1) The document discusses crop-livestock interactions and conservation agriculture practices in the Indo-Gangetic Plains of South Asia, focusing on synergies and tradeoffs. 2) It analyzes data from village surveys conducted in 2005 on household assets, technology use, and crop residue management practices across a gradient of agricultural intensification. 3) The findings show that zero-tillage is more common where farms are larger and mechanized, while rice straw is less commonly used for livestock feed when harvesting is more mechanized. Crop residue management practices are largely incompatible with conservation agriculture.

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

3. Crop-livestock interactions Source: Erenstein & Thorpe, 2009

4. Ag systems along intensification gradient Source: Erenstein & Thorpe, 2009

6. South Asian farming systems John Dixon 2001

7. Study areas

15. SLP RG 2005 – IGP India & Bangladesh

16. Site characteristics: Village surveys (SLP RG 2005)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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