View
492
Download
1
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Presented by Bedasa Eba at the Nile Basin Development Challenge (NBDC) Science Workshop, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 9–10 July 2013
Citation preview
Effect of Current Livestock Feed Sourcing and Feeding Strategies on
Livestock Water Productivity in Mixed Crop-livestock Systems of the Blue
Nile Basin Highlands of Ethiopia
Nile Basin Development Challenge (NBDC) Science Workshop,
9-10 July, 2013, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Bedasa Eba
Introduction
For decades-long, exploitation of land, leading to competition over land
and water, and thus leads to water scarcity in Blue Nile Basin (WFP,
2007).
Highly populated by people and livestock (27.6 TLU/ km2 )
In BNB rain water lost as:
Unproductive run off, evaporative losses, and high volume of water
required for livestock production (Descheemaeker et.al, 2010)
Introduction cont’d
• High volumes of water withdrawn for production of feed (Steinfeld
et al., 2006); affected by
• Ways feed is produced and supplied to the animal
• Dry matter (DM) productivity and feed quality
• Contact between livestock and the environment
• Temporal and spatial availability of feed and water
resources
Introduction cont’d
• So, understanding the farming systems’ and landscape’ feed
sourcing and feeding strategies in the Highlands of BNB, leads to;
• Generating baseline information in this area and link to improve
LWP
• Serve as a reference point to explore different water efficient
feed sourcing and feeding practices.
Objectives
• To identify the different livestock feed sourcing and feeding
strategies in mixed crop livestock systems of the BNB
• To assess the effects of current feeding systems on
livestock water productivity
2. Materials and methods Area description
Jeldu Woreda
Fogera Woreda
Diga Woreda
Dapo watershed
Mizuwa watershed
Meja watershed
Stratification and Household Survey
67 hh in Diga
• Multistage stratified sampling and 2 PA for each system
• Also stratified by wealth categories (4-6 hh per clustered )
220 hh in BNB
91 hh in Jeldu 62 hh in Fogera
35 hh in teff-millet
32 hh in maize-sorghum 31 hh in
Barley-potato
30 hh in teff-wheat
30 hh in teff-sorghum
32 hh in teff-millet
30 hh in rice-pulse
Livestock Water Productivity Estimation
• LWP as defined earlier, is based on the ratio of livestock
beneficial outputs and services to depleted water through
feed production
• LWPji = (MYVji+OTVji+TVOSji+TMVji)/DWLFji
Milk value
Off take value
Service value
Manure value
Water depleted to feed
Feed Resource Assessment
• Sampling of biomass
• Harvest index approaches
• Annual DM yield for communal and stubble
Estimation of Water Depleted in Producing Livestock Feed
• New LocClim (FAO, 2005)
• Using CROPWAT 8.0 software (FAO, 2003)
• ETci= ETo*Kci*LGPij (general water depleted)
Beneficial output estimation
•
Results and Discussion
Landholding and livestock holding (TLU)
TMS MSS BPS TWS TSS TMMS RPSDiga Jeldu Fogera
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Mean Landholding (ha)
Mean Livestock (in TLU)
TLU
or h
a
Landholding (ha) and livestock (in TLU) variation among Jeldu systems
Lower landholding (ha) in Fogera systems
Variability of Feed Resources Availability and Ingredients Across the
Study Systems
TMS MSS BPS TWS TSS TMMS RPS0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
crop residues(%) on DM basis
Natural pasture(%) on DM basis
Aftermath grazing (%) on DM basis
Farming systems
% o
f Dry
matt
er
DM yield and grass-legume composition on private grazing lands
TMS MSS BPS TWS TSS TMMS RPSDiga Jeldu Fogera
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Grasses DM (t/ha)
Legumes DM (t/ha)DM
(ton
)
• In Fogera as much as 10.8 ton/ha (Ashagre, 2008) from improved natural pasture.
• By closing yield gaps as high as 100% improvement in LWP is reported for mixed crop
livestock systems of India (Haileslassie et al., 2011).
Improved forages production and feed supplementation
• Almost no practice improved forages production ( about 85%)
• No feed supplementation practice particularly with sources outside their
farm (e.g., bran, oil cake)
• Storages of crop residues better in Jeldu and Fogera but lower Diga
• About 74.2%-95% of respondents were not used chemical and/or physical
treatment on crop residues
Feeding systems
TMS MSS BPS TWS TSS TMMS RPSDiga Jeldu Fogera
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Garzing of natural pastureTethering on natural pasturecrop residues of In situ grazing crop residues off situ feeding
% o
f res
pond
ents
Only tethering in Diga In situ grazing of crop residues
Livestock Water Productivity
Woreda Farming systems
N LWP (US$ m-3)
Mean±SE Min Max
Diga TMS 35 0.19±0.02 0.001 0.48
MSS 32 0.16±0.02 0.021 0.38
Mean 67 0.17±0.01
Jeldu BPS 31 0.15±0.02 0.002 0.63
TWS 30 0.16±0.01 0.001 0.43
TSS 30 0.16±0.02 0.027 0.37
Mean 91 0.16±0.01
Fogera TMMS 32 0.18±0.01 0.07 0.35
RPS 30 0.15±0.02 0.01 0.30
Mean 62 0.16±0.01• No apparent difference between systems (beneficial output)
• Huge gap between minimum and maximum of LWP value
Livestock Water Productivity…
TMS MSS BPS TWS TSS TMMS RPS Diga Jeldu Fogera
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
Better off
Medium
Poor
Farming systems within each Woreda
LWP
(US$
-3)
• High LWP for better off
lower LWP for poor
Conclusion and recommendation
• In all of the study farming systems, crop residues constitute the major
ingredient of livestock diet and supplementary feeding with high value
feed is not commonly practiced and livestock feed scarcity is considerable.
Hence;
• Improving water productivity of feed is major entry points to improve LWP
areas
• The farm scale showed a very wide range between the resources poor and
better off farmers. Such big gap of LWP for farm households operating in
the same farming system suggests a potential for improvements.
Thank you!!
THANK YOU!
Recommended