Bwire, Julius M.N.

Groot, Jeroen C.J.

Heemskerk, Stijn J.

Nzogela, Beatus

Paul, Birthe K.

Tittonell, Pablo A.

CGSpace

Potential impacts of increased Napier cultivation in Lushoto, TanzaniaBirthe K. Paula,b, Stijn Heemskerkb, Julius Bwirec, Beatus Nzogelaa, Pablo Tittonellb, Jeroen C.J. GrootbLivestock feeding and trade-offs• 22 million cattle (2% crossbred dairy, the rest Tanzania Short Horn Zebu) are reared by around 4.6 million smallholder farmers in Tanzania• Inadequate quality and quantity of feed cause low livestock productivity. Improved forage technologies have been promoted in Tanzania for sustainable intensification (Fig 1)• However, there is a lack of research that quantifies the potential impacts of these technologies on livelihoods of smallholder farmersPreliminary results and discussion Study site, materials and methodsReferences1. Paul, B.K., Maass, B.L., Wassena, F., Omore, F., Bwana, G. (2016). Dairy development using local innovation platforms – when andhow can they be useful? ILRI Research Brief 54.2. Groot, C.J.J., Oomen, G.J.M., Rossing, W.A.H. (2012). Multi-objective optimization and design of farming systems. AgriculturalSystems, 110, 63-773. Shikuku, K.M., Valdivia, R.O., Paul, B.K., Mwongera, C., Winowiecki, L, Laderach, P., Herrero, M., Silvestri, S. (2016). Prioritizingclimate-smart livestock technologies in rural Tanzania: A mnimum data approach. Agricultural Systems.C. Birnholz C. BirnholzC. Birnholz C. Birnholz• Farmers were found to only feed on average half of the recommended quantity, the diversity of the feed basket was high, and only one farmer provided drinking water to livestock (Fig 3)• Study site is Lushoto, located in the Usambara Highlands of north-eastern Tanzania, Tanga district. It is one of the most important dairy regions in Tanzania (Fig 2)• Household surveys, feed and milk measurements, and soil sampling were conducted on 20 farms in Ubiri village; a participatory scenario development workshop identified the preferred livestock feeding strategies (Fig 2)• The whole farm simulation model FarmDESIGN2 was used to compare bio-economic performance, trade-offs and synergies of baseline to forage intensification scenario for one representative farmThis research is funded by a BMZ/GIZ small grant under the CGIAR Research Program on Livestock and Fish http://livestockfish.cgiar.org/. We thank all donors that globally support our work through their contributions to the CGIAR system. This poster is licensed for use under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence (September 2016)Tropentag: Solidarity in a competing world – fair use of resources, 18 – 21 September 2016, Vienna, AustriaSession on Livestock systems, animal health and ruminants IaInternational Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Kenya; bWageningen University, the Netherlands; Tanzania Livestock Research Institute (TALIRI), TanzaniaFigure 1. Bihusi (left) and her husband Twahilu (right) are members of the Mbuzii Innovation Platform1. They feed their th ee cattle with naturally occurring grasses as well as Napier andBrachiaria grasses and Desmodium. Pictures Georgina Smith/CIATFigure 2. Map of the study site Lushoto (upper left). Typical landscape with irrigated horticulture in the valley bottom and cereals and Eucalyptus on the hillsides. Napier grass is occasionally planted as contour or on terraces to reduce erosion and increase forage availability (upper right, Georgina Smith/CIAT). Hilly landscape in Lushoto is planted with Napier grass on terraces and contours to combat soil erosion and increase livestock fodder production (right; picture Georgina Smith, CIAT). Data collection during the workshop (lower left, Birthe Paul/CIAT) and in a forage field (lower right, Georgina Smith/CIAT)• Average daily milk production was low with an average of 4.8 liters per cow (Fig 4)• 31% of all on-farm work is used for feeding, especially for fetching forages from far-away natural pastures• Total average annual income was US$618 per year• Farmers’ favorite livestock feeding scenario: increased Napier growing on homestead fields (1/4 of their area) • Comparison scenario vs baseline: labor demand decreased by 3%, milk production increased by 103%, gross total income per year went up by 88%. This confirms findings from another study from the same area3• However, there are potential draw-backs: nutrient mining, decreased initial income due to long forage establishment period, increased input expenditure, and higher risk due to lower food self-sufficiency -20020406080100kg FW/farmFarmer namespecies XCabbage sppMnavuHohoMillet strawSpp 'Y'Leucaena sppAmaranthus sppAvocado leavessugarcane leave and stemsMaize residuespotato leaves and stemNapier GrassBanana leave and stemSugar cane leaves and stemSPP 'M'SPP 'S'SPP 'Q'Pigeon pea (Njegere)Maize BranCeda SppSpecies 'B;Cynodon SppMateteComellina SppSpecies 'K'Species 'A'Figure 3. Different feeds (kg fresh weight) given to one cattle equivalent per farm per dayFigure 4. Map of the study farms and their plots (left). Milk is stored in buckets in front of the homestead in the morning (upper right), waiting for pick-up to go to the milk collection center(lower right, pictures Georgina Smith, CIAT). 

Potential impacts of increased Napier cultivation in Lushoto, Tanzania

https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/10568/77055/2/Potential_impacts_of_increased_Napier_cultivation_in_Lushoto_Tanzania.pdf

Potential impacts of increased Napier cultivation in Lushoto, Tanzania

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

CGSpace