livestock water interactions the case of gumara watershed in the upper blue nile basin ethiopia n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Livestock–Water Interactions: The Case of Gumara Watershed in the Upper Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Livestock–Water Interactions: The Case of Gumara Watershed in the Upper Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 41

Livestock–Water Interactions: The Case of Gumara Watershed in the Upper Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 106 Views
  • Uploaded on

Livestock–Water Interactions: The Case of Gumara Watershed in the Upper Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia. Mengistu Alemayehu Asfaw Department of Crop and Animal Sciences Humboldt Universität zu Berlin. Outline. I ntroduction Problem statement Objectives Materials and Methods

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Livestock–Water Interactions: The Case of Gumara Watershed in the Upper Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia' - hollis


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
livestock water interactions the case of gumara watershed in the upper blue nile basin ethiopia

Livestock–Water Interactions: The Case of Gumara Watershed in the Upper Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia

Mengistu Alemayehu Asfaw

Department of Crop and Animal Sciences

Humboldt Universität zu Berlin

outline
Outline
  • Introduction
          • Problem statement
          • Objectives
    • Materials and Methods
          • Description of study area
          • Study design and treatments
          • Statistical analysis
      • Results and Discussion
                • Livestock water productivity
                • Collective management on communal grazing lands
                • Determinants of good pasture condition
        • Conclusions and Recommendations
mixed farming systems in the highlands
Mixed Farming Systems in the Highlands

Integrated mixed crop-livestock farming

multi functions of livestock in mixed farming
Multi-functions of livestock in mixed farming

Nutritious products for home consumption

Income source from livestock sales

Asset accruing functions

Renewable farm power source

Manure

  • At National level
  • Livestock make 45% of the total agricultural GDP (Behnke and Metaferia, 2011)
farm resource base of the mixed farming
Farm resource base of the mixed farming

A need to increase resource productivity in a sustainable manner

1. Land tenure system

  • Land is under state ownership
  • Farmers have use right
  • Grazing is communal

Due to increasing rural population

  • Land scarcity is critical
  • Pasture area is marginalized

2. Water scarcity

  • -Rain fed farming practice
  • - Highly seasonal
  • - Erratic rainfall
  • No water harvesting technology

3. Feed scarcity

  • Heavy reliance on crop residues
  • Over-exploitation of communal grazing lands
  • Critical during cropping
  • period

The present study focused much on water productivity

specific objectives
Specific Objectives

Refine the methodology for assessing LWP in the framework of Life Cycle Assessment

Assess LWP in the mixed farming systems of the Ethiopian highlands

Explore the impact of collective management on sustaining pasture ecosystem and land degradation

Identify the determinant factors influencing good pasture condition

1 1 materials and methods
1.1 MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study site

- Gumara watershed was selected

Reasons

  • Part of a big project in the Nile basin
  • Represents different mixed farming systems
  • Availability of hydrological information

Major features

  • Topography varies from rolling rugged mountains to vast flat lands
  • Altitude ranges between 1780-3740 m above sea level
  • Rainfall distribution is uni-modal (1300-1500mm) in 3-4 months with low temperature
study design
Study Design

Three distinct scenarios of mixed farming systems

  • Rice/noug based farming complex (RNF)
    • Crop residues and aftermath grazing – major feed resource base
    • Livestock species- Cattle and equine
study design1
Study Design…

ii)Tef/finger millet based farming complex (TMF)

  • Crop residues, pastureland and aftermath grazing – major feed resources
  • Livestock species- Cattle, equine, sheep, goats
  • Equines are used as

pack animals

study design2
Study Design…

iii) Barley/potato based farming complex (BPF)

  • Grazing land- major feed resource base
  • Livestock species- Sheep, cattle, equine
  • Use of horse and mule for ploughing cropland
determination of lwp
Determination of LWP

LCA is used to compile inventory in a defined system boundary (from cradle to farm gate –in the present study)

The water foot print accounting was based on LCA frame of the herd's productive life time (birth to end of productive life)

  • LWP was determined using the framework of Life cycle assessment (LCA) and water foot printing concept
  • Depleted water –water used in livestock and no longer available for reuse in the domain
  • water for
  • Feed production (pasture and crop residues)
  • Drinking water
  • hygiene and processing
  • Out puts (milk, meat)
  • Services (draught power)
  • Asset (stock capital)
  • Manure

Valued in monetary terms

data collection
Data Collection

In applying LWP to Gumera watershed

  • 62 farmers were monitored for about 1.5 years
  • Sample farmers were stratified based on their wealth status
  • Wealth status (Poor, Medium and Rich)
  • Stratification criteria
  • Land holding
  • Livestock holding
  • Annual grain harvest
  • Additional income
statistical analysis
Statistical analysis

Yijk=µ+Fi+Wj+(F*W)ij+Eijk

where;

Yijk=response variable such as LWP, water use;

µ=the overall mean,

Fi=ith farming system,

Wj=jth wealth status of smallholder farmers,

(F*W)ij=interaction between farming system and wealth status,

Eijk= error term.

Yij=µ+Si+Eij

where;

Yij=response variable such as LWP, water use;

  • µ=the overall mean,
  • Si = Livestock species

Eij= error term.

T-test analysis – for comparing early off-take (at 2 years of age) and late off-take (at 4 years of age)

1 2 results and discussion
1.2 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 1. LWP and CWP under three different mixed farming systems.

More water loss

20% additional water

CWP-crop water productivity; LWP-livestock water productivity; USD- United States Dollars

1 2 results and discussion1
1.2 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 2. LWP across wealth status of smallholder farmers in Gumara watershed.

CWP-crop water productivity; LWP-livestock water productivity; USD- United States Dollars

1 2 results and discussion2
1.2 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 3. LWP under two off-take managements.

Reduced by >50%

LWP- livestock water productivity; USD- United States Dollars; TLU- tropical livestock unit

1 2 results and discussion3
1.2 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 4. LWP for different livestock species

LWP – Livestock water productivity; USD- United States Dollars

study design3
Study Design

Table 6. Description of different types of grazing land management (GLM).

  • Three types of Grazing Land Management (GLM) under two slope gradients (<10%, 15-25%)
  • The GLMs are:
  • restricted communal GLM
  • private holding GLM
  • freely open communal GLM
  • Identified villagers are recognized as members to have use right
  • The grazing land management is governed by local by-laws
  • Only fixed number of animals are allowed for grazing
  • Kept by a farm household for making hay and afterward grazing
  • Open for livestock in the village
slide22

Data Collection

  • Vegetation attributes:
    • Hrebacious biomass yield
    • Ground cover
  • determined along a 50m transect line in three replications
  • Runoff and soil loss:
  • measured from 18 plots each with 4x2 m2 demarcated using galvanized iron sheet
  • Soil moisture and bulk density
  • - Samples taken from each plot
data collection1
Data Collection

Stocking density, stocking rate and carrying capacity

  • Dry matter yield per ha
  • Daily feed intake of animals -using average animal weight method (Pratt and Rasmussen, 2001)
  • Grazing duration
  • Livestock number
  • Area of grazing land
  • Stocking density - is the actual number of livestock grazing on specific area of the pasture for specified period of time
  • Stocking rate- is the number of livestock grazing on the entire of the pastureland for the entire grazing period
  • Carrying capacity - is the maximum number of livestock that can be supported by a unit of grazing land for the entire grazing period without harm in the long term
statistical analysis1
Statistical analysis

Parametric and non-parametric analysis were run

uing a 3x2 factorial design

Yij=µ+Gi+Sj+(G*S)ij+Eijk

where;

Yij=response variable;

µ=the overall mean,

Gi=ith type of GLM,

Sj=jth slope of grazing land,

(G*S)ij=interaction between GLM and slope,

Eijk= error term.

2 2 results and discussion
2. 2 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

46% of the herbage biomass is removed

80% of the herbage biomass is removed

2 2 results and discussion1
2. 2 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 5. Vegetation attributes across different types of GLM

HBY – aboveground herbaceous biomass yield; GCw- ground cover after end of wet season; SEM – standard error of mean

slide27

2. 2 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 6. Runoff and soil loss as affected by different types of GLM

Runoff and Soil Loss

Restricted communal GLM

Reduce surface runoff by more than 40%

Curb the rate of soil erosion by more than 50%

RO = cumulative surface runoff per year; SL= annual soil loss; SEM – standard error of mean

table7 bulk density and soil moisture
Table7. Bulk density and soil moisture

2. 2 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3 1 study area and design
3.1 Study area and design

A cross-sectional study was carried out in barley/potato based farming system

42 villages were randomly selected

140 smallholder farmers were selected using multistage sampling technique

slide31

3.1 Data collection

Explanatory variables to pasture condition

7 variables were used to explain the dependent variable

Area of communal grazing land

Area of restricted grazing land

Area of cropland at household level

Oxen number in a village

Livestock density in a village

Pasture resting period

Soil fertility

3 1 data collection
3.1 Data collection

Proxy indicators to pasture condition (PROGRAZE manual, 1996)

Herbage DM yield using a quadrat,

Legume proportion,

Digestibility (Tilley and Terry, 1963 )

Carrying capacity/stocking rate

3 2 statistical analysis
3.2 Statistical analysis

Binary dependent variable -logistic regression model

For DMY – Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) method was used

3 2 results and discussion
3. 2 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 8. Logit regression coefficients of variables affecting pasture condition

* significant at 10% level; ** significant at 5% level; *** significant at 1% level

conclusions and recommendations
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
  • CWP was higher than LWP
  • LWP varied across different farming systems and wealth status
  • Cattle had higher LWP due to more values of the multiple functionalities and better feed utilization efficiency
  • Early off-take management scenario increased LWP
conclusions and recommendations1
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
  • Livestock mortality – is one of the main causes to decrease LWP
  • Overstocking is the major problem that aggravates overgrazing and eventually reduces LWP
  • Management of communal grazing land can be improved using local institutions and policy supports
conceptual framework of livestock water interactions to assess lwp peden et al 2007
Conceptual framework of livestock–water interactions to assess LWP (Peden et al. 2007)

Fig. 4. LWP conceptual frame work

data collection2
Data Collection

Determination of LWP

2 2 results and discussion2
2. 2 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Fig.1. Quadratic relationship between soil loss and runoff on each rainfall event.