1.
CROP-LIVESTOCK INTENSIFICATION IN SOUTHERN AFRICA: DRIVERS, OPPORTUNITIES AND CROP RESIDUE UTILIZATION SABINE HOMANN-KEE TUI; JONATHAN TANGANYIKA; FELISBERTO MAUTE; DANIEL NKOMBONI; NKULULEKO MPOFU;TIMOTHY GONDWE; PAULA DIAS; SHADRECK NCUBE; ANDRE F. VAN ROOYEN SLP project :Optimizing livelihood and environmental benefits from crop residues in smallholder crop-livestock systems in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia ( www.vslp.org ) 10th African Crop Science Society Conference 10-13 October 2011 in Maputo

2.
Southern Africa: Drastic increases in the demand for agricultural products Source: Adopted from Capacity Development Initiative in Modernizing Food Systems—Michigan State, Makerere, Stellenbosch and Pretoria Universities, 2010) Strong urbanization and income growth Growing food markets and changes in composition (more meat, dairy, fresh and processed food) 5-6 times the marketed food between 2010 and 2050

3.
… vs declining per capita food production Source: Chilonda et al., 2007

4.
SA: Most extensive sites with strong potential for intensification India Bangladesh Kenya India Ethiopia Ethiopia Zimbabwe Nigeria Malawi Mozambique Niger Niger Source: Adopted from Valbuena et al., 2011

5.
Crop livestock systems and interactions milk feed $ feed $ $ feed crop residues nutrients $ fertilisers On-farm feed crop residues nutrients $ fertilisers manure Investment capacity Labor availability? Access to cash/credit? Access to information? Where to invest? What type of crops? How many animals? What type of feed? Returns? Source: Adopted from Rufino (2009) draft power draft power

6.
Crop livestock intensification and integration: non-linear Extensive mixed systems Intensive specialized systems Crop livestock integration       National and local level drivers   1 3 2

7.
Objectives of this scoping study Use farming systems analysis in the context of national and local drivers. Determine site specific entry points for moving farmers in mixed crop-livestock systems up the development pathways.

8.
Study sites and research methods Site selection : Southern Africa - most extensive site Village selection : 8 villages per country Distance from markets and roads Village level surveys : Focus group discussions ~ 30 farmers of different wealth, gender and age per each village (n=24) Household surveys : Quantitative interviews 20 households per village, stratified by wealth (n=480)

9.
Major systems drivers 650 17 5 + + + 600 21 19 ++ ++ ++ 700 59 10 +++ +++ + Rainfall (mm annual average) Densities - Human (2008, pers/km 2 ) - Cattle (2008, head/km 2 ) Soil fertility and land management Extension support Market development Changara Nkayi Mzimba Local level drivers 3.9 23.2 15.7 29.9 12.6 6.2 14.1 44.8 169.8 2.2 13.2 33.6 9.9 -6.3 10.6 Nat. budget for agriculture (2006) Agric value added (% of GDP, 2000-06) Livestock (% agric. gross value, 2009) Net imports (Mio USD, 2008) -Maize -Milk Mozambique Zimbabwe Malawi Country level drivers

10.
Diversity of farming systems Mzimba in Malawi: intensified crop oriented farming systems <ul><li>> 40% of the land cultivated </li></ul><ul><li>Cultivated land/hh: 1.7 ha </li></ul><ul><li>Herd size: 1.9 TLU </li></ul>

11.
Nkayi in Zimbabwe: integrated crop livestock systems <ul><li>~4 0% of the land cultivated </li></ul><ul><li>Cultivated land/hh: 2.7 ha </li></ul><ul><li>Herd size: 3.9 TLU </li></ul>

12.
Changara in Mozambique: Extensive livestock oriented systems <ul><li><3 0% of the land cultivated </li></ul><ul><li>Cultivated land/hh: 1.5 ha </li></ul><ul><li>Herd size: 3.6 TLU </li></ul>

13.
Household’s sources of income

14.
Household’s expenditures

15.
Levels of maize production and uses 90.2 (10.8) 2.2 (7.8) 85.8 (17.5) 6.7 (13.7) 82.9 (20.1) 11.0 (14.9) Consumption (%) Sales (%) Grain uses 0 0 13.6 50.0 9.7 (28.3) 486.8 (1152.5) 41.8 96.2 273.2 (117.9) 148.9 (393.8) 42.5 3.8 Fertilizer (kg/ha) Org. manure (kg/ha) Hybrid seed (% HH) Draft power (% HH) Investment 41.3 364.8(235.3) 98.8 756.3(858.0) 100.0 1595.6 (1141.7) % HH Yields (kg/ha) Production Changara Nkayi Mzimba Units

16.
Levels of cattle production and uses 75.4 (11.3) 22.3 (11.0) 2.4 (5.7) 61.1 (24.1) 15.5 (20.2) 23.5 (24.7) 60.3 (22.1) 24.6 (22.5) 12.1 (22.4) Rangelands CR grazed in situ CR collected and fed Dry season feeding (%) 12.9 (19.5) 12.6 (16.3) 0 15.8 (23.9) 3.5 (9.5) 1.1 (3.8) 9.7 (20.1) 5.1 (9.9) 2.9 (7.3) Mortality Sales Consumption Herd dynamics (%) 34.4 7.9 (6.7) 57.5 5.4 (5.0) 26.3 4.9 (4.2) HH with cattle (%) Herd size (TLU) Ownership Changara Nkayi Mzimba Units

17.
Crop residue utilization  High pressure on CR 

18.
Site-specific opportunities and entry points for interventions <ul><li>Mzimba: Greater integration of crop and livestock </li></ul><ul><li>Invest in the livestock sector – investments in inputs pay off </li></ul><ul><li>More efficient crop residue utilization –livestock feeding and soil amendment </li></ul><ul><li>Product market development - crops, livestock, feed </li></ul><ul><li>Nkayi: Strengthen crop livestock intensification </li></ul><ul><li>Cost effective supply of crop and livestock inputs – lessons from Malawi </li></ul><ul><li>Feed technologies for higher biomass - dual purpose species, crop residue processing </li></ul><ul><li>Improve product markets - livestock to finance crop inputs; private sector engagement </li></ul><ul><li>Changara: Strong growth potential in livestock </li></ul><ul><li>National programs for crop and livestock production - infrastructure and service supply </li></ul><ul><li>Livestock market development and commercialization to enhance impact </li></ul><ul><li>Crop improvement to increase crop yields, biomass and feed quality </li></ul>

19.
Conclusions <ul><li>Extensive mixed crop livestock systems in southern Africa are a function of the interplay of national drivers and local factors </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Each site has its own opportunities and specific entry points for sustainable forms of intensification. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Lessons for R&D </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Place farming systems analysis in the context of these drivers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ensure that interventions are aligned with these influences </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Address household resource endowments and farmers aspirations </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Work in progress </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Farming systems typologies and household diversity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Technical, institutional and policy options and trade-offs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>New approaches that combine stakeholder involvement with economic and bio-physical modeling </li></ul></ul>

20.
Thank you!