Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T17:26:15.768Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Biophysical and economic water productivity of dual-purpose cattle farming

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 November 2015

M.T. Sraïri ,
R. Benjelloun ,
M. Karrou ,
S. Ates  and
M. Kuper
M.T. Sraïri*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Production and Biotechnology, Hassan II Institute of Agronomy and Veterinary Medicine, Rabat, Morocco
R. Benjelloun
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Production and Biotechnology, Hassan II Institute of Agronomy and Veterinary Medicine, Rabat, Morocco
M. Karrou
Affiliation:
International Center for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas, Rabat, Morocco
S. Ates
Affiliation:
International Center for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas, Amman, Jordan
M. Kuper
Affiliation:
Centre de coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (CIRAD), UMR G-Eau, Montpellier, France Hassan II Institute of Agronomy and Veterinary Medicine, Rabat, Morocco
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

This study analyzes key factors influencing water productivity in cattle rearing, particularly in contexts characterized by water scarcity. This was done through year-round monitoring of on-farm practices within five smallholder farms located in the Saïss area (northern Morocco). The on-farm monitoring protocol consisted of characterizing: (i) volumes of water used for fodder production and distinguished by source (rainfall, surface irrigation and groundwater), (ii) virtual water contained in off-farm feed resources, (iii) total forage biomass production, (iv) dietary rations fed to lactating cows and their calves and (v) milk output and live weight gain. Findings reveal a mean water footprint of 1.62±0.81 and 8.44±1.09 m3/kg of milk and of live weight gain, respectively. Groundwater represented only 13.1% and 2.2% of the total water used to get milk and live weight gain, respectively, while rainfall represented 53.0% and 48.1% of the total water for milk and live weight gain, respectively. The remaining water volumes used came from surface irrigation water (7.4% for milk and 4.0% for live weight gain) and from virtual water (26.5% for milk and 44.7% for live weight gain). The results also revealed a relatively small gross margin per m3 of water used by the herd, not exceeding an average value of US $ 0.05, when considering both milk and live weight. Given the large variability in farm performances, which affect water productivity in cattle rearing throughout the production process, we highlight the potential for introducing a series of interventions that are aimed at saving water, while concurrently improving efficiency in milk production and live weight gain. These interventions should target the chain of production functions that are implemented throughout the process of water productivity in cattle rearing. Moreover, these interventions are of particular importance given our findings that livestock production depends largely upon rainfall, rather than groundwater, in an area afflicted with sustained droughts, overexploitation of groundwater resources and growing water scarcity.

Keywords

cattlegross marginlive weight gainmilkwater productivity
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 10 , Supplement 2 , February 2016 , pp. 283 - 291
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aass, L 1996. Variation in carcass and meat quality traits and their relations to growth in dual purpose cattle. Livestock Production Science 46, 1–12.Google Scholar
Allan, JA 1998. Virtual water: a strategic resource – global solutions to regional deficits. Groundwater 36, 545–546.Google Scholar
Armstrong, DP 2004. Water-use efficiency and profitability on an irrigated dairy farm in Northern Victoria: a case study. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 44, 137–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batchelor, C, Reddy, VR, Linstead, C, Dhar, M, Roy, S and May, R 2014. Do water-saving technologies improve environmental flows? Journal of Hydrology 518, 140–149.Google Scholar
Benouniche, M, Kuper, M, Hammani, A and Boesveld, H 2014. Making the user visible: analyzing irrigation practices and farmers’ logic to explain actual drip irrigation performance. Irrigation Science 32, 405–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouazzama, B, Xanthoulis, D, Bouaziz, A, Ruelle, P and Mailhol, JC 2012. Effect of water stress on growth, water consumption and yield of silage maize under flood irrigation in a semi-arid climate of Tadla (Morocco). Biotechnologie, Agronomie, Société et Agronomie 16, 468–477.Google Scholar
Delgado, CL 2003. Rising consumption of meat and milk in developing countries has created a new food revolution. Journal of Nutrition 133, 3907S–3910S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doreau, M, Corson, M and Wiedemann, SG 2012. Water use by livestock: a global perspective for a regional issue? Animal Frontiers 2, 9–16.Google Scholar
DPA (Direction Provinciale de l’Agriculture) El Hajeb 2014. Monographie de l’activité agricole dans la province d’El Hajeb, Morocco, 6pp.Google Scholar
Eschel, G, Shepon, A, Makov, T and Milo, R 2014. Land, irrigation water, greenhouse gas, and reactive nitrogen burdens of meat, eggs, and dairy production in the United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) 111, 11996–12001.Google Scholar
Falkenmark, M 2007. Shift in thinking to address the 21st century hunger gap. Moving focus from blue to green water management. Water Resources Management 21, 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaudino, S, Goia, I, Grignani, C, Monaco, S and Sacco, D 2014. Assessing agro-environmental performance of dairy farms in northwest Italy based on aggregated results from indicators. Journal of Environmental Management 140, 120–134.Google Scholar
Gilbert, CL and Morgan, CW 2010. Food price volatility. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 365, 3023–3034.Google Scholar
Guessous, F 1991. Production fourragère et systèmes animaux, Actes Editions. Institut agronomique et vétérinaire Hassan II, Rabat, Morocco.Google Scholar
Heinrichs, AJ, Erb, HN, Rogers, GW, Cooper, JB and Jones, CM 2007. Variability in Holstein heifer heart-girth measurements and comparison of prediction equations for live weight. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 78, 333–338.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoekstra, AY 2012. The hidden water resource use behind meat and dairy. Animal Frontiers 2, 3–8.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, AY and Chapagain, AK 2007. Water footprints of nations: water use by people as a function of their consumption pattern. Water Resources Management 21, 35–48.Google Scholar
Iglesias, A, Garrote, L, Flores, F, Moneo, M 2007. Challenges to manage the risk of water scarcity and climate change in the Mediterranean. Water Resources Management 21, 775–788.Google Scholar
Kuper, M, Faysse, N, Hammani, A, Hartani, T, Hamamouche, MF and Ameur, F 2015. Liberation or anarchy? The Janus nature of groundwater use on North Africa’s new irrigation frontiers. In Integrated groundwater management (ed. Jakeman T, Barreteau O, Hunt R, Rinaudo J-D and Ross A), Chapter 19. Springer Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands (in press).Google Scholar
Le Gal, P-Y, Kuper, M, Moulin, C-H, Sraïri, MT, Rhouma, M 2009. Linking water saving and productivity to agro-food supply chains: a synthesis from two North-African cases. Irrigation and Drainage 58, S320–S333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lebacq, T, Baret, PV and Stilmant, D 2013. Sustainability indicators for livestock farming. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 33, 311–327.Google Scholar
Lejars, C and Courilleau, S 2015. Impact of agricultural groundwater use development on an irrigated sub-sector: the case of the onion in Saïs (Morocco). Cahiers Agricultures 24, 1–10. In French.Google Scholar
Magnan, N, Larson, DM and Taylor, JE 2012. Stuck on stubble? The non-market value of agricultural by-products for diversified farmers in Morocco. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 94, 1055–1069.Google Scholar
Martin, RC, Astatkie, T, Cooper, JM and Fredeen, AH 2005. A comparison of methods used to determine biomass on naturalized swards. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 191, 152–160.Google Scholar
Meul, M, Van Passel, S, Fremaut, D and Haesaert, G 2012. Higher sustainability performance of intensive grazing versus zero-grazing dairy systems. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 32, 629–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montazar, A and Sadeghi, M 2008. Effects of applied water and sprinkler irrigation uniformity on alfalfa and hay yield. Agricultural Water Management 95, 1279–1285.Google Scholar
Moran, JB 2013. Addressing the key constraints to increasing milk production from small holder dairy farms in tropical Asia. International Journal of Agriculture and Biosciences 2, 90–98.Google Scholar
Moughli, E and BenjellounTouimi, M. 2000. Valorisation de l’eau d’irrigation par les productions végétales dans les grands périmètres irrigués. Hommes, Terre et Eau 30, 30–38.Google Scholar
Quarouch, H, Kuper, M, Abdellaoui, EH and Bouarfa, S 2014. Eaux souterraines, sources de dignité et ressources sociales: cas d’agriculteurs dans la plaine du Saïss au Maroc. Cahiers Agricultures 23, 158–165.Google Scholar
Rockström, J, Falkenmark, M, Karlberg, L, Hoff, H, Rost, S and Gerten, D 2009. Future water availability for global food production: the potential of green water for increasing resilience to global change. Water Resources Research 45, W00A12.Google Scholar
Ryschawy, J, Choisis, N, Choisis, JP and Gibon, A 2013. Paths to last in mixed crop-livestock farming: lessons from an assessment of farm trajectories of change. Animal 7, 673–681.Google Scholar
Schilling, J, Korbinian, PF, Hertig, E and Scheffran, J 2012. Climate change, vulnerability and adaptation in North Africa, with focus on Morocco. Agricultural Ecosystems and Environment 156, 12–26.Google Scholar
Schlink, AC, Nguyen, ML and Vilijoen, GJ 2010. Water requirements for livestock production: a global perspective. Revue des Sciences et Techniques de l’OIE 29, 603–619.Google Scholar
Schyns, JF and Hoekstra, AY 2014. The added value of water footprint assessment for national water policy: a case study for Morocco. PLoS ONE 6, 14.Google Scholar
Sraïri, MT, El Jaouhari, M, Saydi, A, Kuper, M and Le Gal, P-Y 2011. Supporting small scale dairy farmers increasing their milk production: evidence from Morocco. Tropical Animal Health and Production 43, 4–49.Google Scholar
Sraïri, MT, Kiade, N, Lyoubi, R, Messad, S and Faye, B 2009a. A comparison of dairy cattle systems in an irrigated perimeter and in a suburban region: case study from Morocco. Tropical Animal Health and Production 41, 835–843.Google Scholar
Sraïri, MT, Rjafallah, M, Kuper, M and Le Gal, P-Y 2009b. Water productivity of dual purpose herds (milk and meat) production in a Moroccan large-scale irrigated scheme. Irrigation and Drainage 58, S334–S345.Google Scholar
Sraïri, MT, Sannito, Y and Tourrand, J-F 2015. Investigating the setbacks in conventional dairy farms by the follow-up of their potential and effective milk yields. Iranian Journal of Applied Animal Science 5, 255–264.Google Scholar
Sultana, MN, Uddin, MM, Ridoutt, BG and Peters, KJ 2014. Comparison of water use in global milk production for different typical farms. Agricultural Systems 129, 9–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Val-Arreola, D, Kebreab, E and France, J 2006. Modeling small-scale dairy farms in Central Mexico using multi-criteria programming. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 1662–1672.Google Scholar
Vasilakoglou, I and Dhima, K 2008. Forage yield and competition indices of berseem clover intercropped with barley. Agronomy Journal 100, 1749–1756.Google Scholar
Wada, Y, van Beek, LPH and Bierkens, MFP 2012. Nonsustainable groundwater sustaining irrigation: a global assessment. Water Resources Research 48, W00L06, 18pp.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Image

Sraïri supplementary material

Figure S1

Download Sraïri supplementary material(Image)
Image 40.8 KB