Balancing Livestock Needs and Soil Conservation: Assessment of Opportunities in

Intensifying Cereal-Legume-Livestock Systems

in West Africa T. Abdoulaye

Presentation: CGIAR Systemwide Livestock ProgrammeLivestock Policy Group, 1 December 2009

Outline

• Background

• Objectives 1 and 2

• Activities– Household characterization and evaluation of TO– Identifying entry point– Quantitification of trade-offs

• Preliminary results

Background

• Agricultural production growth slower than population growth in

West Africa,

• Cereal imports surged from 17,208 t in 1983 to 60,893 t in 2003

(FAOSTAT).

• Mutton (meat from sheep and goats) imports increased from 1,321 t

in 1983 to 3,358 t in 2003 (FAOSTAT).

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Years

Fer

tiliz

er c

on

sum

ptio

n (t

)

0.1

0.6

1.1

1.6

2.1

2.6

Cro

p y

ield

(t h

a-1

)

Fertilizer consumption Cereal yield

0

1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

5000000

6000000

7000000

8000000

9000000

10000000

19

82

19

83

19

84

19

85

19

86

19

87

19

88

19

89

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

Years

Fe

rtiliz

er

co

ns

um

pti

on

(t)

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Cro

p y

ield

(t

ha-1

)

fertilizer consumption Average cereal yield

BackgroundFertilizer consumption and crop yield

Source: FAOSTAT Source: FAOSTAT

South East AsiaWest Africa

BackgroundCrop residue is fed to livestock or grazed by free-roaming

animals.

Off-farm uses of crop residue

Granary for storing cereals and pulses. Fencing and roofing materials

Fodder market at Kano

Background

To balance livestock and soil demands for crop residues:

• Evaluate gains or losses in

the alternative uses of crop

residues

Project ObjectivesGoal To identify key areas where research can stimulate

agricultural productivity by balancing trade-offs among livestock, soils and crop in cereal-legume-livestock systems.

Objectives– To identify the entry points through which appropriate

research technologies can facilitate the intensification of crop-livestock systems.

– To quantify the trade-offs in using crop residues as fodder or soil amendments.

– To create better institutional linkages between actors in research, extension and policy on issues related to mixed farming systems.

Project Approach

• Baseline survey in the 3 countries (Ghana, Nigeria and Niger)– Identify 3 farmers’ typologies

• Recruited to 2 Ph.D students (soils and economist)– Economist worked on socio-economic characterization of

Households, profitability of trade-off classes – Identifying entry points and quantification of trade-off

Activity 1

Socio-Economic characterization of

household and CR uses

Farmers’ Typologies

• Typology 1: Crop farmers those with < 1 TLU

• Typology 2: Crop-livestock farmers those with 1<TLU<2

• Typology 3: Crop-Livestock farmers those with > 2 TLU

Sample size

• Niger and Ghana: 15 farmers/village in 12 villages – 180 farmers– Niger: Maradi region – Ghana: Northern Region (Tamale)

• Nigeria: 15 farmers/village in 24 villages – 360 farmers– Kano state

Socioeconomic characterization of Ghana study area

Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Pooled

Age (Years) 45.3(14.4)

47.3(13.4)

50.8(16.8)

47.8(15.0)

Household size

9(3.0)

10(3.1)

10(3.6)

10(3.3)

Total Farm size (ha)

1.33(0.81)

1.37(0.89)

2.06(1.8)

1.58(1.3)

Income ($)406.3

(336.7)483.0

(521.1)625.03(881.2)

504.1(623.5)

Socioeconomic characterization of Nigeria study area

Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Pooled

Age (Years) 46.5(13.0)

47.9(12.4)

49.0(13.4)

47.8(12.9)

Household size8

(2.7)9.1

(3.0)10.5(3.4)

9.2(3.2)

Total Farm size (ha)

2.8(3.1)

4.1(6.5)

5.5(5.7)

4.1(5.4)

Income ($) 1913.1(1555.0)

2090.2(1178.2)

3719.5(3831.

1)

2574.3(2605.7)

Socioeconomic characterization of Niger study area

Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Pooled

Age (Years) 40.2(13.6)

40.6(14.0)

46.4(14.3)

42.4(14.2)

Household size

8(4)

9(4.0)

10(3.6)

9(3.8)

Total Farm size (ha)

3.4(2.4)

4.1(2.8)

4.7(2.8)

4.1(2.7)

Income ($)403.1

(326.7)555.2

(389.7)642.5

(471.0)533.6

(410.1)

Utilization of CR-Typo 1(% of farmers)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Nigeria Ghana Niger

Feed (>75%) Soil (>75%) Other (>50%)

Utilization of CR-Typo 2(% of farmers)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Nigeria Ghana Niger

Feed (>75%) Soil (>75%) Other (>50%)

Utilization of CR-Typo 3(% of farmers)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Nigeria Ghana Niger

Feed (>75%) Soil (>75%) Other (>50%)

Activity 2

Quantification of trade-offs in agricultural uses of crop residues

0%C, 0%M

100%C, 100%M100%C, 100%M

25%C, 75%M 25%C, 75%M

0%C, 0%M

50%C, 50%M 50%C, 50%M

75%C, 25%M 75%C, 25%M1

2

3

4

5

Scenario% applied to soil % feed to livestock

0% 0%

50%50%

50%50%

50% 50%

100% 100%

Assessment of trade-offs in uses of crop residue

Trade-off: the quantity of crop produce sacrificed by a farmer

for a unit benefit from livestock production by the allocation of

crop residues into livestock production.

Study A: Effect of crop residue incorporation on crop yield

General objective: – quantify the tradeoffs in using crop residues as fodder

for livestock or amendments for soil improvement

Specific objectives:– assess the effect of crop residue incorporation on yield

of cereals and legumes.– evaluate the effect of crop residue incorporation on

soil physical, chemical and biological properties– appraise the socio-economic benefits of incorporating

crop residues into the soil

Materials and methods

Treatments

T1 – 0% SA (0% L, 0% C),

T2 – 50% SA (25% L, 75% C),

T3 – 50% SA (50% L, 50% C), T4 – 50% SA (75% L, 25% C),

T5 – 100% SA (100% L, 100% C)

Experimental Design: 3 X 5, RCBD

Incorporation of crop residues

Study B: Effect crop residues intake on livestock live weight

General objective:– quantify the tradeoffs in using crop residues as fodder

for livestock or amendments for soil improvement

Specific objectives:

– assess the effect of crop residue intake on livestock productivity (live weight)

– evaluate the effect of crop residue intake on the quantity and quality of manure produced.

– appraise the economic benefits of feeding crop residues to livestock.

Treatments– T1 – 0% SA (0% C, 0% M), – T2 – 50% SA (25% C, 75% M),– T3 – 50% SA (50% C, 50% M), – T4 – 50% SA (75% C, 25% M), – T5 – 100% SA (100% C, 100% M)

Housing unit – Pen partition into 15 compartment each with 1m x 2 m floor

spacing.

Selection and procurement of test animals – 30 healthy male sheep or goats of about 12 -18 months old.

Materials and methods

S 1S 2 S 3

S 4S 5

(SE-Maize)(SE-LWG)

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0C 0M 25C 75M 50C 50M 75C 25M 100C 100M

Crop residue incorporated into soil (%)

Live

wei

ght g

ain

(kg

TLU

-1 )

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Gra

in y

ield

(kg

ha

-1)

Live weight Maize Cowpea

Effect of crop residue use on grain yields and weight gain, Farm 2 at Cheyohi, Ghana

S 1S 2

S 3

S 4S 5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0C 0M 25C 75M 50C 50M 75C 25M 100C 100M

Crop residue incorporated into soil (%)

Liv

e w

eig

ht

ga

in (

kg T

LU -1

)

0.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

500.00

600.00

Gra

in y

ield

(kg

ha

-1)

Live weight Millet Cowpea

Effect of crop residue use on grain yields and weight gain, Farm 2 at Garin Labo, Niger

S 1

S 2

S 3S 4

S 5

(SE)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0C 0M 25C 75M 50C 50M 75C 25M 100C 100M

Crop residues incorporated into soil

Live

wei

ght (

kg T

LU-1

)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Gra

in y

ield

(kg

ha)

Live weight Maize Groundnut

Effect of crop residue use on grain yields and weight gain, Farm 3 at Sarauniya, Nigeria

102 kg25 kg 80 kg

89 kg

93 kg 53 kg

25 kg25 kg

25 kg 25 kg

12 3

4 5

¢ 11.5 ¢ 11.8 ¢ 11.5

¢ 11.6 ¢ 9.7

Results: Tradeoffs of farm 2 at Cheyohi

Activity 3

Identification of entry points for improving

the productivity of cereal–legume–livestock

systems: The NUTMON approach

Nutrient balance study Objectives:

– To audit the flow of nutrient resources in C-L-L systems

– To quantify the nutrient balances in C-L-L systems

– To identify alternative management scenarios to redress the nutrients imbalances

Nutrients flows in crop livestock systems

De jager et al. (2001)

Materials and methods

Farmer managed nutrient flows– Structured questionnaire for data on nutrient flows

through: • Mineral fertilizer (IN 1), Manure (IN 2), Crop products

(OUT 1) and Crop residues (OUT 2)

Environmental nutrient flows– Field measurement and transfer function for data on

nutrient flows through: • Rainfall and Harmattan dust (IN 3), Nitrogen fixation (IN 4),

Leaching (OUT 3) and Gaseous losses (OUT 4)

Nitrogen flows in farms of the various farm groups at Garin Labo

OUT 4OUT 3OUT 2OUT 1

IN 4IN 3IN 2IN 1

(LSD 0.5 - OUT 2)

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

Nutrient flows

N (k

g ha

-1 y

r-1)

Crop only Crop-livestock unequiped Crop-livestock equiped

Nitrogen flows in cereal-legume-livestock systems at Cheyohi (Gh), Sarauniya (Nig) and

Garin Labo (NE)

IN 1 IN 2 IN 3 IN 4

OUT 1 OUT 2 OUT 3 OUT 4

(lsd 0.5)

-120

-80

-40

0

40

80

120

Nutrient flows

N (K

g ha

-1 y

r-1)

Cheyohi Sarauniya Garin Labo

Hot spots for research intervention

1. Identification of alternative sources of energy and construction material for domestic purposes.

2. Development of technology for improving the quality of manure.

3. Development of cost-effective technologies to control leaching.

4. Quantification and understanding the balancing of the short Vs long-term benefits of crop residue retention on the fields.

Concluding Remarks

– Incorporation of crop residues was not a cost-effective application method.

– Herd size of small-scale farmers could not support the number livestock required for tradeoffs assessment

– Residual effect of crop residues on crop production constraints holistic assessment of tradeoffs in the short term.

Appreciation

• Dr. R. Abaidoo - team leader

• Andrew Opoku and Adesiyan Titus

Results: Tradeoffs of farm 3 at Sarauniya

55.7 kg

61.7 kg

23 kg32.9 kg

25 kg 25 kg

25 kg 25 kg

25 kg

1 2 3

45

0 kg

N 1370

N 1264

N 1387

N 1268

N 1521

Result: Tradeoffs of farm 2 at Garin Labo

6.2 g

12.8 kg

11.2 kg

14.5 kg

25 kg 25 kg

25 kg25 kg

25 kg

12 3

45

CFA 3928

CFA 3431

CFA 3536

CFA 3332

CFA 4487

12.2 kg

GL*

SN*

CH*

SN

CH

GL

(LSD 0.5 total input)

(LSD 0.5 total output)

-160

-120

-80

-40

0

40

80

120

160

Selected villages

N (k

g ha

-1 yr

-1)

Total input Total output Balance

1 2 3 5 67 8

44*

99*

Typo 1 Typo 2 Typo 3

(LSD 0.5 -Total O utput)

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

Farmers

N (k

g ha

-1 y

r-1)

Total IN Total OUT BAL

Nitrogen balance in cereal-legume-livestock system at Garin Labo

Nitrogen balance in cereal-legume-livestock system at Cheyohi, Sarauniya and Garin Labo

Results