1 / 17

Optimizing Crop Residue Management for Enhanced Livelihoods and Sustainability in Smallholder Systems

This study explores the management of crop residues in smallholder crop-livestock systems across sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Focusing on diverse cropping patterns and low input levels, the research highlights the critical role of crop residues for soil health, livestock feed, and alternative uses. Key determinants of crop residue utilization include access to credit, membership in associations, and livestock density. By proposing intervention strategies to minimize non-biological uses and leverage agricultural innovations, the study aims to promote sustainable farming practices and improve food security.

illiana-mclaughlin
Télécharger la présentation

Optimizing Crop Residue Management for Enhanced Livelihoods and Sustainability in Smallholder Systems

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Optimizing livelihood and environmental benefits from crop residues in smallholder crop-livestock systems in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia(East Africa) Alan Duncan, Kindu Mekonnen, Gedion James, Dagnachew Lule, MesfinBahta, FantuNisrane, Olaf Erenstein and Diego ValbuenaSLP CR Synthesis Meeting; Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2-4 Oct 2012

  2. Productivity +

  3. Livelihood endowments

  4. Cropping

  5. Cereal dominated No legumes! Mainly cereals Some legumes More diverse Diversity More legumes Vegetables

  6. Inputs Crop inputs • Very low level of fertilizer inputs – “recommended rate of urea and DAP for maize on acidic Nitisols in Nekemte area is 141 and 150 kg ha-1” • Inputs follow expected gradient

  7. Tillage • Almost no mechanization • Not much draught power in Kakamega – small farm size

  8. Chemicals • Almost no chemical inputs

  9. Milk Yield • Yield follows intensification gradient

  10. Contraints - cropping

  11. Contraints - livestock

  12. Contraints - cropping

  13. CR allocation • Soil return follows intensification gradient • Feed declines with intensification • Majority fed, minor proportion mulched

  14. Determinants of CR use Access to credit means less mulch Alternative feed sources leads to more “other uses” More land means more flexibility in CR use Association membership leads to more mulching More livestock per unit area means more feed less mulch Use of improved seed leads to more feeding Greater food security means more feed less mulch More milk marketing means more feed less mulch

  15. TIPs Key trade offs CR CR Reduce Reduce Biological Non-biological Soil Feed Soil

  16. Intervention strategies- to spare residues for soil • Reduce non-biological uses • Alternative hh fuel, better stoves, power access • Affordable construction material • Reduce use of CR for feed • Mechanization • Intensify production to reduce need for many livestock • Produce more biomass • Agronomy interventions to escape “1-ton ag”

  17. Energy requirements for draught • Assumptions • 2 working oxen, 2 mature cows to provide replacements • Milk yield 1.5 l per day • 60 days draught activity per year Two thirds of “productive energy” used for ploughing Three quarters of feed used for M

More Related