Livestock Farming in Coconut Plantations in Sri Lanka: Constraints and Opportunities

This article was downloaded by: [University of New Mexico]On: 23 November 2014, At: 04:00Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Biological Agriculture& Horticulture: AnInternational Journal forSustainable ProductionSystemsPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tbah20

Livestock Farming inCoconut Plantations in SriLanka: Constraints andOpportunitiesA. D. Samarajeewa a , J. B. Schiere b , M.N.M. Ibrahim c & Theo Viets ba Agronomy Division , Coconut ResearchInstitute , Lunuwila , Sri Lankab Animal Production Systems Group ,Wageningen Institute of Animal Sciences(WIAS), Wageningen University andResearch Centre , P.O. Box 338, 6700 , AHWageningen , The Netherlandsc Department of Animal Science, Facultyof Agriculture , University of Peradeniya ,Peradeniya , Sri LankaPublished online: 24 Apr 2012.

To cite this article: A. D. Samarajeewa , J. B. Schiere , M. N.M. Ibrahim &Theo Viets (2003) Livestock Farming in Coconut Plantations in Sri Lanka:Constraints and Opportunities, Biological Agriculture & Horticulture: AnInternational Journal for Sustainable Production Systems, 21:3, 293-308, DOI:10.1080/01448765.2003.9755271

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01448765.2003.9755271

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tbah20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/01448765.2003.9755271

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01448765.2003.9755271

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy ofall the information (the “Content”) contained in the publicationson our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to theaccuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content.Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinionsand views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed byTaylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources ofinformation. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the useof the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew M

exic

o] a

t 04:

00 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Biological Agriculture and Horticulture, 2003, Vol. 21, pp. 293-308 0144-8765/03 $10 © 2003 A B Academic Publishers Printed in Great Britain

Livestock Farming in Coconut Plantations in Sri Lanka: Constraints and Opportunities

A.D. Samarajeewa1, J.B. Schiere2, M.N.M. lbrahim3·*

and Theo Viets2

1 Agronomy Division, Coconut Research Institute, Lunuwila, Sri Lanka. 2Animal Production Systems Group, Wageningen Institute of Animal Sciences (WIAS), Wageningen University and Research Centre, P.O. Box 338,6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands. 3Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya, Sri Lanka

ABSTRACT

A study was carried out to identify biological and socio-economic constraints and opportunities for livestock development in coconut plantations in Sri Lanka. One part of the study focussed on the use of participatory rural appraisal to establish felt needs of different farmer categories in terms of feeding practices. Small coconut land holders ( < 0.8 ha) reared livestock mainly for direct (primary) products such as milk, while large coconut holders (> 6 ha) kept livestock for indirect (secondary) benefits such as weed control, social status and security. With an increase of land area, the objectives of keeping livestock deviate from direct to indirect benefits. The total benefits either as direct or indirect were more than double the value of live weight production. The major constraint of livestock keeping for small holders in the area was small land area, lack of grazing lands and low milk price. The major issue in livestock keeping for large coconut holders was shortage of feed during dry seasons. A second part of the study tried to establish biological production potentials based on feed supply of different farmer categories. Of the two areas selected, the coconut dominant area had lower maximum live weight production or milk production than that of the paddy dominant area despite higher availability of natural grass in coconut plantations. Natural grasses in paddy fields, with a feeding value higher than that under coconuts, combined with use of rice bran led to higher live weight production in the paddy dominant area. However, in paddy dominant areas, the small size of individual land holding is more critical and causes many farmers to give up dairying. Coconut dominant areas have a potential to keep animals for indirect benefits owing to the larger size of land holdings. In general, the nutritive value of 50% of the available feeds in both areas were below maintenance level. Part of this study aimed to assess usefulness of a few 'on the shelf' feeding technologies. Biologically speaking, gliricidia was found to be a potential source of feed but farmers' awareness about the potential feeding value of

*Corresponding author: [email protected]

293

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew M

exic

o] a

t 04:

00 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

294 A.D. SAMARAJEEW A AND OTHERS

gliricidia was low (26% ). Particularly farmers that keep livestock for indirect production (63%) found time required for collection of gliricidia a reason for low adoption of this potential feed. Farmers' awareness of urea ammonia treatment of straw was reasonable but only 3% practised this technology.

INTRODUCTION

Coconut (Cocos nucifera) is a major plantation crop in Sri Lanka. It occupies 40% ( 400 000 ha) of the cultivable land area in the country but, due to its morphological features, only 25% of that land area is actually used in monoculture. This gives opportunities for integration of livestock or intercrops in coconut lands. The so called coconut triangle is an area of Sri Lanka that comprises three major coconut growing districts with 22% of the natural grazing areas of the country and is identified as an area for livestock development. However, low nutritive value of natural pasture under coconut in terms of digestibility and crude protein, combined with low dry matter yields and large seasonal fluctuations, restrict the biological maximum for milk production (Perera, 1996). Many studies have been done to overcome these biological problems, including cultivating varieties of pasture with improved cattle (Santhirasegaram, 1966; Ibrahim et al., 1982), feeding rice straw treated with urea (Ibrahim et al., 1984; Sunst!')l & Owen, 1984; Schiere & Ibrahim, 1986) and integration of leguminous tree species with coconuts (Liyanage et al., 1993). These studies resulted in many 'on the shelf' technologies on feed supply to improve dairy under coconut. Adoption of these recommendations has not been as expected, and this paper aims to understand underlying causes by using farming system research methods.

Formal livestock research and development are often focussed on biological production in terms of milk and meat. The intermediate products (manure, draught power etc.) and intangible benefits (finance and insurance) are very much neglected (Chambers et al., 1989; Udo & Cornelissen, 1998). Several authors have cited use of farm animals as weeders in coconut plantations (Reynolds, 1995; Jayatilaka et al., 1998). Poor land use and escalating cost of production have reduced the profitability of coconut lands. Manuring and weeding comprises nearly 70-80% of the cost of production. Coconut is fertilized mainly with inorganic fertilizer. Weeding is mainly done by mechanical methods such as slashing and harrowing. It has been observed that cost of weeding can be reduced by 60% by using farm animals as bio-weeders (Anon., 1997). This integration of livestock in coconut lands not only increases the productivity of coconut lands but also considerably reduces the cost of weeding and manuring. However, attention given to the multi-purposes of local livestock production systems is inadequate in research and development programmes.

Ruminant feeding strategies should be based on an analysis of the total feed resource base, the objectives of keeping animals and access to feed resources

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew M

exic

o] a

t 04:

00 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

LIVESTOCK FARMING IN COCONUT PLANTATIONS 295

(Zemmelink et al., 1992; Udo & Cornelissen, 1998). The feed resource base expressed in quantity and quality is important in quantification of the potential animal production in a certain area and is a prerequisite in planning further improvement of feeding strategies. On the other hand, the objectives of keeping farm animals under coconut may vary from primary (milk and meat) to secondary benefits (weeding, manuring, draught power, finance and security). If the sole objective of keeping farm animals is for primary benefits, there are fewer opportunities for optimum use of locally available feeds including weeds under coconut, paddy straw and lopping of gliricidia. But, if the intermediate products (manure, draught) are important then more of the poorer feeds can be used and more animals can be kept. This suggests that objectives of keeping animals under coconut play an important role in formulating feeding strategies.

Therefore, a study was carried out with the objective to find socio-economical and biological constraints/options for the development of livestock under coconut using complementary approaches from soft and hard system methodologies for better understanding of niches.

METHODOLOGY

This study was carried out in two stages. Stage one focussed on collection of datal information on issues and possibilities of expansion of livestock keeping under coconut, using 'Topical' Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) (Kisopp-Reeds & Hinchcliffe, 1994). Topics focussed on were; objectives of keeping farm animals, feeds, feed availability and accessibility throughout the year, and constraints for livestock keeping under coconut. Stage two of the study was on quantification of the feed resource base in two selected areas in the coconut triangle using the information in phase one and simulation of the potential for keeping livestock, employing a feed optimization programme, Java (Zemmelink et al., 1992).

The study area

This study was carried out in the Kurunegala district of Sri Lanka. Three villages (lrriyagolla, Makandura and Bopitiya) were selected for the topical PRA (Kisopp-Reeds & Hinchcliffe, 1994), which focussed on the objectives of keeping animals, feeds and feed availability throughout the year, and other constraints for livestock keeping under coconut. Quantification of feed resources was conducted in two areas. One was predominantly a coconut growing area with larger coconut estates and, for the sake of simplicity, is hereafter referred as the coconut dominant area. The other area was predominantly a paddy-growing area and is referred as the paddy dominant area.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew M

exic

o] a

t 04:

00 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014


Data collection and analysis

Key informants such as government officials, livestock development instructors, coconut development officers, farmer leaders and milk collectors were consulted during the familiarization visit to the area, and secondary data on total land, coconut and paddy areas were collected from the records maintained at the village administrative unit. Information on constraints and objectives of livestock keeping was gathered with the help of key informants. Details regarding the objectives of keeping livestock, feeds and feed availability, and knowledge on feeds and feeding practices were also discussed. Livestock keepers in three villages were asked to rank the objectives of keeping livestock and the problems identified, using preference ranking and pair wise ranking methods (KisoppReeds & Hinchcliffe, 1994).

Based on the information gathered in the PRA and secondary data, the following of secondary benefits of keeping farm animals was assessed: ( 1) value of farm animals for manure, (2) value of farm animals for weeding, (3) financial value of a farm animal, (4) value of animals for draught power, (5) value of animals for transport.

Java simulation programme

Feed sources identified in the PRA were quantified and subsequently used for simulation of potential animal production in the selected areas (Zemmelink et al., 1992). The data for nutritional values of the identified feeds were taken from literature (Ibrahim, 1988; Ibrahim & Jayatilaka, 1999).

The Java programme was designed to calculate the maximum total benefits (TB) for the farmer, as determined by amount and quality of feeds, and the comparative value of different benefits. TB are assumed to consist of two main components: actual production (P) of meat and/or milk, and secondary benefits (SB). The latter includes manure and the benefits derived from the presence of an animal on the farm, such as economic security, draught power and weeding. The programme assumes that voluntary intake is related to the quality of feed offered including crude protein, organic or dry matter digestibility and energy concentration in dry matter. After ranking the feeds according to intake of metabolizable energy (IME), the programme starts a step-wise procedure. In step 1, a certain fraction, for example 1%, to be determined by the user of the programme, of the total amount of feed dry matter (DM) available is taken. In step 2, the next 1% is added. This continues until all feed ( 100%) or less, for example 80%, to be determined by the user, is included. At each step, the programme calculates the following values: (1) total amount of feed DM included, (2) weighted mean of digestibility and nitrogen, (3) intake of organic matter, (4) IME, as described above. And using these values: (5) the number of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew M

exic

o] a

t 04:

00 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014


animals, (6) production (LWG) per animal per day, (7) total production: (5)* (6). In addition to the above, the programme calculates other values selected by the user, such as manure, animal presence, draught power and weeding benefits. These additional benefits can be expressed in monetary terms (any currency) or live weight gain equivalents.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Topical participatory rural appraisal

Key informants in the study area categorized the livestock keepers according to land holding size in the area, as the area of the land was identified as the most important factor. Land holdings less than 0.8 ha were considered as small holdings while 0.8-6 ha and more than 6 ha were considered as medium and large holdings, respectively.

Objectives of keeping livestock

Objectives of livestock keeping in the area were identified as for milk, manure, weeding, security (readily available cash), draught (paddy lands) and transport (in coconut lands). A majority of small holders (< 0.8 ha) keep livestock for primary benefits (milk) while large coconut holders (> 6 ha) are mainly concerned about secondary benefits (Figure 1). When the land area becomes larger, the objective of keeping livestock shifts from primary production to secondary production. As the majority (98%) of the population in the study area was Buddhist, keeping farm animals for meat is not popular.

Constraints of keeping livestock

After initial gathering of information from the key informants, the issues identified as constraints were; low milk price, no grazing lands (small land holdings), lack of feeds in dry season, high cost of milking animals, crop damage, induced theft (thefts of coconuts by cattle keepers who use coconut lands) and labour problems. Average size of land holdings of the farmers who keep livestock mainly for dairying ranged from 0.35 to 0.60 ha. Dairy farmers with less than 0.8 ha in two villages (average land holding 0.5 to 0.6 ha) said that low price of milk was the major problem, while dairy farmers in the third village (average land holding 0.35 ha) reported small land area as the major problem. But in group ranking (Table 1), farmers of the same category in three villages concluded that lack of grazing area due to fragmentation of existing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew M

exic

o] a

t 04:

00 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014


Land category

FIGURE 1. Objectives of keeping livestock according to the land size (n =50).

of individual holding was the main problem of keeping livestock in the area.

Nearly 80% of the land holdings in the three areas are below 0.8 ha of which nearly 40% are less than 0.2 ha. Small landowners depend mainly on other grazing areas (other coconut plantations) for keeping livestock. The majority of the farmers (63%) who participated in PRA keep livestock for dairy as a secondary source of income. For them, price of milk is not a major issue as they do not spend much in monetary terms in keeping livestock. Tethering animals has become a problem for them owing to declining of land area. But for farmers who keep livestock for dairy as a major source of income (37% ), low price of milk and increase cost of production were the major problems. Therefore, fragmentation of existing coconut lands, for example due to urbanization and increasing population, has affected not only coconut production (Vidhanapathirana, 1994) but also livestock production.

Farmers with more than 8 ha land ranked shortage of feed in the dry months (January-March, June-August) highly and this causes overgrazing in the coconut lands. In coconut estates that do not have livestock, other livestock keepers are allowed to tether animals, and the landowner gets the benefit of weeding and manure, while livestock keepers get the benefit of primary product. This is a mutual arrangement where landowners and livestock keepers benefit. Although the benefits (secondary) of livestock are known, most large coconut holdings do

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew M

exic

o] a

t 04:

00 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014


TABLE I

Pair-wise ranking of issues of livestock keeping according to land size (The highest score is the most important).

Lands < 0.8 ha

Issue 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Score

1. Low milk price 2 I I l 1 I 5 2. No grazing land/small land size 2 2 2 2 2 6 3. Shortage feed in dry season 3 3 3 3 4 4. High cost of milking animals 4 4 4 3 5. Crop damage 5 5 2 6. Theft of coconut* 0 7. Labour problems 0

Lands> 6h

Issue 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Score

I. Low milk price 3 5 6 0 2. No grazing land/small land size 3 5 6 0 3. Shortage feed in dry season 3 3 3 3 6 4. High cost of milking animals 5 6 0 5. Crop damage 6 5 4 6. Theft of coconut* 6 5 7. Labour problems 0

*Theft of coconuts by allowing cattle keepers to enter coconut lands

not keep livestock owing to the damage to under/young plantation, theft of fallen coconuts and coconut leaves, and intercropping in coconut lands. When livestock keepers are allowed use coconut plantations frequently, thieving of fallen coconuts is reported, discouraging some coconut growers from allowing outsiders to herd livestock on their lands.

Farmers response to recommendation on feeds and feeding practices

During the PRA, farmers who keep cattle mainly for dairy were evaluated for their awareness of feeding systems/feeds, constraints for adoption and interest in adoption. For this, feeding with urea treated straw, supplementation of gliricidia (Gliricidia sepium) and establishment of cultivated pastures were considered. Ibrahim & Jayatilaka (1999) monitored the feeding systems followed by farmers in the coconut growing areas for a period of 1 year and found that the inclusion of gliricidia in both cattle and buffalo rations was low (8 and 12%, respectively). Low awareness of the feeding value of gliricidia (26% of dairy farmers) could be one of the reasons for low adoptability. Farmers' knowledge on manipulation of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew M

exic

o] a

t 04:

00 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014


feeds, i.e. the use of gliricidia along with other poor quality roughage, in order to enhance the quality and the quantity of milk was not at a satisfactory level. This is evident from the farmers' ignorance of low cost readily available feed stuff such as gliricidia. Awareness among dairy farmers on urea ammonia treated straw (UTS) was satisfactory (51% of dairy farmers). However, the actual field practice of UTS is at a very low level (3% ). One of the major reasons for low adoption is the greater time requirement (Table 2). As the majority of farmers consider dairy farming as an additional source of income, they mainly depend on natural grasses under coconut. Only 12% of the participants expressed the willingness to establish cultivated pastures (22% of the dairy farmers).

Feed utilization versus animal production

Information on feeds and feed availability was collected during the PRA. Total feed availability per year in coconut dominant and paddy dominant area, and their nutritive value as reported by Ibrahim (1988) and Ibrahim & Jayatilaka (1999) is presented in Table 3.

For tropical regions the metabolizable energy (ME) requirement for an animal weighing 325 kg is estimated at 0.512 MJ kg-0·75 d-1 (Zemmelink et al., 1992). Based on this, rice bran, gliricidia and Brachiaria mutica had higher energy intake levels 0.836-0.889 MJ kg-0·75 d-1 (1.5-1.7 times maintenance). Banana wastes and grasses in paddy fields were the next, allowing an energy intake level of 1.3-1.4 times maintenance. However, the energy intake level of grasses under coconut, which are supposed to be the major feed sources for livestock keeping in coconut based farming systems, is below (0.384 MJ kg-0·75 d-1) the level needed to meet the maintenance requirement. Even though rice straw accounts for nearly 50% of feed resources in both these systems, its energy intake levels could hardly meet even 50% of the daily energy requirement for maintenance.

The results of the Java simulation program (Zemmelink et al., 1992) are presented in Figure 2. The dotted line (A) in Figure 2 shows the potential animal production in relation to available feed resources in the coconut dominant area.

TABLE 2

Farmers' views on feeding systems and feeds.

Urea treated Gliricidia Cultivation of pasture straw under coconut

Time requirement --a

Availability of materials + + Impact on milk production + +I- ++ Interest in practising +I- + +

a_ -very bad; +1- neutral; ++ very positive; - bad; + positive; ? no idea.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew M

exic

o] a

t 04:

00 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

TA

BL

E 3

Fee

d av

aila

bili

ty (

Mt

per

year

) in

coc

onut

dom

inan

t an

d pa

ddy

dom

inan

t ar

ea,

and

thei

r nu

trit

ive

valu

e.

Sou

rce

of fe

eds

Tot

al f

eed

avai

labi

lity

N

utri

ent

conc

entr

atio

n (M

t y-

1 )

in f

eeds

Coc

onut

P

addy

C

rude

O

rgan

ic

Org

anic

mat

ter

dom

inan

t do

min

ant

prot

ein

mat

ter

dige

stib

ilit

y ar

ea

area

(%

) (%

) (%

)

Gli

rici

dia

26

13

21.8

85

.6

65.8

N

at ur

al g

rass

es:

-Un

der

coc

onut

11

66

468

8.2

87.9

47

.8

-P

addy

fie

lds

491

910

12.1

87

.4

57.2

-

Pad

dy f

ield

bun

ds

154

284

7.9

89.2

46

.3

-R

oads

ide

gras

ses

188

217

Cre

eper

s 4

3 14

.9

86.4

49

.4

Ban

ana

was

tes

196

214

9.5

91.0

63

.3

Jack

-L

eav

es

6 5

15.3

90

.3

49.3

-

Fru

it w

aste

s 36

29

7.

6 84

.8

42.7

B

rach

iari

a m

utic

a 16

12

.5

89.1

70

.1

Bra

chia

ria

briz

anth

a 3

10.8

91

.6

53.2

R

ice

stra

w

1626

30

08

4.9

85.4

39

.8

Ric

e br

an

45

84

11. I

86

.0

76.0

Inta

ke o

f m

etab

oliz

able

en

ergy

(M

J kg

-1 d-

1 )

0.85

3

0.38

4 0.

596

0.35

6

0.45

8 0.

669

0.45

7 0.

293

0.83

6 0.

507

0.22

7 0.

889

~ t"r1

(/)

>-3

0 n ~

'!l >- ~ z Cl z n 0 n ~ c: >-3 ., r >- ~ >- g z (/) "' 0

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew M

exic

o] a

t 04:

00 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014


Total live weight production in the coconut dominant area with available feed resources is 22.6 MT, at which 23% of total available feed resources are used. At this level, the herd size is 484 AU. In the study area, nearly 50% of the cattle and buffalo population is female and more than 2 years old (Ibrahim & Jayatilaka, 1999). When the production is expressed in terms of milk, it is 1 l AU-1 d-1 and maximum milk production is equivalent to 84750 l per year. One kilogram of L WG is equivalent to 7.5 l of milk in terms of metabolic energy. Although natural grasses under coconut, the major feed resource in the coconut based farming system, are more important in the coconut dominant area (30% of total DM) due to the comparatively large extent of coconut (1355 ha) compared with the other area (8% of total DM), their contribution to the primary production (milk/meat) was low, owing to the poor feeding value in terms of intake of metabolic energy.

The solid line (B) in Figure 2 shows the potential animal production in relation to available feed resources in the paddy dominant area. Maximum production is achieved when 28% of total dry matter is used. At this level, the maximum total production, 26.6 MT, is achieved with a herd size of 784 AU. In terms of milk, this is equivalent to 0.71 AU-1 d-1 and 99750 l of total milk production per year. When the coconut dominant and paddy dominant areas are compared for livestock production (primary), the potential of livestock production with only freely available feed resources is higher in the paddy dominant than in coconut dominant areas.

40

30 g ..::-'

'I-< >. .... .......,

20

~ 10

0

1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91

Feed dry matter used (%)

FIGURE 2. Potential animal production (Total live weight production; TLWP) with locally available feed resources in coconut dominant (A) and paddy dominant areas (B).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew M

exic

o] a

t 04:

00 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014


The production (primary) level of the paddy dominant area is higher than that of the coconut dominant area owing to the availability of a higher amount of rice bran and natural grasses in paddy fields, and their comparatively higher metabolizable energy. Grass on bunds is available almost throughout the year for cut and carry during the time when the paddy is cultivated, and grasses in areas in paddy fields excluding bunds are available when paddy is harvested.

Secondary benefits of farm animals in coconut plantations

Value of farm animal for manure

Production of manure per animal was estimated as 700 g d-1 for small ruminants (Anon., 1997) and 6 kg d-1 for cattle of the weight of 150 kg on a fresh weight basis, with approximately 70% moisture (Liyanage et al., 1993). Therefore, production of manure per animal unit is 5.25 kg and 12 kg on a fresh weight basis for small ruminants and large ruminants, respectively. Average weight of a small ruminant was considered as 40 kg and one tropical AU is equivalent to 300 kg. Average moisture content of cow dung at saleable stage is 30%. Twelve kilogram of cow dung, with 70% of moisture, is equivalent to 5.1 kg of dried cow dung with 30% moisture. Dung of small ruminants is sold as fresh dung; hence moisture content was not taken into account. Therefore, average dung production of one AU was 5.2 kg d-1 at saleable stage, i.e. 1898 kg AU-1 y-1• Price of manure was approximately Rs 1.25 kg-1 but ranges from Rs.l to 1.50 kg-1, based on field observations. Therefore, value of an animal for manure is approximately Rs 2400 y-1 Au-~.

Value of farm animal for weeding

Cost of weeding per hectare of coconut was estimated to be around Rs. 4500 based on field observation. Recommended stocking rate with natural grasses under coconut is one head (cattle) for 2 ha of coconut (Ferdinandez, 1978). However, practical value for weeding was considered as one head per 1.2 ha. Cost of weeding for 1.2 ha of coconut is Rs. 5400. As certain weed species are left uneaten due to the selective grazing and have to be weeded manually or mechanically, only 60% of cost of weeding can be reduced with farm animals (Anon., 1997). Therefore, weeding value of one animal was estimated as Rs. 3240.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew M

exic

o] a

t 04:

00 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014


Finance value of a farm animal

Finance value is referred to as the amount saved, by way of avoiding cost of transactions, for example interest on loans, in meeting emergency money requirement that otherwise has to be paid to a bank or money lender. This was estimated as the 10% of the selling value of the farm animal per year. Average live weight gain of cattle under coconut with natural grasses is 170 g d-1 head-1

(Reynolds, 1995). Average price per live weight unit is Rs. 50 kg-1 based on field observation. The selling value of an animal per year was considered as the value of live weight gain per year. Therefore, the finance value of an animal is estimated as 10% of selling value per year, which is equivalent to Rs. 310 y-1•

Value of farm animal for draught power

Average size of paddy land holding of livestock keepers is 0.4 ha. It was assumed that extent of land prepared per year is confined to the average size of paddy land holding of livestock keepers. Cost of land preparation is Rs. 12000 ha-1 y-1 on the assumption that paddy is grown in both seasons in the year, based on field observations. Average number of livestock units per livestock keeper is estimated as 3.4 AU. Draught power requirement of the farmer has to be met within the average herd (3.4 AU). Therefore, the value of a farm animal for draught power for an average farmer is Rs.l400 y-1 (Rs. 4800 per 3.4 AU).

Value of farm animal for transport in coconut land

Average size of a coconut holding in the area under study is 0.6 ha. Average coconut production in the area is 10000 nuts ha-1 y-1 (Somasiri et al., 1994). Therefore, average nut production for 0.6 ha, which has to be transported in a holding is 6000 nuts. Transport cost per 1000 nuts by mechanical means was estimated at Rs. 150 (Anon., 1997). Requirement of transportation of coconuts in coconut lands has to be obtained from the herd, which is 3.4 AU. Therefore, value of one AU for transport purposes in coconut lands was estimated as Rs. 250, i.e. Rs. 840 divided by 3.4 AU. Based on the above figures, the total secondary value of a farm animal in the area under study was estimated as Rs. 7600 AU-1 y-1.

Total benefits (primary and secondary)

The total benefits (primary and secondary) of keeping farm animals in both areas, compared with primary benefits, is shown in Figure 3 A and B. Total benefits are given in live weight gain (LWG) equivalents. The value of an AU unit per year in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew M

exic

o] a

t 04:

00 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

..... >. +-' '-'

0... i3: .....l E-<

-'""' ..... >. ~

~ E-<

LIVESTOCK FARMING IN COCONUT PLANTATIONS

A - Coconut dorminant area

305

200~------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~

150

100

50

200

150

100

50

0

1

/

,

, ,

11

,

. .

11

. .

--A

----- A1

.... --------------------------------------------------------------------------

21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91


8 - Paddy dorminant area

.·

21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91


FIGURE 3. Total benefits of keeping farm animals (expressed as live weight equivalents; line AI and B I) in coconut dominant and paddy dominant areas with corresponding primary benefits (live weight gain; line A and B).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew M

exic

o] a

t 04:

00 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014


coconut based systems for secondary benefits were calculated as 152 times oflive weight equivalents. The higher value of secondary benefit was obtained mainly due to the value of the farm animal in coconut-based systems for weeding and manure.

In the coconut dominant area, when the system reaches the maximum primary benefits in terms of meat/milk (22.6 t of live weight equivalents with 484 AU), the corresponding total benefits are equal to 96.3 t of live weight equivalents which is four times higher than the primary benefits. With the higher number of animal units, the live weight production decreases due to the decrease in quality of ration fed ad libitum, while total benefits increase due to increase in the value of secondary benefits. When total live weight production reaches a level where animals are at maintenance, total benefits are equal to 110 t of live weight equivalents. Corresponding herd size amounts to 719 at which a large part (65%) of the available natural grasses under coconut is used. This shows that even if the animals are at the maintenance level in the coconut based system, total benefits are nearly five times that of the maximum primary benefits. In the actual situation, small holders are interested in primary production while large estate owners are interested in maintenance of farm animals mainly for secondary benefits.

In the paddy dominant area, when the system reaches maximum primary benefits (26.6 t of live weight), the corresponding secondary benefits with that herd size is 147 tons, which is also nearly six times higher than the primary benefits where the system as a whole is concerned. When the total live weight production or mean live weight gain of an individual animal equals the maintenance level of animals, the herd size is 1343 AU. At which level, 36% of the total dry matter is used including the whole amount of natural grasses available and 3% of rice straw available in the area. Compared with the coconut dominant area, the herd size that can be maintained with available feed resources is higher in the paddy dominant area owing to the better quality of feed available in this area. As a result, more of lower quality feeds, in terms of metabolic energy, crude protein and digestible organic matter are used in the paddy dominant area, such as weed grasses under coconut and rice straw, than in the coconut dominant area.

CONCLUSIONS

The objectives of keeping livestock in coconut plantations vary among different stakeholders. Therefore, it is essential to identify the target groups in further development of coconut based livestock programmes. There is a need to enhance the awareness of farmers on the secondary value of farm animals in coconut lands in facing the challenge of escalating cost of production of coconut. Major constraints of livestock keeping in paddy dominant areas, where the technical

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew M

exic

o] a

t 04:

00 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014


potential of keeping livestock was higher in relation to feed availability was small land size of individual land holding and lack of grazing areas. On the contrary, in the coconut dominant area, where the holding size is bigger than in the paddy dominant area, there is a great potential for keeping livestock for secondary benefits.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The financial assistance provided by the W ageningen Institute of Animal Sciences (WIAS) of the Wageningen University & Research Centres, The Netherlands for one of the co-authors (MNMI) to undertake this assignment is gratefully acknowledged.

References

Anonymous (1997). Annual Report of the Coconut Research Institute. Lunuwila, Sri Lanka. Chambers, R., Pacey, A. & Thrupp, L.A. (1989). Farmers First. Farmer Innovation and

Agricultural Research. Intermediate Technology Publications; London, U.K. Ferdinandez, D.E.F. ( 1978). Integration of animal production and other crops into the coconut

cropping system in Sri Lanka, Ceylon Coconut Quarterly (29), Coconut Research Institute; Lunuwila, Sri Lanka, pp. 81-86.

Ibrahim, M.N .M. (1988). Feeding Tables for Ruminants in Sri Lanka. Department of Animal Production and Health; Peradeniya, Sri Lanka.

Ibrahim. M.N.M. & Ferdinandez, D.E.F. (1982). Productivity and nutritive value of different pasture species grown under coconut. In The Utilization of Fibrous Agricultural Residues as Animal Feeds (P.T. Doyle, ed.), pp. 109-116. University of Melbourne, Printing Service; Melbourne, Australia.

Ibrahim, M.N.M. & Jayatilaka, T.N. ( 1999). Livestock production under coconut plantations in Sri Lanka: Cattle and buffalo production systems. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Science, 13, 98-221.

Ibrahim, M.N.M., Wijeratne, A.M.U. & Costa, M.J.I. (1984). Sources of urease for use in reducing the storage time required to treat straw with ammonium hydroxide released from urea. In The Utilization of Fibrous Agricultural Residues as Animal Feeds (P.T. Doyle, ed.), pp. 109-116. University of Melbourne, Printing Service; Melbourne, Australia.

Jayatilaka, T.N., Weerakkody, P.R. & Ibrahim, M.N.M. (1998). Livestock production under coconut plantations in Sri Lanka: Social, cultural and economics aspects, Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Science, 11, 586-596.

Kisopp-Reeds, K. & Hinchcliffe, F. (1994). Special Issue on Livestock, RRA Notes 20. Sustainable Agriculture Programme, liED; London, U.K.

Liyanage, M. de. S., Jayasundara, H.P.S., Fernando, D.N.S. & Fernando, M.T.N. (1993). Integration of legume based pasture and cattle in the coconut farming system in Sri Lanka. Journal of Asian Farming Systems Association, 1, 579-588.

Perera, A.N.F. (1996). Cattle feed- Its uncertain supply, a major constraint in milk production. Economic Review, Vol. 22, No. 6 & 7. Central Bank of Sri Lanka; Colombo, Sri Lanka, pp. 15-17.

Reynolds, S.G. (1995). Pasture-Cattle-Coconut Systems. Food & Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Regional Office for Asia & Pacific (RAPA); Bangkok, Thailand.

Santhirasegaram, K. (1966). The effect of pasture on the yield of coconut. Journal of Agriculture Society (Trinidad and Tobago), 16, 283-293.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew M

exic

o] a

t 04:

00 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014


Schiere, J.B. & Ibrahim, M.N.M. (1986). Recent research and extension on rice straw feeding in Sri Lanka: A review. In. The Utilization of Fibrous Agricultural Residues as Animal Feeds (P.T. Doyle, ed.), pp. 117-131. University of Melbourne Printing Service, Melbourne, Australia.

Somasiri, L.L.W., Nadaraj, N., Amarasinghe, L. & Gunatilaka, H.A.G. (1994). Land suitability assessment of coconut growing areas in the coconut traingle. Occasional Publication Series No.3, Coconut Research Institute; Lunuwila, Sri Lanka.

Sundstjijl, F. & Owen, E. (1984). Straw and other Fibrous By-products as Feed. Developments in Animal Veterinary Sciences, Vol. 14. Elsevier; Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Udo, H.M.J. & Cornelissen, T. (1998). Livestock in resource-poor farming systems. Outlook on Agriculture, 27, 237-242.

Vidhanapathirana, S. (1994). Fragmentation of coconut lands. Daily News (Issued on 21st Feb. 1994). Associated News Papers Ltd.; Colombo, Sri Lanka.

Zemmelink,G., Brouwer, B.O. & Ifar, S. (1992). Feed utilisation and role of ruminant in farming system. In Livestock and Feed Development in the Tropics (M.N.M. Ibrahim, R. de. Jong, J. Van Bruchem & H. Purnomo, eds.), pp. 444-451. Brawijaya University; Malang, Indonesia.

(Received 3 September 2002; accepted 18 June 2003)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew M

exic

o] a

t 04:

00 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Documents

Livestock Farming in Coconut Plantations in Sri Lanka: Constraints and Opportunities