Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T10:28:05.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Strategies for improving water use efficiency of livestock production in rain-fed systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 December 2014

E. G. Kebebe ,
S. J. Oosting ,
A. Haileslassie ,
A. J. Duncan  and
I. J. M. de Boer
E. G. Kebebe*
Affiliation:
Animal Production Systems group, Wageningen University, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands International Livestock Research Institute, PO Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
S. J. Oosting
Affiliation:
Animal Production Systems group, Wageningen University, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
A. Haileslassie
Affiliation:
International Livestock Research Institute, PO Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia International Water Management Institute, PO Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
A. J. Duncan
Affiliation:
International Livestock Research Institute, PO Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
I. J. M. de Boer
Affiliation:
Animal Production Systems group, Wageningen University, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Livestock production is a major consumer of fresh water, and the influence of livestock production on global fresh water resources is increasing because of the growing demand for livestock products. Increasing water use efficiency of livestock production, therefore, can contribute to the overall water use efficiency of agriculture. Previous studies have reported significant variation in livestock water productivity (LWP) within and among farming systems. Underlying causes of this variation in LWP require further investigation. The objective of this paper was to identify the factors that explain the variation in LWP within and among farming systems in Ethiopia. We quantified LWP for various farms in mixed-crop livestock systems and explored the effect of household demographic characteristics and farm assets on LWP using ANOVA and multilevel mixed-effect linear regression. We focused on water used to cultivate feeds on privately owned agricultural lands. There was a difference in LWP among farming systems and wealth categories. Better-off households followed by medium households had the highest LWP, whereas poor households had the lowest LWP. The variation in LWP among wealth categories could be explained by the differences in the ownership of livestock and availability of family labor. Regression results showed that the age of the household head, the size of the livestock holding and availability of family labor affected LWP positively. The results suggest that water use efficiency could be improved by alleviating resource constraints such as access to farm labor and livestock assets, oxen in particular.

Keywords

mixed-crop livestock systemslivestock feedwater use efficiencylivestock water productivity
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 9 , Supplement 5 , May 2015 , pp. 908 - 916
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allan, JA 1998. Virtual water: A strategic resource global solutions to regional deficits. Ground Water 36, 545–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alemayehu, M, Amede, T, BÖhme, M and Peters, KJ 2012. Increasing livestock water productivity under rain fed mixed crop/livestock farming scenarios of sub-Saharan Africa: a review. Journal of Sustainable Development 5, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alemayehu, M, Peden, D, Taddese, G, Haileselassie, A and Ayalneh, W 2009. Livestock water productivity in relation to natural resource management in mixed crop-livestock production systems of the Blue Nile River Basin, Ethiopia. In CPWF 2nd International Forum on Water and Food, p. 79. CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, November 10–14, 2008.Google Scholar
Alemu, B and Kidane, D 2014. The implication of integrated watershed management for rehabilitation of degraded lands: case study of Ethiopian highlands. Journal of Agriculture and Biodiversity Research 3, 78–90.Google Scholar
Ali, MH and Talukder, MSU 2008. Increasing water productivity in crop production–a synthesis. Agricultural Water Management 95, 1201–1213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amede, T, Geheb, K and Douthwaite, B 2009a. Enabling the uptake of livestock–water productivity interventions in the crop–livestock systems of sub-Saharan Africa. The Rangeland Journal 31, 223–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amede, T, Descheemaeker, K, Peden, D and van Rooyen, A 2009b. Harnessing benefits from improved livestock water productivity in crop–livestock systems of sub-Saharan Africa: synthesis. The Rangeland Journal 31, 169–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asfaw, S, Shiferaw, B, Simtowe, FP and Haile, MG 2011. Agricultural technology adoption, seed access constraints and commercialization in Ethiopia. Journal of Development and Agricultural Economics 3, 436–477.Google Scholar
Borrion, AL, McManus, MC and Hammond, GP 2012. Environmental life cycle assessment of bioethanol production from wheat straw. Biomass and Bioenergy 47, 9–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bossio, D 2009. Livestock and water: understanding the context based on the ‘Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture’. The Rangeland Journal 31, 179–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Boer, IJM, Hoving, IE, Vellinga, TV, Van de Ven, GW, Leffelaar, PA and Gerber, PJ 2013. Assessing environmental impacts associated with freshwater consumption along the life cycle of animal products: the case of Dutch milk production in Noord-Brabant. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 18, 193–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Descheemaeker, K, Amede, T and Haileslassie, A 2010. Improving water productivity in mixed crop–livestock farming systems of sub-Saharan Africa. Agricultural Water Management 97, 579–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diogo, R, Buerkert, A and Schlecht, E 2010. Resource use efficiency in urban and peri-urban sheep, goat and cattle enterprises. Animal 4, 1725–1738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fermont, A and Benson, T 2011. Estimating yield of food crops grown by smallholder farmers. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington DC. pp. 1–68.Google Scholar
Gabrielle, B and Gagnaire, N 2008. Life-cycle assessment of straw use in bio-ethanol production: a case study based on biophysical modelling. Biomass and Bioenergy 32, 431–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gauch, HG 1988. Model selection and validation for yield trials with interaction. Biometrics 44, 705–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gebreselassie, S, Peden, D, Haileslassie, A and Mpairwe, D 2009. Factors affecting livestock water productivity: animal scale analysis using previous cattle feeding trials in Ethiopia. The Rangeland Journal 31, 251–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giller, K, Tittonell, P, Rufino, MC, Van Wijk, M, Zingore, S, Mapfumo, P, Adjei-Nsiah, S, Herrero, M, Chikowo, R and Corbeels, M 2011a. Communicating complexity: integrated assessment of trade-offs concerning soil fertility management within African farming systems to support innovation and development. Agricultural Systems 104, 191–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giller, KE, Corbeels, M, Nyamangara, J, Triomphe, B, Affholder, F, Scopel, E and Tittonell, P 2011b. A research agenda to explore the role of conservation agriculture in African smallholder farming systems. Field Crops Research 124, 468–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, H 1986. Multilevel mixed linear model analysis using iterative generalized least squares. Biometrika 73, 43–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grieser, J, Gommes, R and Bernardi, M 2006. New LocClim–the local climate estimator of FAO. In Geophysical Research Abstracts, pp. 1–2.Google Scholar
Haileslassie, A, Priess, J, Veldkamp, E and Lesschen, J 2006. Smallholders’ soil fertility management in the central highlands of Ethiopia: implications for nutrient stocks, balances and sustainability of agroecosystems. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 75, 135–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haileslassie, A, Peden, D, Gebreselassie, S, Amede, T and Descheemaeker, K 2009. Livestock water productivity in mixed crop–livestock farming systems of the Blue Nile basin: assessing variability and prospects for improvement. Agricultural Systems 102, 33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haileslassie, A, Bluemmel, M, Clement, F, Descheemaeker, K, Amede, T, Samireddypalle, A, Acharya, NS, Radha, AV, Ishaq, S and Samad, M 2011. Assessment of the livestock-feed and water nexus across a mixed crop-livestock system’s intensification gradient: an example from the Indo-Ganga basin. Experimental Agriculture 47, 113–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanjra, MA, Ferede, T and Gutta, DG 2009. Reducing poverty in sub-Saharan Africa through investments in water and other priorities. Agricultural Water Management 96, 1062–1070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henricksen, BL and de Pauw, E 1988. Master land use plan Ethiopia. In Regional profiles of land use, pp. 1–146. FAO, Rome.Google Scholar
Herrero, M, Grace, D, Njuki, J, Johnson, N, Enahoro, D, Silvestri, S and Rufino, M 2013. The roles of livestock in developing countries. Animal 7, 3–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoekstra, AY, Chapagain, AK, Aldaya, MM and Mekonnen, MM 2009. Water footprint manual: State of the art 2009. In Water Footprint, pp. 1–131. University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.Google ScholarPubMed
Horton, NJ 2006. Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using stata. The American Statistician 60, 293–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ILCA 1990. Livestock systems research manual. Working paper No. 1, vol. 1. In International Livestock Centre for Africa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 287pp.Google Scholar
Jayne, TS, Mather, D and Mghenyi, E 2010. Principal challenges confronting smallholder agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa. World Development 38, 1384–1398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kato, E, Ringler, C, Yesuf, M and Bryan, E 2011. Soil and water conservation technologies: a buffer against production risk in the face of climate change? Insights from the Nile basin in Ethiopia. Agricultural Economics 42, 593–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knowler, D and Bradshaw, B 2007. Farmers’ adoption of conservation agriculture: a review and synthesis of recent research. Food Policy 32, 25–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marenya, PP and Barrett, CB 2007. Household-level determinants of adoption of improved natural resources management practices among smallholder farmers in western Kenya. Food Policy 32, 515–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merrey, DJ 2013. A new integrated watershed rainwater management paradigm for Ethiopia: Key messages from the Nile Basin Development Challenge. In Nile Basin Development Challenge Technical Report, pp. 1–28. International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya.Google Scholar
Molden, D, Oweis, T, Steduto, P, Bindraban, P, Hanjra, MA and Kijne, J 2010. Improving agricultural water productivity: between optimism and caution. Agricultural Water Management 97, 528–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muñoz, G and Grieser, J 2006. Climwat 2.0 for CROPWAT. In Water Resources, Development and Management Service, pp. 1–5. FAO, Rome.Google Scholar
Peden, D, Tadesse, G and Misra, A 2007. Water and livestock for human development. In Water for food, water for life: a comprehensive assessment of water management in agriculture comprehensive assessment of water management in agriculture (ed. D Molden), International Water Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka and Earthscan, London.Google Scholar
Peden, D, Taddesse, G and Haileslassie, A 2009. Livestock water productivity: implications for sub-Saharan Africa. The Rangeland Journal 31, 187–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahm, MR and Huffman, WE 1984. The adoption of reduced tillage: the role of human capital and other variables. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66, 405–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rockström, J 2003. Water for food and nature in drought-prone tropics: vapour shift in rain-fed agriculture. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences 358, 1997–2009.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rockström, J, Karlberg, L, Wani, SP, Barron, J, Hatibu, N, Oweis, T, Bruggeman, A, Farahani, J and Qiang, Z 2010. Managing water in rainfed agriculture–the need for a paradigm shift. Agricultural Water Management 97, 543–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sasson, A 2012. Food security for Africa: an urgent global challenge. Agriculture & Food Security 1, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharma, B, Langan, S, Amede, T and Team, N 2012. Developing rainwater management strategies through integration of technologies, institutions and policies for Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia. In Workshop on rainfed production under growing rain variability: Closing the yield gap. In: Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI), Water and food security, World Water Week, Stockholm, Sweden, pp. 26–31.Google Scholar
StataCorp 2011. Stata statistical software in statacorp LP. StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA.Google Scholar
Udo, HMJ, Aklilu, HA, Phong, LT, Bosma, RH, Budisatria, IGS, Patil, BR, Samdup, T and Bebe, BO 2011. Impact of intensification of different types of livestock production in smallholder crop-livestock systems. Livestock Science 139, 22–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Breugel, P, Herrero, M, van de Steeg, J, Peden, D 2010. Livestock water use and productivity in the Nile Basin. Ecosystems 13, 205–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, TO, Hiernaux, P and Fernandez-Rivera, S 2000. Crop-livestock systems in sub-Saharan Africa: determinants and intensification pathways. In Property rights, risk and livestock development in Africa. International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya (ed. N McCarthy, B Swallow, M Kirk and P Hazell), pp. 132–151. FAO, Rome.Google Scholar
Wisser, D, Frolking, S, Douglas, EM, Fekete, BM, Schumann, AH and Vörösmarty, CJ 2010. The significance of local water resources captured in small reservoirs for crop production – a global-scale analysis. Journal of Hydrology 384, 264–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Kebebe Supplementary Material

Figure S1

Download Kebebe Supplementary Material(File)
File 325.6 KB