Conservation agriculture, livestock and livelihood strategies in the Indo-Gangetic Plains of South Asia: Synergies and tra...
Outline <ul><li>Crop livestock interaction & intensification </li></ul><ul><li>Indo-Gangetic Plains </li></ul><ul><li>Find...
Crop-livestock interactions Source: Erenstein & Thorpe, 2009
Ag systems along intensification gradient Source: Erenstein & Thorpe, 2009
Crop-livestock interactions IGP, India <ul><li>CL interactions  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>conceptually simple, idealized but c...
South Asian farming systems John Dixon 2001
Study areas
IGP: Some of the gradients Popn. Density Institutional environment <ul><li>Rice </li></ul><ul><li>Wheat </li></ul>Food/fee...
IGP: Some socio-economic indicators 32 32 44 31 7 - Rural  BPL ( %) 568 651 788 546 328 -  Rural population density (2001,...
Drivers of change <ul><li>labour costs – mechanisation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Rs 100/d in NW to Rs 55/d in E </li></ul></ul...
Crop-livestock interactions, IGP <ul><li>Integrated crop-livestock systems, but one-way dependency </li></ul><ul><ul><li>S...
 
Resource conserving technologies & Conservation agriculture <ul><li>Resource conserving technology (RCT): </li></ul><ul><l...
CA challenges IGP <ul><li>Reducing tillage  (1/2)  </li></ul><ul><li>Crop residue management </li></ul><ul><li>Crop rotati...
SLP RG 2005 – IGP India & Bangladesh
Site characteristics: Village surveys (SLP RG 2005)
Household assets village census (SLP RG 2005) Cluster UGP MGP LGP household group large farm small farm land-less large fa...
Technology use % area of respective crop (SLP RG 2005) UGP MGP LGP wheat paddy wheat paddy wheat paddy households 261 266 ...
Straw use - wheat % of straw on field LGP MGP UGP harvest manual combine manual manual households 184 101 269 168 leftover...
Straw use - paddy % of straw on field LGP MGP UGP harvest manual combine manual manual households 148 103 248 212 leftover...
Straw feeding % of seasonal feed ration (DM) – village survey UGP (54 responses) MGP (54 responses) LGP (53 responses) whe...
Residue Retention & Straw Use <ul><li>Residue retention </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Perceived as good for soil </li></ul></ul><u...
Characteristics of zero-tillage use  (in wheat, only UGP) use of zero tillage (n) yes no p assets farm size [ha] 4.4  (109...
Determinants of using paddy straw as feed  (only UGP) dep. variable:  % paddy straw on field  being fed standardized beta ...
Conclusions <ul><li>Importance of agro-ecological gradients </li></ul><ul><li>Zero-tillage adoption for wheat where </li><...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Conservation agriculture, livestock and livelihood strategies in the Indo-Gangetic Plains of South Asia: Synergies and tradeoffs

2,350 views
2,191 views

Published on

Presentation by Olaf Erenstein, Nils Teufel & Arindam Samaddar (CIMMYT) to the CGIAR Systemwide Livestock Programme Livestock Policy Group Meeting, 1 December 2009

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

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,350
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
80
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
83
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Conservation agriculture, livestock and livelihood strategies in the Indo-Gangetic Plains of South Asia: Synergies and tradeoffs

  1. 1. Conservation agriculture, livestock and livelihood strategies in the Indo-Gangetic Plains of South Asia: Synergies and tradeoffs Olaf Erenstein a , Nils Teufel b & Arindam Samaddar ab ( a CIMMYT, b ILRI, o.erenstein@cgiar.org) SLP Annual Meeting Addis Ababa, Ethiopia,1-2 December 2009
  2. 2. Outline <ul><li>Crop livestock interaction & intensification </li></ul><ul><li>Indo-Gangetic Plains </li></ul><ul><li>Findings from SLP RG 2005 </li></ul><ul><li>Conclusion </li></ul>
  3. 3. Crop-livestock interactions Source: Erenstein & Thorpe, 2009
  4. 4. Ag systems along intensification gradient Source: Erenstein & Thorpe, 2009
  5. 5. Crop-livestock interactions IGP, India <ul><li>CL interactions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>conceptually simple, idealized but complex to disentangle </li></ul></ul><ul><li>CLI changing nature along ag intensification gradients </li></ul><ul><ul><li>increase as extensive systems intensify </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>decline as intermediate systems intensify </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>affect system sustainability (+ve/-ve) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Indo-Gangetic Plains (IGP) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>vast & important eco-region </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>agro-ecological gradients </li></ul></ul><ul><li>R&D interest in adapting crop residue management (CRM) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>to address sustainability concerns rice-wheat </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>stepping stone towards conservation agriculture </li></ul></ul>
  6. 6. South Asian farming systems John Dixon 2001
  7. 7. Study areas
  8. 8. IGP: Some of the gradients Popn. Density Institutional environment <ul><li>Rice </li></ul><ul><li>Wheat </li></ul>Food/feed Poverty Crop yield Herd size Farm size LGP (E) TGP (NW)
  9. 9. IGP: Some socio-economic indicators 32 32 44 31 7 - Rural BPL ( %) 568 651 788 546 328 - Rural population density (2001, km -2 ) 2.2 2.0 1.5 2.4 3.6 - Av. herd size (cow eq/hh) 35 52 39 28 10 - Small stock 36 45 40 30 20 - Cattle 29 3 21 39 69 - Herd (%) - Buffalo 0.6 1.6 0.4 0.3 0.9 - Livestock growth (30 yr, % p.a.) 210 255 203 201 199 - Livestock density (cow eq. km -2 ) 3.1 0.4 1.1 2.8 8.2 <ul><li>Tractor density ( km -2 ) </li></ul>67 44 49 73 90 <ul><li>Irrigated area (%) </li></ul>25 5 22 24 44 - Rice-wheat system area share (%) 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.8 3.0 - Average farm size (ha) Mean WB Bihar UP TGP
  10. 10. Drivers of change <ul><li>labour costs – mechanisation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Rs 100/d in NW to Rs 55/d in E </li></ul></ul><ul><li>political price distortions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>minimum support prices for wheat, rice (crop. pattern) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>subsidies for electricity, fertiliser (resource use) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>transport costs (vegetables, dairy) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>high-value perishable goods can reach urban centres </li></ul></ul><ul><li>market demand (crop/livestock) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>rising incomes & urbanisation lead to growing demand </li></ul></ul><ul><li>transformation rural livelihoods (off-farm+agriculture) </li></ul><ul><li>increasing pressure on resource base </li></ul><ul><ul><li>population growth, resource degradation </li></ul></ul>
  11. 11. Crop-livestock interactions, IGP <ul><li>Integrated crop-livestock systems, but one-way dependency </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Straw basic feed source </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Limited traction role – primarily transport </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Limited flow back manure (use as fuel) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Crop intensified, livestock lagging </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Risk & complementarity's resource use </li></ul><ul><li>Non-productive role of livestock: capital & cash </li></ul>
  12. 13. Resource conserving technologies & Conservation agriculture <ul><li>Resource conserving technology (RCT): </li></ul><ul><li>enhance resource/input use efficiency </li></ul><ul><li>Conservation agriculture (CA): </li></ul><ul><li>Minimum level of soil movement </li></ul><ul><li>Maintain soil cover, particularly retention of crop residues </li></ul><ul><li>Use of sensible, profitable crop rotations </li></ul>Reducing tillage Crop residue management Diversification
  13. 14. CA challenges IGP <ul><li>Reducing tillage (1/2) </li></ul><ul><li>Crop residue management </li></ul><ul><li>Crop rotation </li></ul><ul><li>Equity implications & poverty alleviation </li></ul>
  14. 15. SLP RG 2005 – IGP India & Bangladesh
  15. 16. Site characteristics: Village surveys (SLP RG 2005)
  16. 17. Household assets village census (SLP RG 2005) Cluster UGP MGP LGP household group large farm small farm land-less large farm small farm land-less large farm small farm land- less households 1320 761 3431 737 2734 1948 417 1973 1711 cultivated land [ha] 3.3 0.6 0.0 2.7 0.3 0.0 1.9 0.4 0.0 livestock, hh keeping [%] 91 76 40 74 62 31 88 70 39 large ruminants, hh keeping [%] 91 74 39 70 50 17 73 48 21 herd size [LR/hh] 3.4 1.9 1.6 1.8 1.4 1.4 2.3 1.7 1.4 small ruminants hh keeping [%] 4 7 2 19 28 20 63 52 27 herd size [SR/hh] 4.3 3.1 13.8 1.9 1.8 1.6 2.8 2.2 1.9
  17. 18. Technology use % area of respective crop (SLP RG 2005) UGP MGP LGP wheat paddy wheat paddy wheat paddy households 261 266 280 275 210 272 tractor tillage 86 95 45 55 32 84 reduced tillage 17 14 10 9 1 0 zero tillage 21 0 9 0 0 0 combine harvester 39 65 0 0 0 0 bhusa reaper 16 0 0 0 0 0
  18. 19. Straw use - wheat % of straw on field LGP MGP UGP harvest manual combine manual manual households 184 101 269 168 leftover % 6 19 7 6 burnt % 0 10 0 14 given % 6 5 2 2 sold % 19 24 26 6 fed % 66 41 55 11 fuel % 2 1 9 57 other % 1 0 1 4 total % 100 100 100 100
  19. 20. Straw use - paddy % of straw on field LGP MGP UGP harvest manual combine manual manual households 148 103 248 212 leftover % 9 9 7 20 burnt % 22 74 0 2 given % 9 3 3 0 sold % 9 1 28 13 fed % 36 8 42 62 fuel % 3 1 12 2 other % 11 3 9 0 total % 100 100 100 100
  20. 21. Straw feeding % of seasonal feed ration (DM) – village survey UGP (54 responses) MGP (54 responses) LGP (53 responses) wheat paddy (mons.) all straw wheat paddy (mons.) all straw wheat paddy (mons.) all straw winter (Jan/Feb) 40 20 59 42 43 85 0 84 84 wheat harvest (Mar/Apr) 61 4 65 70 13 83 4 79 82 monsoon (Jul/Aug) 38 3 41 58 8 66 2 66 68 paddy harvest (Oct/Nov) 41 24 66 33 57 90 0 88 88
  21. 22. Residue Retention & Straw Use <ul><li>Residue retention </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Perceived as good for soil </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Preference for clean harvested fields </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Rice straw preferred over wheat </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No conscious effort in ZT/RT adopted farmers </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Wheat or rice tradition </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Food tradition dictates feed preference </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Harvesting technology </li></ul><ul><ul><li>determines availability & quality of straw </li></ul></ul>
  22. 23. Characteristics of zero-tillage use (in wheat, only UGP) use of zero tillage (n) yes no p assets farm size [ha] 4.4 (109) 2.0 (303) 0.00 large ruminants 5.6 (109) 3.9 (303) 0.00 characteristics age hh head [y] 49 (109) 50 (302) 0.77 education hh head [y] 7.1 (109) 4.9 (303) 0.00 expenses [USD/(c*d)] 0.84 (109) 0.58 (303) 0.00 technology combine [% paddy area] 73 (109) 38 (303) 0.00 straw use leftover [%] 8 (54) 12 (98) 0.06 (paddy, combine) burnt [%] 83 (54) 65 (98) 0.00 fed [%] 7 (54) 11 (98) 0.21
  23. 24. Determinants of using paddy straw as feed (only UGP) dep. variable: % paddy straw on field being fed standardized beta p farm size [ha] -0.07 0.30 large ruminants 0.26 0.00 age hh head [y] -0.12 0.02 education hh head [y] -0.01 0.85 expenses [USD pc/d] -0.07 0.24 ZT use [% wheat area] -0.05 0.32 combine use [% paddy area] -0.56 0.00 milk sold [%] -0.18 0.01 adjusted r 2 = 0.41, n=225
  24. 25. Conclusions <ul><li>Importance of agro-ecological gradients </li></ul><ul><li>Zero-tillage adoption for wheat where </li></ul><ul><ul><li>wheat tradition </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>well endowed </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>high mechanisation (combine) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>rice straw less preferred as feed </li></ul></ul><ul><li>… but still largely incompatible CRM for CA </li></ul><ul><ul><li>more burning </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>no change straw feeding or livestock herd size </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Need to proactively incorporate into R&D agenda </li></ul>

×