Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T23:24:48.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Livestock and feed water productivity in the mixed crop-livestock system

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2017

M. Bekele ,
A. Mengistu  and
B. Tamir
M. Bekele*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, College of Agriculture and Natural Resource Sciences, Debre Berhan University, PO Box 445, Debre Berhan, Ethiopia Department of Animal Production, College of Veterinary Medicine and Agriculture, Addis Ababa University, PO Box 34, Debre Zeit, Ethiopia
A. Mengistu
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Production, College of Veterinary Medicine and Agriculture, Addis Ababa University, PO Box 34, Debre Zeit, Ethiopia
B. Tamir
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Production, College of Veterinary Medicine and Agriculture, Addis Ababa University, PO Box 34, Debre Zeit, Ethiopia
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Recently with limited information from intensified grain-based farming systems in developed countries, livestock production is challenged as being huge consumer of freshwater. The smallholder mixed crop-livestock (MCL) system which is predominant in developing countries like Ethiopia, is maintained with considerable contributions of crop residues (CR) to livestock feeding. Inclusion of CR is expected to reduce the water requirement for feed production resulting improvement in livestock water productivity (LWP). This study was conducted to determine feed water productivity (FWP) and LWP in the MCL system. A multistage sampling procedure was followed to select farmers from different wealth status. Wealth status dictated by ownership of key farm resources such as size of cropland and livestock influenced the magnitude of livestock outputs, FWP and LWP. Significant difference in feed collected, freshwater evapotranspired, livestock outputs and water productivity (WP) were observed between wealth groups, where wealthier are relatively more advantaged. Water productivity of CR and grazing land (GL) analyzed separately showed contrasting differences where better-off gained more on CR, whereas vice versa on GL. These counterbalancing of variations may justify the non-significant difference in total FWP between wealth groups. Despite observed differences, low WP on GL indicates the need of interventions at all levels. The variation in WP of CR is attributed to availability of production factors which restrained the capacity of poor farmers most. A linear relationship between the proportion of CR in livestock feed and FWP was evident, but the relationship with LWP was not likely linear. As CR are inherently low in digestibility and nutritive values which have an effect on feed conversion into valuable livestock products and services, increasing share of CR beyond an optimum level is not a viable option to bring improvements in livestock productivity as expressed in terms of LWP. Ensuring land security, installing proper grazing management, improved forage seed supply and application of soil and water conservation are expected to enhance WP on GL. Given the relationship of production factors with crop biomass and associated WP, interventions targeted to improve provision of inputs, credit, extension and training support due emphasis to the poor would increase CR yield and reduce part of water use for feed production. Optimizing feed value of CR with treatment and supplementation, following water efficient forage production methods and maintenance of healthy productive animals are expected to amplify the benefits from livestock and eventually improve LWP.

Keywords

evapotranspirationfeedlivestockwater productivitywealth
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 11 , Issue 10 , October 2017 , pp. 1852 - 1860
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2017 

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

Allen, RG, Pereire, LS, Raes, D and Smith, M 1998. Crop evapotranspiration: guidelines for computing crop water requirements. Irrigation and Drainage Paper No 56. FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Amsalu, A, Stroosnijder, L and Graaff, JD 2007. Long-term dynamics in land resource use and the driving forces in the Beressa watershed, highlands of Ethiopia. Journal of Environmental Management 83, 448–459.Google Scholar
Ayalew, M and Asefa, B 2013. Reproductive and lactation performances of dairy cows in Chacha town and nearby selected kebeles, Amhara Region, Ethiopia. World Journal of Agricultural Sciences 1, 8–17.Google Scholar
Behnke, R 2010. The contribution of livestock to the economies of IGAD member states study findings, application of the recommendations for further work. Working paper No 02–10, Great Wolford, UK.Google Scholar
Blümmel, M, Haileslassie, A, Samireddypalle, A, Vadez, V and Notenbaert, A 2014. Livestock water productivity: feed resourcing, feeding and coupled feed-water resource data bases. Animal Production Science 54, 1584–1593.Google Scholar
Blümmel, M, Samad, M, Singh, OP and Amede, T 2009. Opportunities and limitations of food-feed crops for livestock feeding and implications for livestock water productivity. The Rangeland Journal 312, 207–212.Google Scholar
Borlaug, NE 2000. Ending world hunger: the promise of biotechnology and the threat of antiscience zealotry. Plant Physiology 124, 487–490.Google Scholar
Descheemaeker, K, Amede, T, Haileslassie, A and Bossio, D 2011. Analysis of gaps and possible interventions for improving water productivity in crop livestock systems of Ethiopia. Experimental Agriculture 47, 21–38.Google Scholar
Descheemaeker, K, Bunting, SW, Bindraban, P, Muthuri, C, Molden, D, Beveridge, M, van Brakel, M, Herrero, M, Clement, F, Boelee, E and Jarvis, DI 2013. Increasing water productivity in agriculture. In Managing water and agroecosystems for food security (ed. E Boelee), pp. 104–123. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Descheemaeker, K, Mapedza, E, Amede, T and Ayalneh, W 2010. Effects of integrated watershed management on livestock water productivity in water scarce areas in Ethiopia. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 35, 723–729.Google Scholar
Falkenmark, M and Rockström, J 2004. Balancing water for humans and nature: the new approach in ecohydrology. Earthscan, London, UK.Google Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) 1987. Master land use plan, Ethiopian range livestock consultancy report prepared for the government of the people’s republic of Ethiopia. Technical report. AG/ETH/82/020/FAO. Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) 2006. New_LocClim 1.10. FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) 2009. CROPWAT 8.0 for Windows. FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Haileslassie, A, Blümmel, M, Clement, F, Descheemaeker, K, Amede, T, Samireddypalle, A, Acharya, NS, Radha, AV, Ishaq, S, Samad, M, Murty, MVR and Khan, MA 2011. Assessment of the livestock-feed and water nexus across a mixed crop-livestock system’s intensification gradient: an example from the Indo-Ganga basin. Experimental Agriculture 47, 113–132.Google Scholar
Haileslassie, A, Peden, D, Gebreselassie, S, Amede, T, Wagnew, A and Taddesse, G 2009. Livestock water productivity in the Blue Nile Basin: assessment of farm scale heterogeneity. Rangeland Journal 31, 213–222.Google Scholar
Haileslassie, A, Priess, J, Veldkamp, E, Teketay, D and Lesschen, JP 2005. Assessment of soil nutrient depletion and its spatial variability on smallholders’ mixed farming systems in Ethiopia using partial versus full nutrient balances. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 108, 1–16.Google Scholar
Herrero, M, Grace, D, Njuki, J, Johnson, N, Enahoro, D, Silvestri, S and Rufino, MC 2013. The roles of livestock in developing countries. Animal 7, 3–18.Google Scholar
Herrero, M, Thornton, PK, Notenbaert, AM, Wood, S, Msangi, S, Freeman, HA, Bossio, D, Dixon, J, Peters, M, van de Steeg, J, Lynam, J, Parthasaranthy, RP, Macmillan, S, Gerard, B, McDermott, J, Sere, C and Rosegrant, M 2010. Smart investments in sustainable food production: revising mixed crop-livestock systems. Science 327, 821–824.Google Scholar
International Business Machines Corporation (IBM Corp. Released) 2015. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 23.0, IBM Corp. Armonk, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Kebebe, EG, Oosting, SJ, Haileslassie, A, Duncan, AJ and de Boer, IJM 2015. Strategies for improving water use efficiency of livestock production in rain-fed systems. Animal 9, 908–916.Google Scholar
Kossila, V 1988. The availability of crop residues in developing countries in relation to livestock populations. In Plant breeding and the nutritive value of crop residues (ed. JD Reed, BS Capper and PJH Neate), pp. 29–39. International Livestock Centre for Africa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.Google Scholar
Lawry, S, Samii, C, Hall, R, Leopold, A, Hornby, D and Mtero, F 2014. The impact of land property rights interventions on investment and agricultural productivity in developing countries: a systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews 2014, 1.Google Scholar
Lupwayi, NZ, Girma, M and Haque, I 2000. Plant nutrient contents of cattle manures from small-scale farms and experimental stations in the Ethiopian highlands. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 78, 57–63.Google Scholar
McDermott, JJ, Staal, SJ, Freeman, HA, Herrero, M and van de Steeg, JA 2010. Sustaining intensification of smallholder livestock systems in the tropics. Livestock Science 130, 95–109.Google Scholar
Molla, A 2013. Farmers’ knowledge helps develop site specific fertilizer rate recommendations, central highlands of Ethiopia. World Applied Sciences Journal 22, 555–563.Google Scholar
Passioura, JB and Angus, JF 2010. Improving productivity of crops in water-limited environments. In Advances in agronomy, Vol. 106, (ed. DL Sparks), pp. 37–75. Elsevier Inc., Canberra, Australia.Google Scholar
Peden, D, Taddesse, G and Haileslassie, A 2009. Livestock water productivity: implications for sub-Saharan Africa. The Rangeland Journal 31, 187–193.Google Scholar
Peden, D, Tadesse, G, Misra, AKK, Ahmed, FA, Astatke, A, Ayalneh, W, Herrero, M, Kiwuwa, G, Kumsa, T, Mati, B, Mpairwe, D, Wassenaar, T and Yimegnuhal, A 2007. Water and livestock for human development. In Water for food, water for life: a comprehensive assessment of water management in agriculture (ed. D Molden), pp. 485–514. Earthscan, London, UK.Google Scholar
Steinfeld, H, Wassenaar, T and Jutzi, S 2006. Livestock production systems in developing countries: status, drivers, trends. Scientific and Technical Review of the Office International des Epizooties 25, 505–516.Google Scholar
Thornton, PK 2010. Livestock production: recent trends, future prospects. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B, Biological Sciences 365, 2853–2867.Google Scholar
van Breugel, P, Herrero, M, Jeannette van de Steeg, J and Peden, D 2010. Livestock water use and productivity in the Nile Basin. Ecosystems 13, 205–221.Google Scholar
Wondatir, Z, Mekasha, Y and Wouters, B 2011. Assessment of productive and reproductive performance of dairy cattle nexus with feed availability in selected peri-urban areas of Ethiopia. Journal of Cell and Animal Biology 5, 308–315.Google Scholar