Conservation agriculture, livestock and livelihood strategies in the

Indo-Gangetic Plains of South Asia: Synergies and tradeoffs

Olaf Erensteina, Nils Teufelb & Arindam Samaddarab

(aCIMMYT, bILRI, o.erenstein@cgiar.org)

SLP Annual Meeting

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia,1-2 December 2009

Outline

Crop livestock interaction & intensification Indo-Gangetic Plains Findings from SLP RG 2005 Conclusion

Crop-livestock interactions

Source: Erenstein & Thorpe, 2009

Ag systems along intensification gradient Intensification gradient Indicator Extensive Intermediate Intensive Crop nutrient source Fallow Manure Chemical fertilizer Livestock feed source Rangeland Crop residues Feed crops,

concentrates Agricultural power source

Manual Animal traction Motorized

Agricultural finance source

Natural assets/stocks Informal credit/loan

Formal credit/loan

System orientation Subsistence, barter exchange

Semi-commercial Commercial, monetized market

Crop + livestock system evolution

Parallelisation Integration Specialization

Nominal cost gradients: - Capital High Low - Labour Low High - Land Low High Induced innovation Capital saving Land and/or labour

saving 1 Source: Erenstein & Thorpe, 2009

Crop-livestock interactions IGP, India

CL interactions conceptually simple, idealized but

complex to disentangle CLI changing nature along ag

intensification gradients increase as extensive systems intensify decline as intermediate systems intensify affect system sustainability (+ve/-ve)

Indo-Gangetic Plains (IGP) vast & important eco-region agro-ecological gradients

R&D interest in adapting crop residue management (CRM) to address sustainability concerns rice-

wheat stepping stone towards conservation

agriculture

South Asian farming systems

John Dixon 2001

Study areas

IGP: Some of the gradients

TGP (NW) LGP (E)

Farm size

Herd size

Crop yield

Poverty

Food/feed-Wheat-Rice

Institutional environment

Popn. Density

IGP: Some socio-economic indicatorsTGP UP Bihar WB Mean

- Average farm size (ha) 3.0 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.9

- Rice-wheat system area share (%) 44 24 22 5 25

- Irrigated area (%) 90 73 49 44 67

- Tractor density (km-2) 8.2 2.8 1.1 0.4 3.1

- Livestock density (cow eq. km-2) 199 201 203 255 210

- Livestock growth (30 yr, % p.a.) 0.9 0.3 0.4 1.6 0.6

- Herd (%) - Buffalo 69 39 21 3 29

- Cattle 20 30 40 45 36

- Small stock 10 28 39 52 35

- Av. herd size (cow eq/hh) 3.6 2.4 1.5 2.0 2.2

- Rural population density (2001, km-2) 328 546 788 651 568

- Rural BPL ( %) 7 31 44 32 32

Drivers of change labour costs – mechanisation

Rs 100/d in NW to Rs 55/d in E

political price distortions minimum support prices for wheat, rice (crop. pattern) subsidies for electricity, fertiliser (resource use)

transport costs (vegetables, dairy) high-value perishable goods can reach urban centres

market demand (crop/livestock) rising incomes & urbanisation lead to growing demand

transformation rural livelihoods (off-farm+agriculture) increasing pressure on resource base

population growth, resource degradation

Crop-livestock interactions, IGP

Integrated crop-livestock systems, but one-way dependency Straw basic feed source Limited traction role – primarily

transport Limited flow back manure (use

as fuel) Crop intensified, livestock

lagging

Risk & complementarity's resource use

Non-productive role of livestock: capital & cash

Resource conserving technologies &Conservation agriculture

Resource conserving technology (RCT):enhance resource/input use efficiency

Conservation agriculture (CA):1. Minimum level of soil

movement2. Maintain soil cover,

particularly retention of crop residues

3. Use of sensible, profitable crop rotations

Reducing tillage

Crop residue

management

Diversification

CA challenges IGP

1. Reducing tillage (1/2)

2. Crop residue management

3. Crop rotation

4. Equity implications & poverty alleviation

SLP RG 2005 – IGP India & Bangladesh

Site characteristics:Village surveys (SLP RG 2005)

(responses) Trans-Gangetic Upper Gangetic Lower Gangetic villages with RCT use in selected sub-districts1 [%]

24 1 2

survey villages [no.] 18 18 18 Use of zero-till drill/ PTOS2 in wheat [% farming hh]

18 (36) 5 (36) 163 (36)

Main perceived advantages of ZT drill/ PTOS (wheat)

cost (diesel, lab.) & time saving

cost & water saving, high yields

cost & time saving, easy weeding

Rice straw use, harvest type manual combine manual combine manual combine burning in field [% straw] 1 (30) 65 (29) 4 (33) 49 (8) 1 (36) 1 (21) straw selling [% straw] 17 (30) 1 (29) 11 (33) 0 (8) 13 (36) 0 (21) used as feed [% straw] 66 (30) 4 (29) 78 (33) 0 (8) 70 (36) 39 (21) Vill. straw balance [% prod.] + 9 (18) + 8 (18) + 6 (18) Rice straw price [INR/kg] 0.36 (5) 0.72 (18) 0.87 (14) Wheat grain sold [% grains] 77 (35) 22 (36) 46 (35) Dairy animals4 [ad fem/hh] 2.63 (18) 0.92 (18) 0.99 (18) Combine harvester use[% hh] 73 (35) 46 (9) n/a (0) Tractors [farm hh/tractor] 6.6 (18) 89.2 (13) 80 (1) Power-tillers [farm hh/PT] n/a (0) 115 (1) 38.4 (12) Labour costs, male [INR/day] 94 (18) 61 (18) 61 (18) 1 Based on Village Directory and exploratory visits (expert opinion)

2 Power-tiller operated seeder, popular in Bangladesh 3 2 districts in Bangladesh with 37% and 38% use of PTOS, 1 district in West Bengal with 1% 4 Buffaloes, local cattle and cross-bred cattle

Household assets

Cluster UGP MGP LGP

household grouplarge farm

small farm

land-less

large farm

small farm

land-less

large farm

small farm

land-less

households 1320 761 3431 737 2734 1948 417 1973 1711cultivated land

[ha]3.3 0.6 0.0 2.7 0.3 0.0 1.9 0.4 0.0

livestock,hh keeping

[%]

91 76 40 74 62 31 88 70 39

large ruminants, hh keeping

[%]

91 74 39 70 50 17 73 48 21

herd size

[LR/hh]3.4 1.9 1.6 1.8 1.4 1.4 2.3 1.7 1.4

small ruminantshh keeping

[%]

4 7 2 19 28 20 63 52 27

herd size

[SR/hh]4.3 3.1 13.8 1.9 1.8 1.6 2.8 2.2 1.9

village census (SLP RG 2005)

Technology use

UGP MGP LGP

wheat paddy wheat paddy wheat paddy

households 261 266 280 275 210 272

tractor tillage 86 95 45 55 32 84

reduced tillage 17 14 10 9 1 0

zero tillage 21 0 9 0 0 0

combine harvester 39 65 0 0 0 0

bhusa reaper 16 0 0 0 0 0

% area of respective crop (SLP RG 2005)

Straw use - wheat

UGP MGP LGP

harvest manual combine manual manual

households 184 101 269 168

leftover % 6 19 7 6

burnt % 0 10 0 14

given % 6 5 2 2

sold % 19 24 26 6

fed % 66 41 55 11

fuel % 2 1 9 57

other % 1 0 1 4

total % 100 100 100 100

% of straw on field

Straw use - paddy

UGP MGP LGP

harvest manual combine manual manual

households 148 103 248 212

leftover % 9 9 7 20

burnt % 22 74 0 2

given % 9 3 3 0

sold % 9 1 28 13

fed % 36 8 42 62

fuel % 3 1 12 2

other % 11 3 9 0

total % 100 100 100 100

% of straw on field

Straw feeding

UGP(54 responses)

MGP(54 responses)

LGP(53 responses)

wheatpaddy

(mons.)all

strawwheat

paddy (mons.)

all straw

wheatpaddy

(mons.)all

straw

winter (Jan/Feb)

40 20 59 42 43 85 0 84 84

wheat harvest (Mar/Apr)

61 4 65 70 13 83 4 79 82

monsoon (Jul/Aug)

38 3 41 58 8 66 2 66 68

paddy harvest (Oct/Nov)

41 24 66 33 57 90 0 88 88

% of seasonal feed ration (DM) – village survey

Residue Retention & Straw Use

Residue retention Perceived as good for soil Preference for clean harvested fields Rice straw preferred over wheat No conscious effort in ZT/RT adopted

farmers Wheat or rice tradition

Food tradition dictates feed preference Harvesting technology

determines availability & quality of straw

Characteristics of zero-tillage use (in wheat, only UGP)

use of zero tillage (n)

yes no p

assets farm size [ha] 4.4 (109) 2.0 (303) 0.00

large ruminants 5.6 (109) 3.9 (303) 0.00

characteristics age hh head [y] 49 (109) 50 (302) 0.77

education hh head [y] 7.1 (109) 4.9 (303) 0.00

expenses [USD/(c*d)] 0.84 (109) 0.58 (303) 0.00

technology combine [% paddy area] 73 (109) 38 (303) 0.00

straw use leftover [%] 8 (54) 12 (98) 0.06

(paddy, combine)burnt [%] 83 (54) 65 (98) 0.00

fed [%] 7 (54) 11 (98) 0.21

Determinants of using paddy straw as feed (only UGP)

dep. variable: % paddy straw on field being fed

standardized beta p

farm size [ha] -0.07 0.30

large ruminants 0.26 0.00

age hh head [y] -0.12 0.02

education hh head [y] -0.01 0.85

expenses [USD pc/d] -0.07 0.24

ZT use [% wheat area] -0.05 0.32

combine use [% paddy area] -0.56 0.00

milk sold [%] -0.18 0.01

adjusted r2 = 0.41, n=225

Conclusions Importance of agro-ecological gradients Zero-tillage adoption for wheat where

wheat tradition well endowed high mechanisation (combine) rice straw less preferred as feed

…but still largely incompatible CRM for CA more burning no change straw feeding or livestock herd size

Need to proactively incorporate into R&D agenda