Intergrating crops and livestock for improved security and livelihoods in rural Zimbabwe

1. Integrating crops and livestock for improved food
security and livelihoods in rural Zimbabwe
Overview of the ZimCLIFS Project
G.J. Manyawu, S. Moyo, S. Homann – Kee Tui, I. Nyagumbo, A.
van Rooyen and W. Mupangwa

2. Section A
BACKGROUND
(Project duration June 2012 –May 2015)

3. Crop-livestock integration:
Multiple interactions and benefits
Household
Crop Production Livestock Production
Goats CattleCereals Legumes Food security
Onfarm
Value chains
Off farm income
Manure + draft powerCrop residues
Cash reinvestments
+ Food security
+ Income
+Livelihoods

4. Conventional approach to agricultural
research
Technologies
Source: Duncan, 2011

5. SECTION B
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
and
APPROACH

6. Specific objectives of the ZimCLIFS
Project
 To increase the productivity of SH crop-
livestock households by identifying and
adapting appropriate technologies and
associated management practices
 To improve farmers’ access to resources,
technologies, information and markets by
characterising and strengthening crop and
livestock value chains
 increase the skills of research and
extension staff and agribusiness in the
design and implementation of integrated
farming systems research for development
programs in Zimbabwe

7. ZimCLIFS project sites in Zimbabwe

8. Project approach – summary
ZimCLIFS aims to assist SH farmers
to intensify and integrate crop-
livestock production systems through
the use of Innovation Platforms (a
stakeholder approach) to promote the
adoption of appropriate
technologies and value chain
innovations

9. Section C
The IP Process and farming systems
approach

10. • Uncovering a high potential
for groundnuts in Nkayi
– High market potential
– Food, feed and organic fertilizer
– Women’s crop
Participatory technology selection,
development and evaluation (Example)
Commodities Potential for
profitability
Potential for large
scale adoption
Potential for
food security
1. Cattle +++ +++ +++
2. Groundnuts +++ ++ ++
3. Goats + +++ +++
4. Maize + +++ +++
5. Sorghum ++ + +++

11. Farming systems: Complex, diverse, dynamic
community visions to guide interventions
Nkayi:
crop-livestock intensification
Gwanda:
livestock market-led development

12. Section D
TECHONOLOGIES TESTED

13. •Maize and
groundnuts are
the most
preferred crops
when rainfall is
both sufficient
and insufficient
•97.5 % grow
hybrid seed
maize!!
Source Girma, 2013, Baseline
survey
It’s a maize-groundnut cropping system!!!%%respondents%%respondents
Rainfall sufficient/insufficient
-1st Choice crop= Maize
Rainfall insufficient
-2nd Choice crop= groundnuts

14. •Basin planting
•Jab-planter
•AT Direct seeder
•Hoe-planter
CA techniques tested for different farmer typologies
•Magoye ripper

15. CA and residue cover provision
• Provision of permanent residue cover is one of the three
principles upon which Conservation Agriculture is hinged.
• Competition between using residues as cattle feed or leaving
it for soil cover provision remains a lively discussion point
among CA researchers (Valbuena et al 2012); Baudron, et al.,
2014)
• It is recommended farmers provide permanent residue cover
and use at least 30% residue cover or 2-3t/ha by time of
planting
• Zim CLIFs seeks to enable co-existence of CA and livestock
through addressing Food, Feed and the Soil

16. Residue types by ward!
(results from a residue survey, April 2014)
Hyparrhenia Thatch grass most common! Maize only dominant in ward 28
Murehwa

17. Hyparrhenia thatch grass the most commonly used
residue type!

18. When are farmers applying residues?
Murehwa (% farmers) Goromonzi (% farmers)
Time of application
of residues Ward 4 Ward 11 Ward 14 Ward 28 Ward 4 Ward 11
Before planting - 8 - 8 - 17
At Planting 8 - - 8 - -
After planting 75 67 75 84 75 83
No mulch applied 17 25 25 - 25 -
Mostly > 70% well after planting!
Labour cited as the most important
reason for applying them late!

20. Dual-purpose (Pulse) legume technologies
1. Testing and demonstration
of pulse / forage legumes
1.1 Use of Rhizobium inoculants
1. 2 Intercropping staple
cereal –legume for…
1.3 Intercropping with /
without CA. for…

21. 1.4 Ann. / bi-annnual legumes
with/out CA as ley crop to …
1.5 Siratro (M. atropurpreum),
Silverleaf Desmodium (D.
uncinatum) to reinforce native
pasture and provide quality feed
Forage Legume technologies

22. 2. Promotion of forage
conservation
2.1 Lablab purpureus
2.2 Maize / sorghum
silages
2.3 Mixed crop
(cereal-legume) silages
Forage conservation

23. 3. Dry season feeding strategies
for beef, dairy cattle, goats.
3.1 Legume-based protein
rations for beef and
goat fattening.
3.2 Legume-based protein
ratios for dairy cattle
Livestock feeding demonstrations

24. Section E
C-L Integration Research
(Simulation Modeling)

25. Reducing the cost of milk production through the
use of home-grown feeds Example
 It actually cost less to produce milk using
home grown forages
 A 50Kg bag of commercial supplement 16%
CP costs between $22 - $25
 A 50Kg bag of Mucuna based diet 16%CP
cost about $13
 On average, It costs a smallholder farmer $0.46 to produce a litre of milk
using commercial concentrates
 It can cost him $0.26 to produce a litre using home-mixed Mucuna-maize
based rations.
 Plus, there are other of using legumes: - food, BNF, income form excesses
sold to the market.

26. Reducing the cost of beef production through the
use of home-grown feeds.
 It actually cost less to produce beef using
home-grown forages compared to using
commercial concentrates
 A 50Kg bag of beef concentrate 32.6%
CP costs between $17 - $20
 A 50Kg bag of Mucuna-maize based beef
fattening ration (14%CP) costs about
$14.60
 It costs an average $1.70 to produce a kilogram of beef using commercial
concentrates.
 It can cost $1.10 to produce 1.0 kg of beef using home-mixed Mucuna-maize-
based rations

27. Economic analysis
Expected Sales Control
(Veld)
Mucuna Lablab+
cowpea
Commerci
al Conc.
Cattle Sale (3 per trt) 947.30 1,270.43 1,234.50 1,175.39
Expenditure
Feed 0.00 177.99 196.09 135.64
Init. Cattle Cost 883.35 798.68 763.53 816.27
Labour 60.00 20.00 20.00 20.00
Veterinary Cost 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00
Total Cost 949.35 1002.66 985.62 977.92
Gross Margin/(Loss) (2.06) 267.77 248.88 197.48

28. Sources of income for Chikwaka households (US$)
Source
Household typology
Resource constrained Average Wealthy
Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev.
Dairy GM
Beef GM
Goat GM
Poultry GM
Pigs GM
Crops GM
Total farm GM
-221
-20
-30
266
-5
252
345
1794
333
58
1163
24
813
2872
118
-530
-54
-10
65
502
221
1940
903
159
729
314
819
2884
25
400
24
2315
-495
749
2313
4408
807
45
2827
1565
1374
6375

29. Results from Apsim + IAT simulation modeling
• Only 22% of farmers have livelihoods based on dairy
farming.
• Maize-Mucuna rotation had the highest yields (cf.
Lablab and cowpeas).
• Household food security & economic viability in dairying
met by 0.55 ha of Maize (0.96 tons/ha) and 0.95 ha of
mucuna (4.4 tons/ha).

30. Section D
LINKING FARMERS TO MARKETS

31. Value Chain Analysis – Beef in Goromonzi
Goromonzi Beef Cattle value Chain
Key
Missing link
Existing link
Abattoirs
Surrey, Koala
Montana, Carswell
Farmers
Middlemen
Consumers
(Harare, Goromonzi, Murehwa,
Mutoko, Hatcliff)
Butcheries
Juru , Mverechena
Supermarkets
Hotels, Restaurants
Fast Foods outlets
Inputs
Support
Services
Quality
standards
Vet &
Livestock
Department
Police,
village head
Transport
Financial
Services
Extension
AGRITEX,
NGOs e.g.
CTDT,
CADS
Research
CIMMYT,
ILRI
DRSS
Functions
Retailing
Wholesaler
Collection
/ Broker
Production
Input
Supply
Exports
Auction
Imports
Botswana
,
SA
$$$!!

32. What is limiting SH farmers from entering the local
supermarket chains?
• Poor access to market information,
• little knowledge on marketing of
livestock,
• slow technology adoption
• inferior infrastructure in rural areas.
• Risk evasiveness / Fear Factor
• Poor husbandry practices
• Neglecting niche markets
P
Marketing
gives her
recognition &
dignity
!!!
Photos supplied by A. van Royen (ICRISAT) and H. Katjuonqua
(ILRI)

33. Section D
WAY FORWARD

34. Technologies ready for out-scaling
1. Conservation Agriculture
a. Need to finalize task of identifying alternative mulch types
b. Increasing use of herbicide
c. Increasing use of mechanized CA esp. ripping.
2. Cereal – legume rotation for soil improvement & fodder
a. Available legumes – Groundnut, Velvet bean, Lablab
purpureus, cowpeas
b. Promoting appropriate behavioral change towards cash
farming as farmers begin to view livestock as a source of
income.
c. Opportunity for marketing of fodder between farmers
3. Tropical forage legume seed production and marketing

35. Acknowledgements
• This work is financed by ACIAR
• It contributes to the CGIAR Research
Program on:
CRP 1.1 (Dryland Systems) :-
o SRT 2 “reduce vulnerability &
manage risk”
o SRT 3 “sustainable intensification”
CRP 2 (Policies, Institutions and Markets) :–
o Theme 3 “Linking SH producers to
markets.
CRP 3.2 (SI 2 “SI &income” and 15 “ x2 Mz”)
CRP 3.7 (Livestock & fish) – goat, Milk VCs