulted in an increase
of 1,532 liters of milk during the dry season. Increased milk production during the dry
season can help to decrease the food deficit situation that occurs at the end of the dry
season/start of rainy season, the “soudure”. Likewise, milk serves an important role in
ensuring that rural people obtain adequate levels of protein.

---

1 7
d
BIBLIOGRAPEW
-
Adesina, A and Moses Zimah. 1993. Technology Characteristics, Farmers’ Perceptions
and Adoption Decisions: A Tobit Model Application in Sierra Leone. Agricultural
Economics 9: 297-3 11.
Centre de Recherches Zootechniques de Kolda. 1993. Rapport AnnueZl993. Senegal:
Centre de Recherches Zootechniques de Kolda.
il
Diallo, Amindou N.. 1992. Evaluation des Etables Fumieres en Haute Casamance.
SenegaL
Draw, Arona. 1994. Impact des Etables Fumieres ahs la Misc en Place d ‘une Ceinture
Laitiere Peri-Urbaine. Unpublished thesis for Docteur Veterinaire. Dakar:
Universite Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar.
Dieye, P.N., et. al.. 1996. Valorisation du Potentiel Pastoral Pour le Development de
Systemes Cerealieres Performants et Viables en Zone Sub-Humide du Senegal
(I-laute Casamance).
Ellis, Frank. 1993. Peasant Economics. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
II),
Fall, Abdou and Faye Adam. 1989. Rapport de Suivi dyEtables Fumieres ahs le
Departement
de KoZ& Senegal: Centre de Recherches Zootechniques de Kolda.
Fail, Abdou and Adama Faye. July 1992. Les Etables Fumieres en Zone d’Elevage
deBetai1 Trypanotolerant au Sud du Senegal. Senegal: Centre de Recherches
Zootechniques de Kolda.
Faye, Adama, Papa Nouhine Dieye, and Cheikh Saadibou Seye. February 1995. Les
Etables Fumieres en Zone Cotonniere du Senegal: Quelles Strategies Pour Une
Adoption Massive. Senegal: Centre de Recherches Zootechniques de Kolda.
Fisher, Monica G.. 1995. An Economic andSo&-Cultural
Analysis of Nao Farm
Technology: The Case of Stabling in Senegal. Unpublished Master’s Thesis.
LL
Oregon State University.
World Bank. 1994. The Wmfd Development Report. New York: Oxford University Press.
P

---

1 8
APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRES 1996

---

19
Questionnaire I
(1) What was the duration of the stabling period in 1996?
(2) Descriie the different daily tasks involved in stabling.
(3) What types of food supplement did you give your animals in 1996?
In what
quantities?
(4) Do you add straw and/or water to the stable litter for manure production? In what
quantities? How oRen?
(5) What are your objectives for stabling your animals, in order of importance?
(6) How many animals did you stable in 1996, by category (bulls, milk cows)?
(7) What is the total number of animals in your herd?
(8) How many years have you practiced stabling?
(9) What are the modifications you have made in how you practice stabling since you first
started?
* A total of 2 1 farmers (20 stables) were interviewed with use of this questionnaire

---

Questionnaire II
(1) Duriug the dry season of 1996, what was the quantity of milk produced by each
stabled cow per day?
(2) Before you began stabling, what was the quantity of milk produced by each cow per
-
day during the dry season?
(3) During the dry season of 1996, what was the quantity of milk sold per day?
(4) During the rainy season of 1995, what was the quantity of milk produced by each
stabled cow per day?
(5) Before you began s-tabling, what was the quantity of milk produced by each cow per
day during the rainy season?
(6) What was the quantity of manure produced in your stable in 1996? Specify the unit of
measurement.
(7) For which crops did you apply stable manure?
(8) Do you thiuk that the manure from your stables is of better quality than manure fiom
the parcage?
(9) Did you sell a stabled animal in 1996? Jfyes, how much did you receive for each
animal?
(10) How much did you spend to purchase building materials for your stable in 1996?
(11) Which of the following vaccines did your stabled auimals receive iu 1996?
(a) Pasteurillose? Will your animals receive the second Pasteurillose vaccine in
July? If not, why not?
(b) Charbon Bacteridien?
(c) Charbon Symptomatique?
(d) La Peste et la Perigneumonie Contagieuse Bovine (PPCB)?
( 12) Did you give your animals anti-parasite pills in 1996?
(a) What type?
L
(b) How many pills during the dry season?
(c) What was the price per pill?
(13) Did you pay a hired laborer to help you with stabling tasks (building/reconstructing
the stable, selling milk, etc..)? What was the amount you paid this laborer for the dry
season of 1996?

---

21
(14) How much time did household members spend on the following activities? Specif)
which household member performed each task.
(a) Rebuilding the stable (total hours)?
(b) Collecting straw and food stocks (total hours)?
(c) Feeding/watering animals (hours per day)?
(d) Driving animals to pasture (hours per day)?
(e) Milking cows (hours per day)?
(f) Selling milk (hours per day)?
(15) Stabling requires several hours per day during the dry season. Before you began
stabling, what did you do during this time?
(16) What type of stable do you prefer ? With a fosse, or without a fosse? Why?
(17) What type of food supplement do you prefer to give your animals? In what quantity?
why?
(18) Describe how one goes about producing a manure of high quality.
(19) What are some of the difEiculties with stabling?
(20) How did you spend the increased revenues you earned from practicing stabling?
* A total of 2 l&men (20 stables) were interviewed with use of this questionnaire

---

22
Ouestionnaire III
(1) What is the average price for a 50 kg sack of chemical fertilizer (NPK 14/7/7)?
(2) What is the average price for a calf of 3 years?
(3) What is the average price for a milk cow?
(4) What is the average price for a bull?
(5) During which month(s) does one dig the fosse for the stable?
What are the other activities which occupy farmers’ time during this month?
Is there a lack of labor at this time? Explain.
(6) During which month(s) does one collect the food stocks, straw for the stable litter, and
materials to rebuild the stable?
What are the other activities which occupy tiers’ time during this month?
Is there a lack of labor at this time? Explain.
(7) During the months of april, may andjune it is very hot and there is little forage for
animals at the pastures. Do you think it is feasible for farmers to practice a permanent
stabling (animals stay in stable all day) during these months?
In your opinion, what are the potential problems with permanent stabling?
EXpliiill.
(8) In general, does the transport of manure from the stable to crop fields pose problems?
EXplailL
(9) It is very important that animals receive the second Pasteurillose vaccine. What are
the potential reasons which prevent farmers from having their animals vaccinated a second
time? Explain.
* A total of four farmers were interviewed with this questionnaire

---

23
APPENDIX B: PARTIAL BUDGET SPREADSHEETS

---

24
MARGINAL BENEFlTS OF STABLING, DRY SEASON 1996
Duration
Increased
Nurhber
stabling
milk prodn.
Farmer’s
Stabled
period
commercialized
name
Vilhge
timalS
(&YS)
(litershiay)
SeikouKande
Bantancountou Maounde
3
120
0
IbrahimaKande
Bantancountou Maounde
7
150
12
Mamadou Fall Diao
Bantancountou Maounde
7
250
6
Mamadou BaIde
Bantancountou Maounde
9
155
11
SaIoum M!BaIlo
Bantancountou Maounde
9
150
12
Alassane KandeJAbdouIaye BaIde
Bantancountou Maounde
9
150
10
Boubacar BaIde
Bantancountou Maounde
13
150
13
Thierno Kande
NDangane
3
180
3
SambaDiao
N’Dangane
5
180
3
OumarKande
NDangane
7
180
8
soly Kande
Sare Samboudiang
2
150
1
Moussa SabaIy
Sare Samboudiang
3
150
0
Korka Balde
Sare Samboudiang
5
150
5
Akayni Balde
Sare Samboudiang
5
150
5
Seidou Diamanka
Sare Samboudiang
20
150
15
Seidou Diao
Dialambere
4
150
0
Abdoulaye BaIde
Dialambere
6
120
4
Dibane Balde
Dialambere
6
150
0
AbdouIaye Koita
DiaIambere
10
150
0
AVERAGE
7.00
151.84
5.63
GIE Medina Koundje
Medina Koundje
40
120
0

---

25
MARGINAL BENEFITS OF STABLING, DRY SEASON 1996
Increased
Increased
Value of
revenues
milk prodn.
Village
increased
Total value
received
from milk
home-
milk
milk prodn.
increased
for milk
sales
consumed
price
home-cons.
milk prodn.
(CFMiter)
PA)
(literskiay)
(CFA/liter)
PA)
F-FA)
175
0.00
4.50
150
81,000.OO
81,OOO.OO
175
3 15,ooo.oo
2.00
150
45,ooo.OO
360,OOO.OO
175
157,500.00
8.00
150
180,OOO.OO
337,500.Oo
175
298,375.OO
7.00
150
162,750.OO
461J25.00
175
3 15,ooo.oo
3.75
150
84,375.OO
399,375.OO
175
262,500.OO
4.00
150
90,000.00
352,500.OO
175
341,250.OO
4.00
150
90,000.00
43 1,250.OO
175
94,500.oo
3.00
150
81,OOO.OO
175,500.00
175
78,750.OO
5.00
150
135,ooo.oo
213,750.OO
175
236,250.OO
5.00
150
135,ooo.oo
371,250.OO
175
26,250.OO
2.00
150
45,ooo.oo
71,250.OO
175
0.00
2.25
150
50,625.OO
50,625.OO
175
131,250.OO
0.25
150
5,625.OO
136,875.OO
175
131,250.OO
5.00
150
112,500.OO
243,750.OO
175
393,750.oo
5.00
150
112,500.OO
506,250.OO
0
0.00
4.00
125
75,OOo.OO
75,OOO.OO
125
60,OOO.OO
8.00
125
120,000.00
180,OOO.OO
0
0.00
6.00
125
112,500.00
112,500.00
0
0.00
6.00
125
112,500.OO
112,500.OO
149$5931
4.46
96,335.53
245,894.74
0
0.00
22.50
150
405.000.00
405,000.00
I

---

26
MARGlX4.L BENEFITS OF STABLMG, DRY SEASON 1996
Increased
Rate of
Value of
Rate of
revenues from
increased
Number
Market
increased
increased
sales of
weight gain
cows stabled
price
weight
weight gain
stabled animals
of cows
for purpose
for cows
of cows
of bulls
PA)
wcowlday)
of fattening
WFAflrg)
04
(kg/bulV~Y>
18,500.00
0.12
0
700
0.00
0.45
0.00
0.12
0
700
0.00
0.45
0.00
0.12
0
700
0.00
0.45
0.00
0.12
0
700
0.00
0.45
0.00
0.12
0
700
0.00
0.45
38,750.OO
0.12
0
700
0.00
0.45
0.00
0.12
0
700
0.00
0.45
0.00
0.12
0
700
0.00
0.45
0.00
0.12
0
700
0.00
0.45
53,750.oo
0.12
0
700
0.00
0.45
0.00
0.12
0
700
0.00
0.45
0.00
0.12
0
700
0.00
0.45
43,750.OO
0.12
0
700
0.00
0.45
0.00
0.12
0
700
0.00
0.45
15,750.OO
0.12
0
700
0.00
0.45
0.00
0.12
0
700
0.00
0.45
0.00
0.12
0
700
0.00
0.45
28,750.OO
0.12
0
700
0.00
0.45
225,250.OO
0.12
0
700
0.00
0.45
22342.11
0.00
0.12
22
700
221,760.OO
0.45

---

27
MARGINAL BENEFITS OF STABLLNG, DRY SEASON 1996
Value of
Value of
Number
Market
increased
weight gain
Market
stabled
price
weight
of stabled
Increased
I
Number
price
bulls
for bulls
of bulls
animals
c$i.lviIlg
stabled
for calves
not sold
PAncg>
@FA)
C-4
rate
(CFAhlQ
I
0
700
0.00
18,500.00
0.07
3
46J75.00
0
700
0.00
0.00
0.07
7
46J75.00
0
700
0.00
0.00
0.07
7
46J375.00
0
700
0.00
0.00
0.07
9
46J375.00
0
700
0.00
0.00
0.07
9
46j375.00
0
700
0.00
38,750.OO
0.07
9
46,875.OO
0
700
0.00
0.00
0.07
13
46,875.OO
0
700
0.00
0.00
0.07
3
46,875.OO
0
700
0.00
0.00
0.07
5
46,875.OO
0
700
0.00
53,750.oo
0.07
7
46,875.OO
0
700
0.00
0.00
0.07
2
46,875.OO
0
700
0.00
0.00
0.07
3
46,875.OO
0
700
0.00
43,750.OO
Q.07
5
46,875.OQ
0
700
0.00
0.00
0.07
5
46,875.OO
0
700
0.00
15,750.oo
0.07
20
46,875.OO
0
700
0.00
0.00
0.07
4
45,ooo.oo
0
700
0.00
0.00
0.07
6
45,ooo.oo
0
700
0.00
28,750.OO
0.07
6
45,ooo.oo
3
700
140,805.OO
366,055.OO
0.07
4
45,ooo.oo
7,410.79
29,752.89
10
700
375,480.OO
597,240.OO
0.07
30
45,ooo.oo

---

28
MARGINAL BENEFITS OF STABLING, DRY SEASON 1996
Value of
Value of
Decreased
Market
decreased
Market
increased
death rate
Number
price
death rate
Number
price
calving
of stabled
stabled
for cows
of cows
stabled
for bulls
PA)
animals
cows
(CFA/cow)
(CFA)
bulls
(CFA/bull)
9,281.25
0.07
3
51,875.OO
10,893.75
0
128,750.OO
21,656.25
0.07
7
51,875.OO
25,418.75
0
128,750.OO
21,656.25
0.07
7
51,875.OO
25,418.75
0
128,750.OO
27,843.75
0.07
9
51J75.00
32,681.25
0
128,750.OO
27J43.75
0.07
9
51,875.OO
32,681.25
0
128,750.OO
27,843.75
0.07
9
51,875.OO
32,681.25
0
128,750.OO
40,218.75
0.07
13
51,875.OO
47,206.25
0
128,750.OO
9,281.25
0.07
3
51,875.OO
lOJ93.75
0
128,750.OO
15,468.75
0.07
5
51,875.OO
l&156.25
0
128,750.OO
21,656.25
0.07
7
51,875.OO
25,418.75
0
128,750.OO
6J87.50
0.07
2
51J75.00
7,262.50
0
128,750.OO
9,281.25
0.07
3
51J75.00
lOJ93.75
0
128,750.OO
15,468.75
0.07
5
51,875.Oo
IS,15625
0
128,750.OO
15,468.75
0.07
5
51J75.00
18J56.25
0
128,750.OO
61,875.OO
0.07
20
51J75.00
72,625.OO
0
128,750.OO
11,880.OO
0.07
4
51,875.OO
14,525.OO
0
128,750.OO
17,820.OO
0.07
6
51J75.00
21,787.50
0
128,750.OO
17,820.OO
0.07
6
51,875.OO
21,787.50
0
128,750.OO
11,880.OO
0.07
4
51,875.OO
14,525.OO
6
128,750.OO
20349.01
24,272.04
89,100.OO
0.07
30
51,875.OO
1oq937.50
10
128,750.OO

---

29
MARGINAL BENEFITS OF STABLMG, DRY SEASON 1996
Value of
Market
Total Value
Quantity
Increased
Chemical
price
death rate
Decreased
Manure
suantity
fertilizer
chemical
of bulls
death rate
PdUCd
of manure
equivalence
fertilizer
(CFA)
(CF 4
(kg)
(kg)
(kg)
PA&is)
0.00
10,893.75
450
123.91
10.16
176
0.00
25,418.75
1,350
371.74
30.48
176
0.00
25.418.75
1,500
413.04
33.87
176
0.00
32,681.25
1,500
413.04
33.87
176
0.00
32,681.25
na
na
na
176
0.00
32,681.25
1,500
413.04
33.87
176
0.00
47,206.25
1,500
413.04
33.87
176
0.00
10,893.75
na
na
n a
176
0.00
18,156.25
na
na
n a
176
0.00
25,418.75
1,900
523.19
42.90
176
0.00
7,262.50
1,000
275.36
22.58
176
0.00
10,893.75
na
na
na
176
0.00
18,156.25
M
na
na
176
0.00
18J56.25
1,350
371.74
30.48
176
0.00
72,625.OO
5,000
1376.81
112.90
176
0.00
14,525.OO
na
na
na
164
0.00
21,787.50
1,500
413.04
33.87
164
0.00
21,787.50
na
na
na
164
54,075.oo
68,600.OO
lla
na
n a
164
2,846.05
27,118.09
1,686
46436
38.08
9OJ25.00
199,062.50
6,590
1814.64
148.80
164
* na = not available

---

30
MARGINAL BENEFITS OF STABLING. DRY SEASON 1996
Value of
Total
increased
Benefits
Benefits
quantity
-
of
per
of manure
Stabling
Stabled Animal
PA)
CW
(-A/animal)
1,788.3 1
121,463.31
40,487.77
5,364.94
412,439.94
58,919.99
5,961.04
390,536.04
55,790.86
5,961.04
527,611.04
58,623.45
na
459,900.oo
51,100.00
5,961.04
457,736.04
50,859.56
5,961.04
524,636.04
40,356.62
-
na
195,675.OO
65,225.OO
n a
247,375.OO
49,475.oo
7,550.66
479,625.66
68,517.95
3,974.03
88,674.03
44,337.Ol
na
70,800.OO
23,600.OO
na
214,250.OO
42,850.OO
5,364.94
282,739.94
56,547.99
1.
19,870.14
676,370.14
33J18.51
na
101,405.00
25,35 1.25
5,554.61
225,162.11
37,527.02
na
180,857.50
30,142.92
na
559,035.oo
55,903.50
II
6,664.71
329379.45
47J39.92
24,403.25
1,314,805.75
32,870.14

---

31
MARGINAL COSTS OF STABLMG, DRY SEASON 1996
cost of
DuratiOIl
materials
Number
stabling
to build
Farmer’s
stabled
period
stable
name
Village
animals
(days)
PA)
Seikou Kande
Bantaucountou Maoumie
3
120
0.00
IbrahimaKande
Bantancountou Maounde
7
150
10,500.00
Mama&u Fall Diao
Bantancountou Maounde
7
150
2,500.W
Mamadou Balde
Bautaucountou Ma&de
9
155
0.00
Saloum M’Ballo
Bantancountou Maounde
9
150
1,ooo.oo
Alassaue Kande/Abdoulaye Balde
Bautancountou Maounde
9
150
10,000.00
Boubacar Balde
Bantaucountou Maounde
13
150
2,500.OO
Thierno Kande
NDangane
3
180
0.00
Samba Diao
NDangane
5
180
0.00
oumarKande
N’Dangaue
7
180
2,100.OO
sory Kande
Sare Samboudiang
2
150
0.00
Moussa Sabaly
Sare Samboudiang
3
150
0.00
Korka Balde
Sare Samboudiang
5
150
500.00
Alsayni Balde
Sare Samboudiang
5
150
0.00
Seidou Diamanka
Sare Samboudiang
20
150
2,ooo.OO
Seidou Diao
Dialambere
4
150
0.00
Abdodaye Balde
Dialambere
6
120
2,500.OO
Dibane Balde
Dialambere
6
150
3,ooo.Oo
Abdoulaye Koita
Dialambere
10
150
0.00
AVERAGE
7
1,92632
GlE Mediua Koundje
Medina Koundje
40
120
10,000.00

---

.‘
32
MARGINAL COSTS OF STABLMG. DRY SEASON 1996
I
Quantity
Priceof
Costof
Totalcust
cotton
cotton
cotton
priceof
cost of
food
seedcake
seedcake
seedcake
sesame
sesame
supplement
0%)
(CFAflrg)
PAI
(CFA/kg)
C-4
(CFA)
540
50
27,OOO.OO
0
35
0.00
27,OOO.OO
720
50
36,OOO.OO
1380
35
48,300.OO
84,300.OO
1500
50
75,ooo.Oo
300
35
10,500.00
85,500.OO
620
50
31,ooo.oo
1627.5
35
56,962.50
87,962.50
900
50
45,Ooo.oo
900
35
31,500.00
76,500.OO
1500
50
75,ooo.oo
600
35
21,ooo.oo
96,OOO.OO
3900
50
195,Ooo.Oo
0
35
0.00
195,oOO.oo
360
50
18,OOO.OO
360
35
12,600.OO
30,600.OO
1800
50
90,000.00
0
35
0.00
90,000.00
1440
50
72,OOO.OO
540
35
18,900.OO
90,900.00
600
50
30,000.00
600
35
21,ooo.oo
51,ooo.oo
900
50
45,ooo.oo
0
35
0.00
45,ooo.oo
1500
50
75,Ooo.oO
0
35
0.00
75,ooo.Oo
1500
50
75,ooo.oo
0
35
0.00
75,ooo.oo
50
0.00
35
0.00
0.00
0
50
0.00
35
0.00
0.00
2880
50
144,ooo.oo
35
0.00
144,oOO.oo
900
50
45,Ooo.oO
35
0.00
45,ooo.OO
0
50
0.00
35
0.00
0.00
68,3%X92
9600
50
480,OOO.OO
35
0.00
480,OOO.OO

---

33
MARGINAL COSTS OF STARLING, DRY SEASON 1996
Total
Total cost
price
Total
Number of
cost of
animal
per
cost of
anti-parasite
per
anti-parasite
medical
Number of
vaccine
vaccines
treatments
treatment
treatments
care
vaccines
(CFAhaccine)
(CFA)
(CFM >
PA)
(-4
15
30
450.00
12
375
4,500.oo
4,950.oo
35
30
1,050.00
na
na
8,400.OO
9,450.oo
35
30
1,050.00
20
375
7,500.oo
8,550.OO
40
30
1,200.00
26
375
9,750.oo
10,950.00
45
30
1,350.oo
15
375
5,625.OO
6,975.OO
40
30
1,200.oo
24
375
9,ooo.oo
10,200.00
65
30
1,950.oo
na
na
15,500.00
17,450.oo
20
30
600.00
7
375
2,625.OO
3,225.OO
20
30
600.00
6
333
2,ooo.oo
2,600.OO
35
30
1,050.00
20
375
7,500.oo
8,550.OO
8
30
240.00
3
375
1,125.OO
1,365.OO
15
30
450.00
6
375
2,250.OO
2,700.OO
25
30
750.00
10
375
3,750.oo
4,500.oo
20
30
600.00
na
na
5,150.oo
5,750.oo
100
30
3,ooo.oo
40
375
15,ooo.oo
18,OOO.OO
3
varies
1,230.OO
0
0.00
1,230.OO
3
varies
1,830.OO
15
500
7,500.oo
9,330.oo
3
varies
1,980.OO
18
500
9,ooo.oo
10,980.OO
3
varies
3,300.oo
40
500
20,000.00
23,300.OO
8,423.95
160
IO0
16,OOO.OO
80
375
30,000.00
46,OOO.OO
* na=notavailable

---

34
MARGINAL COSTS OF’ STABLMG, DRY SEASON 1996
Wages
Time spent
paid to
oppofhrnity Time spent
collecting
Total value of
hired
COStOf
reconstructing
Value of
straw and/or
Value of
time spent
laborers
men’s labor
the stable
time
food stocks
time
on stabling
PA)
(CFAhour)
(hours)
PA)
(hours)
WA)
PA)
0.00
168.65
8
1,349.20
16
2,698.40
4,047.60
30,400.00
168.65
10
1,686.50
15
2,529.75
4,216.25
65,000.00
168.65
na
na
na
na
na
13,200.OO
168.65
15
2,529.75
24
4,047.60
6,577.35
16,500.OO
168.65
8
1,349.20
na
na
na
32,250.OO
168.65
10
1,686.50
4
674.60
2,361.lO
48,750.OO
168.65
15
2,529.75
10
1,686.50
4,216.25
7,500.oo
141.12
7
987.84
12
1,693.44
2,681.28
11,000.00
141.12
0
0.00
2
1
2,963.52
2,963.52
34,600.OO
141.12
10
1,411.20
0
0.00
1,411.20
0.00
145.83
10
1,458.30
na
na
na
0.00
145.83
5
729.15
19
2,770.77
3,499.92
0.00
145.83
4
583.32
21
3,062.43
3645.75
0.00
145.83
9
1,3 12.47
36
5,249.88
6,562.35
0.00
145.83
20
2,916.60
16
2,333.28
5,249.88
0.00
135.29
24
3,246.96
90
12,176.lO
15,423.06
0.00
135.29
15
2,029.35
62
8,387.98
10,417.33
0.00
135.29
12
1,623.48
na
na
na
0.00
135.29
24
3,246.96
25
3,382.25
6,629.21
13,642.ll
1,704.25
3577.10
5pU.35
60,OOO.OO
135.29
0
0.00
140
18,940.60
18,940.60

---

35
MARGJNAL COSTS OF STABLING, DRY SEASON 1996
TOti
Costs
Costs
of
per
Stabling
Stabled Animal
PA)
(CFAhimal)
35,997.60
11,999.20
138,866.25
19,838.04
161,550.OO
23,078.57
118,689.85
13,187.76
102,324.20
11,369.36
150,811.lO
16,756.79
267,916.25
20,608.94
44,006.28
14,668.76
106,563.52
21,312.70
137,561.20
19,651.60
53,823.30
26,911.65
51,199.92
17,066&I
83,645.75
16,729.15
87,3 12.35
17,462.47
25,249.88
1,262.49
16,653.06
4J63.27
166,247.33
27,707.89
60,603.48
lOJOO.58
29,929.21
2,992.92
97,629.64
13Q47.09
614,940.60
15,373.52

---

36
NET BENEFITS OF STABLING, DRY SEASON 1996
Total
Benefits
Number
of
Farmer’s
stabled
Stabling
name
Village
PA)
selikouKamie
Bantancountou Maounde
3
121,463.31
IbrahimaKande
Bautancountou Maounde
7
412,439.94
Mamadou FaLl Diao
Bantancountou Maounde
7
390,536.04
Mamadou Balde
Bantancountou Maounde
9
527,611.04
Saloum WBaUo
Bantancountou Maounde
9
459,900.oo
Alassane KandeJAbdoulaye Balde
Bantancountou Maounde
9
457,736.04
BalbaGuBalde
Bantancountou Maounde
13
524,636.04
Thierno Kande
N’Dangane
3
195,675.OO
Samba Diao
N’Dangane
5
247,375.OO
o?ImarKande
NDangane
7
479,625.66
sory Kande
Sare Samboudiang
2
88,674.03
Moussa Sabaiy
Sare Samboudiang
3
70,800.00
Kcnka Balde
Sare Samboudiang
5
214,250.OO
Akayni Balde
Sare Samboudiang
5
282,739.94
Seidou Diamanka
Sare Samboudiang
20
676,370.14
SeidouDiao
Dialambere
4
101,405.00
Abdoulaye Balde
Dialaxlbere
6
225J62.11
D&me Balde
Dialambere
6
180,857.50
Abdoulaye Koita
Dialambere
10
559,035.oo
AVERAGE
7
329,979.45
GlE Medina Koundje
Medina Koundje
40
1,314,805.75

---

37
NET BENEFITS OF STABLING, DRY SEASON 1996
Total
Total
costs
Net Benefits
Benefits
costs
Net Benefits
of
o f
per
per
per
il
Stabling
Stabling
Stabled Animal
Stabled Animal
stabied Animal
VA)
(CFN
(CFAhimal)
(CFAhnimal)
(CFAhnimal)
35,997.60
85,465.71
40,487.77
11,999.20
28,488.57
138,866.25
273,573.69
58,919.99
19,838.04
39,081.96
161,550.OO
228,986.W
55,790.86
23,078.57
32,712.29
118,689.85
408,921.19
58,623.45
13,187.76
45,435.69
102,324.20
357,575.80
51,100.00
11,369.36
39,730.64
150,811.10
306,924.%
50,X59.56
16,756.79
34,102.77
-
267,916.25
256,719.79
40,356.62
20,608.94
19,747.68
44,006.28
151,668.72
65,225.OO
14,668.76
50,556.24
106,563.52
140,811.48
49,475.oo
21,312.70
28,162.30
137,561.20
342,064.46
68,517.95
19,651.60
48,866.35
53,823.30
34,850.73
44,337.Ol
26,911.65
17,425.36
51,199.92
19,600.08
23,600.OO
17,066.64
6,533.36
83,645.75
130,604.25
42,850.OO
16,729.15
26,120.85
87,3 12.35
195,427.59
56,547.99
17,462.47
39,085.52
25,249.88
651J20.26
33,818.5 1
1,262.49
32,556.Ol
16,653.06
84,751.94
25,351.25
4,163.27
21,187.99
rl
166,247.33
58,914.78
37,527.02
27,707.89
9,819.13
60,603.48
120254.02
3OJ42.92
10,100.58
2OJI42.34
29y29.21
529,105.79
55,903.50
2,992x2
52,910.58
97,629.64
232,349.81
47,139.92
13,947.09
33,192.83
I*
614,940.60
699,865.15
32,870.14
15,373.52
17,496.63

---

Recherches Agricoles
Projet de Recherche Agricole Bask
sur la Gestion des Ressources Nature&s
(NRBW
THi3 SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT
OF STABLING
IN THE REGION OF KOLDA
f the Profitability of Stabling in the Region of Kolda, 1996
II 3 The Adoption & Adaptation of Stabling by Farmers in the Region of Kolda, 1994/1996
(DOCUMENT 3)
By :
Monica Fisher, NRBAR Project
Papa Nouhine Dieye, ISRA/Kolda
Adama Faye, ISIWDakar
August 1996
In collaboration wtb
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
and
The Consortnun for International Development (CID)

---

A. INTRODUCTION:
In the past decade, soil degradation, decreased availability of land, and a disengagement
of the state (which has meant the end of subsidies and credit for agricultural inputs) have
made it increasingly diflicult for farmers in Senegal to provide for the subsistence needs of
their families. Indeed, between 1979- 1992 the annual growth rate of food production per
capita in Senegal was -.2% (World Development Report, 1994). In order to help farmers
increase their productivity, and in line with the Government of Senegal’s (GCS) national
objective of food sekufEciency, the Institut Senegalais de Recherches Agricoles (ISRA)
is promoting research to identify, develop and d.ifGse low-cost, natural resource-based
technologies or practices which address the specific needs and situations of Senegalese
fkmers.
Since the late 198Os, ISRAKolda has been involved in research and extension of
stabling technologies in the Upper Casamance, where the majority of the rural population
is engaged in agro-pastoral activities. Stabhng is a technological package which is
practiced during the dry season and consists of the stable, a food supplement, an animal
health care program and a new method of producing manure.
Technical research on the part of ISRAKolda has found that stabling has the potential
to provide hum households with substantial beneG.ts: increased milk production, increased
calving, decreased death rate of livestock, heavier livestock, stronger draft animals, and an
increased quantity and improved quality of manure (Fall and Faye, 1989; Fall and Faye,
1992; ISRAKolda, 1993; Faye, Dieye and Seye, 1995; Dieye, Diatta, Faye, Diallo and
Babene, 1996). In addition, an economic analysis which used prima+ farm-level data
(collected in 6 villages in the Kolda Region), found that stabling is a profitable practice
(Fisher, 1995).
Although there is evidence that stabling provides economic benetits, this does not
necessarily imply that widespread adoption will occur. Likewise, it is not known ifthe
farmers who adopt stabling are able to, or will be able to, practice in the manner that is

---

2
recommended by research/extension agents. Investigation of the factors which infIuence
the adoption and effective use of stabling is critical to an understanding of its feasibility
-
and appropriateness to the particular circumstances of farmers in the Kolda Region.
This study seeks to answer two important questions:
1) What are the main factors related to a farmer’s decision to adopt or reject
stabling?
2) How are farmers actually practicing stabling, and what are the factors/reasons
which have led them to either adopt, adapt, or reject the recommendations of
extension agents?
The investigation of these questions will provide information about the particular
incentives and/or constraints to adoption and the effective use of stabling. Such
information can assist ISRALKolda, Veterinaires Sans Frontieres (VSF), and Sodefitex to
more effectively plan future extension and development campaigns. Results of the study
L
may point to the need for appropriate government policies, modifications of the
technology, or adjustments of the research/extension programs, so that access to the
practice is not only increased, but also more equitable.
B. THE DATA:
This report uses data collected on two different occasions. Data for the analysis of the
factors related to adoption, was collected over the months of January to March of 1995.
Data for the study of how farmers practice stabhng, and why they have chosen to practice
in such manner, was collected July of 1996.
Fieldwork January to March of 1995:
The data collected in 1995 concern 6 villages in the Region of Kolda and a total of 60
households.’ The 6 villages may be cateogorized into 3 different axes based on geographic
location:
’ Households here are defined as a production and consumption tit. In some cases this was a nuclear family, in
other cases an extended family.

---

l West Zone (Dialoukolon):
Bantancountou Maounde
N’Dangane
Sare Samboudiang
l
East Zone (Dabo):
Dialambere
Medina Koundje
l Northeast Zone (Velingara): Mankacounda
The villages were selected by ISRA researchers based on the following criteria:
existence of relatively abundant numbers of households which practice stabling, and
representativeness of the diverse reasons that households stable their livestock.
In 4 villages (the villages in Dialoukolon and Velingara), households practice stabling
primari& so that they can increase milk production for commercializ.ation and home-
consumption. These villages are near urban centers and are part of per-i-urban milk
production programs either with ISRA or Sodefitex In the village of Dialambere
-
households practice stabling for the purpose of producing manure that can be used in their
village’s biogas plant, and as fertilizer for horticulture gardens.2 In Medina Koundje
households are primar4y interested in fanening their livestock so that they may be sold for
more money.
Household selection was done in the following manner. First enumerators conducted a
census of all households in the 6 villages. From this census the sampling tiame was
derived which is defined as all households that posess livestock. The 6 villages were then
grouped into 3 axes, according to geographic location. In each axis 20 households, 10
which stable and 10 which do not stable, were selected by a stratified random sample.3
I
Techniques used to collect data for the analyses included: household interviews,
interviews with village chief%, interviews with women market gardeners, measurement of
local production units, and interviews with Kolda butchers.
’ ?he biogas plant broke down at the end of 1994.
3 This was the general sampling method In addition 6 households were selected non-randomly because they were
e&r the household of village chiefs or that of influential villagers.

---

The main source of data were the household interviews. At each household the
il
husband and first wife were interviewed by trained enumerators with use of a
questionnaire with questions related to agricultural production, livestock production,
1111
stabling, and general household characteristics.
Fieldwork July 1996:
The data collected during July of 1996 concern 5 of the 6 villages which were the sites
of research in 1995. Lack of time prevented us from visiting the village of Mankacounda
which is distant from the other 5 villages.
I
Because this study had the objective of detex-mining how farmers are actually practicing
stabling, only farmers who stable their animals were interviewed. As there are only 20
stables among the 5 villages, we chose to interview the owner(s) of each stable.
The lead author and an experienced enumerator visited each household on two
occasions. The 5rst interview entailed a visit to the stable (to measure its dimensions, take
photographs, and get an idea of the variation in stable layouts), and a short interview
intended to determine iffarmers are following the recommendations of ISRAKolda and
I
SodeIitex. The following week we made a second visit to the same farmers for a more
extended interview (20-30 rttins.) which had two objectives: identification of the reasons
why farmers have adapted stabling in their particular manner, and collection of the data
necessary for a partial budget analysis.
In addition, a third questionnaire was used to interview four key informants (2 village
-
chiefs and 2 other farmers) for more detailed information concerning constraints to
adoption of the research recommendations.
C. THE ADOPTION OF STABLING:
The Model:
In order to determine the main factors related to the adoption of stabling, an empirical
model of the decision to adopt stabling was developed. We model the decision to adopt
stabling as a dichotomous choice made by the head of the household, the household head

---

5
decides either to adopt or reject the practice of stabhng. Because the dependent variable
is dichotomous, it is necessary to use a non-linear statistical model. The model used here
is the logit model which has a logistic, cumulative distribution functional form. Logit
models are frequently used to model adoption of new technologies.
Based on economic theory, a review of the technology adoption literature, and
fieldwork investigation, the empirical model was specified as follows:
zi= pin f p;1EXTINFO+ p,GIEHD + p,EDUCHD + P,AGEHD
+ P,,FARMSZ + pi,HERDSZ f p,LOG~CHD + Pi,CREDIT
-
+ BigACTPOP + Pi,oAGEWF + pi,,B+JCwF+ si
where,
i = farmer l-60
Zi = the log odds of adoption of stabling
EXTlNFO = dummy variable for exposure to information by extension agents
GIEHD = dummy variable for membership in a Groupement d’Interet Economique (GIE)
EDUCHD = number of years of formal education attended by the household head
AGEHD = categorical variable for the age of the household head (1=15-25; 2=26-35;
3=36-45; 4=46 years and older)
FARMSZ = total area of crop land (hectare)
HERDSZ = total number of animals in the household’s herd
LOGINCHD = natural log of the household head’s income (combined on-farm and off-
CREDIT = dummy variable representing the household head’s access to credit
ACTPOP = number of household members over the age of eight years
AGEWF = categorical variable for the age of the first wife (identical categories as
AGEHD)
LNCWF = dummy variable for whether or not wife earned personal income
Descriution of the Dependent and Independent Variables:
In the logit model, the dependent variable is the log odds of adoption, a probability
measure which lies between 0 and 1. The higher the value of the estimated Zi, the more
likely it is that a farm household will adopt stabling.
EXTINFO and GIEHD serve as measures of the household head’s awareness of
stabling as well as his perception of the relative advantage of the practice. Each of these
variables is expected to be positively related to the probability (log odds) of adoption.

---

6
-
For adoption to be possiile, a fanner needs to be made aware of the existence of stabling
and how it is practiced. Farmers who have access to extension services and/or are
members of a GIE, are more likely to obtain such information. Just as important is the
fact that through contact with extension agents or GIE members, a farmer has the
opportunity to find out about the production advantages of stabling and thus his interest in
adoption is increased.
EDUCHD and AGEHD measure personal characteristics of the household head that
are considered to in&ence his/her receptiveness to change, i.e. adoption of stabling. It is
hypothesized that EDUCHD is positively related to adoption, because farmers with more
-
education may find it easier to receive and process information about stabling. AGEHD is
hypothesized to be negatively related to adoption of stabling, because younger farmers
may be more innovative and willing to try out new farming techniques than older farmers.
FARMS2 is expected to have a positive relationship to the probability of adoption.
-
Farmers who control small land holdings may be less able to adopt stabling because they
operate closer to the margins. Failure of an investment (e.g. stabling) could mean that the
family goes hungry. Thus small farmers may be more conservative or risk averse than
large farmers, out of necessity and therefore less likely to adopt a new technology. In
addition, FARMS2 may be positiveIy related to adoption since it would be expected that
larger farms would have greater quantities of harvest residues available to feed stabled
I
animals.
HERDS2 is expected to be positively related to adoption of stabling for two reasons.
First, ownership of animals (or at least access to animals) is a pre-requisite to adoption.
-
Indeed, 17% of household heads cited the lack of animals as a major constraint to
adoption. Second, farmers with large and small herds may need to exert about the same
amount of effort to acquire and process information about stabling, learn how to use it,
and practice stabling (build stable, perform daily stable tasks, etc.). Thus, the return per
animal may be worth the effort for farmers with a large herd, but not for those with only a
few animals.
LOGINCHD and CREDIT are expected to be positively related to adoption of
stabling. Capital, either in the form of savings or access to credit, is necessary to pay for

---

7
the monetary costs associated with stabling (building materials, wages for hired labor,
I
cotton seed cake, and animal medical services). Thus, it is expected that differential
I
access to cash and/or credit is one explanation for why some farmers adopt stabling, while
others do not.
ACTPOP, AGEWF and INCWF all serve as measures of the household head’s access
to household labor. ACTPOP is a measure of overah labor supply. It is hypothesized that
I
ACTPOP is positively related to stabhng. The practice of stabling requires substantial
labor inputs to build the stable, perform the daily stable tasks (cleaning stable, watering
and feeding animals), and milk cows, transform milk and sell milk. Indeed, lack of labor
was identified as a constraint to adoption by 16% and 20% of the interviewed men and
women respectively. It is not just supply of labor that is expected to pose a constraint to
adoption, but also the household head’s ability to mobilize labor, specifically the labor of
wives. Although some stabling tasks performed by women can also be performed by men
(e.g. milking cows, selling milk), there are certain stable tasks that are performed only by
women according to the cultural norms: bringing water to the stable (for animals and to
(I)
mix with manure) and transformation of milk. It is expected that in households in which
the wife is aged, or has access to off-t&m employment, the household head will have more
difkulties mobihzing the labor of his tie. Thus AGEWF and INCWF are expected to be
negatively related to the adoption of stabling.
Results:
The empirical model was estimated with Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) in
SAS, a statistical package. The data for the dependent variable and each of the 11
independent variables are available from the household questionnaires and represent the
answers of 56 household heads (male except for the two female-headed households in the
survey) and 53 ties. Results are presented in Table 1 on the next page.

---

8
Table 1: Results of the Adoption Model
Variable
Parameter
Standard Pr>
Estimate
Error
Chi-Square
INTERCEPT
-3.8293
3.7063
0.3015
-0.957 1
EXTINFO
16.0107
6.4087
0.0 125
4.0019
GIEHD
1.9351
1.5939
0.2247
0.4837
EDUCHD
-0.4132
0.6553
0.5283
-0.1033
AGEHD
0.2570
0.8601
0.765 1
0.0642
FARMSZ
-0.4687
0.3494
0.1798
-0.1172
HERDSZ
0.1053
0.0458
0.0215
0.0263
LOGINCHD
-1.0601
0.5083
0.0370
-0.2650
CREDIT
0.1256
1.6136
0.9380
0.03 14
ACTPOP
0.8475
0.4035
0.0357
0.2118
AGEWF
-2.1163
1.005 1
0.0352
-0.5290
INCWF
5.1036
2.8791
0.0763
1.2756
Criterion:
Predicted Probabilities:
-2 LogL = 57.029 with 11 DF (p =O.OOOl)
Concordant = 97.5%
Pseudo R” = -487
Discordant = 2.5%
. ..!!.7...56 ___._.____.. ___._ . . . . ..__.._._._._................~....................................

_ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
!ki!..~..O:.~~? . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.._.........................................--......
Three goodness-of-fit measures are reported at the bottom of Table 1: -2LogL, Pseudo
R2, and the Concordant/Discordant Predicted Probabilities. These indicate that overall the
model appears to be a good fit with the data.J
‘The likelihood ratio statistic (-XogL,) can be used to test the joint hypothesis that all the coefficients (except the
intercept) are equal to zero. The p -value of .OOOl indicates that at least one or all of the coeI5cient.s are non-zero.
The R2 = .487 implies that 48.7% oftbe variation in the log odds of adoption is expIained by the explanatory
variables included in the model. Another possible goodness-of-fit measure is provided by the percentage of conwt
predictions (Concordant). The closer this value is to 100, the better is the prediction. Thus the Concordant value of
97.5?6 implies that the model is a good predictor of the variation in the dependent variable.

---

9
The second column of Table 1 provides the parameter estimate for each coeflicient.
1111
The sign of the parameter estimate indicates the direction of the relationship between the
explanatory variable and the probability of adoption, Pi . However, the parameter
estimate does not provide an estimate of the magnitude of the change in Pi due to a unit
change in the explanatory variable. To obtain this, one must take the partial derivative of
8 with respect to the explanatory variable. This is reported in cohmm 5.
Intemretation of the Significant Variables:
At the a =.05 level, the model explains the determinants of adoption in terms of five
-
variables: EXTINFO, HERDSZ, ACTPOP, LOGINCHD and AGEWF.
EXTlNFO appears to be a pre-requisite to stabling since farmers who obtain extension
information are 400% more likely to adopt stabling compared with those who did not
-
receive extension information. There are several possiile reasons for why extension
information has such a strong impact on the probability of adoption. Extension agents
typically target certain farmers whom they consider to be more innovative and capable. It
is these fkmers that they provide information to and it is quite probable that these farmers
would adopt stabling even in the absence of extension information (for example ifthey
heard about stabhng from other hers). A second reason is that extension information
can help to increase a farmer’s perception of the benefits from stabling.
-
HERDSZ and ACTPOP both have the hypothesized signs. Results imply that animal
and labor resources are important ktors in adoption behavior. The interpretation of the
HERDSZ coefficient is that for the representative household (household with mean vales
for all the explanatory variables) adding another animal to the herd increases the
II
probability of adoption by 2.63%. The coefficient of ACTPOP implies that an additional
active household member increases the probability of adoption by 2 1%. It appears that of
111
the two resources, labor is more critical.
LOGINCHD has a negative sign, which is counter to the hypothesized relationship.
Y
Indeed, a one unit increase in the log of the husband’s income is associated with a 26.5%
decrease in the probability of adoption. Perhaps what is going on is that farmers who have
higher income Ievels do not need to practice stabhng to meet subsistence needs and

---

10
instead opt for leisure or some other activity during the dry season.
Or, perhaps they
believe that stabling does not provide adequate benefits for them to put out the effort.
Looked at from the opposite direction, perhaps f5rmers who have low incomes are more
apt to adopt stabling because they are living at the margins and need to undertake an
activity during the dry season that will help them to earn income.
AGEWF has the expected negative sign. A one category increase in the wife’s age is
associated with a 52.9% reduction in the probability of adoption. It is possiile that older
women have more power in the household and are therefore better able to refuse their
husband’s demands for increased labor, or it may be the case that older wives simply are
not physically able to meet the increased labor requirements.
D. THE ADAPTATION OF STABIJNG:
A Proto-Type of the Technology of Stabling:
ISRAKolda and Sodetiex have recommendations for each of the four components of
stabling: the stable, food snpplementation, animal health care and manure production.
Farmers who have been involved in the extension activities were informed of these
recommendations. The recommendations are as follows.
The Stable:
In general the stable is intended to provide an improved habitat for the animals. It is
recommended that the stable has a roof to protect the animals and the manure from the
sun, an enclosure for the stable litter and fodder, and a fosse of dimensions .5 meters in
depth, 2 to 2.5 meters in width, 1 meter in length for each stabled animal, and 2 meters in
height. Three different fosse types have been proposed by Sodefitex:
l
Simple manure stable (see figure 1) which has a fosse dug into the ground
l
Improved manure stable, Type I (see figure 2) which has a cemented fosse built
above the ground
~
l
Improved manure stable, Type II (see figure 3) which has a cemented fosse built
into the ground

---

11
Figure 1: Simple Manure Stable
Figure 2: Improved Manure Stable Type I

---

1 2
Figure 3: Improved Manure Stable Type II.
._
--
--
-.
-.-_
-
c-*-

1/“//1-
;A __ _.
--. : _ _* --.
Source: Faye. Dieye. &ye, 1995

---

1 3
ISRNKolda and Sodefitex recommend January to June as the duration of the stabling
period. Between January and April they recommend a semi-permanent stabling in which
animals remain in stables in the evening, but go to pasture during the day. From April
until June they recommend a permanent stabling in which animals stay in the stable all day
and night.
The Food Suuplement:
A food supplement is necessary to ensure that animals receive adequate amounts of
food during the dry season. ISRAKolda and VSF recommend that the following be fed
to stabled animals:
l
For milk cows:
l
4 kg/cow/day of fsne d’arachide, 4
l
either 2 kg/cow/day of cotton seed cake, 3 1.5 kg/cow/day of tortou de
sesamemixedwithsondemilorsondemais
l
For bulls and steers:
5 4 kg/cow/day of fane d’arachide, &
l
either 1 kg/cow/day of cotton seed cake, a .5 kg/cow/day of tortou de
sesamemixedwithsondemilorsondemais
Animal Medical Care:
In order to protect animals from the major diseases in the region, four vaccines are
recommended by ISRAKolda:
l
Pasteurillose administered twice per year (January and July)
l
Charbon Bacteridien once per year (January)
o
Charbon Symptomatique once per year (January)
l
La Peste et la Perigneumonie Contagieuse Bovine (PPCB) once per year
(January)

---

14
In addition to the vaccines, ISRAKolda recommends anti-parasite pills in the dosage of
one pill for each 100 kg of body weight given to the animal three times per year: at the end
of the saision seche, at the begikg of the hivemage, and at the end of the hivemage.
Manure Production:
To produce a manure of high quality which can help maintain the fertility and structure
of soils, ISRAKolda and Sodefitex recommend:
l
A fosse, preferably cemented, to allow a proper fermentation of the manure and to
prevent sand Corn mixing with stable litter
l
Each 15 days for the duration of the stabling period, straw and water (to
humidi@) should be added to the stable litter
StabIing as Practiced by Agro-PastoraIists in the KoIda Region:
Once a f%rmer has made the decision to adopt stabling, he is faced with several other
decisions in&ding: what type of stable to build, the type and quantity of food supplement
to g&e his animals, which vaccines and medication animals will receive, how to produce
the stable manure, how many animals and what type (milk cows, bulls) to stable, etc..
Fieldwork in the 5 study villages identified that there is wide variation in how fhrmers
are practicing stabling, and that only in limited cases have tiers adopted stabling exactly
as prescribed by ISRA/Kolda and Sodefitex. There are many potential explanations for
the variations. It may be that some farmers are experimenting with the level of use of
different components. Likewise, farmers may not have enough money or labor resources
to follow the guidelines of extension agents. We take the position that when farmers
reject or adapt the recommendations of extension agents, that there exist valid reasons
such as lack of information, lack of incentives, or the presence of constraints. Below we
describe the various adaptations of the practice of stabling and provide farmers’
explanations for why they practice stabling in their particular manner.

---

1 5
The Stable:
The “representative” stable has the following characteristics: a hay roof (12 stables
have a roof 8 are built under a tree for cover), no fosse (13 stables have no fosse, 5 have
a non-cemented fosse and 2 have a cemented fosse), meets the size requirement for width,
but does not meet the requirement for length, nor for height.
Despite the fact that most stables do not have a fosse, each respondent except for one
-
articulated the importance of having a fosse in order to produce a high quality manure, to
protect the food supplement, and also because animals seem to be more comfortable in a
stable with a fosse. Thus, the reason farmers do not dig a fosse is not a lack of
information. Instead farmers provided the following reasons: lack of time to dig a fosse,
II
and lack of money to construct a cemented fosse
The majority of respondents stated that there exists a seasonal time-constraint for
digging the fosse. Although digging a fosse only requires l-2 days of labor, farmers
usually dig the fosse in December and January, after the rains, but before the soil hardens.
Unfortrmately, in December and January farmers are completely occupied with the harvest
of their crops. Add to this the fact that school is in session during these months. Thus,
while the entire Eunily helped with the cultivation of crops at the start of the agricuhural
season, only the adults are available to harvest the crops.
A large number of farmers stated that they would like to have a cemented fosse, but
lack the money to purchase the cement. Two respondents mentioned that a fosse makes
sense only ifit is cemented because in the case of a non-cemented fosse, water goes
directly to the soil and therefore does not humidify the manure, and erosion leads to a
mixing of sand with the manure. In addition, many farmers stated they will only construct
a cemented stable, because they don’t want to have to redig the fosse each year.
Most i%rmers are following the recommendations for the duration of the stabhng
period, starting in either January or February and continuing until June or July. However,
only in the village of Dialambere do animals remain in the stable during the day.
Most
fumers told us that it is not feasible to practice a permanent stabling. First of ah, it would
require too much time to bring water to the stables, since the wells are a good distance
Corn the stable. Second, it would be diflicult to collect enough food stocks to provide all

---

1 6
of the food supplement for animals for 2 months. Finally, farmers stated that animals need
exercise (going to pasture) in order to remain healthy.
-
The Food Suuulement:
There exists a fair amount ofvariation in the type of food and the quantity given to
animals. In general all stabled animals received fane d’arachide as part of their food
supplement (18 out of 20 cases), but the quantity varied substantially, from about 2-3
kg/cow/day in the three villages of Dialoukolon (below the recommended amount), to 6-
15 kg/cow/day in the two villages in Dabo. In the villages of Dabo farmers must give their
animals larger quantities of fane d’arachide because the pasture land is less abundant
-
(compared to Dialoukolon), and in several cases animals remain in the stable for most or
all of the day during the stabling period. Other common types of food supplement include
tigesderiz,maisandmiL
The main problems encountered in collection of food stocks is that it is laborious,
requiring an average of 33 hours for an individual stable. And since collection takes place
in January and February again there is a time conflict with the harvest of crops and a lack
of child labor. Several farmers stated that the amount of time spent on collection would
not be a problem if they had access to farm equipment (charettes and wheelbarrows).
In all but 2 cases, stabled animals receive a supplement of cotton seed cake in the
quantity of about 2 kg/cow/day as recommended. Farmers in’Dialoukolon have the
advantage of a credit program with VSF whereby they can obtain cotton seed cake on
credit at the start of the stabling period and repay the loan when they commercialize milk.
Farmers in Medina Koundje pay a lower price for cotton seed cake (35 CFAfkg) because
they cultivate cotton. It is not surprising that the two farmers who do not give their
animals cotton seed cake are both in the village of Dialambere where there is no cotton
seed cake credit program and no discount price. These farmers informed us that they used
to feed their animals cotton seed cake when there existed a credit program with
ISRAKoMa, but without access to credit, paying 50 CFA/kg is economically infeasible.
In the villages of Diaolokon, 9 farmers began substituting tortou de sesame for cotton
seed cake this year. Those who experimented with tortou de sesame said they prefer it to
cotton seed cake because their cows produce more milk and it is less expensive

---

1 7
(35 CFA/kg). In addition, there is the potential for farmers to produce tortou de sesame
themselves, whereas cotton seed cake must be purchased &om Sodelitex. 0nly two
farmers had complaints about tortou de sesame: one stated that he does not like the taste
of the milk and it is not suited for making lait caille. Another stated that mixing the tortou
de sesame with tiges de mais takes a lot of time.
Animal Medical Care:
Farmers in the study are following quite closely the recommendations of research for
vaccines and anti-parasite medication. The only discrepancy appears to be with the
second Pasteurillose vaccine. There are two main reasons why in 9 out of 20 cases
animals will receive only the fist vaccine: lack of information, and lack of money.
Lack of information is the main reason as a majority of respondents stated that they had
not been informed by ISRAKolda nor VSF of the need for a second vaccination in July.
Other Embers stated that they have been informed about the second vaccination, but they
don’t believe it is necessary as they claim this bacteria is not a problem during the
hivernage. In fact the hivernage is the time when this bacteria threatens the health of
animals. Thus, in this case a gap exists between knowledge of researchers and that which
has been received by farmers.
Another commonly cited reason for not having animals immunized a second time is a
lack of money in J*. Several farmers stated that ifthey had been required to pay for the
vaccine in January there would have been no problem, but in July money is tight and they
prefer to spend any excess money on food.
Manure Production:
This component of stabling appears to pose the most problems for farmers. We asked
farmers to explain to us how one goes about producing a manure of high quality.
All
except two of the farmers explained to us that it is necessary that the stable have a fosse,
some sort of cover, and that straw and water be added re,gularly.
Several farmers
expanded on these answers stating that the roof is necessary to protect the manure horn
the sun, the fosse is needed to protect manure from the sand, and that water is necessary
to humidify the manure. Only a few farmers showed a lack of knowledge - those who
stated that it was not necessary to add water ifthe stable is in the shade.

---

1 8
However, despite their knowledge about how to produce a high quality manure, few of
the farmers are producing manure in this manner. Only 7 out of the 20 stables have a
fosse, 11 out of 20 farmers never added water to the stable litter, and 7 out of 20 farmers
did not add straw to the stable litter.
There appear to be 3 factors that are preventing farmers from producing a high quality
manure: lack of time, lack of equipment, and lack of incentive. As discussed previously
farmers say they lack the time to dig a fosse. There also exists a lack of farm equipment
(charettes and wheelbarrows) to transfer the manure from the stable to the fields. In fact
several farmers in the SuNey had not yet transported the stable manure to crop fields when
1
we interviewed them in July.
The underlying reason that farmers are not producing a high quality manure is likely to
be lack of incentive. First of all, production of stable manure is an ongoing process during
the dry season, but the result of this effort is not realized until the harvest of the crops to
which the manure was applied. A second incentive issue is that many of the interviewed
fanners do not appear convinced that stable manure can result in increased crop
production. Finally, it may be that farmers anticipate difliculties transporting manure to
fields (lack of equipment) and therefore feel it is not in their best interests to expend the
I
effort required to produoe a high quality manure. After all they may not even be able to
use the manure, ifthey can’t transport it in time.
-
E. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
The analyses performed in this report determined the following:
o
There are several factors related to adoption of stabling:
0
access to extension information
l
household population
l herd size
l
income of the household head
0
age of the first wife

---

1 9
l
Several factors lead farmers to practice stabling in a less effective manner:
l
seasonal time constraint
0 money constraint
l
lack of information
l
lack of equipment
l
lack of incentive to produce high quality manure
In order to make stabling accessible to a wider population the following are
recommended:
l
Wider access to information about stabling: Results Corn the adoption study found
that extension information is strongly related to adoption of stabling. Indeed, it is
primarily farmers in villages in which ISRMKolda and Sodefitex intervene that
practice stabling. There is also considerable evidence that stabling provides net
economic benefits to farmers. In order to prevent regional effects in which some
villages benefit Corn the introduction of stabling while others are le.& behind,
information must be diflused. To reach a wide population, it may be necessary to
draw upon the help of farmers. For example, a few farmers (men a& women) could
be selected Corn individual villages and trained as necessary so that they can take on
the role of providing information about stabling to others in their village. Another way
more farmers could be reached is through the creation and distribution of “stabling
booklets”. These booklets would provide step-by-step instructions (with photos and
illustrations, and text written in the local ethnic language) on how to practice stabling
and the expected results (e.g. quantity milk production, crop yields with stable manure,
etc.).
l
Increased access to formal credit services: As discussed previously, there exists a
credit program with VSF whereby farmers in several villages are able to obtain cotton
seed cake on credit and repay the loan after commercializing milk. But it is not just
the cost of cotton seed cake that keeps farmers from adopting. Similar credit
programs which provide farmers with money to buy cement, animals, charettes, or hire
laborers will be necessary ifwidespread adoption is to occur. Without access to
credit, households with low levels of income, small active populations, small herd size,
and female heads will face severe constraints to adoption.

---

2 0
*
Inchxsion of women fGrmers: Although the adoption study did not include gender as
an independent variable, it is a major factor related to adoption. There are currently
no women farmers who practice stabling, despite the fact that in conversations with
women farmers, many expressed an interest in practicing stabling as a GIE activity.
The main constraints to adoption for women are: lack of information (not included in
extension activities), time constraints, and cultural constraints (women are not
supposed to perform some of the activities required for stabling). Stabling should be
made accessible to women for two reasons. First, there is substantial evidence that
women are more likely than men to use increased production and income for the needs
of all household members (for a review of this literature see Agarwal, 1985 and
Bhunberg, 199 1). Second, about 4% of the households in the Kolda Region are
headed by women and the number of temporary female-headed households is likely
much higher.
To enable adopters to practice stabling more effectively, increased and continued
support from extension and research agents will be necessary. Some suggestions are as
follows:
o Increased and more effective communication between extension agents and farmers:
l
Extension staff and farmers should meet periodically to discuss constraints to
effective use of stabling, and identify potential strategies to overcoming them
Extension agents may be able to provide ideas which the fkrmers have not yet
considered, For example, a potential strategy for overcoming the seasonal
constraints (food collection and digging fosse), is for a farmer to pay someone to
perform these tasks (assuming he has the cash). Alternatively, several farmers
could pool their money to buy a charette and then alternate usage for collection of
food stocks.
l
Extension agents need to be sure that farmers not only receive information, but
that they also understand the information received. For example, the importance
of the second Pasteurillose vaccine has not been effectively commum‘cated to
farmers. Many farmers are not aware that there exists a second vaccine in July,

---

21
others do not know that the hivernage is the main period when this bacteria
threatens the lives of livestock.
I
0
Continuation of farm4evel research: This allows farmers to see for themselves the
benefits of stabling. One suggestion is that ISRAKolda continue their farm-level trials
II
comparing manure from stables with parcage manure. They should add to this, a
comparison between manure produced according to the recommendations of
ISRAKolda, and manure produced in a stable without a fosse and without the
addition of water and straw. Farmers should be involved in these trials as much as
-
possible so that they see for themselves that stable manure can result in increased
cereals production, and that it is worth the effort to follow the recommendations of
-
research.

---

22
BIBLIOGRAI’EIY
I
I
Adesina, A and Moses Zinnah. 1993. Technology Characteristics, Farmers’ Perceptions
and Adoption Decisions: A Tobit Model Application in Sierra Leone. Agricultural
Economics 9: 297-3 Il.
Agarwal, Bina. 1985. Women and Technological Change in Agriculture: The Asian and
Afikan Experience. In Technology and Rural Women, ed. I. Ahmed, 67- 114.
London: George Allen & Unwin.
Aldrich, John I% and Forrest D. Nelson. 1984. Linear Probability, Logit, and Probit
Models. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, Inc..
Becker, Gary Stanley. 1981. A Treatise on the Family. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Blumberg, Rae Lesser. 1991. Income Under Female Versus Male Control: Hypotheses
l%om a Theory of Gender Strati&ation and Data from the Third World. In
Gender, FamiZy and Economy, ed. Rae Lesser Bhnnberg, 97-127. Newbury
Park SAGE Publications, Inc..
Centre de Recherches Zootechniques de Kolda. 1993. Rapport AnnueZ1993. Senegal:
Centre de Recherches Zootechniques de Kolda.
MO, Amindou N.. 1992. Evaluation des Etables Fumieres en Haute Casamance.
-
Senegal
Draw, Arona. 1994. Impact des Etables Fumieres akns la Misc en Place d’une Ceinture
Laitiere Peri-Urbaine. Unpublished thesis for Docteur Veterinaire. Dakar:
Universite Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar.
Ellis, Frank. 1993. Peasant Economics. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-
Fall, A and Faye A.. 1989. kpport de Suivi d ‘Etables Fumieres darzr le Departement de
KoZ&. Senegal: Centre de Recherches Zootechniques de Kolda.
I
Fall, Abdou and Adama Faye. Je 1992. Les Etables Fumieres en Zone d’EZevage
deBetail Trypanotolercmt au Sud & Senegal. Senegal: Centre de Recherches
Zootechniques de K&a.
Faye, Adama, Papa Nouhine Dieye, and Cheikh Saadiiou Seye. February 1995. Les
Etables Fumieres en Zone Cotonniere du Senegal: Queiles Strategies Pour Une
I
Adoption Massive. Senegal: Centre de Recherches Zootechniques de Kolda.
Fapohunda, Eleanor R. 1988. The Nonpooling Household: A Challenge to Theory. In A
Home Divided, eds. Daisy Dwyer and Judith Bruce, 143-154. California: Stanford
University Press.
Feder, Gershon, Richard E. Just, and David Zilberman. 1985. Adoption of Agricultural
-
Innovations in Developing Countries: A Survey. Economic Development and
Cultural Change 33:255-297.

---

23
Fisher, Monica G.. 1995. An Economic and Socio-Cultural Analysis of New Farm
II
Technology: 2Yhe Case of Stabling in Senegal. Unpublished Master’s Thesis.
Oregon State University.
Griffiths, WiIliam E., R Carter Hill and George G. Judge. 1993. Learning and Practicing
Econometrics. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc..
Grisley, W.. 1994. Farmer-to-Farmer Transfer of New Crop Varieties: An Empirical
Analysis on Small Farms in Uganda. Agricultural Economics 11: 43-49.
Jha, Dayanatha. 199 1. Input Use and Productivity. In Adopting Improved
FarmTechnology: A Shady of Smallholder Farmers in Eastern Province, Zambia,
eds. Celis Raf%el, J.T. Milimo, and Sudhir Wanrnali, 202-211. Washington D.C.:
International Food Policy Research Institute.
Jones, Christine. 1986. I&a-Household Bargaining in Response to the Introduction of
New Crops: A Case Study from North Cameroon. In Understanding Africa ‘s
Rural Houeholdr and Farming Systems, ed. Joyce Lewinger Moo&, 105- 123.
Boulder: Westview Press.
Kebede, Yohannes, Kisan Gunjal and Garth Co5. 1990. Adoption of New Technologies
in Ethiopian Agriculture: The Case of Tegulet-Bulga District, Shoa Province.
Agricultural Economics 4: 27-43.
Maddafa, G.S.. 1983. Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ndiaye, Serigne and Andrew J. Sofia&o. 1988. Importance of Labor in Adoption of a
Modern Farm Input. RuraZ SocioZogy 53:421-432.
O’Connell, Helen. 1994. Women and the Family. London: Zed Books.
Opare, K Dua. 1977. The Role of Agricultural Extension in the Adoption of Innovations
by Cocoa Growers in Ghana. Rural Sociology 42: 72-82.
Perrin, Richard and Don Winkebnann. 1976. Impediments to Technical Progress on SmaTl
versus Large Farms. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 58: 888-894.
Poate, C.D. and P.F. Daplyn. 1993. Dafa for Agrarian Development. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Rauniyar, Ganesh P. and Frank M. Goode. 1992. Technology Adoption on Small Farms.
World Development 20: 275-292.
Senauer, Benjamin. 1990. The Impact of the Value of Women’s Time on Food and
-
Nutrition. In Persistent Inequalifies, ed. Irene Tinker, 150- 16 1. New York and
oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wilk, Richard R 1989. Decision Making and Resource Flows Within the Household:
Beyond the Black Box. In The Household Economy, ed. Richard R Wilk, 23-52.
Boulder: Westview Press, Inc..
World Bank. 1994. The World Development Report. New York: Oxford University Press.

---

2 4
APPENDIX: DATA SPREADSHEETS

---

25
STABLE CHARACI’ERIZATION, 1996
First Objective
l=health
Number
2=milk
YEUS
3=calving
Stabled
@nanure
Farmer’s Name
Village
Animals
5=security
Boubacar Balde
Bantancountou Maounde
4
1
lbrahimaKande
Bantancountou Maounde
1
3
Seikou Kande
Bantancountou Maounde
2
1
hssaneKande/AlxhlayeBalde Bantancountou Maounde
2
1
MaXt&OuFallDiiW
Bantancountou Maounde
2
2
II
Mamadou Balde
Bantancountou Maounde
5
1
Saloum M!Ballo
Bantancountou Maounde
5
1
Thierno Kande
N’Dangane
8
2
SambaDiao *
NDangane
5
2
OumarKande
N’Dangane
9
1
sol-y Kande
Sare Samboudiang
3
4
Korka Balde
Sare Samboudiang
6
1
Moussa Sabaly
Sare Samboudiang
6
4
Alsayni Balde
Sare Samboudiang
6
1
Seidou Diamanka
Sal-e sam~udiang
6
1
I
GlE Meclina Koundje
Medina Koundje
10
2
AbdoulayeBalde
Dialambere
10
2
Seidou Diao
Dialambere
2
2
Abdoulaye Koita
Dialambere
10
1
Dibane Balde
Dialambere
6
1
108
*He parks his animals in an enclosed area

---

26
STABLE CHARACTERIZATION, 1996
Fosse
Second
Duration
Total
Stable
O=No
Objective
stablillg
NUllltXZ
NlUtlbU
Number
Cover
l==non-cemented
for stabling
Fkxiod
Animals
MilkCows Bulls
Proof
2=cemented
Animals
(days)
Stdh?d
Ski&d
St&kd
2=under tree
3=one of each
2
150
13
13
0
1
0
2
150
7
7
0
1
0
2
120
3
3
0
2
0
5
150
9
9
0
2
0
4
150
7
7
0
2
0
2
155
9
9
0
1
2
2
150
9
9
0
1
0
4
180
3
3
0
1
1
4
180
5
5
0
2
0
2
180
7
7
0
1
1
2
150
2
2
0
1
0
3
150
5
5
0
1
1
1
150
3
3
0
2
1
3
150
5
5
0
2
0
2
150
20
20
0
1
0
4
120
40
30
10
1
3
3
120
6
6
0
1
0
1
150
4
4
0
1
0
2
150
10
4
6
1
0
2
150
6
6
0
1
1

---

27
STABLE CHARAeTERIZATION, 1996
Quantity
Quantity
Number
Quantity
Fosse
Stable
Stable
Stable
Fane
Graine de
of Stabled
Tourtou de
Depth
Length
Width
Height
d Arachide Coton
AIlifMlS
Sesame
(meters)
(meters)
(meters)
(meters)
(kg/animal) (kg/animal) FedGde C
(kg/animal)
11
4.8
1.9
2
2
13
0
6.5
4.6
1.87
0
2
7
1.5
3
1.5
3
1.5
3
0
10
5
1.8
3
2
5
1
7
5
5
2
5
1
0.4
5.3
2
2
na
2
3
1.5
5
3
1.8
0
2
3
1
na
3
2.3
1.7
3
2
1
1
2
2
5
0
0.4
5.3
2.3
1.8
3
2
4
1
4.3
2.1
0.65
3
2
1
2
0.4
6
2.2
2
3
2
5
0
na
7
2
Ila
3
2
3
0
5
3.8
3
2
5
0
20
3
2
3
2
10
1.5
rla
na
na
na
14
2
30
0
10
4
1.9
9
4
6
0
10
7
1.8
6
0
0
7.5
4
1.7
8
0
0
5.1
3.7
1.8
6
1
6
0

---

28
STABLE CHARACTERIZATION, 1996
Other
Number
O=None
pasteIUilloSe
Aware of Need
Charbon
Charbon
of Stabled
l=Rice residues
O==No
for 2nd Past.
Bacteridien
Symptomatique
Animals
2=MilletMaize Residues l=lst vaccine
O=No
O=No
O==NO
FedTdeS
3--forage
2=lst/2nd
l=Yes
l=Yes
l=YeS
0
2
1
1
1
7
1
2
0
1
1
0
2
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
2
1
0
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
0
1
2
2
0
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
10
3
2
1
1
1
2
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1

---

29
STABLE CHARACTERIWTION, 1996
Avewe
Type
A&i
How
AIlti-
Number
OfPillS
Water to
Quantitr
Often
FFCB
Parasite
OfPills
l=exelhm
Manure
Water
Pdaily
O=No
O=No
per
2=paoacde
O=No
Added
2==w?ekly
l=YeS
l=Yes
Animal
3=exelhm@mde
l-Yes
(liters)
3=each lo-15 days
1
1
na
I
0
0
1
1
3
1
1
30
1
1
4
3
1
30
1
1
3
1
1
105
1
1
3
1
1
45
1
1
3
1
0
1
1
2
1
0
1
1
2
1
1
15
1
1
1
2
0
1
1
3
1
1
120
1
1
1
1
1
n a
1
1
na
1
1
120
1
1
2
1
0
1
1
3
1
1
120
1
1
4
1
0
1
1
2
1
0
1
1
3
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
4
1
0
1
1
3
1
0

---

30
STABLE CHARACI’ERIZATION, 1996
Add
How Often
straw to
l=each week
Manure
2=-h lo-15 days
O=No
l=YeS
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
0
0
1
2
1
2
1
3
1
2
1
2
1
3
0
1
3
1
1
0
0
0
0

---