Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Competing uses, dynamics, and production and utilization constraints of crop residues in East Africa: Implications for conservation agriculture
Competing uses, dynamics, and production and utilization constraints of crop residues in East Africa: Implications for conservation agriculture
Competing uses, dynamics, and production and utilization constraints of crop residues in East Africa: Implications for conservation agriculture
Competing uses, dynamics, and production and utilization constraints of crop residues in East Africa: Implications for conservation agriculture
Competing uses, dynamics, and production and utilization constraints of crop residues in East Africa: Implications for conservation agriculture
Competing uses, dynamics, and production and utilization constraints of crop residues in East Africa: Implications for conservation agriculture
Competing uses, dynamics, and production and utilization constraints of crop residues in East Africa: Implications for conservation agriculture
Competing uses, dynamics, and production and utilization constraints of crop residues in East Africa: Implications for conservation agriculture
Competing uses, dynamics, and production and utilization constraints of crop residues in East Africa: Implications for conservation agriculture
Competing uses, dynamics, and production and utilization constraints of crop residues in East Africa: Implications for conservation agriculture
Competing uses, dynamics, and production and utilization constraints of crop residues in East Africa: Implications for conservation agriculture
Competing uses, dynamics, and production and utilization constraints of crop residues in East Africa: Implications for conservation agriculture
Competing uses, dynamics, and production and utilization constraints of crop residues in East Africa: Implications for conservation agriculture
Competing uses, dynamics, and production and utilization constraints of crop residues in East Africa: Implications for conservation agriculture
Competing uses, dynamics, and production and utilization constraints of crop residues in East Africa: Implications for conservation agriculture
Competing uses, dynamics, and production and utilization constraints of crop residues in East Africa: Implications for conservation agriculture
Competing uses, dynamics, and production and utilization constraints of crop residues in East Africa: Implications for conservation agriculture
Competing uses, dynamics, and production and utilization constraints of crop residues in East Africa: Implications for conservation agriculture
Competing uses, dynamics, and production and utilization constraints of crop residues in East Africa: Implications for conservation agriculture
Competing uses, dynamics, and production and utilization constraints of crop residues in East Africa: Implications for conservation agriculture
Competing uses, dynamics, and production and utilization constraints of crop residues in East Africa: Implications for conservation agriculture
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

Competing uses, dynamics, and production and utilization constraints of crop residues in East Africa: Implications for conservation agriculture

1,484

Published on

Presented by Kindu Mekonnen, Gedion Rachier, Dagnachew Lule, Mesfin Bahta, Diego Valbuena, Alan Duncan and Gerard Bruno at the International Congress on Water 2011, Mekelle, Ethiopia, 19-26 September …

Presented by Kindu Mekonnen, Gedion Rachier, Dagnachew Lule, Mesfin Bahta, Diego Valbuena, Alan Duncan and Gerard Bruno at the International Congress on Water 2011, Mekelle, Ethiopia, 19-26 September 2011.

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

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,484
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
35
Comments
0
Likes
2
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. Competing uses, dynamics, and production and utilization constraints of crop residues in East Africa: Implications for conservation agriculture 1 Kindu Mekonnen, 2 Gedion Rachier, 3 Dagnachew Lule, 4 Mesfin Bahta, 1 Diego Valbuena, 1 Alan Duncan and 1 Bruno Gerard International Congress on Water 2011: Integrated Water Resources Management in Tropical and Subtropical Drylands , Mekelle, Ethiopia, 19-26 September 2011 1 International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), P.O. Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia . 2 Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI), P.O. Box 169, Kakamega, Kenya 3 Bako Agricultural Research Center (BARC), P.O. Box 03, Bako, Ethiopia 4 Sirinka Agricultural Research Center (SARC), P.O. Box 74, Woldia, Ethiopia
  • 2. Contents of the presentation <ul><li>Introduction </li></ul><ul><li>Objectives of the study </li></ul><ul><li>Research methodologies </li></ul><ul><li>Research findings and discussion </li></ul><ul><li>Crops and crop residues </li></ul><ul><li>Cropping technologies </li></ul><ul><li>Competing uses of crop residues </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Trend analysis on the use of crop residues </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Production constraints of crop residues </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Utilization constraints of crop residues </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Implications of the present CR utilization for CA </li></ul><ul><li>Conclusions </li></ul>
  • 3. Introduction <ul><li>Crop residue production in the world - 3.8 billion Mg – cereals (74%), legumes (8%), oil crops (3%), sugar crops (10%) and tubers (5%) (Lal, 2005). </li></ul><ul><li>CRs have off-site/ product functions (feed) and on-site/ </li></ul><ul><li>service functions (SWC). </li></ul>CRs off-site uses CRs on-site uses
  • 4. <ul><li>The use of CRs for CA is challenged in the east African countries due to: </li></ul><ul><li>Studies on competing uses and other aspects of </li></ul><ul><li>CRs are key for managing the available resources, </li></ul><ul><li>searching more options and initiating more detailed </li></ul><ul><li>research. </li></ul><ul><li>poor capacity of smallholder farmers to purchase/access various inputs and services. </li></ul><ul><li>lack of availability of alternatives for various competing uses of CRs. </li></ul>
  • 5. <ul><li>investigate diversified and competing uses of crop residues </li></ul>Objectives 2) analyze past trends of uses of crop residues 3) identify production and utilization constraints for crop residues
  • 6. 3. Research methodologies <ul><li>Three sites were identified in two east African countries (Ethiopia and Kenya). </li></ul>
  • 7. <ul><li>Selected 8 villages in each of the three sites </li></ul><ul><li>based on market and road access: </li></ul><ul><li>Near-Near, Near-Far, Far-Near and Far-Far </li></ul><ul><li>Identified 10-20 farmers in each village to </li></ul><ul><li>respond as a group during the final village </li></ul><ul><li>survey. </li></ul><ul><li>Considered a total of 24 villages in the three </li></ul><ul><li>sites. </li></ul>
  • 8. <ul><li>Characteristics of the three sites </li></ul>  Kobo Nekemte Kakamega Altitude 1416-1634 1748-2418 1426-1719 Major soil types Vertisol Nitisol Acrisols, Ferralsols Mean annual rainfall (mm) 768 1037 2009 Mean annual temp ( o C) 30 29 28 Total village population 330-2250 196-391 400-5000 Total village HHs 66-450 35-70 80-1200 Total village land (ha) 77-910 74-164 200-900 Total cultivated land (ha) 66-280 61-149 160-810 Major crops sorghum, teff maize, teff maize, beans TLU 141-1004 69-213 121-673
  • 9. 3. Research findings and discussion 3.1. Crops and crop residues Sorghum- Kobo Teff- Nekemte Beans- Kakamega   Crop types Kobo Nekemte Kakamega cereals teff, sorghum, maize maize, teff, sorghum, finger millet, wheat, barley, oat maize, finger millet, sorghum legumes chickpeas faba beans, field peas, soya beans common beans, climbing beans and soya beans oil crops nd noug bambara nuts, ground nuts hort. crops vegetables (onion) vegetables (beet root, potato, anchote) vegetables (sweet potato), cassava, banana, tea, sugarcane
  • 10. Sorghum stover Teff straw Maize stover   Crop residues Kobo Nekemte Kakamega cereals teff straw, sorghum stover, maize stover teff straw, maize stover, barley straw, wheat straw, finger millet straw maize stover, maize cobs, finger millet straw legumes chickpea haulms and husks faba bean haulms and husks common and climbing beans oil crops nd nd groundnut haulms, hort. crops nd nd sugarcane tops, sweet potato vines, banana stems and leaves, vegetable stalks
  • 11. Area coverage of crops and hh growing them in the main rainy season at the three east African sites. Note: nd-there is no data, and np- there is no practice   Cropping systems Land allocated (ha) Area coverage (%) HHs growing (%) Kobo cereals 963 97 75 legumes 19 2 37 oil crops nd nd nd hort. crops 5 1 8 fallow np np np Nekemte cereals 581 74 78 legumes 13 2 46 oil crops 54 7 59 hort. crops 24 3 85 fallow 107 14 71 Kakamega cereals 1238 31 53 legumes 859 22 89 oil crops nd nd nd hort. crops 1776 44 75   fallow 133 3 nd
  • 12. 3.2. Cropping technologies   Area (%) Kobo Nekemte Kakamega tillage by tractor 6.43 (11.4) np 14.4 (17.7) tillage by animal 99.5 (1.4) 100.0 (0.0) 63.8 (28.9) new seed 2009 25.2 (36.5) 28.3 (32.0) 89.4 (4.2) chemical fertilizer 1.8 (2.9) 72.8 (19.4) 78.8 (13.8) manure application 9.3 (14.1) 22.3 (26.0) 54.4 (28.2) hand weeding 100.0 (0.0) 97.9 (6.0) 97.8 (3.5) herbicide application 34.1 (26.8) 51.1 (29.4) 2.8 (4.0) pesticide application 25.3 (38.4) 39.5 (33.0) 4.1 (3.2) thresher use np 4.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.0) chopper use for feed np np 2.3 (2.3) Data represent means with standard deviations in parentheses. The number of villages (n) is 8 for each of the three east African sites.
  • 13. 3.3. Competing uses of crop residues 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Kobo Nekemte Kakamega other uses households fuel stall feeding sell from home and field grazing by animals left as mulch
  • 14. Bars above the lines indicate increase in the last 10 years while bars below graphs indicate decreases. <ul><ul><li>3.4. Trend analysis on the use of crop residues </li></ul></ul>fuel
  • 15. Bars above the lines indicate increase in the last 10 years while bars below graphs indicate decreases. <ul><ul><li>3.4. Trend analysis on the use of crop residues </li></ul></ul>
  • 16. <ul><ul><li>3.5. Production constraints of crop residues </li></ul></ul>0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Kobo Nekemte Kakamega soil fertility decline high inputs/low outputs price and inputs unavailability lack of information/services problem of weeds, pests and diseases rainfall/drought problem
  • 17. <ul><ul><li>3.6. Utilization constraints of crop residues </li></ul></ul><ul><li>About 60 % of the ruminant livestock in Kobo, 20 % in </li></ul><ul><li>Nekemte and 25 % in Kakamega are dependent on CR. </li></ul><ul><li>The stem part of some plants is hard and highly lignified. </li></ul><ul><li>As a result, animals prefer the finer parts and thus causing </li></ul><ul><li>significant losses of the residues. </li></ul><ul><li>Lack of information and </li></ul><ul><li>access about various CR </li></ul><ul><li>processing methods are </li></ul><ul><li>major bottlenecks for </li></ul><ul><li>efficient utilization of CRs. </li></ul>
  • 18. 3.7. Implications of the present CR utilization for CA <ul><li>The soil in crop fields suffers a lack of permanent cover </li></ul><ul><li>due competing uses of CRs. </li></ul><ul><li>Perennial crops are less integrated into the crop fields to </li></ul><ul><li>avoid competition for space. </li></ul><ul><li>29 % of CRs in Kakamega </li></ul><ul><li>retained on the soil surface </li></ul><ul><li>to enhance and maintain </li></ul><ul><li>soil quality. </li></ul><ul><li>Nearly 100% of CRs in the Eth sites are removed from the </li></ul><ul><li>crop fields and allocated for product functions. </li></ul>
  • 19. <ul><li>Possible options to balance competing uses of CRs: </li></ul><ul><li>Implement integrated farming approaches – helps to save </li></ul><ul><li>more CRs for covering the soil and improving its fertility. </li></ul><ul><li>Producing enough biomass- use of cropping technologies </li></ul><ul><li>(irrigation, improved crop varieties) and intensive farming. </li></ul><ul><li>Introducing compatible and high value perennial crops in </li></ul><ul><li>croplands so as to improve the year round soil cover. </li></ul><ul><li>Enhance the knowledge of farmers on the management </li></ul><ul><li>and efficient use of CRs-capacity building schemes . </li></ul>
  • 20. 5. Conclusions <ul><li>CRs are very useful crop by-products for smallholder </li></ul><ul><li>farmers. Their use for animal feed surpassed the other </li></ul><ul><li>competing uses in all the sites. </li></ul><ul><li>S oil/land related problems; weed, insect and pests; high </li></ul><ul><li>input/low output prices; poor distribution of rainfall/drought; </li></ul><ul><li>and lack of information/services are some of the constraints </li></ul><ul><li>associated with low crop productivity and production of CRs. </li></ul><ul><li>Dealing with some of the crop and CRs production </li></ul><ul><li>constraints to enhance overall crop productivity could </li></ul><ul><li>provide more scope for the use of CRs for CA purposes. </li></ul>
  • 21. Thank you for listening!

×