Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
CA in Ethiopia
CA in Ethiopia
CA in Ethiopia
CA in Ethiopia
CA in Ethiopia
CA in Ethiopia
CA in Ethiopia
CA in Ethiopia
CA in Ethiopia
CA in Ethiopia
CA in Ethiopia
CA in Ethiopia
CA in Ethiopia
CA in Ethiopia
CA in Ethiopia
CA in Ethiopia
CA in Ethiopia
CA in Ethiopia
CA in Ethiopia
CA in Ethiopia
CA in Ethiopia
CA in Ethiopia
CA in Ethiopia
CA in Ethiopia
CA in Ethiopia
CA in Ethiopia
CA in Ethiopia
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

CA in Ethiopia

99

Published on

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
99
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Frédéric Baudron CIMMYT Ethiopia f.baudron@cgiar.org Promoting CA amongst the largest livestock population in Africa: does it make sense?
  • 2.  Long-term sustainability (e.g. SOC)  Short-term productivity (e.g. WUE)  Animal traction  Nutrient cycling  Income generation  Saving / Insurance  Display of status Feeding the soil vs. livestock
  • 3. 1. Understanding trade-offs 2. Using biomass more efficiently 3. Increasing cereal productivity 4. Making CA work 5. Producing more biomass 6. Increasing the productivity of livestock 7. Providing incentives to reduce livestock number What can be done?
  • 4. 1. How much biomass is needed by the soil? (from Scopel et al., 2005) for runoff & erosion control (from Giller et al., 2009) for SOC increase & maintenance
  • 5. 1. How much biomass is required for herd maintenance? (Source: SIMLESA baseline) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Numberofheads Bulls Heifers Calves Oxen Cows 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Minimumbiomassrequiredto keeptheherdalive(tones) Resource-endowment
  • 6. 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 50 100 150 Waterconveff (kgmm-1) Total water transpired mm) 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 100 200 Nitrogenuptake (kgha-1) Total water transpired (mm) 0 20 40 60 80 0 50 100 Nitrogenconveff (kgkg-1) Total nitrogen uptake (kg ha-1) 0 50 100 150 0 100 200 Totalwater transpired(mm) Total mineral nitrogen (kg ha-1) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 10 20 TotalSOCinthe0-20 cm(tha-1) Time since forest clearance (years) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 Surfacearea(ha) Total cultivated area Cotton area Cereal area FARMSIMAPSIM
  • 7. Plot-level: « It depends… » -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 100 150 200 250 Yieldincreasecomparedtobaresoil -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 100 150 200 250 -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 100 150 200 250 Early rainfall (mm) 100 kg ha-1 1000 kg ha-1 3000 kg ha-1 1. « What is the optimum allocation? » (Baudron et al., in prep)
  • 8. Plot-level: « It depends… » Farm-level: « All for livestock… » 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.8 3.0 3.3 3.5 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Grainyield(tha-1) 0 1 2 3 4 5 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Cattlenumber(headsha-1) 0 kg ha-1 20 kg ha-1 40 kg ha-1 60 kh ha-1 80 kg ha-1 100 kg ha-1 Retention of sorghum residue as surface mulch 1. « What is the optimum allocation? » (Baudron et al., in prep)
  • 9. Plot-level: « It depends… » Farm-level: « All for livestock… » Village-level: « Half-half… » 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 Low-endowed farmerswinning 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 20 40 60 80 100 High-endowed farmerswinning 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 20 40 60 80 100 Low-endowed farmersloosing 420 440 460 480 500 520 0 20 40 60 80 100 High-endowed farmersloosing Retention of sorghum residue as surface mulch (%) 1. « What is the optimum allocation? » (Baudron et al., in prep)
  • 10. 2. « EXRATION » : a simple Excel program to formulate feed rations for dairy cows EXRATION …etc… Set of available ingredients characterized by their ME, CP, NDP and $ OPTIMIZATION Characteristics of the cow (weight, pregnacy stage, etc) + production objective Cheapest ration satisfying the cow requirements
  • 11. 2. « Managing » grazing PERENIALS CROPLAND FUEL LIVESTOCK MANURE + + - + - + - 0 1 2 3 4 Enclosed farmland Open Farmland SOM(%) 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 Enclosed farmland Open Farmland TN(%) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Enclosed farmland Open Farmland CEC(meq/100g) (from Mamo et al., 2011)
  • 12. 3. Stress Tolerant and Resource- Efficient Maize Improved Maize for African Soils Drought Tolerant Maize for Africa Insect Resistant Maize for Africa
  • 13. 3. Precision Agriculture: when, where, how much? Ciudad Obregon, 6 sites, 2001 and 2002 y = 506.42e175.91x R2 = 0.78 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018 INSEY Grainyield,kg/ha O226, 2001 P209, 2001 P227WR, 2002 P227, 2002 P226, 2002 Q212, 2002 (from Freeman and Sayre, pers. com.) 5000 USD 200 USD
  • 14. 3. Maximizing tree-crop facilitation  Micro-climatic effect  Reduced evaporation, hydraulic lift  N fixation and recycling, P mobilization What variety traits? (e.g. heat resistance, root system) What management? (e.g. tillage, N&P fertilization)
  • 15. 3. Dual purpose maize 90% 95% 100% 105% 110% 115% 120% Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Fulfilmentoftheenergy requirementoftheherd SC 403 BH 140 Melkassa 2 MHQ 138 MH 130 0 2 4 6 8 Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Maizestovertobeusedas surfacemulch(tha-1) BH-140 Mulch MH 130 MHQ-138 SC-403 Melkassa 2
  • 16. 4. Water use efficiency 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0 100 1000 3000 Waterusebysorghum Surface mulch (kg DM ha-1) Transpiration Runoff Soil evaporation Drainage  CA: increased infiltration and reduced evaporation  Is this extra moisture being used?
  • 17. 4. Nitrogen Management  Crucial in CA: o N leaching (increased drainage) o N immobilization (retention of residues with a wide C:N ratio) o Reduced SOM mineralization (reduced tillage)  Split application of N?  Micro-dosing?  Precision Agriculture?
  • 18. 4. Genotype × Management  No tillage (early vigour)  Intercropping (erect leaves)  Water use efficiency  Low N  Disease resistance (e.g. fusarium crown rot)
  • 19. 5. When is the feed shortage? Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Bodycondition Rangeland Cropland Maize stover Teff straw
  • 20. 5. Producing more biomass 0 1 2 3 4 5 Residueproduction(tDM ha-1) Intercropping Forages and pernenials in unexploited farm niches
  • 21. 6. Increasing livestock productivity  Market pull: animals with higher productivity produce milk and meat at a lower cost…  … and require feed sources that are more concentrated in energy than maize stover 0 40 80 120 160 200 0 10 20 30 Energyrequirementandprovision (MJ/d) Milk production (L) Sweet potato vine Groundnut hay Faidherbia leaves Leucaena Lablab Vetch Calliandra Cow pea hay Desmodium Soybean straw Bean straw Napier Maize stover 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 20 40 Productioncost(MJ/L) Milk production (L)
  • 22. 7. Providing substitutes to the function livestock plays  From animal manure to mineral fertilizers  From large herds to credit and insurance facilities  From animal traction to mechanization
  • 23. ??? Is SSA Ready for Small-Scale Agricultural Mechanization? > 4 tones per year
  • 24. Farm power: the « forgotten resource » for SI in SSA  Increasing reliance of African agriculture on human muscle power  65% power in SSA  Collapse of tractor hire schemes  Decreasing ADP in the 1990s  Labour constraints  Ageing population, rural-urban migration, HIV/AIDS  Labour drudgery  Unattractive sector  Gender implications Trend in cattle population owned by smallholder Zambian farmers (from Haggblade & Tembo, 2003)
  • 25. Power demand Powersupply 4WT, 2WT Animal traction Manual systems e.g. Western Kenya e.g. Ethiopia, Zi mbabwe e.g. India, Bang ladeshDesirable space CA systems Conventionnaly-tilled systems
  • 26. CA-2WTs Synergies The suppression of inversion tillage reduces power requirements by 50%, allowing for the use of smaller and cheaper sources of power
  • 27. Thank you!

×