Effect of Current Livestock Feed Sourcing and Feeding Strategies on
Livestock Water Productivity in Mixed Crop-livestock S...
Introduction
 For decades-long, exploitation of land, leading to competition over land and
water, and thus leads to water...
Introduction cont’d
• High volumes of water withdrawn for production of feed (Steinfeld
et al., 2006); affected by
• Ways ...
Introduction cont’d
• So, understanding the farming systems’ and landscape’ feed
sourcing and feeding strategies in the Hi...
Objectives
• To identify the different livestock feed sourcing and feeding
strategies in mixed crop livestock systems of t...
2. Materials and methods
Area description
Jeldu Woreda
FogeraWoreda
Diga Woreda
Dapo
watershed
Mizuwa watershed
Meja water...
Stratification and Household Survey
67 hh in Diga
• Multistage stratified sampling and 2 PA for each system
• Also stratif...
Livestock Water Productivity Estimation
• LWP as defined earlier, is based on the ratio of livestock
beneficial outputs an...
Feed Resource Assessment
• Sampling of biomass
• Harvest index approaches
• Annual DM yield for communal and stubble
Estimation of Water Depleted in Producing Livestock Feed
• New LocClim (FAO, 2005)
• Using CROPWAT 8.0 software (FAO, 2003...
Beneficial output estimation
Results and Discussion
Landholding and livestock holding (TLU)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
TMS MSS BPS TWS TSS TMMS RPS
Diga Je...
Variability of Feed Resources Availability and Ingredients Across the
Study Systems
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
TMS MSS B...
DM yield and grass-legume composition on private grazing lands
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
TMS MSS BPS TWS TSS TMMS RPS
Diga Jeldu Foger...
Improved forages production and feed supplementation
• Almost no practice improved forages production ( about 85%)
• No fe...
Feeding systems
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
TMS MSS BPS TWS TSS TMMS RPS
%ofrespondents
Garzing of natural pasture
Tethering on ...
Livestock Water Productivity
Woreda Farming
systems
N $ m-3)
Mean±SE Min Max
Diga TMS 35 0.19±0.02 0.001 0.48
MSS 32 0.16±...
Livestock Water Productivity…
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
TMS MSS BPS TWS TSS TMMS RPS
Diga Jeldu Fogera
LWP(US$-3)
Farmi...
Conclusion and recommendation
• In all of the study farming systems, crop residues constitute the major
ingredient of live...
Thank you!!
THANK YOU!
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Effect of current livestock feed sourcing and feeding strategies on livestock water productivity in mixed crop-livestock systems of the Blue Nile Basin highlands of Ethiopia

923 views
805 views

Published on

Presented by Bedasa Eba at the Nile Basin Development Challenge (NBDC) Science Workshop, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 9–10 July 2013

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
923
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
449
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
9
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Effect of current livestock feed sourcing and feeding strategies on livestock water productivity in mixed crop-livestock systems of the Blue Nile Basin highlands of Ethiopia

  1. 1. Effect of Current Livestock Feed Sourcing and Feeding Strategies on Livestock Water Productivity in Mixed Crop-livestock Systems of the Blue Nile Basin Highlands of Ethiopia Nile Basin Development Challenge (NBDC) Science Workshop, 9-10 July, 2013, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Bedasa Eba
  2. 2. Introduction  For decades-long, exploitation of land, leading to competition over land and water, and thus leads to water scarcity in Blue Nile Basin (WFP, 2007).  Highly populated by people and livestock (27.6 TLU/ km2 )  In BNB rain water lost as:  Unproductive run off, evaporative losses, and high volume of water required for livestock production (Descheemaeker et.al, 2010)
  3. 3. Introduction cont’d • High volumes of water withdrawn for production of feed (Steinfeld et al., 2006); affected by • Ways feed is produced and supplied to the animal • Dry matter (DM) productivity and feed quality • Contact between livestock and the environment • Temporal and spatial availability of feed and water resources
  4. 4. Introduction cont’d • So, understanding the farming systems’ and landscape’ feed sourcing and feeding strategies in the Highlands of BNB, leads to; • Generating baseline information in this area and link to improve LWP • Serve as a reference point to explore different water efficient feed sourcing and feeding practices.
  5. 5. Objectives • To identify the different livestock feed sourcing and feeding strategies in mixed crop livestock systems of the BNB • To assess the effects of current feeding systems on livestock water productivity
  6. 6. 2. Materials and methods Area description Jeldu Woreda FogeraWoreda Diga Woreda Dapo watershed Mizuwa watershed Meja watershed
  7. 7. Stratification and Household Survey 67 hh in Diga • Multistage stratified sampling and 2 PA for each system • Also stratified by wealth categories (4-6 hh per clustered ) 220 hh in BNB 91 hh in Jeldu 62 hh in Fogera 35 hh in teff-millet 32 hh in maize- sorghum 31 hh in Barley- potato 30 hh in teff- wheat 30 hh in teff- sorghum 32 hh in teff- millet 30 hh in rice- pulse
  8. 8. Livestock Water Productivity Estimation • LWP as defined earlier, is based on the ratio of livestock beneficial outputs and services to depleted water through feed production • LWPji = (MYVji+OTVji+TVOSji+TMVji)/DWLFji Milk value Off take value Service value Manure value Water depleted to feed
  9. 9. Feed Resource Assessment • Sampling of biomass • Harvest index approaches • Annual DM yield for communal and stubble
  10. 10. Estimation of Water Depleted in Producing Livestock Feed • New LocClim (FAO, 2005) • Using CROPWAT 8.0 software (FAO, 2003) • ETci= ETo*Kci*LGPij (general water depleted)
  11. 11. Beneficial output estimation
  12. 12. Results and Discussion Landholding and livestock holding (TLU) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 TMS MSS BPS TWS TSS TMMS RPS Diga Jeldu Fogera TLUorha Mean Landholding (ha) Mean Livestock (in TLU) Landholding (ha) and livestock (in TLU) variation among Jeldu systems Lower landholding (ha) in Fogera systems
  13. 13. Variability of Feed Resources Availability and Ingredients Across the Study Systems 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 TMS MSS BPS TWS TSS TMMS RPS %ofDrymatter Farming systems crop residues(%) on DM basis Natural pasture(%) on DM basis Aftermath grazing (%) on DM basis
  14. 14. DM yield and grass-legume composition on private grazing lands 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 TMS MSS BPS TWS TSS TMMS RPS Diga Jeldu Fogera DM(ton) Grasses DM (t/ha) Legumes DM (t/ha) • In Fogera as much as 10.8 ton/ha (Ashagre, 2008) from improved natural pasture. • By closing yield gaps as high as 100% improvement in LWP is reported for mixed crop livestock systems of India (Haileslassie et al., 2011).
  15. 15. Improved forages production and feed supplementation • Almost no practice improved forages production ( about 85%) • No feed supplementation practice particularly with sources outside their farm (e.g., bran, oil cake) • Storages of crop residues better in Jeldu and Fogera but lower Diga • About 74.2%-95% of respondents were not used chemical and/or physical treatment on crop residues
  16. 16. Feeding systems 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 TMS MSS BPS TWS TSS TMMS RPS %ofrespondents Garzing of natural pasture Tethering on natural pasture crop residues of In situ grazing crop residues off situ feeding Only tethering in Diga In situ grazing of crop residues
  17. 17. Livestock Water Productivity Woreda Farming systems N $ m-3) Mean±SE Min Max Diga TMS 35 0.19±0.02 0.001 0.48 MSS 32 0.16±0.02 0.021 0.38 Mean 67 0.17±0.01 Jeldu BPS 31 0.15±0.02 0.002 0.63 TWS 30 0.16±0.01 0.001 0.43 TSS 30 0.16±0.02 0.027 0.37 Mean 91 0.16±0.01 Fogera TMMS 32 0.18±0.01 0.07 0.35 RPS 30 0.15±0.02 0.01 0.30 Mean 62 0.16±0.01 • No apparent difference between systems (beneficial output) • Huge gap between minimum and maximum of LWP value
  18. 18. Livestock Water Productivity… 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 TMS MSS BPS TWS TSS TMMS RPS Diga Jeldu Fogera LWP(US$-3) Farming systems within each Woreda Better off Medium Poor • High LWP for better off lower LWP for poor
  19. 19. Conclusion and recommendation • In all of the study farming systems, crop residues constitute the major ingredient of livestock diet and supplementary feeding with high value feed is not commonly practiced and livestock feed scarcity is considerable. Hence; • Improving water productivity of feed is major entry points to improve LWP areas • The farm scale showed a very wide range between the resources poor and better off farmers. Such big gap of LWP for farm households operating in the same farming system suggests a potential for improvements.
  20. 20. Thank you!! THANK YOU!

×