Student+Research-Feed+Sourcing

 ** Study of livestock feed sourcing and feeding strategies and its implications on rain water use efficiencies in a mixed-crop livestock systems in the Highlands of the Blue Nile Basin ** ** Introduction ** The livestock business is among the intensive users of the earth’s increasingly scarce water resources and contributing among other things to land degradation on one hand and livelihoods of smallholders on the other. Significant amounts of water are withdrawn for the production of feed (Steinfeld et al., 2006). Widespread overgrazing disturbs water cycles, reducing replenishment of above and below ground water resources. Recent studies in the Blue Nile Basin indicated that an average of 30000 L of water is required to produce a liter of milk (subsistence oriented small holders farmers, Desheemaeker et al., 2010). This affects sustainable uses of scarce water resources, Although a lot of other things are produced: manure, storage of capital, traction..... As a counter measure, studies suggests that adequate feed supply largely determines livestock productivity while the quality and quantity of feed and way feed is produced and supplied to the animal affects the water productivity of livestock and ecosystem services (Haileslassie et al., 2010; Blummel et al., 2009).

Apparently the range of water use efficiency by livestock is wide and is affected by livestock feed sourcing strategies: such as feed from food-feed crops or from fully irrigated fodders or pasture from grazing lands. Haileslassie et al., (2010) suggested that in addition to feed sourcing, dry matter (DM) productivity and feed quality are important factors influencing the volume of water required by livestock. For example the lower the DM productivity the more land is required to produce sufficient quantity of feed to satisfy metabolizable energy (ME) and protein requirements of livestock and the latter is strongly linked with the volume of water depleted. In terms of quality of feed, a recent study in Indo-Ganga Basin (Haileslassie et al., 2010) suggested that the total DM requirement of livestock to meet certain production targets can be reduced by improving feed quality. For example, by changing feed quality from low (<7MJ/kg to 9.5MJ/kg) as much as 120 m-3 cow-1water can be saved. The saved water can be used for ecosystem services or alternative livelihood activities (e.g. supplemental irrigation for crops). According to Haileslassie et al., (2010) it is not only the feed quality, quantity and productivity that matters. For healthy ecosystem services and productive water use by livestock, contact between livestock and the environment needs to be regulated. For example feeding strategies such as cut and carry systems, tethering and zero grazing, mitigate livestock’s impact on nutrient fluxes between and within systems (e.g. erosion) and through such practices considerable amounts of energy can be also saved which otherwise will be spent in walking in search of feed (e.g. Desheemaeker et al., 2010). Understanding the upper and lower limit of the quantity of feed supplied to livestock also plays important role in saving water. Studies in Indo-Ganga basin suggested that farm households having better access to resources overfed their dairy cows and this means they used unnecessary water. In addition to the feeding strategies healthy interaction of water and livestock depends on how we synchronize temporal and spatial availability of feed and water resources. For example in agro pastoral systems ( Haileslassie et al., 2008 Uganda) by synchronizing watering points and availability of feed one can enhance efficient use of feed resources and also mitigate over grazing of areas around limited watering points.

Generally, farmers’ feeding strategies vary depending on access to resources and production systems. Understanding the farm-scape and landscape level feeding strategies helps to analyze implications for rain water use efficiencies, ecosystem functioning and at the same time to identify interventions and target social group. This will also create base line situations to see impacts, if different interventions can be implemented.

 The major objectives of this assignment are: ** Objectives ** ** i) ** To identify the different livestock feed sourcing and feeding strategies and dynamics across landscapes and farm-scapes ** ii) ** Assess the dry matter productivity and implications for demand and supply of feed and farmers coping mechanisms ** iii) ** Analyze effects of current feeding strategies on rain water use efficiencies, selected ecosystem services and livelihood capitals  ** Methodologies **   The methodologies to achieve these objectives may involve:  ** i) ** Critically reviewing of secondary information from previous works, on the linkage between different feeding strategies and rain water use efficiencies, livelihood capital and ecosystem services ** ii) ** Stratifying the study systems into landscapes and use those strata as sample frame and draw sufficient size of sample farm households for a household survey ** iii) ** Undertaking key informants interview and field observations to triangulate information collected through structured questionnaire ** iv) ** Clustering the sample farmers into livelihood typology ( can be participatory wealth ranking, or can be GDP approaches) for the analysis ** v) ** Selected case study farms and explore how different hypothetical feed interventions would impact livestock water productivity, environment and livelihoods ** References **  Descheemaeker, K., Amede T., Haileslassie, A. 2009. Improving water productivity in mixed crop–livestock farming systems of sub-Saharan Africa. Agricultural Water Management 97: 579–586.  Haileslassie, A., Peden, D., Gebreselassie, S., Amede, T., Descheemaeker, D. (2009a), Livestock water productivity in mixed crop–livestock farming systems of the Blue Nile Basin: Assessing variability and prospects for improvement. //Agricultural system//, Vol. 102 No. 1-3, pp. 33-40.  Haileslassie, A., Peden, D., Gebreselassie, S Amede, T., Wagnew, A., Taddesse, G. (2009b), Livestock water productivity in the Blue Nile Basin: Assessment of farm scale heterogeneity. //The Range Land Journal//, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 213-222  Haileslassie, A., Blümmel, M., Clement, F. Ishaq, S. and Khan. M. A. 2010. Adapting livestock water productivity to climate change. International Journal of Climate Change Strategy Management (in press)  Haileslassie, A., Blummel, B., Clement, F., Descheemacker, K., Amede, T., Samireddypalle, A., Acharya, S., Radha, V., Ihaq, S., Samad, M., Murty, M.V.R., 2010. Assessment of the livestock-feed and water nexus across a mixed crop-livestock system’s intensification gradient: an example from the Indo-Ganga basin. Journal of experimental agriculture (in press)  Haileslassie, A., Mpairwe, D., Peden, D., Gebreselassie, S., (2008). Livestock Water Productivity in Agropastoral Systems of the Nile Basin: Example from “the Cattle Corridor” in Uganda. <span style="display: block; line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0.5in;"> Peden, D., Tadesse, G., A.K., Misra. (2007). Water and livestock for human development. In water for food, water for life: a comprehensive assessment of water management in agriculture, D.. Molden ( ed). London, Earthscane. Pp 485-514. <span style="display: block; line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0.5in;"> Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M., de Haan, C., 2006. Livestock's Long Shadow - Environmental Issues and Options. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome. 390 pp.