Frédéric BaudronCIMMYT Ethiopia

f.baudron@cgiar.org

Promoting CA amongst the largest livestock population in Africa: does it

make sense?

Long-term sustainability (e.g. SOC)

Short-term productivity (e.g. WUE)

Animal traction

Nutrient cycling

Income generation

Saving / Insurance

Display of status

Feeding the soil vs. livestock

1. Understanding trade-offs

2. Using biomass more efficiently

3. Increasing cereal productivity

4. Making CA work5. Producing more biomass6. Increasing the

productivity of livestock7. Providing incentives to

reduce livestock number

What can be done?

1. How much biomass is needed by the soil?

(from Scopel et al., 2005)

for runoff & erosion control

(from Giller et al., 2009)

for SOC increase & maintenance

1. How much biomass is required for herd

maintenance?

(Source: SIMLESA baseline)

Type 1 Type 2 Type 30

1

2

3

4

5

6

BullsHeifersCalvesOxenCows

Nu

mb

er

of

he

ad

s

Type 1 Type 2 Type 30

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Min

imu

m b

iom

ass r

eq

uir

ed

to

ke

ep

th

e h

erd

ali

ve

(to

ne

s)

Resource-endowment

20 40 60 80100

120

0

20

40

Total water transpired mm)

Wate

r con

v e

ff(k

g m

m-1

)

20 40 60 80100

120

0

20

40

60

80

100

Total water transpired(mm)

Nit

rog

en

up

take

(kg

ha-1

)

0 20 40 60 80 1000

20

40

60

80

Total nitrogen uptake(kg ha-1)

Nit

rog

en

con

v e

ff(k

g k

g-1

)0 50 100 150 200

0

50

100

150

Total mineralnitrogen (kg ha-1)

Tota

l w

ate

r tr

an

sp

ired

(m

m)

0 5 10 15 200

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

Time since forest clearance(years)

Tota

l S

OC

in

th

e 0

-20

cm

(t

ha-1

)

Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 40

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Total cultivated area

Cotton area

Cereal area

Surf

ace

are

a (

ha)

FARMSIMAPSIM

Plot-level:« It depends… »

100 150 200 250

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

Yie

ld i

ncre

ase

co

mp

are

d t

o b

are

so

il

100 150 200 250

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

100 150 200 250

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

Early rainfall (mm)

100 kg ha-1 1000 kg ha-1 3000 kg ha-1

1. « What is the optimum allocation? »(Baudron et al., in prep)

Plot-level:« It depends… »

Farm-level:« All for

livestock… »

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%1500.0

1750.0

2000.0

2250.0

2500.0

2750.0

3000.0

3250.0

3500.0

Gra

in y

ield

(t

ha

-1)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%0

1

2

3

4

5

0 kg ha-1

20 kg ha-1

40 kg ha-1

60 kh ha-1

80 kg ha-1

100 kg ha-1

Ca

ttle

nu

mb

er

(he

ad

s h

a-1

)

Retention of sorghum residue as surface mulch

1. « What is the optimum allocation? »(Baudron et al., in prep)

Plot-level:« It depends… »

Farm-level:« All for

livestock… »

Village-level:« Half-half… »

0 20 40 60 80 1000

20

40

60

80

Low

-en

do

we

d

farm

ers

win

nin

g

0 20 40 60 80 1000

5

10

15

20

Hig

h-e

nd

ow

ed

fa

rme

rs w

inn

ing

0 20 40 60 80 1000

10

20

30

40

50

Low

-en

do

we

d

farm

ers

lo

osin

g

0 20 40 60 80 100420

440

460

480

500

520

Hig

h-e

nd

ow

ed

fa

rme

rs l

oo

sin

g

Retention of sorghum residue as surface mulch (%)

1. « What is the optimum allocation? »(Baudron et al., in prep)

2. « EXRATION » : a simple Excel program to formulate feed rations for

dairy cows

EXRATION

…etc…

Set of available ingredients characterized by their ME, CP, NDP and $

OPTIMIZATION

Characteristics of the cow (weight, pregnacy stage, etc)

+production objective

Cheapest ration satisfying the cow requirements

2. « Managing » grazing

PERENIALS

CROPLAND

FUEL

LIVESTOCK

MANURE+

+

-

+

-

+ -

Enclosed farm-land

Open Farmland0

1

2

3

4

SO

M (

%)

Enclos

ed far

mland

Open

Farm

land

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

TN

(%

)

Enclos

ed far

mland

Open

Farm

land

05

1015202530

CEC

(m

eq/1

00 g

)

(from Mamo et al., 2011)

3. Stress Tolerant and Resource-Efficient Maize

Improved Maize for

African Soils

Drought Tolerant Maize for

Africa

Insect Resistant Maize for

Africa

3. Precision Agriculture: when, where, how much?

Ciudad Obregon, 6 sites, 2001 and 2002

y = 506.42e175.91x

R2 = 0.78

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018

INSEY

Gra

in y

ield

, kg

/ha

O226, 2001

P209, 2001

P227WR, 2002

P227, 2002

P226, 2002

Q212, 2002

(from Freeman and Sayre, pers. com.)

5000 USD

200 USD

3. Maximizing tree-crop facilitation

Micro-climatic effect Reduced evaporation,

hydraulic lift N fixation and

recycling, P mobilization

What variety traits? (e.g. heat resistance, root system)

What management? (e.g. tillage, N&P fertilization)

3. Dual purpose maize

Type 1 Type 2 Type 390%92%94%96%98%

100%102%104%106%108%110%

SC 403 BH 140 Melkassa 2

MHQ 138 MH 130

Fu

lfilm

en

t of

the e

nerg

y

req

uir

em

en

t of

the h

erd

Type 1 Type 2 Type 30

2000

4000

6000

8000

BH-140 Mulch MH 130 MHQ-138 SC-403 Melkassa 2

Maiz

e s

tover

to b

e u

sed

as s

urf

ace m

ulc

h (

t h

a-1

)

4. Water use efficiency

0 100 1000 30000%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Transpiration Runoff Soil evaporationDrainage

Surface mulch (kg DM ha-1)

Wate

r use b

y s

org

hum

CA: increased infiltration and reduced evaporation

Is this extra moisture being used?

4. Nitrogen Management

Crucial in CA:o N leaching (increased

drainage)o N immobilization

(retention of residues with a wide C:N ratio)

o Reduced SOM mineralization (reduced tillage)

Split application of N?

Micro-dosing? Precision

Agriculture?

4. Genotype × Management

No tillage (early vigour)

Intercropping (erect leaves)

Water use efficiency Low N Disease resistance

(e.g. fusarium crown rot)

5. When is the feed shortage?

Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar

Bo

dy c

on

dit

ion

Rangeland Cropland

Maize stover Teff straw

5. Producing more biomass

Maize

Maize

-lablab

Maize

-pigeo

npea

Maize

-cow

pea

Lablab

Pigeo

npea

Cowpe

a0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Resid

ue p

roduct

ion (

t D

M

ha-1

)

Intercropping

Forages and pernenials in unexploited farm niches

6. Increasing livestock productivity Market pull: animals with higher productivity produce milk

and meat at a lower cost… … and require feed sources that are more concentrated in

energy than maize stover

0 10 20 300

40

80

120

160

200 Sweet potato vineGroundnut hayFaidherbia leavesLeucaenaLablabVetchCalliandraCow pea hayDesmodiumSoybean strawBean straw

Milk production (L)

En

erg

y r

eq

uir

em

en

t a

nd

pro

-vis

ion

(M

J/d

)

0 20 400

10

20

30

40

50

Milk production (L)

Pro

duct

ion c

ost

(MJ/

L)

7. Providing substitutes to the function livestock plays

From animal manure to mineral fertilizers

From large herds to credit and insurance facilities

From animal traction to mechanization

???

Is SSA Ready for Small-Scale Agricultural Mechanization?

> 4 tones per year

Farm power: the « forgotten resource » for SI in SSA

Increasing reliance of African agriculture on human muscle power 65% power in SSA Collapse of tractor hire

schemes Decreasing ADP in the 1990s

Labour constraints Ageing population, rural-urban

migration, HIV/AIDS Labour drudgery

Unattractive sector Gender implications

Trend in cattle population owned by smallholder Zambian farmers (from Haggblade & Tembo, 2003)

Powerdemand

Pow

er

su

pp

ly

4WT,2WT

Animaltraction

Manualsystems

e.g. Western Kenya

e.g. Ethiopia,

Zimbabwe

e.g. India, Banglades

h Desirable space

CA systems Conventionnaly-tilled systems

CA-2WTs SynergiesThe suppression of inversion tillage reduces power

requirements by 50% , allowing for the use of smaller

and cheaper sources of power

Thank you!