• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Enhancing Water Productivity in Crop-Livestock Systems of SSA:  Minimizing trade-offs and maximizing benefits
 

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

on

  • 2,028 views

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

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

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,028
Views on SlideShare
1,960
Embed Views
68

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
34
Comments
0

2 Embeds 68

http://vslp.org 62
http://livestockprog.wordpress.com 6

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

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

    • 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
    • Livestock a livelihood strategy; increasing demand USA 140
    • 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
    • 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
    • Nile basin
    • 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
    • Case studies from Eth and Zim Lenche Dima, Dry, crop-livestock 650mm Nkayi Dry, agropastoral 550 mm Kuhar wet, crop-livestock 1300 mm
    • Land use evolution
    • System changes and its drivers in Kuhar
    • 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
    • open grazing exclosure Drivers of Land use changes @: Lenche Dima : NGO led exclosures Implications: More access to biomass, less competition, more productivity
    • Contribution of crop residue for livestock feed and their water budget 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
    • Land and water productivity of major feed classes
    • Feed imbalance Source. Endale Bekele, 2007
      • Crop land grazing: 10%
      • Improved forage : 5%
      • Feed Deficit: 25-77%
    • 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
    • Livestock feed and energy Energy spent for walking ± 2-3 times energy for milk production and growth
    • Water productivity variables for Lenche Dima Watershed (1546 ha) with water flows
    • Quantifying the LWP variables Average contributions of the different livestock outputs to overall LWP at household level.
    • Water budgets of the farming systems in two contrasting sites water budget analysis High unproductive water losses = indicator of productivity gap
    • Interventions for Improving LWP and managing trade-offs
      • Fertilizer application
      • Reducing livestock mortality
      • Multipurpose legumes
      • Intensifying cropping systems
      • Rehabilitating degraded lands through exclosures
      • Watering points for livestock drinking
      • Changing breeds
    • 1. Fertilizer effects on Maize in Zimbabwe FP = Farmer practice, MD = Micro-dose, RC = recommended
    • Simulated maize stover over a period of 30 years under 3 SFM FP = farmer practice, MD = micro-dose, RC = recommended rates
    • Effects of soil fertility gradients on Enset biomass 355.1 267.9 146.0 Transpiration (Ta) 203.5 285.4 446.1 Evaporation (Ea) Non limiting Near optimal Poor Soil fertility conditions Water balance components
    • 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),
    • 3. Multipurpose legumes: applied as whole plant, shoot or roots, on wheat grain yield.
      • Below ground effect was more
      • substantial on crop yield
      • Yield loss is minimal if the biomass
      • is fed to the animals
      6.51 (1.45) TSP (50 kg /ha) and Urea (100 kg/ha) 6.38 (1.69) Control 6.50 (0.76) 6.41 (0.85) 7.03 (1.23) Vetch 5.14 (0.29) 2.67 (0.76) 7.38 (0.54) Stylosanthus 8.86 (0.81) 8.29 (0.54) 9.75 (1.18) Mucuna 6.38 (0.38) 4.31 (0.93) 7.85 (0.96) Lablab Wheat yield after only roots (t/ha) Wheat yield after biomass transfer (t/ha) Wheat yield after total biomass (qt/ha) (SE) Type of legume
    • 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.
    • 5. Rehabilitating degraded lands
    • 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)
    • 7. If we changing breeds
    • Estimating water requirements for various breeds 4063 lt /lt milk No No Water requirements 70% of total milk No need to keep No need to keep Scenario I: If feed availability was reduced by 50% 4101 4232 No Water demand (lt/lt) Increase stock by 60% Reduce stock by 10% No need to keep If feed availability is reduced by 10%, no reduction in milk Scenario I: 3175 4663 12174 Water requirement (per lt of milk) 38964 27095 17194 ME demand MJ year 365 270 210 Lactation period 12.50 8.0 2.5 Milk yield (lt day -1) 450 400 250 Live weight (kg) Cross breed 50% Cross breed 25% Local Zebu Breed
    • 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
    • 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
    • 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 unit of investment of labour, water and land Community Innovation & empowerment
      • Impact
      • Poverty
      • Environment
      • Resilience
      Targeting and dissemination L W P 3. Supportive policy Amede et al., 2009 ‘ Enabling integration and innovations in LWP’
    • http://www.publish.csiro.au/nid/202/issue/5185.htm
    • 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
    • Thank you !