Upload
fbaudron
View
41
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Frédéric Baudron (CIMMYT), Asheber Tegegn (EIAR)
SIMLESA Phase-2 planning meeting, 23-25 September 2014
Livestock in CA-based Systems of Ethiopia:
Threat or Opportunity?
Is a technology that excludes livestock
likely to be adopted in Ethiopia?
● Highest density of livestock in Africa
53.4 million cattle and 48.3 million sheep & goats in
‘sedendary areas’ (CSA, 2011)
● Importance of animal products
659,000 t of meat, 4.1 million t of milk (FAOSTAT, 2012)
● Importance of non-productive functions
Cycling of nutrients through manure
Provision of traction
Multiplication of inflation-proof saving assets
Insurance in times of hardship
Display of status
● Producing fodder is often an objective of maize
cropping
Thinning, weeds, green maize, dry stover, etc
Challenges of (low-input) CA-based
technologies
● Weeds
Should we depend totally on herbicides when our
target is resource-constrained smallholders?
● N management
N immobilization (retention of residues with a
wide C:N ratio)
N leaching (increased drainage)
Reduced SOM mineralization (reduced tillage)
● Limited biomass for mulching and lack of
incentive to produce biomass with no
direct economic value
Herbivores and weed control
(from Hatfield et al., 2007)
Herbivory retards succession in fertile
ecosystems (Augustine and McNaughton 1998)
Herbivory
Fire
Tillage
Agroecosystems are maintained in an
early succession stage through
‘disturbances’ (Martin & Sauerborn, 2013)
More pernennial weeds
CA: minimum disturbance regime…
Enhancing soil fertility build-up by
grazing pasture phases
(from Franzluebbers and Stuedemann, 2009)
Positive effect of herbivory on plant
productivity most common in productive
ecosystems (e.g. natural grasslands)
Bristish Isles (Bardgett et al., 1998)Serengeti (McNaughton et al., 1997)
Yellowstone (Frank and Groffman, 1998)
Grazing area in Southern
Ethiopia (‘grazing lawn’)
Bofa, early May
J F J J A S O N DM A M
Rf
(mm
)
Early Sowing
Flw
GF PM
Using the Belg season for pasture in the
South
(from Hassen, 2014)
Means for the past ~30 years
Melkassa: 164 mm
Adami Tullu: 195 mm
Shalla: 297 mm
H2ODifferent functional
groups:
• Grass
• Legumes
• Brassicacea
• Compositae
• etc
Seed = the cheapest
herbicide
Often grazed
Including perennial forages for greater
sustainability
(Cox et al., 2006)
● Permanent soil cover
Erosion control
● Long photosynthetic period
High light use efficiency,
● Well-developed and deep root system
that
Carbon storage
Water and nutrients capture efficiency
Different benefits to CA
Sharing biomass between livestock and
soil: how much surface mulch is required?
(from Giller et al., 2009)
Potential negative effects of mulching:• N immobilization
• Water-logging
• Rainwater interception and evaporation
• Water loss through capilarity
(from Baudron et al., 2014)
Kakamega, long rains
Kakamega, short rains
Melkassa
Sharing biomass between livestock and
soil: feed formulation
CHARACTERISTICS REQUIREMENTS (MJ/d)
Liveweight (kg) 300Maintenance and change in body
condition35.7
Pregnancy stage (month) 5 Pregnancy 3.1
Lactation (L) 10 Lactation 57.7
Protein (%) 3.5 TOTAL 96.4
Fat (%) 4.5
Lactation phase (early: 3; mid: 2; late: 1; dry: 0) 3 Estimated intake (% liveweight DM/d) 3.0
Expected change in body condition (-1; 0; +1) 0
Ingredients
Crop residue dry Crop residues green Grass forage Legume forage Trees & Shrubs Concentrates
Bean r
esid
ues
Cow
pea h
ay
Gro
undn
ut
haulm
Maiz
e s
tove
r
Oat
resid
ues
Sorg
hum
resid
ues
Soyb
ean r
esid
ues
Ric
e s
traw
Teff
str
aw
Wheat
str
aw
Cassava l
eaves
Cow
pea f
odder
Ensete
Maiz
e g
reen
Oat
fora
ge
Sw
eet
pota
toe
vines
Sugar
cane t
ops
Buff
el gra
ss
Gam
ba g
rass
Napie
r
Rhodes
Butterf
ly p
ea
Desm
odiu
m
Labla
b
Macro
ptiliu
m
Sty
losanth
es
Vetc
h
Calli
an
dra
youn
g
Calli
an
dra
matu
re
Faid
herb
ia l
eaves
Glir
icid
ia
Leucaen
a y
oun
g
Leucaen
a m
atu
re
Pig
eon p
ea
Sesbania
youn
g
Sesbania
matu
re
Cotton s
eed c
ake
Gro
undn
ut
cake
Sunflow
er
cake
Poultry
litte
r
Maiz
e g
rain
TOTAL Min Max
DM % 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 90.0 90.0 60.0 90.0 60.0 60.0 90.0 60.0 70.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 70.0 60.0 60.0 70.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 50.0 100.0
ME MJ/kg 7.5 8.8 10.5 8.4 9.6 8.4 9.6 8.4 8.4 8.4 10.0 9.2 8.4 9.2 10.5 12.1 12.6 8.4 8.4 8.8 8.4 7.9 8.4 9.2 7.5 9.2 8.8 9.2 8.8 9.6 8.4 7.9 9.6 9.2 9.2 10.5 2.5 3.0 2.2 1.9 2.8 6.6 10.7 11.8
CP % 6.8 14.5 16.3 4.2 7.7 4.7 8.5 2.2 4.1 4.4 19.9 28.9 13.6 5.2 8.3 15.9 10.2 9.9 6.2 6.7 7.1 15.2 15.3 17.1 14.9 7.7 22.4 24.2 14.6 19.9 21.6 21.6 23.6 25.7 18.8 21.0 40.5 49.0 25.9 17.8 12.4 18.9 16.0 18.0
NDF % 64.2 49.2 38.4 75.4 58.3 73.6 63.0 74.4 76.9 74.4 32.1 27.2 63.6 53.5 54.6 43.1 72.2 67.1 70.7 76.1 70.2 40.0 51.4 39.4 58.4 64.5 39.4 48.7 38.1 36.5 52.9 35.0 38.6 54.0 38.1 31.3 38.4 16.4 35.5 55.9 55.1 56.0 30.0 80.0
Min 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Max 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Composition
(%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 67.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Price(KSH/kg) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 40.0 25.0 15.0 30.0 45.0 5.0 30.0 30.0 45.0 50.0 45.0 50.0 45.0 32.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 60.0 55.0 80.0 85.0 70.0 90.0 83.0 85.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 20.0 30.0 0.0
Quantity (kg/d) 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.2
RATION
DM kg 14.6
Maximum intake of this ration (kg
DM/d) 7.0
ME MJ 96.4
CP kg 2.8
Water requirements
(L/d) 118.4
NDF kg 8.2
Designed by Oriama Okitoi (KARI-Kakamega) & Frédéric Baudron (CIMMYT-Addis Ababa)
…etc…
Set of available ingredients characterized by their ME, CP, NDP and $
Characteristics
of the cow(weight, pregnacy
stage, etc)
+
production
objective
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
20 70
Ma
xim
um
in
tak
e (
kg
DM
)
Fiber content (% NDF)
100200300400500
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 5 10M
E (
MJ/d
)
Month pregnancy
One proposition of experiment
CONTROL
0% 33% 67% 100%
Trampling
(muzzled
animals)
Cut-and-carry,
application of
manure and refusals
In situ grazing
No animals
Summer: CA Maize relayed with a forage
Winter: 8 different treatments
Measurement: Total productivity, SOM, SON, weed abundance and diversity, pest
incidence, BD, etc