Advertisement

More Related Content

Slideshows for you(20)

Similar to Optimizing the environmental footprint of livestock production(20)

Advertisement

More from ILRI(20)

Recently uploaded(20)

Advertisement

Optimizing the environmental footprint of livestock production

  1. Optimizing the environmental footprint of livestock production An Notenbaert and Polly Ericksen TropAg2017 Conference, Brisbane, 20-22 November 2017
  2. THE IMPORTANCE OF LIVESTOCK For PEOPLE – Employment, income – Economy – Food and nutrition – Cultural value – Resilience and risk management 2 And the PLANET – Biggest land user – Natural resources: Manure, carbon in the soil, energy, … GHGe, water use/pollution, degradation,… OECD narratives mostly negative Not much evidence from Low-Middle Income Countries Sustainability is a big issue and needs to be managed
  3. THE AIM OF LIVESTOCK-ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH Optimize the environmental footprint i.e. “Goods” & “Bads“
  4. THREE PILLARS IN THE RESEARCH PORTFOLIO • Improved foresight and assessments (2-way GEC- livestock interactions) based on site-specific data • Identify solutions and provide stakeholders with knowledge and incentives to implement solutions • Foster an enabling policy and institutional environment == GHGe, soil health/degradation, water, biodiversity ==
  5. EXAMPLE 1: greenhouse gas emissions
  6. • Hazards/stresses: – Δ CO2, temperature, precipitation – Variability and extreme events • Direct impact – Heat stress • Indirect impact – Water – Diseases – Biodiversity, Soil – Feed and forages – Livelihoods and systems • 6 Suitability change – 2000-2020 (A2): Ecocrop modeling (Hymann et al.) Pennisetum purpureum (Napier grass) Brachiaria brizantha (Signal grass) Heat stress change – 2010-2035:Impacts of CC on Livestock PILLAR1:ASSESSMENTS
  7. Report Region Males Females Calves kg CH4 yr-1 IPCC Africa 49 41 17.3 Goopy et al. (2017) Nyando, Kenya 34.4 24.6 16 • Tier 2 estimates of ruminant Emission Factors • Difference due to assumptions about energy intake • Feed shortage/ seasonal LW loss • Caution: only one location • Countries in stronger position for climate finance IPCC approach CH4 = Energy intake* Ym (“methane conversion factor”) GHG emission baselines and SSA-specific emission factors PILLAR1:ASSESSMENTS
  8. Integrating forages in African farming systems Napier- Desmodium intercropFodder oat for cold areas Vetch- legume BrachiariaEstablishment demonstration On-station: - Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Mozambique - Demonstration plots and long-term trials - Grasses/legumes  Towards advanced lines of breeding program On-farm: - Napier, Brachiaria, Desmodium in Tanzania - Oats, Rye grass, Vetch in Central Kenya - Grasses/legumes in Rwanda and Tanzania 0 1 2 3 4 5 Morning Evening Milkproduction(kg) Farmer practice Intervention 21% 18% Intervention- (Oat + vetch) PILLAR2:SOLUTIONS
  9. EXAMPLE 2: Restoring degraded rangelands
  10. Estimating SOC dynamics in a rangeland of Eastern Kenya - A DayCent model approach • Soils as carbon sink – Mitigate CC – Improve soil fertility • Rangeland sequestration potential – Improved management practices • DayCent SOM model – Predicts SOC dynamics over time NPP Estimation Soil Properties DayCent Site Specific Parameters MSc. thesis by Kate Blankson PILLAR1:ASSESSMENTS
  11. 1 Booklet (practical guidelines) on Sustainable Development of Lowland Pastures in NENA region Solutions PILLAR2:SOLUTIONS
  12. Exclosure improvement: influence of context PILLAR2:INSTITUTIONS
  13. CGIAR Research Program on Livestock livestock.cgiar.org The CGIAR Research Program on Livestock aims to increase the productivity and profitability of livestock agri-food systems in sustainable ways, making meat, milk and eggs more available and affordable across the developing world. This presentation is licensed for use under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence. The program thanks all donors and organizations which globally support its work through their contributions to the CGIAR system

Editor's Notes

  1. Not much accurate data for LMIC on actual rangeland status, so the assessments are important. Again: site-specific data is being collected to improve the assessments
  2. Example from Mounir of change in rangeland condition with treatments (Near-East and North-Africa): shows the difference restoration can make
  3. Community engagement critical, as is getting the enabling environment in place Variation in farmers’ desire to remove grass species with contextual factors: Grass % of species to remove (the percentage of plant species farmers want to remove that are grass species) correlated significantly with the area of grazing exclosures (but not elevation or a proxy for market access). Farmers with larger exclosures often wanted to remove low-quality grass species and replace them with higher-quality local forages Farmers with smaller exclosures preferred to keep all grasses, even those of lower quality. In areas with smaller exclosures, the priority of farmers appears to be increasing the quantity of biomass. Forage scarcity is likely less severe in areas with larger exclosures (partly due to less degradation locally), leading farmers to focus on improving the quality of biomass.
Advertisement