SYSTEMATIZATION OF TECNOLOGICAL PROMOTION OF SUSTAINABLE LIVESTOCK WITH FIELD SCHOOL METHODOLOGY

IN THE CONTEXT OF PROJECT GANASOL 5

Table of Contents

Acronyms ...................................................................................................................... 3

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... 4

I. Livestock in Nicaragua............................................................................................. 5

1.1 Location experience .............................................................................................. 5

II. Experience description ............................................................................................... 5

2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 5

2.2 Methodology ........................................................................................................ 6

2.3 Organization and implementation of field schools ................................................ 7

2.4 Adoption of good practices of sustainable livestock ............................................ 10

2.5 Impacts on production and family integration ..................................................... 12

III. Learned lessons ...................................................................................................... 13

IV. Bibliography ........................................................................................................... 14

V. Anexx ...................................................................................................................... 16

5.1 Field School Curricula.......................................................................................... 16

Acronyms

BCN Central Bank of Nicaragua

CANISLAC Nicaraguan Chamber of Dairy Sector

CATIE Tropical Agricultural Research and Higher Education Center

CECOMVILAC Central Multi-sector Cooperative of Nicaraguan Via Lácteas

CEI Export and Investment Center

CIAT International Center for Tropical Agriculture

MILKY National Dairy Commission

ECAs Field Schools

GANASOL Sustainable Livestock Slopes (regional Heifer Program)

HPI Heifer Project International

MAGFOR Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry

MPM Best Management Practices

NICACENTRO Dairy Multisectoral Cooperative

RACCS South Caribbean Coast Autonomous Region

RAS Sustainable Agriculture Network

SSP Silvopastural System

3

Executive Summary

This systematization comes with interest to publicize the experience and results obtained in the component of capacity building, developed with producer members NICACENTRO cooperative in municipalities in the department of Matagalpa and RACCS, in the context of the project "Competitive beef and dairy through sustainable intensification and access to specialized markets in Nicaragua", developed by a consortium of the organizations CIAT, CATIE, CIS, NICACENTRO and Heifer Nicaragua. This project is part of GANASOL of Heifer program.

The purpose of the project was to improve the competitiveness and incomes of 1,000 families of small and medium producers in Nicaragua through the implementation of good farm management practices and strengthening value chains for meat and milk. In Nicaragua, there is a low level of productivity of the herd (less than 1000 kg milk / ha / year), obtaining an average of 3.12 liters of milk per cow per day.

The methodology used in the systematization combine several techniques for reconstruction of experience and for triangulation of the information collected, conducted through interviews with 166 families, technicians and promoters and workshops with families, technical staff and promoter (as). In all cases, the participation of men and women in all activities fostered. For the organization and implementation of field schools, started with i) identification of the area and definition of the criteria for selection of producers, ii) selection of the facilitator, iii) analysis of the situation, IV) participatory curriculum design, V) implementation of curricula, VI) monitoring and evaluation.

Through Field Schools, there was a promotion of issues related to livestock problems, silvopastoral systems, food balance, alternative summer feeding, animal health, milk quality, planning and certification of farm, reproductive health, management of agricultural inputs were promoted, pasture management, water management, clean milking, records and production costs.

With regard to good practices, the increase in area of improved pastures (35%) and fodder banks (69%) and a reduction in natural pastures 39% is confirmed; this also reflects a significant change in land use, allocating a larger area to improved pastures. Likewise, the production practices of silage and clean milking were integrated.

Changes to production systems achieved an increase in milk productivity of 0.9 liters / cow / day, increased milk quality (52% of producers passed quality B or C quality A) and an increase in meat production by 31%.

Through the experience developed, we managed to identify a number of lessons learned, among which we can mention: i) it is very important to implement proven techniques that are also compatible with the production system, ii) to define methodologies and teaching materials to enhance knowledge iii) to promote the integration of family, iv) implementation of a monitoring and evaluation for process improvement, v) the type of methodologies for experimentation and learning is a key element to achieve the adoption of the techniques by producers.

4

1.1 Location Experience

II. Experience Description

I. La ganadería en Nicaragua

Milk production in Nicaragua is estimated at 834 million tons, accounting for 23% of production in Central America (2013). The livestock sector contributes USD 627 million in exports. Regarding dairy sector, growth was 26% in the period 2001-20111. In Nicaragua, the dairy value chain is affected by the low productivity of cattle herd (less than 1000 kg milk / ha / year) due to mismanagement and poor herd implemented technology. In the country an average of 3.12 liters of milk per cow per day are obtained, according to the Fourth National Agricultural Census 2011. The country also has one of the first places according to the climate risk index1. The effects of climate change affects especially the dairy sector due to the phenomenon of drought, which affects 41% of the national population1. Although there is a breeding center in the country, livestock genetics of Nicaragua is of poor quality1.

I. Livestock in Nicaragua

I.

The agricultural sector with a high share of small production units has been

important in the Nicaraguan economy. Overall the agricultural sector has

experienced growth; however, some of this growth was due to increased

agricultural and livestock areas, mainly in agricultural frontier areas. In this

context, low productivity rates, well below the regional settings, make this

activity lose competitiveness in a context of globalized markets, with effects

on increasing rural poverty.

2.1 Introduction

5

R.L. Nicacentro cooperative is located in the county seat of Matiguás, Matagalpa department; It is part of the CECOMVILAC representing the dairy sector before the CONLECHE territory and is an active member of the CANISLAC. It was founded in June 2005 with 288 members of which 35 were women. It currently has 1108 associated families, being the largest dairy

producer cooperative of the country; its partners include small and

medium livestock producers of the territory known as "The

Nicaraguan Via Lácteas ". It has 13 collection centers distributed

in communities in the municipalities of Muy Muy, Matiguás and Rio

Blanco Department of Matagalpa and Paiwas of RACCS.

To systematize the experiences of ECAs different participatory methodologies, for example, were used: the key informants (facilitators, producers) were identified, RRA techniques were applied: dialogues with key informants, discussions with focus groups and interviews with technicians of the project. To assess the implementation of the ECAS methodology in production systems, farm tours and established plots and informal discussions with farmers were performed. For this process conversation generating questions and analysis were performed.

For interviews five elements of the intervention process were considered: a) the activities that constituted the process; b) their sequence in time; c) the role of each of the major players d) the employed means and resources (human, material and financial); e) environmental factors that facilitated or hindered the process. A workshop was conducted with respondents to help build a shared vision of the experience, expressed in the form of lessons learned, as a strategy reflection of the members involved in the process, allowing to know the strengths and limitations of the methodology from the perspective of each stakeholder group. On the other hand, a hundred sixty six (n = 166) producers, whose participation in processes of participatory training through ECAs and are involved in the project, were selected. In this group of producers a baseline (biophysical, socioeconomic and farm technologies) at the start of the process of ECAs was determined, which allowed recording technology adoption during the process. In this regard, variables such as changes in land use, implementation of technologies and productive response were measured. After a year of participating in the project, a survey was conducted to verify the changes, technologies adopted and productive impacts on 125 farms involved in the training process.

The methodology used in the systematization combined several techniques for reconstruction of

experience and for triangulation of collected information such as: interviews with families, technicians

and promoters and workshops with families, technical personnel and promoters. In all cases, the

participation of men and women in all activities was fostered.

2.2 Methodology

Added to this, there is little technical assistance and access to good credit, resulting in little adoption and adaptation of technologies to help increase rural productivity and environmental approach links in local and international markets (MAGFOR 2005).

Traditionally, outreach programs curricula in general rural schools has focused on educating and /

or training purely productive aspects of production systems, generating agents (agronomists,

technicians, etc.) with a purely technical approach and without further training in other lines of

agricultural production as in the production chain approach, marketing, organization or business

management. The challenge is to adopt new methods of extension with participatory approaches

where the need for producer coordination is considered with the agricultural calendar and the

availability of resources, directing the actions of the farm by techniques of "learning by doing" to

stimulate experimentation by the producer and inducing a decision (Holguin et al. 2004). This

document aims to generate information to determine the effect of the methodology Field Schools

(ECAs) on the adoption of technologies by producers, integration of technologies in production

processes, technological impact on the economy of farms and lessons learned on the

methodology of the ECAs.

6

2.3 Organization and implementation of Field

Schools

To form an ECA it was necessary to fulfill certain stages (commonly known as ABC): i) identification of

the priority area or territory and the selection criteria, etc. ii) choice of facilitator, iii) diagnosis, IV)

participatory curriculum design, V) curriculum implementation, VI) monitoring and evaluation.

NICACENTRO as local partner identified areas with little intervention incidence of technical skills

training, rural areas where families lack support opportunities and material inputs - economic and of

basic knowledge of production in different areas.

A technical (or facilitator), who the person who guides the implementation process in the field with

producer groups, was identified. The selected facilitator went through a process of methodological

training in the field. The logic of this companionship is that the new facilitator in the field, observe the

application of the methodology of ECAs with other groups, which replaces the conventional way where

the technician is not the first voice and experience. In addition, a training process conducted by a team

of specialists and facilitators of the project was carried out.

The selection of field facilitators who carried out activities with producers is made according to the

profile needed to, but there is a constant feedback from its field staff, emphasizing the use of the

method and technical aspects related to the type of producers to facilitate and research by each

technician to prepare the script by specialty or experience that lets you feed back with the other

technicians. The selection of the producers was based on the interest they showed for the training

process, the invitation was through the boards of storage centers.

For each of the selected producers a participatory diagnosis and estate plan was made. In this

diagnosis, a biophysical, socioeconomic, productive and environmental information (baseline) rose, a

series of indicators to measure changes in farm related ECAs was also defined.

Also, in the technical group of the project it provided training and methodological monitoring field

facilitators and curriculum to develop with producers and the experience and scientific and technical

support that ensures the ECA methodology to encourage the adoption of combined technology in

agricultural farms. Generally, content to run in ECAs (curriculum) is selected in a participatory manner,

based on the problems of production systems, needs and opportunities for producers, but also added

some specific issues that the project aims to promote in the ECA.

Events are held at least once a month; the group size varies from 15 to 25 members, generally

medium and small producers. All events ECAs events are coordinated with the production schedule.

The monitoring and evaluation system is to monitor all activities by taking data to redirect the process

or make some adjustments to improve focus and measure the impact of the methodology. Quarterly

evaluation and planning meetings are also scheduled: these allow you to review test results and

capture perceptions of participants on the operation of ECAs.

During the process of rural extension through technology transfer, a set of field methodologies applied

to strengthen the adoption of each of the proposed initiatives were developed; the most common were:

demonstration plots, exchange of experiences, property visits, workshops and individual visits.

However, these methods have a difference in conventional methods as they are applied with some

participatory techniques under the ECAs approach.

7

When you already have oriented the new technology to be applied, the core activities of

the day (practical) are conducted. During the execution of these activities it is to reach the

other two levels, as follows: The "Knowledge", the group is organized and assigned tasks

questioning first all: Show how you do it, How did you see that they do it? There are

activities where the groups out several proposals on how they perform the activity that we

want to develop. Then we went to another level. "To know how", the activity is executed by

the practice in at least two ways (as they know how), this serves as further activity and

group research.

Demonstration plots, are call centers for

experimentation and participatory learning,

these were established in order for producers

to know and evaluate technologies in a

participatory manner with potential adoption.

The participants’ Exchange of experience, what

would be the search for the first level of knowledge

"To Know": When at the beginning they are gathered,

several open questions or generating discussion

questions are made addressing the issue of the day

and how they run through each one of the steps. It is

important to recognize the knowledge formed and

inherited from generation to generation and give the

producer active participation to gain confidence

because you are working with a new methodology

(Alpizar 2007, Pezo et al. 2007). Each response

motivates the analysis of the other participants. It is

recommended that during this session the proposal to

be shared won’t be addressed yet, so that the

facilitator tries to go shaping the theme to achieve the

link. Later when the exchange of experience is made,

we continue at the first level of learning, making the

clarification of terms and concepts which will help

acquiring new knowledge.

8

For each of these methodologies methodological support is made: script or guide and

brochure (logs). The script is designed with a particular structure having: introduction,

objectives, assumptions, what we want to achieve, logistics, time and place of the event,

methodological summary, methodological development, agreements, conclusions,

recommendations and bibliography. The brochure is designed in a experiential way and

easily understood by users, but that supports the day's activity executed, being media to

deepen more on methodology or on different issues that make up the curriculum.

Exchange of experience with other producers and other communities where there are practices or alternatives that are to be established. The exchange tours: Guided group members planned an ACE producers managed trials outside their group, or practical work experience, either on farms or experimental stations have been another tool to enhance group learning. However, they are more meaningful to the extent that the facilitator applies a technique such as focused group discussions for critical analysis of the visited experiences, emphasizing the context in which they are made (Pezo et al. 2007).

Individual Visits: a visit plan according to the purpose of the project is organized. During these visits different activities are carried out according to what the problem of the producer is, as the facilitator does it directly in the field, this practice is accompanied if possible with a member of the family to monitor adoption.

9

Implemented Practices Percentage of

producers

Diagnostic of disease 32 .0

Treatments with minerals 32 .0

Medicine administration 23 .0

Infrastructure for milk quality 19 .0

Good clean milking practices 90 .0

Silage preparation 22 .0

Technologies and best practices Variables

Establishing improved pastures with scattered trees 86 .0

Additional property e n banks to forage grasses (grass cutting) 70 .0

Protein Banks establishment 58 .0

Area under sustainable management practices (ha) 4,833

Number of cattle under sustainable BPM 25.229

It was possible to have an impact in terms of adoption of new

technological practices through implementation of "field schools"

approach. In addition, each of the activities worked with beneficiaries

have a strong content of environmental focus, guaranteed through

awareness through the discussion of the problems of climate change

and its negative effects on productive, socioeconomic and

environmental aspects.

In ECAs thirteen topics, including intensification of farms and best

practices, protection of water sources and food in the dry season were

held. 90% of producers involved in ECAs have implemented at least

two good livestock practices.

Table 1. Percentage of adoption of the practices promoted under the

approach of ECAs in Via Lácteas, Nicaragua. (N = 166).

2.4 Adoption of good practices of sustainable livestock

It is generally noted that between 58-86% of producers have adopted different technologies promoted in the ECA training (Table 2), although only twenty producers were given incentives through demonstration plots for the conversion of the farms. Similar responses were reported in Kenya, where producers participating in ECAs have adopted a range of 40 to 75% of technologies (Njoroge 2003). Technologies with increased adoption by farmers were improved facilities for pastures both floor and for cutting and silage processing.

Table 2. Adoption of land uses for animal production

promoted under the approach of ECAs in Via Lácteas,

Nicaragua. (N = 166).

Table 2

10

Adapted technologies meet the most important needs felt by producers according to their

economic technical reasoning. The results (improvement in the quantity and quality of

production) observed by producers has aroused interest in disseminating technologies on

their farms. Producers have said that "Thanks to NICACENTRO and the Field School

project I have a well - organized farm and can do things better."

Some technologies were not adopted by high investment costs. This logic is similar to the

decisions made by producers in other countries, who first decide to experiment on small

scales or observe the feasibility on other farms, then use technologies (Piniero et. To

2006). It has been found that the adoption of technologies depends on the level of

education, availability of land and vegetative material, availability of labor and money for

the initial investment, open markets, the existence of incentives, the vision of goals it has

long - term producer, and their perception of having a friendly system environment (Lopez

2005).

Other authors point out that decisions of producers depend heavily on the availability of labor (Alonso et al. 2001) and money for the purchase of inputs and payment of labor, so the availability of financing at low rates interest would be essential to facilitate technology adoption by poor farmers, as producers tend to economize on scarce and expensive production factors such as capital and labor, since the payback of some technologies is medium or long term (Current et al. 1995).

Changes in land use through the implementation of ECAs were positive from the

productive and environmentally point of views. Producers increased the areas of improved

pasture and forage banks (with reducing areas of natural pastures, Figure 1). This

intensification of livestock uses is allowing the release of critical areas such as slopes and

areas of importance for the production of water (springs and / or water recharge

areas). This is similar to what reported Casasola et al. (2007) on the impact of GEF project

in Matiguás where payment for environmental services motivated the producers to the

implementation of silvopastoral systems as improved pastures with scattered trees,

hedgerows and pastures fodder banks.

Figure 1. Changes of land use on

farms with field schools (ECA) in

Via Lácteas, Nicaragua. (n = 166).

Baseline in blue, with ECA in

green. From Left to right

Improved Pastures, Natural

pastures, fodder banks.

11

The adoption of technologies such as improved pasture and forage establishment of grasses and woody banks entailed an increase in the quantity and quality forage for cattle throughout the year, which allowed to achieve an increase in animal production. Producers who have participated in ECAs indicate increases in production (by 26% per cow / day, 66% of producers) and milk quality and effect of the training process (52% of the producers went from quality B or C quality a, Table 3) and increased meat production by 31% (Table 4). Similar trends in the results found other jobs such as Ibrahim et al (2000) and Lopez (2005), who found increased animal production 20 -. 30% as a result of increased supply and quality of forage for livestock throughout the year, mainly from the pastures and forage banks.

Milk quality Baseline

With

ECA

milk A 35.0 87.0

milk B 61.0 13.0

milk C 4.0 0 .0

milk production lts/ cow / day

3.6 4.5

Family integration has increased due to the increase of fodder banks of woody and grass (in 55% of producers), system with high demand for labor for maintenance and use (cutting, hauling, chopping and offering livestock) which determines additional social benefits, since it opens opportunities for temporary and permanent employment for family labor and hired labor.

Indicator Base line with ECA Increase %

Number of young bulls by

producer 20.50 24.50 20

Meat production /kg 166.60 196.60 18

Pricing /kg 26.60 36.60 38

N umber of total steers 6036.39 7912.77 31

Kg of total steers 48547.95 63367.95 31

2.5 Impacts on production and integration of the family

Table 3. Changes in the amount of milk quality

producers in ECAS

capacity building on Via

Lácteas, Nicaragua. (n = 166).

Table 4. Changes

in production of

meat producers

in ECAs capacity

building on Via

Lácteas,

Nicaragua. (n =

166).

12

III. Learned lessons

One of the factors that have contributed to the success of ECAs is the existing producer confidence with NICACENTRO because of the time they’ve have an impact on the area and the coordination carried out by the project with the directive board, the technical and administrative staff of NICACENTRO. Another element to consider about ECAs was because the techniques that are being taken to farms are compatible with the production system contributing to improve primary production. In addition they are alternatives that have been validated in other areas with successful results, but for the expansion of technologies on farms needs access to credit with interest and favorable conditions.

By establishing an ECA it is necessary to gradually apply the methodology to eliminate the traditional way of extension where the leading role is had by the technical, to ensure participation there should be a continuous process of motivation and close coordination with local partners.

You need to work on methodological aspects for the development of educational materials such as guides, brochures, and other documents that reinforce these workshops and we must implement a monitoring and evaluation system to improve the process. It is also important to involve the family (or at least one member) in the processes of formation and execution of ECAs to ensure learning and practical assessment.

Although positive impacts have occurred with technologies, such as:

The high investment costs of some technologies. Most producers are not used to invest in solutions that are medium to long term for its establishment, hoping rather that they consider the implementation of ECAs there are negative factors influencing the adoption of new solutions faster adoption.

The lack of economic capacity so that producers can afford the technology implementation. Moreover, the absence of new financial products aimed at promoting these investments. The producers stated that they "should work on some infrastructure needs such as pens, roof milking area, and construction of concrete benefits.

The lack of organization of groups to reduce transaction costs in purchasing inputs / services. To achieve greater impact of technology investments required training and support groups for the proper functioning of the organization with market intelligence matters, which implies a good empowerment.

13

In adopting play an important role on the type of methodologies for experimentation and participatory learning for change in quantity and quality on farms, which translates into increased income of farmers and the rural community in general by the increased supply of workforce.

Data collection by producers and technicians should be prioritized, and exchanges between them to have more elements in decision-making in the process of experimentation, innovation and adaptation of technologies, which constitutes a form of evolution methodologies.

It is advisable to perform a feedback of knowledge to strengthen techniques or methods to use adapted to different socioeconomic, cultural and climatic conditions for which the application of a zigzag assessment is required. Field facilitators should make greater use of consultation teams of specialist advisors of partner institutions to better respond to the approach of ECAs.

Field schools have a high transaction cost by the type of methodology used and the dispersion in the territory of the producers, so it is necessary to promote the organization and empowerment of groups so that they are self-advocates of development.

Alonso, Ibrahim M, Gomez M, Prins K. 2001. Potential and limitations for the adoption of silvopastoral systems for milk production in Cayo, Belize. Agroforestry in the Americas 8 (30): 21-27. Alpizar, K. 2007. Perceptions and experiences with "participatory approaches" in the CATIE / NORWAY project in Guatemala. Thesis M. Sc. Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway.69 p. Casasola F, Ibrahim M, Ramirez M, Villanueva C, C Sepulveda, JL Araya 2007. Payment for environmental services and changes in land uses in landscapes dominated by cattle in sub - humid tropics of Nicaragua and Costa Rica. Agroforestería in Americas 45: 21-27. Current D; Lutz, E; Scherr, S. 1995. Cost Benefits and Farmer Adoption of Agroforestry: Project Experience in Central America and Caribbean. Washington, US, World Bank Environment Paper No. 14. 43p. Holguin VA; Ibrahim, M; Mora, J; Casasola, F. 2004. A comprehensive approach to technical assistance for change of land use in livestock farms in Costa Rica. In Mora E. ed. Scientific Environment Week: Opportunities and Science and Technology for Comprehensive Management of Natural Recusos Challenges in the American Tropics. Turrialba, CR, LITOCAT. p. 85-87.

IV. Bibliography

14

Ibrahim M; Franco, F; Pezo, D; Camero, R; Araya J. 2000. Promoting Cratylia intake of dry season as a supplement for cattle grazing Hyperrhenia rufa in the sub humid tropic. Agroforestry Systems 51 (2): 167-175. Lopez, M. 2005. Process of technology development banks Gliricidia protein in Rivas, Nicaragua: bio - economic results and lessons learned for dissemination. Thesis Mag. Sc. Turrialba, CR, CATIE.106 p. MAGFOR (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, NI). 2005. Studies for the development of exports and substitution of agricultural imports from Nicaragua. Managua, NI, JICA / IICA. 172p. Njoroge J. 2003. Farmer field schools: an extension officer's perspective. 42-43 p. In Sones, KR; Duveskog, D; Minjauw, B. Eds. Farmer field schools: the experience. Report of the farmer field school stakeholder's forum. Noirobi, KE, FAO / KARI / ILRI. 58 p. Pezo, D; Cruz, J; Piniero, M. 2007. The cattlemen field schools: a strategy for rehabilitation and diversification of farms with degraded pastures. Arch. Latinoamericano. Animal production 15 (1): 42-48. Piniero, M; Pezo, D; Cruz, J. 2006. Better livestock management in Guatemala. LEISA Magazine 22 (3): 12-13.

15

5.1 Field School (ECA) Curricula

Themes Subtopics Goals Methodology

1. Introduction

to livestock

issues and ECA

1.1.- livestock Problematic and

importance of ECA to establish

good manufacturing practices

To identify the problem and

discuss the importance of

ECAs to address the

problem of endogenous

livestock

Field day

2. Silvopastoral

system:

Establishment,

management

and use of

forage grasses

and legumes

banks

2.1 Location banks.

To argue the technical and

economic aspects in making

decisions for the optimal use

of fodder banks.

Field day

2.2. - Selection soil and the importance of legumes.

2.3. – Type of material or seed.

2.4. – Planting methods.

2.5.- Maintenance.

2.6.- Time of use.

2.7.- Frequency of use.

2.8.- Feeding strategies with

paddocks and fodder banks.

2.9.- Cost benefit of use.

3. Food Balance

3.1 Harmonize feed and food

Balance Sheet Balance

To develop balanced diets

for meat and milk,

according to resources

available on the farm.

Field day

3.2.- Balanced diets for meat and

milk from the farm forage

resources.

3.3 Use of bovine measure tape,

use of mineral and implants

3.4.- Cost benefit of diets and exogenous resource

4. Alternatives

for summer

feeding

4.1 Use of sugar cane.

To apply the different

alternatives of food

supplementation during

summer, using the

resources available on the

farm.

Field day

4.2.-Ammoniated agricultural stover.

4.3.- Enriched silage.

4.4.- Mel-urea.

4.5.- Scattered fruits from fodder trees.

4.6.- Monitoring of Silage and nutritional blocks

5. Animal Health

5.1.- Health and production animal

disease: mastitis or other

To analyze the importance,

its economic impact and

assessment of the Animal

Health calendar.

Field day

5.2 Types of health.

5.3.- Causes and origin of diseases.

5.4.- Infectious chain.

5.5.- The health routines.

5.6.- The animal health calendar.

5.7.- Health and herd certification.

V. Annex

16

5.8.- Economic technical reasoning.

5.9 Management of calf and drug delivery

6. Milk Quality 6.1 Infrastructure for cattle

management to ensure the quality

of milk: milking parlors

Inducing basic facilities

needed in livestock

management to improve

milk quality

Field day

7- Estate

Planning

7.1 Map of the estate: land uses,

forage resources and

infrastructure To assist in estate planning for adoption of good

practices livestock

management

Field day

7.2 Problematic of the farm and possible solutions

Theoretical practical 7.3 Priority solutions: feasibility

and deadlines to meet them

8. Estate

Certification 8.1.- Certification process for a

sustainable livestock farm

To lead the certification

process of sustainable

livestock farms

Theoretical and practical workshop

9. Reproductive

Health.

9.1.- Routine of reproductive

health. To apply corrective and preventive measures

against the extreme cases

of disease measures.

Field day 9.2.- Diagnosis of gestation.

9.3.- artificial insemination.

9.4.- Reproductive Diseases

10. Management

of agricultural

inputs

10.1 Generic product and brand. To know the importance of the proper use and

restrictions of products and

inputs routine in handling

livestock.

Field day 10.2 Treatment.

10.3. Dosage

10.4.- Care and storage of inputs

11. Pasture

Management

11.1- Identification of grass

species

To rate grazing time and

number of animals per

paddock to guarantee the

quantity and quality of

pastures

Field day

11.2 - Optimal timing of grazing.

11.3.- Time of occupation.

11.4 - Rest time.

11.5.- Calculation of the paddock area.

11.6.- Calculating stocking.

11.7.- Paddock rotation.

11.8.- Weed Control

11.9.- Integrated pest management

12. Water

management

12.1.- Management and

conservation of water for livestock To ensure the management and conservation of water

for both human consumption

and livestock

Field day 12.2.- Management and conservation of water for humans

12.3.1 - Reforestation

13. Cross -

cutting issues

13.1 – Clean milking To ensure the quality of milk Field day

13.2.- Records and production

costs Economic valuation of good

farming practices

17

14. Evaluation 14.1.- Evaluation of the capacity

building process in ECAs To perform a feedback

process of ECAs Workshop

15. Graduation 15.1 Graduating participants of the

ECAs

To encourage producers in

the process of adoption of

good livestock practices Graduation ceremony

18

HEIFER INTERNATIONAL NICARAGUA OFFICE Altamira D´Este, de los Semáforos de la Vicky. 2c. al Norte. Casa No. 39. Telephono: (505) 2252-5852 Web: http://www.heifernicaragua.org.ni/ FB: Heifer.International.Nicaragua