balancing livestock needs and soil conservation: assessment of opportunities in intensifying...
DESCRIPTION
Presentation by T. Abdoulaye (IITA) to the CGIAR Systemwide Livestock Programme Livestock Policy Group Meeting, 1 December 2009TRANSCRIPT
Balancing Livestock Needs and Soil Conservation: Assessment of Opportunities in
Intensifying Cereal-Legume-Livestock Systems
in West Africa T. Abdoulaye
Presentation: CGIAR Systemwide Livestock ProgrammeLivestock Policy Group, 1 December 2009
Outline
• Background
• Objectives 1 and 2
• Activities– Household characterization and evaluation of TO– Identifying entry point– Quantitification of trade-offs
• Preliminary results
Background
• Agricultural production growth slower than population growth in
West Africa,
• Cereal imports surged from 17,208 t in 1983 to 60,893 t in 2003
(FAOSTAT).
• Mutton (meat from sheep and goats) imports increased from 1,321 t
in 1983 to 3,358 t in 2003 (FAOSTAT).
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Years
Fer
tiliz
er c
on
sum
ptio
n (t
)
0.1
0.6
1.1
1.6
2.1
2.6
Cro
p y
ield
(t h
a-1
)
Fertilizer consumption Cereal yield
0
1000000
2000000
3000000
4000000
5000000
6000000
7000000
8000000
9000000
10000000
19
82
19
83
19
84
19
85
19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
Years
Fe
rtiliz
er
co
ns
um
pti
on
(t)
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Cro
p y
ield
(t
ha-1
)
fertilizer consumption Average cereal yield
BackgroundFertilizer consumption and crop yield
Source: FAOSTAT Source: FAOSTAT
South East AsiaWest Africa
BackgroundCrop residue is fed to livestock or grazed by free-roaming
animals.
Off-farm uses of crop residue
Granary for storing cereals and pulses. Fencing and roofing materials
Fodder market at Kano
Background
To balance livestock and soil demands for crop residues:
• Evaluate gains or losses in
the alternative uses of crop
residues
Project ObjectivesGoal To identify key areas where research can stimulate
agricultural productivity by balancing trade-offs among livestock, soils and crop in cereal-legume-livestock systems.
Objectives– To identify the entry points through which appropriate
research technologies can facilitate the intensification of crop-livestock systems.
– To quantify the trade-offs in using crop residues as fodder or soil amendments.
– To create better institutional linkages between actors in research, extension and policy on issues related to mixed farming systems.
Project Approach
• Baseline survey in the 3 countries (Ghana, Nigeria and Niger)– Identify 3 farmers’ typologies
• Recruited to 2 Ph.D students (soils and economist)– Economist worked on socio-economic characterization of
Households, profitability of trade-off classes – Identifying entry points and quantification of trade-off
Activity 1
Socio-Economic characterization of
household and CR uses
Farmers’ Typologies
• Typology 1: Crop farmers those with < 1 TLU
• Typology 2: Crop-livestock farmers those with 1<TLU<2
• Typology 3: Crop-Livestock farmers those with > 2 TLU
Sample size
• Niger and Ghana: 15 farmers/village in 12 villages – 180 farmers– Niger: Maradi region – Ghana: Northern Region (Tamale)
• Nigeria: 15 farmers/village in 24 villages – 360 farmers– Kano state
Socioeconomic characterization of Ghana study area
Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Pooled
Age (Years) 45.3(14.4)
47.3(13.4)
50.8(16.8)
47.8(15.0)
Household size
9(3.0)
10(3.1)
10(3.6)
10(3.3)
Total Farm size (ha)
1.33(0.81)
1.37(0.89)
2.06(1.8)
1.58(1.3)
Income ($)406.3
(336.7)483.0
(521.1)625.03(881.2)
504.1(623.5)
Socioeconomic characterization of Nigeria study area
Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Pooled
Age (Years) 46.5(13.0)
47.9(12.4)
49.0(13.4)
47.8(12.9)
Household size8
(2.7)9.1
(3.0)10.5(3.4)
9.2(3.2)
Total Farm size (ha)
2.8(3.1)
4.1(6.5)
5.5(5.7)
4.1(5.4)
Income ($) 1913.1(1555.0)
2090.2(1178.2)
3719.5(3831.
1)
2574.3(2605.7)
Socioeconomic characterization of Niger study area
Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Pooled
Age (Years) 40.2(13.6)
40.6(14.0)
46.4(14.3)
42.4(14.2)
Household size
8(4)
9(4.0)
10(3.6)
9(3.8)
Total Farm size (ha)
3.4(2.4)
4.1(2.8)
4.7(2.8)
4.1(2.7)
Income ($)403.1
(326.7)555.2
(389.7)642.5
(471.0)533.6
(410.1)
Utilization of CR-Typo 1(% of farmers)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Nigeria Ghana Niger
Feed (>75%) Soil (>75%) Other (>50%)
Utilization of CR-Typo 2(% of farmers)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Nigeria Ghana Niger
Feed (>75%) Soil (>75%) Other (>50%)
Utilization of CR-Typo 3(% of farmers)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Nigeria Ghana Niger
Feed (>75%) Soil (>75%) Other (>50%)
Activity 2
Quantification of trade-offs in agricultural uses of crop residues
0%C, 0%M
100%C, 100%M100%C, 100%M
25%C, 75%M 25%C, 75%M
0%C, 0%M
50%C, 50%M 50%C, 50%M
75%C, 25%M 75%C, 25%M1
2
3
4
5
Scenario% applied to soil % feed to livestock
0% 0%
50%50%
50%50%
50% 50%
100% 100%
Assessment of trade-offs in uses of crop residue
Trade-off: the quantity of crop produce sacrificed by a farmer
for a unit benefit from livestock production by the allocation of
crop residues into livestock production.
Study A: Effect of crop residue incorporation on crop yield
General objective: – quantify the tradeoffs in using crop residues as fodder
for livestock or amendments for soil improvement
Specific objectives:– assess the effect of crop residue incorporation on yield
of cereals and legumes.– evaluate the effect of crop residue incorporation on
soil physical, chemical and biological properties– appraise the socio-economic benefits of incorporating
crop residues into the soil
Materials and methods
Treatments
T1 – 0% SA (0% L, 0% C),
T2 – 50% SA (25% L, 75% C),
T3 – 50% SA (50% L, 50% C), T4 – 50% SA (75% L, 25% C),
T5 – 100% SA (100% L, 100% C)
Experimental Design: 3 X 5, RCBD
Incorporation of crop residues
Study B: Effect crop residues intake on livestock live weight
General objective:– quantify the tradeoffs in using crop residues as fodder
for livestock or amendments for soil improvement
Specific objectives:
– assess the effect of crop residue intake on livestock productivity (live weight)
– evaluate the effect of crop residue intake on the quantity and quality of manure produced.
– appraise the economic benefits of feeding crop residues to livestock.
Treatments– T1 – 0% SA (0% C, 0% M), – T2 – 50% SA (25% C, 75% M),– T3 – 50% SA (50% C, 50% M), – T4 – 50% SA (75% C, 25% M), – T5 – 100% SA (100% C, 100% M)
Housing unit – Pen partition into 15 compartment each with 1m x 2 m floor
spacing.
Selection and procurement of test animals – 30 healthy male sheep or goats of about 12 -18 months old.
Materials and methods
S 1S 2 S 3
S 4S 5
(SE-Maize)(SE-LWG)
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0C 0M 25C 75M 50C 50M 75C 25M 100C 100M
Crop residue incorporated into soil (%)
Live
wei
ght g
ain
(kg
TLU
-1 )
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Gra
in y
ield
(kg
ha
-1)
Live weight Maize Cowpea
Effect of crop residue use on grain yields and weight gain, Farm 2 at Cheyohi, Ghana
S 1S 2
S 3
S 4S 5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0C 0M 25C 75M 50C 50M 75C 25M 100C 100M
Crop residue incorporated into soil (%)
Liv
e w
eig
ht
ga
in (
kg T
LU -1
)
0.00
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
600.00
Gra
in y
ield
(kg
ha
-1)
Live weight Millet Cowpea
Effect of crop residue use on grain yields and weight gain, Farm 2 at Garin Labo, Niger
S 1
S 2
S 3S 4
S 5
(SE)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0C 0M 25C 75M 50C 50M 75C 25M 100C 100M
Crop residues incorporated into soil
Live
wei
ght (
kg T
LU-1
)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Gra
in y
ield
(kg
ha)
Live weight Maize Groundnut
Effect of crop residue use on grain yields and weight gain, Farm 3 at Sarauniya, Nigeria
102 kg25 kg 80 kg
89 kg
93 kg 53 kg
25 kg25 kg
25 kg 25 kg
12 3
4 5
¢ 11.5 ¢ 11.8 ¢ 11.5
¢ 11.6 ¢ 9.7
Results: Tradeoffs of farm 2 at Cheyohi
Activity 3
Identification of entry points for improving
the productivity of cereal–legume–livestock
systems: The NUTMON approach
Nutrient balance study Objectives:
– To audit the flow of nutrient resources in C-L-L systems
– To quantify the nutrient balances in C-L-L systems
– To identify alternative management scenarios to redress the nutrients imbalances
Nutrients flows in crop livestock systems
De jager et al. (2001)
Materials and methods
Farmer managed nutrient flows– Structured questionnaire for data on nutrient flows
through: • Mineral fertilizer (IN 1), Manure (IN 2), Crop products
(OUT 1) and Crop residues (OUT 2)
Environmental nutrient flows– Field measurement and transfer function for data on
nutrient flows through: • Rainfall and Harmattan dust (IN 3), Nitrogen fixation (IN 4),
Leaching (OUT 3) and Gaseous losses (OUT 4)
Nitrogen flows in farms of the various farm groups at Garin Labo
OUT 4OUT 3OUT 2OUT 1
IN 4IN 3IN 2IN 1
(LSD 0.5 - OUT 2)
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
Nutrient flows
N (k
g ha
-1 y
r-1)
Crop only Crop-livestock unequiped Crop-livestock equiped
Nitrogen flows in cereal-legume-livestock systems at Cheyohi (Gh), Sarauniya (Nig) and
Garin Labo (NE)
IN 1 IN 2 IN 3 IN 4
OUT 1 OUT 2 OUT 3 OUT 4
(lsd 0.5)
-120
-80
-40
0
40
80
120
Nutrient flows
N (K
g ha
-1 y
r-1)
Cheyohi Sarauniya Garin Labo
Hot spots for research intervention
1. Identification of alternative sources of energy and construction material for domestic purposes.
2. Development of technology for improving the quality of manure.
3. Development of cost-effective technologies to control leaching.
4. Quantification and understanding the balancing of the short Vs long-term benefits of crop residue retention on the fields.
Concluding Remarks
– Incorporation of crop residues was not a cost-effective application method.
– Herd size of small-scale farmers could not support the number livestock required for tradeoffs assessment
– Residual effect of crop residues on crop production constraints holistic assessment of tradeoffs in the short term.
Appreciation
• Dr. R. Abaidoo - team leader
• Andrew Opoku and Adesiyan Titus
Results: Tradeoffs of farm 3 at Sarauniya
55.7 kg
61.7 kg
23 kg32.9 kg
25 kg 25 kg
25 kg 25 kg
25 kg
1 2 3
45
0 kg
N 1370
N 1264
N 1387
N 1268
N 1521
Result: Tradeoffs of farm 2 at Garin Labo
6.2 g
12.8 kg
11.2 kg
14.5 kg
25 kg 25 kg
25 kg25 kg
25 kg
12 3
45
CFA 3928
CFA 3431
CFA 3536
CFA 3332
CFA 4487
12.2 kg
GL*
SN*
CH*
SN
CH
GL
(LSD 0.5 total input)
(LSD 0.5 total output)
-160
-120
-80
-40
0
40
80
120
160
Selected villages
N (k
g ha
-1 yr
-1)
Total input Total output Balance
1 2 3 5 67 8
44*
99*
Typo 1 Typo 2 Typo 3
(LSD 0.5 -Total O utput)
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
Farmers
N (k
g ha
-1 y
r-1)
Total IN Total OUT BAL
Nitrogen balance in cereal-legume-livestock system at Garin Labo
Nitrogen balance in cereal-legume-livestock system at Cheyohi, Sarauniya and Garin Labo
Results