enhancing water productivity in crop-livestock systems of ssa: minimizing trade-offs and maximizing...

36
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

Upload: ilri

Post on 25-May-2015

1.301 views

Category:

Technology


1 download

DESCRIPTION

Presentation by Tilahun Amede, Katrein Descheemaeker, E. Mapedza et al (IWMI) to the CGIAR Systemwide Livestock Programme Livestock Policy Group Meeting, 1 December 2009

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Enhancing Water Productivity in Crop-Livestock Systems of SSA:  Minimizing trade-offs and maximizing benefits

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

Page 2: Enhancing Water Productivity in Crop-Livestock Systems of SSA:  Minimizing trade-offs and maximizing benefits

Dec1-2, 2009

Livestock a livelihood strategy; increasing demand

USA

140

Page 3: Enhancing Water Productivity in Crop-Livestock Systems of SSA:  Minimizing trade-offs and maximizing benefits

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

Page 4: Enhancing Water Productivity in Crop-Livestock Systems of SSA:  Minimizing trade-offs and maximizing benefits

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

Page 5: Enhancing Water Productivity in Crop-Livestock Systems of SSA:  Minimizing trade-offs and maximizing benefits

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

Page 6: Enhancing Water Productivity in Crop-Livestock Systems of SSA:  Minimizing trade-offs and maximizing benefits

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

Page 7: Enhancing Water Productivity in Crop-Livestock Systems of SSA:  Minimizing trade-offs and maximizing benefits

Dec1-2, 2009

Case studies from Eth and ZimLenche Dima, Dry, crop-livestock650mm

NkayiDry, agropastoral550 mm

Kuharwet, crop-livestock1300 mm

Page 8: Enhancing Water Productivity in Crop-Livestock Systems of SSA:  Minimizing trade-offs and maximizing benefits

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

Page 9: Enhancing Water Productivity in Crop-Livestock Systems of SSA:  Minimizing trade-offs and maximizing benefits

Dec1-2, 2009

System changes and its drivers in Kuhar

Page 10: Enhancing Water Productivity in Crop-Livestock Systems of SSA:  Minimizing trade-offs and maximizing benefits

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)

Page 11: Enhancing Water Productivity in Crop-Livestock Systems of SSA:  Minimizing trade-offs and maximizing benefits

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

Page 12: Enhancing Water Productivity in Crop-Livestock Systems of SSA:  Minimizing trade-offs and maximizing benefits

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

Page 13: Enhancing Water Productivity in Crop-Livestock Systems of SSA:  Minimizing trade-offs and maximizing benefits

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

Page 14: Enhancing Water Productivity in Crop-Livestock Systems of SSA:  Minimizing trade-offs and maximizing benefits

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%

Page 15: Enhancing Water Productivity in Crop-Livestock Systems of SSA:  Minimizing trade-offs and maximizing benefits

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

Page 16: Enhancing Water Productivity in Crop-Livestock Systems of SSA:  Minimizing trade-offs and maximizing benefits

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

Page 17: Enhancing Water Productivity in Crop-Livestock Systems of SSA:  Minimizing trade-offs and maximizing benefits

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

Page 18: Enhancing Water Productivity in Crop-Livestock Systems of SSA:  Minimizing trade-offs and maximizing benefits

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.

Page 19: Enhancing Water Productivity in Crop-Livestock Systems of SSA:  Minimizing trade-offs and maximizing benefits

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

Page 20: Enhancing Water Productivity in Crop-Livestock Systems of SSA:  Minimizing trade-offs and maximizing benefits

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

Page 21: Enhancing Water Productivity in Crop-Livestock Systems of SSA:  Minimizing trade-offs and maximizing benefits

Dec1-2, 2009

1. Fertilizer effects on Maize in Zimbabwe FP = Farmer practice, MD = Micro-dose, RC = recommended

Page 22: Enhancing Water Productivity in Crop-Livestock Systems of SSA:  Minimizing trade-offs and maximizing benefits

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

Page 23: Enhancing Water Productivity in Crop-Livestock Systems of SSA:  Minimizing trade-offs and maximizing benefits

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

Page 24: Enhancing Water Productivity in Crop-Livestock Systems of SSA:  Minimizing trade-offs and maximizing benefits

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),

Page 25: Enhancing Water Productivity in Crop-Livestock Systems of SSA:  Minimizing trade-offs and maximizing benefits

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

Page 26: Enhancing Water Productivity in Crop-Livestock Systems of SSA:  Minimizing trade-offs and maximizing benefits

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.

Page 27: Enhancing Water Productivity in Crop-Livestock Systems of SSA:  Minimizing trade-offs and maximizing benefits

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

Page 28: Enhancing Water Productivity in Crop-Livestock Systems of SSA:  Minimizing trade-offs and maximizing benefits

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)

Page 29: Enhancing Water Productivity in Crop-Livestock Systems of SSA:  Minimizing trade-offs and maximizing benefits

Dec1-2, 2009

7. If we changing breeds

Page 30: Enhancing Water Productivity in Crop-Livestock Systems of SSA:  Minimizing trade-offs and maximizing benefits

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

Page 31: Enhancing Water Productivity in Crop-Livestock Systems of SSA:  Minimizing trade-offs and maximizing benefits

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

Page 32: Enhancing Water Productivity in Crop-Livestock Systems of SSA:  Minimizing trade-offs and maximizing 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

Page 33: Enhancing Water Productivity in Crop-Livestock Systems of SSA:  Minimizing trade-offs and maximizing benefits

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’

Page 34: Enhancing Water Productivity in Crop-Livestock Systems of SSA:  Minimizing trade-offs and maximizing benefits

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

Page 35: Enhancing Water Productivity in Crop-Livestock Systems of SSA:  Minimizing trade-offs and maximizing benefits

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

Page 36: Enhancing Water Productivity in Crop-Livestock Systems of SSA:  Minimizing trade-offs and maximizing benefits

Dec1-2, 2009

Thank you !