enhancing water productivity in crop-livestock systems of ssa: minimizing trade-offs and maximizing...
DESCRIPTION
Presentation by Tilahun Amede, Katrein Descheemaeker, E. Mapedza et al (IWMI) to the CGIAR Systemwide Livestock Programme Livestock Policy Group Meeting, 1 December 2009TRANSCRIPT
Dec1-2, 2009
Enhancing Water Productivity in Crop-Livestock Systems of SSA:
Minimizing trade-offs and maximizing benefits
Tilahun Amede, Katrein Descheemaeker, E. Mapedza et al.Presentation: CGIAR Systemwide Livestock Programme
Livestock Policy Group, 1 December 2009
Dec1-2, 2009
Livestock a livelihood strategy; increasing demand
USA
140
Dec1-2, 2009
Fetching water for household use
hugely competes for labour and
limited resources
Water scarcity is a real threat
Photo: Getachew Bayafers
Traveling long distance to access drinking water
Dec1-2, 2009
Negative impact of livestock on water and land resources
• Physical destruction, soil structure :Wind and water erosion
• Biological and chemical degradation :decreasing water quality
• Removal of biomass from the system: reduced soil organic matter, nutrient mining
• Decline in water holding capacity:changing hydrology
Dec1-2, 2009
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
1951 1956 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996
Flo
w,
Calculated
Observed
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Eva
pora
tion
or R
ainf
all (
m) Rainfall
ETo
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Eva
pora
tion
or R
ainf
all (
m) Rainfall
ETo
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Eva
pora
tion
or R
ainf
all (
m) Rainfall
ETo
Nile basin
Dec1-2, 2009
Principles of water productivity
• Water productivity refers to the amount or value of product over volume or value of water depleted/diverted
• Livestock water productivity (LWP) is often neglected in water productivity studies
• Livestock products & services are very important in mixed systems
degraded & depletedWater
services & productslivestock Net LWP
Dec1-2, 2009
Case studies from Eth and ZimLenche Dima, Dry, crop-livestock650mm
NkayiDry, agropastoral550 mm
Kuharwet, crop-livestock1300 mm
Dec1-2, 2009
Homegardens
Rain forests other agroforestry systems
Intercropping (among crops)
Monocropping
Socioeconomic drive
Ecological drive
hunting and gathering Intermediate agricultural systems
commercial production systems
. high species diversity
. closed system
. no input
. low species diversity
. open system
. high input
Figure 1. A continuum in land-use systems and species diversity along with gradients of ecological and socioeconomic drives of land managers (modified after Anderson and Sinclair, 1993)
Land use evolution
Dec1-2, 2009
System changes and its drivers in Kuhar
Dec1-2, 2009
Drivers of Land use changes
Fogera: Introduction of Rice and better access to markets
Implication: Reduced grazing area by almost 65%,
wet and dry season shortage of feed
Expansion of rice cultivation in Fogera district
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Number of households
Area (ha)
Dec1-2, 2009
open grazing exclosure
Drivers of Land use changes
@: Lenche Dima : NGO led exclosures
Implications: More access to biomass, less competition,
more productivity
Dec1-2, 2009
Contribution of crop residue for livestock feed and their water budget
58%
1%
25%
8%
3% 5%
crop residues
green forage
grazing
hay from exclosures
weeds
tree fodder
Kuhar Michael
60%
2%
28%
6%
2%
2%
crop residues
green forage
grazing
hay
weeds
tree fodder
Lenche Dima
67%1%
17%
7%
3%5%
crop residues
green forage
grazing
hay
weeds
tree fodder
58%
2%
29%
8%
2%
1%
crop residues
green forage
grazing
hay from exclosures
weeds
tree fodder
Dec1-2, 2009
Land and water productivity of major feed classes
Feed type
grain yield (ton/ha)
conver-sion factor
feed use factor
Feed energy content (MJ ME/kg)
Evapo-ration for feed (mm)
Transpi-ration for feed (mm)
feed land producti-vity (t/ha)
E land producti-vity (MJ ME/ha)
feed water producti-vity (kg/m3)
E water producti-vity (MJ ME/m3)
crop residuesteff 1.0 1.6 1.0 8.1 71 194 1.53 12364 0.58 4.68maize 2.2 2.0 0.7 6.8 54 198 3.01 20477 1.19 8.12sorghum 1.9 2.5 0.7 7.4 62 227 3.25 24053 1.12 8.32fingermillet 1.4 2.0 0.9 7.1 68 230 2.47 17515 0.83 5.89rice 2.5 1.5 1.0 5.8 86 270 3.80 22064 1.07 6.20chickpea 0.8 1.2 1.0 6.6 65 147 0.92 6072 0.43 2.87roughpea 1.0 1.2 1.0 7.2 19 79 1.24 8896 1.66 11.98
cereal average 1.8 1.9 0.9 7.0 68 224 2.81 19295 0.96 6.64legumes average 0.9 1.2 1.0 6.9 42 113 1.08 7484 1.05 7.42
hay - pastures 8.0 163 450 3.68 29440 0.60 4.80hay - exclosures 8.0 39 122 1.20 9600 0.74 5.96
grazing - plains 9.1 98 268 3.97 36127 1.08 9.87grazing - upland 9.1 170 208 1.52 13787 0.40 3.66
Dec1-2, 2009
Feed imbalance
-215000
-115000
-15000
85000
185000
285000
385000
Lega
mbo
Wog
di
D/Si
na
Amba
ssel
Kuta
ber
Tent
a
Sayin
t
D/Zu
ria
Wer
ailu
Jam
ma
Requirement (ton)
Available (ton)
Deficit (ton)
Source. Endale Bekele, 2007Crop land grazing: 10%Improved forage : 5%Feed Deficit: 25-77%
Dec1-2, 2009
Lenche Dima
Daily Energy Requirement (ME/TLU) = 40.61
Current Energy supply (ME/TLU) = 21.70
Deficit = 46.6%
Additional land required 250 ha
System = Semi-arid, one cropping seasons, sorghum-livestock
Dec1-2, 2009
Livestock feed and energy
Lenche Dima - energy requirements
73%
4%
3%
3%
1%
0%
11%
5%
maintenance
feeding
lactation
pregnancy
draught power
transport
walking
growth
Energy spent for walking ± 2-3 times energy for milk production and growth
Dec1-2, 2009
Water productivity variables for Lenche Dima Watershed (1546 ha) with water flows
Water flows (103 m3) E T total (E+T) Benefi ts production
specifi c unit
Financial value (US$) WP (US$/ m3)
feed production livestock outputs crop residues + greens f rom cropland 1708 1058 2766 milk 134026 liter 73,105 grazing 546 140 686 meat 5577 kg 14,812 hay f rom exclosures 167 155 322 traded animals 157 animals 28,679 skin/ hides 439 units 1,399 manure 2191 ton 77,921 draught power 48416 animaldays 88,029 transport 177197 animaldays 118,452
total livestock water 2420 1354 3774 total livestock outputs 402,397 LWP 0.106
crop production crop products teff 422 264 686 teff 409 ton 298,807 sorghum 385 229 614 sorghum 691 ton 492,377 chickpea 225 139 364 chickpea 177 ton 112,744 maize 79 59 138 maize 168 ton 73,209 total crop water 1111 690 1801 total crop products 977,136 CWP 0.543
Dec1-2, 2009
Quantifying the LWP variables
Kuhar Michael
32%
33%
9%
0%
5%
21%
0%
milk
manure
traded animals
consumed meat
transport
draught power
hides & skins
Lenche Dima
17%
32%
10%1%
18%
22%
0%
milk
manure
traded animals
consumed meat
transport
draught power
hides & skins
Average contributions of the different livestock outputs to overall LWP at household level.
Dec1-2, 2009
Water budgets of the farming systems in two contrasting sites water budget analysis
High unproductive water losses = indicator of productivity gap
Lenche Dima - all cropland
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
evap
orat
ion
trans
pirat
ion runo
ff
deep
perc
olatio
n
flow
s pe
r HH
(m3)
livestock
crops
Kuhar Michael - all cropland
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
evap
orat
ion
trans
pirat
ion runo
ff
deep
perc
olatio
n
flow
s pe
r HH
(m3)
livestock
crops
Dec1-2, 2009
Interventions for Improving LWP and managing trade-offs
1. Fertilizer application
2. Reducing livestock mortality
3. Multipurpose legumes
4. Intensifying cropping systems
5. Rehabilitating degraded lands through exclosures
6. Watering points for livestock drinking
7. Changing breeds
Dec1-2, 2009
1. Fertilizer effects on Maize in Zimbabwe FP = Farmer practice, MD = Micro-dose, RC = recommended
Dec1-2, 2009
Simulated maize stover over a period of 30 years under 3 SFM
FP = farmer practice, MD = micro-dose, RC = recommended rates
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
stov
er (k
g)
years
Stover yield and approximate DMI
FP
MD
RC
40% DMI
Dec1-2, 2009
Effects of soil fertility gradients on Enset biomass
Water balance components
Soil fertility conditions
Poor Near optimal
Non limiting
Evaporation (Ea) 446.1 285.4 203.5
Transpiration (Ta) 146.0 267.9 355.1
Dec1-2, 2009
2. Minimizing mortality rates
DynMod model was employed to simulate the different scenarios (current, acceptable) of mortality
• Feed shortages account for about 8% mortality
• Farmers do not grow forages for dry season feeding
• Diseases account for about 80% of mortality
• Low investment in disease prevention/ control (vaccination, dipping, dosing),
Dec1-2, 2009
3. Multipurpose legumes: applied as whole plant, shoot or roots, on wheat grain yield.
Type of legume Wheat yield after total biomass
(qt/ha) (SE)
Wheat yield after biomass transfer
(t/ha)
Wheat yield after only roots
(t/ha)
Lablab 7.85 (0.96) 4.31 (0.93) 6.38 (0.38)
Mucuna 9.75 (1.18) 8.29 (0.54) 8.86 (0.81)
Stylosanthus 7.38 (0.54) 2.67 (0.76) 5.14 (0.29)
Vetch 7.03 (1.23) 6.41 (0.85) 6.50 (0.76)
Control 6.38 (1.69)
TSP (50 kg /ha) and Urea (100
kg/ha)
6.51 (1.45)
Below ground effect was more substantial on crop yieldYield loss is minimal if the biomass is fed to the animals
Dec1-2, 2009
0,000
0,050
0,100
0,150
0,200
0,250
0,300
0,350
0,400
20% 40% 60%
CP
in
ma
ize
sto
ve
r (
kg
)
FP
MD
RC
required
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
20% 40% 60%
ma
ize
an
d m
ucu
na
CP
(K
G)
mucuna CP
maize CP
total CP
required CP
4. Intensifying cropping systems: Contribution of maize stover and mucuna to dry season feed at 20, 40 and 60% of daily CP requirements. (CP=0.228 kg/day) for 300 kg live weight.
Dec1-2, 2009
5. Rehabilitating degraded lands
LS water (ET)
biomass (ton)
E (1000 MJ ME)
Energy WP (MJ/m3)
Milk production (1000 liters)
LWP (US$/m3)
before 1114974 747 6824 6.12 1252 0.61
after 955853 792 6862 7.18 1259 0.72
Dec1-2, 2009
6. Watering points
Reduction of walking distance to access water: from 9 km to 2 km
Energy for walking is reduced from 1956 to 584 MJ ME / TLU per year
Milk equivalent of the 1372 ME MJ saved: extra 252 liter of milk/lactation / TLU: in reality from 343 to 463 liter/ lactation per cow
No change in water depleted for feed production
Milk WP improves by 35% (survey) to 75% (theoretical)
Dec1-2, 2009
7. If we changing breeds
Dec1-2, 2009
Estimating water requirements for various breeds
Breed Local Zebu Cross breed 25% Cross breed 50%
Live weight (kg) 250 400 450
Milk yield (lt day -1) 2.5 8.0 12.50
Lactation period 210 270 365
ME demand MJ year 17194 27095 38964
Water requirement (per lt of milk)
12174 4663 3175
Scenario I: If feed availability is reduced by 10%, no reduction in milk
No need to keep Reduce stock by 10% Increase stock by 60%
Water demand (lt/lt) No 4232 4101
Scenario I: If feed availability was reduced by 50%
No need to keep No need to keep 70% of total milk
Water requirements No No 4063 lt /lt milk
Dec1-2, 2009
Markets as incentives for improving water productivity
Assist local actors to identify NRM-oriented marketable enterprises (market information, facilitators, processors)
Facilitate integration of market options with win-win effects (food, feed, cash, conservation)
Facilitate communities and district officers in identifying niches, what fits best where (guides, tools, methods)
Develop policies to combine short term marketable enterprises with long term benefits
Dec1-2, 2009
Facilitating ‘change’ for increased uptake
• Intervention options: to address differing demands
• Scaling out; using adaptive systems
• Key drivers: emerging from bright spots (case studies) could lead to a jump start
• Power relations: shared beliefs and interests, but also diverse and often conflicting values and resource priorities (struggled and ‘bargained);
• LWP gender perspective; focus on women will yield disproportionately greater system-wide benefits;
• Leadership; willingness to shoulder political and social risk, inspires trust, externally-sourced innovations
Dec1-2, 2009
Political change
Women’s empowerment
Good Leadership
Institutional changes
Feed management
Water management
Animal productivity
1.Technologies 2. Institutions
More grain and livestock product per unitof investment of labour, waterand land
Community Innovation &empowerment
Impact•Poverty•Environment•Resilience
Targeting and
dissemination
LWP
3. Supportive policy
Amede et al., 2009
‘Enabling integration and innovations in LWP’
Dec1-2, 2009
Livestock Water Productivity The Rangeland J ournal Special I ssue Volume 31 Number 2
Edited by: Tilahun Amede Brien E. (Ben) Norton Deborah Bossio
100 pages Publisher: CSIRO PUBLISHING J une 2009
http://www.publish.csiro.au/nid/202/issue/5185.htm
Dec1-2, 2009
Acknowledgements • Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche
Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung (BMZ)
• ICRISAT
• Department of Agricultural Research and Extension (AREX), Zimbabwe
• Amhara Regional Agricultural Research Institute (ARARI)
• ZEF-University of Bonn, Germany
Dec1-2, 2009
Thank you !