Optimizing benefits from Crop Residues in Smallholder mixed systems in Africa and South

Asia: A comparison

Presentation by Diego Valbuena (ILRI) for the SLP Crop Residues Project Review and Planning Meeting, Addis Ababa,

Ethiopia, 9-10 Dec 2010

A comparison…

1. Generalities

2. Cropping3. Livestock4. Crop

residues

Dinajpur (BD)Amhara (ET)

Oromia (ET)

Haryana (IN)

Rajasthan (IN)Western Kenya

Mat North (ZW)

1. Generalities: density vs. village area

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

0 5 10 15 20

Density (persons/ha)

Dinajpur (BD)

Amhara (ET)

Oromia (ET)

Haryana (IN)Rajasthan (IN)

Western Kenya

Mat North (ZW)

Village area (ha)

Aggr

egat

ed %

1. Generalities: services & assets

0

20

40

60

80

AmharaDinajpur Haryana Mat North

Oromia Rajasthan Western Kenya

With mobile phone

Access formal electricity

Access water (pipe)

With livestock

With land

Aggr

egat

ed %

1. Generalities: food, poverty & literacy

0

20

40

60

80

100

AmharaDinajpur Haryana Mat NorthOromia Rajasthan Western Kenya

Milk consumption

More 1 meal/day

Not receiving aid

Above poverty line

Literacy

2. Cropping: fertiliser vs. manure application

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

% hh using fertiliser

Dinajpur (BD)

Amhara (ET)

Oromia (ET)

Haryana (IN)

Rajasthan (IN)

Western Kenya

Mat North (ZW)

% h

h us

ing

man

ure

2. Cropping: intensification

0

20

40

60

80

100

Dinajpur Amhara Oromia Haryana Rajastan Western Kenya

Mat North

Thresher/Combine/Cutter use

Pesticide

Herbicide application

Chemical fertiliser use

Tractor use

Aggr

egat

ed %

2. Cropping: uses of crop 1%

late

r sal

e

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

% human consumption

Dinajpur (BD): rice

Amhara (ET): teff

Oromia (ET): most teff

Haryana (IN): rice

Rajasthan (IN): maize

Western Kenya: maizeMat North (ZW): maize

0

60

120

180

AmharaDinajpur Haryana Mat North

Oromia Rajasthan Western Kenya

DonkeyCamelGoatSheepBuffaloCrossbred cattleIndigenous cattle

% h

h3. Livestock: households with animals

3. Livestock: households with animals

.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

0 400 800 1,200 1,600 2,000

TLU

TLU

/ha

Dinajpur (BD)

Amhara (ET)

Oromia (ET)

Haryana (IN)Rajasthan (IN)

Western Kenya

Mat North (ZW)

3. Livestock: feed shortage(total months)

0

3

6

9Amhara

Dinajpur

Haryana

Mat NorthOromia

Rajasthan

Western Kenya

Dry fodderGreen fodderGrazing

Feed type

3. Livestock: use of dung

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

AmharaDinajpur Haryana Mat North

Oromia Rajasthan Western Kenya

Not usedOtherSoldManureFuel

Aggr

egat

ed %

4. CR: relative uses

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Dinajpur Amhara Oromia Haryana Rajasthan Western Kenya

Mat North

OthersFuelSold Stall feedGrazed by other animalsGrazed own animals

Mulch

Aggr

egat

ed

Trends

D A O H R WK MN

-8

-4

0

4

8

D A O H R WK MN

-7

-2

3

8

D A O H R WK MN-5

0

5

10

15

D A O H R WK MN-5

0

5

10

15

D A O H R WK MN-5

0

5

10

0

20

40

60

80Left soil

Burnt

Collected by others

Stall feeding

Fuel

Construction

Dealt

Grazed

Grazed

Mulch & co

Stall feed

Mixed

Clusters

4. CR: exploration & clustering

D A O H R WK MN0

5

10

15

Grazed

D A O H R WK MN0

5

10

15

20

Mixed

D A O H R WK MN0

5

10

15

20

Stall feed

D A O H R WK MN0

5

10

15

Mulch & co

No

Crop

s

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Grazed Mulch & co Stall feed Mixed

OthersWheatTeffSorghumRiceMaize

Clusters

Prop

ortio

n4. CR: exploration & clustering

4. CR: exploration - maize

Amhara

Dinajpur

Mat North

Oromia

Rajasthan

Western Kenya

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Grazed

Mulch & co

Stall feed

Mixed

GrazedMulch & coStall feedMixed

No Crops

Clusters

4. CR: exploration - wheat

Dinajpur

Haryana

Rajasthan

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Grazed

Mulch & co

Stall feed

Mixed

GrazedMulch & coStall feedMixed

No

Crop

s

Clusters

But also: income + wealth groups

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

W M P W M P W M P W M P W M P W M P W M P

Dinahpur Amhara Oromia Haryana Rajasthan Western Kenya

Mat North

RemittancesBusinessReg employmentNon agri labourAgri labourOther farmLivestockCrops

Aggr

egat

ed %

Source

Cool… So?

• Although compared sites can very diverse, similarities exits.

• Diversity is across regions, countries, sites and villages.

• This diversity influences CR management in mixed systems.

• Differences in CR management includes both time and space.

• Yet, there is an overall increase of the use of CR as feed.

• When CR is left in the soil, there is either an excess of biomass or lack of labour, combine with low palatability.