water related technologies for sustainable agriculture

8/14/2019 Water Related Technologies for Sustainable Agriculture

1/79

Water-Related Technologies for SustainableAgriculture in Arid/Semiarid Lands:

Selected Foreign Experience

May 1983

NTIS order #PB84-102912


2/79

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 83 - 600535

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents,U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 2 0 4 0 2


3/79

Preface

This report complements the forthcoming OTA assessment on water and agri-culture in U.S. arid/ semiarid land s. The full assessment focuses on U.S. experience.Foreign experience is also important, however, particularly as U.S. agricultural,econom ic, and foreign aid interests are increasingly linked with those of other coun-tries. The global significance of agricultural research and developmen t on arid/ semi-arid lands is underscored by the fact that as much as 20 percent of the Earths sur-face is arid and semiarid, containing nearly 16 percent of the worlds population.

Described are selected foreign experiences using technology to develop andsustain agriculture in arid lands. The selection of examples was based on threebroad considerations: I) availability of current reliable information, 2) variety ofexamples both in land use and technology typ e, and 3) projects of potential interestand relevance to the United States. The examples include breeding crops for droughtresistance, game ranching, improving irrigation management, developing rubberprod uction from arid/ semiarid plants, and ad opting technology-intensive water pro-grams and policies. U.S. cooperative efforts with some of these experiments andtechnology tra nsfer considerations for U.S. arid/ semiarid agriculture are alsodiscussed.

This paper was prepared by OTA Project Director Barbara Lausche based onextensive contractor research and with the assistance of OTA Food and Renew ableResources Program staff listed in th is paper. OTA wishes to thank and acknow ledgethe Water and Arid/ Semiarid Agriculture Ad visory Panel and other contributorsnoted in the footnotes to this document who provided helpful materials and reviewsto the OTA staff.

.Ill


4/79

Water-Related Technologies for Susta inable

Agr icu l ture in Ar id /Semiar id Lands

Advisory Panel

Vice Presiden t,

Alton A. Ad ams, Jr,Adams & AssociatesVirgin Island s

Jam es B. Kend rick, Jr., ChairmanAgriculture and University Services, University of California, Berkeley

Thomas G. Bahr (resigned May 1982)*Director, Water Resources Research InstituteNew Mexico

Wilbert H, BlackburnDepartment of Range Science

Texas A&M UniversityWilliam T. Dishm anFarmer/ RancherIdaho

Har old E. Dregne, ProfessorDepartm ent of Plant and Soil ScienceTexas Tech University, Lubbock

Chester E. Evans(Retired , USDA Research Director)Colorado

Larry J. Gordon, Director**Albuquerque Environmental Health Department

Robert M. Hagan, ProfessorDepartm ent of Land , Air, and Wa ter ResourcesUniversity of California, Davis

David E. Herrick (Retired, USFS)Western Agricultural Research CommitteeColorado

Helen Ingram , ProfessorDepartment of GovernmentUniversity of Arizona, Tucson

Cyrus McKellDirector of ResearchPlant Resources Institute

Utah

Michael F. McNultyDirectorTucson Active Managemen t AreaArizona Depar tment of Water Resources

Milton E. MekelburgpresidentNat ional Association of Soil Conservation DistrictsColorado

Clifford J. Murin opresidentDesert Research InstituteNevada

Alice ParkerFarmer/ RancherWashington

Cynthia ReedRancherSouth Dakota

Luis TorresProgram DirectorAmerican Friends Service CommitteeNew Mexico

Casey E. Westell, Jr.Director of Industrial EcologyTenneco, Inc.Texas

Norman K. WhittleseyProfessorDepartm ent of Agr icultur al Economics

Washington State University, Pullman

*Resigned to head the Office of Water Policy, U.S. Department of the Interior.**Until August 1982 Deputy Secretary of New Mexico Health and Environment Department.

iv


5/79

OTA Water-Related Technologies for Susta inable

Agr icu l tu re in Ar id /Semiar id Lands Pro jec t Sta f f

H. David Banta, Assistant Director, OTA Health and Life Sciences Division

Walter E. Parham, Program ManagerFood a nd Renew able Res ources Program

Barbara Lausche, Project Director

Phyllis Windle, Analys t

Rita Dallavalle, Research Analyst

John Willems, Research Assistant

Adminis t ra t ive S ta f f

Phyllis Balan, Administrative Assistant

Nellie Hammond Carolyn Swarm

Con t r ac to r s

Daniel W. Gottlieb, ResearcherGrace I. Krumwiede, Editor

OTA Publishing Staf f

John C. Holmes, Publishing Officer

John Bergling Kathie S. Boss Debra M. Datcher Doreen Foster

Joe H enson Lind a Leahy Donna Young


6/79

Contents

Chapter Page

I.

II .

111.

IV.

v.

VI.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........00.. .o*ooooo q -Breeding Beans and Cowpeas for Drought Resistance and Heat Tolerance . . . . . . . .

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $$. ... OSOOOS..OO . ... .O..Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Collabora tive Research Sup port Progr am . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bean CRSPGuatemala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bean CRSP--Mexico. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....Cowpea CRSPSenegal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Technology Tran sfer Consid era tion s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Game Ranching in Africa ...*** **.**** ....*.* .**.**. . . . . . . . q . . .* .** . .**. . .Summary . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . $ . . . . . . . . . . .. .. 4. .ss.,$..sO.ao. oIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . .Experim ents in Gam e Ran ching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The Hopcraft Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discu ssion of Find ings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..Technology Tran sfer Consid era tion s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Game Ranches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... Native H erd Man agem ent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Managing Water on Farms in Pakistan ......0. q . * * . . . * * q . . . . . * . * q *... . .*. . . .Summary . . . . . .. .. .. .. ... .. .$.......Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AID Project in Pakistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Collecting and Evalua ting Da ta . . . . . .Project Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Project Evalu ation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other Projects as Ou tgrowth of PakistanProject in Egyp t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Water Management Synthesis Project .

Technology Transfer Considerations. . . .

Interactive Field Research . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . ,.$,... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.,,... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$.,$

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

,,..,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Project .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .$ .. ... ... ...$... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $,,... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Integration of Research Results With Government Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mu ltid isciplinary Ap proa ch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Information Dissem ination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Developing Guayule (Natural Rubber) as a Commercial Crop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Summary ..o.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Intr od uction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sources of Rubber . . . . . . . . . . . . .Advantages and Disadvantages ofResearch on Guayu le in Australia

Backgr ound . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Current Research . . . . . . . . . . . .Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . ..4$... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Develop ing Gu ayu le . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....$.$ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$..

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

U.S. Guayu le Prod uction and Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .U.S. Cooperation With Other Cou ntries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Technology Tran sfer Considera tions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Israels Water Policy: A National Commitment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . q 0...... . . . . . .

Summary . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . $ . . . . . . . . . . . . . .a..o..a,.a,... .O..oofIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3

9

9

9

10

10

11

11

12

1717

17

18

19

21

24

2425

2929

29

30

30

31

31

34

34

34

35

35

3535

36

36

4141

41

42

42

44444546

464849

53

53

53

vii


7/79

C o n t e n t s - c o n t i n u e d

Page

Water Use Programs ... ... ... ... DO....... ... ... ... ... DO....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54State Con trol of Water Resou rces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55Supply and Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55Dem and Managem ent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55Technical Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Selected Irrigat ion Technology Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57Wastew ater for Reuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58Drip (or Trickle) and Sprinkler Irrigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59Computer-Controlled Irrigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61Irrigation With Saline Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Technology Tran sfer Consid erations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Appendix A:

Appendix B:Improving

Appendix C:New South

Appendix D:

Tables

Table No.

I. Estima tes

Contacts List (by chapter) q .**..* q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.0.... q .* 67

Preliminary Inventory of Materials Available forIrrigation Water Management in Asia . . . . . . . ...0..0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

The Economics of the Commercialization of Guayule inWales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

BARD Abstracts q . . . . 0 . q . * * * * . * .....0.0 .0.0.0.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Page

of Dryland s Population by Region and Livelihood Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42. CGIAR-Sponsored Int ernat ional Agr icultur al Research Centers and Programs . . . . . . . . 63. Fiscal Year 1981 U.S. Financial Com mitments to Bean/ Cow pea CRSP Projects . . . . . . . . 104. Comm on and Scientific Nam es of Animals Cited in Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185. Character istics of Crop ped Gam e An ima ls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226. Month ly Deliveries to Nairob i and Revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237. Potential Domestic Crops and Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 418. Comp onents of Harvested Guayu le Shrub . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439. Facts About Israel, 1979-80 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

10. Average Yearly Rates of Change in Percentages in the Major Components of theAgricu ltu re Sector Account, 1968-78 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

11. Production Comparisons for Various Crops Under Different Irrigation Systems . . . . . . . 6112. Effect of Irrigation Meth ods on the Yield of Tomatoes and Cucumber s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61B-1. Preliminary Inventory o f Materials Available for Imp roving Irrigation Water

Managem ent in Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71C-l, Estimated Costs of Producing One Acre of Dryland Guayule in

New South Wales, Au stralia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76C-Z. Per Acre Incom e Above Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Figures

Figure No. Page

l. Dry Climates of the Wor ld . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Z. Precast Concrete Slab Installation for Panel Tu rnou ts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323. Natu ral Rubber Prices p er Metr ic Ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

4. Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445. Test Sites, Western Slopes, and Plains of N ew South Wales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 456. Efficient Use of Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 587. Trickle Irrigation System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 598. Typical Types of Sprinkler Irrigation Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

.Vlll


8/79

The Shaded Countries

3

_ T,op, c of Cap, tco,,

Chapt er I

In t roduc t ion

Are Highlighted in This Paper

%


9/79

Chapter I

In t roduc t ion

This background paper focuses on foreign

and cooperative examples of what other coun-tries are doing in arid and semiarid agricultu reto cope with problems of aridity. The full as-sessment repor t, of which this is a par t, focusesprincipally on U.S. efforts domestically.

This paper is designed to assist Congress inseveral ways. First, it provid es information rel-evant to legislative activities on such broad top-ics as agricultural research, arid/ semiarid landresource produ ctivity, and water m anagementschemes. Second, it illustrates approaches takenby foreign leaders on technology and policy

issues affecting agricultural w ater u se in arid/semiarid lands. Third, several examples illus-trate the collaborative role of U.S. agriculturaland scientific experts in international develop-ment and the mu tual benefits to be derived byall parties. Finally, by providing examples ofhow other countries are coping with and usingtheir arid/ semiarid environments for produc-tive agriculture, this paper contributes to thecontinuing congressional debate on ways tosustain agriculture in U.S. arid/ semiarid lands.

This pap er touches on only a few of the many

examples of foreign and cooperative efforts inarid/ semiarid agriculture. Nu merous oppor-tun ities exist thr ough these efforts for informa-tion exchange and scientific advancement inmethods for making arid and semiarid landsproductive.

Approximately 20 percent of all potentiallyarable land in the world is in arid and semiaridclimatic zones, with Africa and Asia account-ing for slightly u nd er 10 percent and the UnitedStates about 3 percent (fig. 1).

1About 16per-

cent of the worlds population lives on thesearid and sem iarid lands (table 1), and about 90percent of them live outside the Western Hemi-sphere. Research and d evelopment in semiarid

IH.Dregne (cd.), Arid Lands in 71ansi t ion (Washington, D. C.:American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1970) ,pp . 32-33.

and arid agriculture has global significance in

light of these statistics. *

The maintenance of some land productivityin these fragile environments is a particularconcern for countries that have a major por-tion of their population engaged in farming orlivestock production. It is also of concern tocountries with more diversified economies,such as the United States and the Soviet Union,since populations and economies may also de-pend on the productivity of such lands. A num-ber of countries are trying to cope with arid-ity and agricultural production. Israel has a

deliberate policy of settling its deserts and asystem for mana ging w ater. The Soviet Union,with about one-fifth of its people living onsemiarid and arid lands, has un der considera-tion a partial diversion of north-flowing riversto desert areas in the south.

2In the United

States, with about one-third of its land area (ex-clud ing Alaska) being arid and semiarid, wateravailability and degrad ation are topics of grow-ing concern.

Ancient civilizations in arid and semiaridlandswhether located in the Southwestern

United States, along the banks of the Nile, inthe Tibesti massif of the Sahara, in the NegevDesert, within the Persian Empire, or on thebanks of the Yellow River in Chinaall prac-ticed agriculture through some form of irriga-tion. In some cases, great rivers, such as theNile or the Euphrates, provided an inexhaust-ible source of fresh surface water. Systems ofcanals were constructed with ditches andsluices and animal- or human-powered devicesfor lifting water to higher ground.

*Arid and semiarid lands have been defined in a number ofdifferent ways. Their main characteristic is a low average pre-cipitation or moisture, a condition which is directly affected byother variable elements of the climate, such as temperature, sun-shine, wind, and moisture conditions.

M. Biswas, United Nations Conference on Desertificationin Retrospect (Laxenburg, Austria: International Institute forApplied Systems Analysis, September 1978).

3


10/79

4 . Water-Related Technologies for Sustainable Agriculture in Arid/Semiarid Lands: Selected Foreign Experience

I I // / / t

45

30

\

1 i \ 1

60

75 \ \ \ \ \ ~ Equatorial scale (km)75 105 135 165

w E Arid = Cl Dry subhumid= D Semiarid u Humid

u Undifferentiated highlands

SOURCE: H. P. Bailey, Semi-Arid Cllmates: Their Definition and Distribution, p. 78, in Hall, et al., Agrlcu/ture In Semiar/d Environment, 1979.

Table 1 .Estimates of Drylands Population by Region and Livelihood Groupa

Total drylands Livelihood populations in drylandsPopulation Urban based Percentage Cropping based Percentage Animal based Percentage

Region (thousands) (thousands) of total (thousands) of total (thousands) of totalMediterranean Basin . . . . 106,600 42,000 39% 60,000 57% 4,200 4 %Sub-Sahara Africa . . . . . . 75,500 11,700 15 46,800 62 17,000 23Asia and the Pacific . . . . 378,000 106,800 28 260,400 69 10,300 3Americas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68,000 33,700 50 29,300 43 5,100 7

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 628,400 194,200 31% 397,100 63% 37,100 60/ 0aMeigg Cl=gification (lgMjinc luding extremely arid, arid, and semiarid area. Secretariat of the United Nations Conference on Desertification, 1977.sumsarenotexactdue to rounding.

SOURCE: M. Biswas, United Nations Conference on Desertificatlon in Retrospect (Laxenburg, Austria: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, September 1978).

Archeological evidence also suggests that freshwater. Their apparent durability is a resultsince the beginning of recorded history ground of a simple technology that used gravity forwater has been u sed to grow crops. The qanats energy and kept withdrawals balanced with re-of Iran, built some 3,000 years ago, were under- charge.ground gravity flow channels for distributingwater for distances up to 20 miles. They are Dryland farming, using runoff water collec-still in use and supply 35 percent of Irans tion and runoff waterspreading systems, also


11/79

Ch. IIntroduction q 5

was w ell know n in antiqu ity. These techniquesare still practiced in some arid and semiaridlands of the world. For example, Israeli re-searchers have reconstructed a number of run-

off systems from that period. These systemswork on th e pr inciple of collecting or d ivertingprecipitation that is not immediately absorbedby the ground . One method has been to builda dam in a riverbed during the dry season.When heavy rains came, flood waters were col-lected and diverted to irrigate surrounding cul-tivated land, Runoff systems required large top-ographically suitable areas not under cultiva-tion to collect rain that would not be immedi-ately absorbed. This water would be carefullymanaged to meet surrounding agriculturalneeds,

Water runoff from slopes was enhanced byremoving stones from su rface canals to releasethe runoff to different fields. This system ofwater management flourished some 1,500years ago. In evaluating such an cient p racticesone w riter states, for all their antiqu ity, thesemethod s can form not on ly a basis for surv ivaland income for many comm un ities in develop-ing countries, but a source of additional in-come to communities living in the deserts ofdeveloped countries.

3

Ancient societies coped with their arid and

semiarid environments through technologieswhich they tried to adapt to suit their naturalenvironments. Similarly, societies and technol-ogies today in such environments also mustlive within and respect certain natural limits,including the vagaries of climate. This reporthighlights a few examples of how some othercountries are attempting to maintain or in-crease agricultural productivity on their aridand semiarid lands. For example, Israel hasundertaken a national program of total waterresource management (ch. VI). Several coun-tries in Africa are experimenting with game

ranching (ch. III). Senegal and internationalresearchers are investigating the potential forgreater bean and cowpea production in aridlands (ch. II).

3A. Issar, The Reclamation of a Desert by the Combinationof Ancient and Modern Water Systems, Outlook on Agriculture,vol. 10, No. 8, 1981, p. 393.

In many instances, foreign projects in arid/semiarid agriculture are being aided by U.S.funds and researchers. The United States,throu gh the Agency for International Develop-

ment (AID), for examp le, has been w orking onirrigation water management in Pakistan (ch.IV). New South Wales, Australia, has receivedassistance for its research p rogram on d evelop-ing natural rubber from the guayule shrub fromthe U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)(ch. V). The Office of Technology Assessmentspublication An As ses sm ent of the United StatesFood and Agricultural Research System, inchapter VIII, International Dimensions of Re-search, p rovides a h istorical overview of theagricultural programs of these agencies.

At the start of the 1980s, USDA alone was

involved in more than 300 international coop-erative research projects. The Office of In-ternational Cooperation and Development,USDA, initiates and adm inisters these projectsabroad. Some of the countries with which theUnited States has cooperative research or sci-entific exchange agreements are Australia,Canada, Great Britain, Japan, Israel, theNetherlands, and Spain.

4

Besides bilateral agreements, the emerginginternational agricultural research networkoffers further opportunities to share in the

worlds agricultural expertise and knowledge.Since 1960, 10 international agricultural re-search centers with bu dgets of nearly $140 mil-lion in 1981 have been established. The Con-sultative Group on International AgriculturalResearch (CGIAR) sponsors them as well asthree other related programs. The UnitedStates, through AID, is a charter member andprovides about 25 percent of their total fund-ing. Two of themthe International Crops Re-search Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics(ICRISAT) in India and the International Cen-ter for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas

(ICARDA) in Lebanonspecialize in problemsof aridity and agriculture. See table 2 for a listof these centers and programs,

4U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of International Coop-

eration and Development, Foreign Development, USDA Role(Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, January1981), p. 12.


12/79

6 Water-Related Technologies for Sustainable Agriculture in Arid/Semiarid Lands: Selected Foreign Experience

Table 2.CGlAR-Sponsored International Agricultural Research Centers and Programs

Year Core funding, 1980a

Location established (in millions)

Centers1. International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Philippines 1960

2. International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT). . . . . . . Mexico 19883. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nigeria 19884. International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Colombia 19885. International Potato Center (CIP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Peru 19726. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics

(lCRISAT).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . India 19727. International Laboratory for Research on Animal Diseases (ILRAD). . . Kenya 19748. International Livestock Center for Africa (ILCA).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ethiopia 19749. International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas

(ICARDA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Syria, Lebanon 197510. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . United States 1975

Programs11. West African Rice Development Association (WARDA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . Liberia 196812. International Board for Plant Genetic Resources (IBPGR) . . . . . . . . . . . Italy 197313. International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR). . . . . Netherlands 1979

$15,032

16,05614,03814,2757,100

10,37510,0318,954

1 1 , 2 9 2

2 , 3 0 5

2,5622,9251,095abs n ot Include ~wclalprojects,somecontr ibut ions remained to be allocated toindividualcenterS/Pro9rarnS.

SOURCE: U.S. Agency for International Development, 1981.

Collaborative agricultural research and infor-mation exchange is an increasingly importantrequirement for countries concerned aboutmaintaining the productivity of their arid landsin order to meet the needs of their economiesand people. U.S. attention to foreign experi-ence and comm itment to cooperative exchangeof research and knowledge in arid/ semiaridagriculture have several ongoing and long-termbenefits, including:

q

q

avoiding costly dup lication by bu ilding onthe experience and research of other coun -tries and of U.S.-fund ed international agri-cultural research centers;assuring that the results of U.S. foreignassistance activities in agriculture aremad e available to U.S. citizens, adap ted tothe fullest extent possible to U.S. lands,

q

q

and analyzed for relevance with future for-eign assistance;providing ideas for U.S. farmers who areinterested in direct field experimentationor adap tation of foreign examp les to maketheir operations m ore econom ical as waterand energy costs rise; andbuilding good will and channels of inter-national comm un ication of benefit beyondthe agricultural sector.

Over the long term, diversification, ratherthan duplication, of research and developmentcan help to strengthen economies. Develop-ment of productive agricultural systems thatcan be sustained on arid/ semiarid lands canhelp meet growing worldwide d emand for foodand fiber.


13/79

Chapt er I I

Breeding Beans and Cow peas

for Drought Res is t anc e and

Heat To le ranc e


14/79

Chapter I I

Breeding Beans and Cowpeas for

Drought Res is t anc e and Heat To leranc e

SUMMARY

This international cooperative experiencewith plant breeding provides insights for ex-panding food production in U.S. semiaridlands. In particular:

q

q

beans and cowpeas are dryland staples inq

many developing countries and, in the fu-ture, they may p rovide an alternative dry-land crop for U.S. semiarid lands;

collaborative plant breeding programs are

these crops under conditions of droughtand heat stress by combining native vari-eties of Central American and Africanplants with high-yielding Californianstrains; andthis international research has benefitedforeign farmers and U.S. researchers andshows potential for directly benefitingAmerican farmers and consumers.

expected to increase the productivity of

INTRODUCTION

Traditionally, plant breeding and testinghave focused more on improving yield, quality,and resistance to disease and less on adaptingplants to natural environmental stresses. Re-cently, however, problems associated with en-vironmental stresses such as heat, drought, andsalinity have attracted more attention. About

four-fifths of the gap between av erage and rec-ord crop yields in the United States resultsfrom such stresses. The factors that makeplants do better or w orse und er stress are notwell understood. One p ath to such u nderstand-ing is through crossbreeding of high-yieldstrains with those that have survived underharsher climates and conditions.

1

Some crops grown in the United States underrainfall or irrigation have the potential forbeing grown with less water and producinghigher an d more stable yields. Beans (comm on

beans that are grown to produce dry beans) andcowpeas are two semiarid crops with suchcharacteristics. Both are legumes and havelong been grown overseas under dryland farm-

IB. Hiatt, To Increase Survival, Mosaic (Washington, D. C.:National Science Foundation, May-June 1982), p. 27.

ing regimes that have p roduced h ardy strains.In Senegal, for instance, the local cowpea isso hardy it has been called the crop of secu-rity. The cowp ea and bean have been depend -able crops, producing food in arid and semiaridregions wh en sorghum and pearl millet cropsfailed.

For many developing countries, beans andcowpeas are dietary staples. In Mexico, for ex-ample, where 40 percent of the bean produc-tion comes from semiarid lands, beans are astaples These legumes provide a major sourceof high-quality and affordable protein and car-bohydrate. In addition, they are an importantsource of the B complex vitamins.

4For this rea-

.2A. E. Hall, International Cooperation in Agricultural Re-

search to Develop Improved Cowpea Cultivars for SemiaridRegions of Africa and the United States, Office of Technology

Assessment commissioned paper, April 1982. Supplemented bytelephone interview with Dr. Hall, University of California(Riverside), April 1982.sM. Wayne Adams, Michigan State University, former direc-tor of the Bean/Cowpea CRSP, April 1982, telephone interview.

4Annu a l Report of the Bean / Cowpea Collaborative Res earchSu pport Program [CR S P) 1981, BeanlCowpea CRSP ManagementOffice Staff, Michigan State University (East Lansing, Mich.:December 1981].

9

98-353 r - 83 - 3


15/79


son, U.S. technical assistance programs have of improving food and nutrition abroad, partic-focused on these legumes as a possible means ularly for subsistence and low -income peop les.

COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH SUPPORT PROGRAMIn September 1980, the Bean/ Cowp ea Collab-

orative Research Supp ort Progr am (CRSP) wasestablished th rough fund s from the U.S. Agen-cy for International Developmen t (AID) und erTitle XII of the Foreign Assistance Act of1975.

5The purpose of the program has been

to help eradicate hunger and malnutrition inAfrica and Latin America. The programs re-search focus is on the production and use ofdry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) and cowpeasor black-eyed peas (Vigna unguiculata (L.)

Walp.). Research on environmental stress onthese plants is a major component.6

SThe Bean/Cowpea CRSP is one of several programs funded

by AID. CRSPs generally involve U.S. universities, research in-stitutions in developing countries, and international agriculturalresearch centers. All contribute resources to the projects. Theirmain purpose is to assist development of research capacitiesabroad, but they are also designed to benefit U.S. agriculture.The description of CRSP is from Bean/Cowpea CRSP AnnualReport and AnAssessment of U.S. Food and Agricultural Re-search (Washington, D. C.: Office of Technology Assessment, U.S.Congress, 1981), p. 164.OAnnua l Report, op. cit.

The Bean/ Cowp ea CRSP is man aged byMichigan State University. Nine other univer-sities also participate. The collaborating coun-tries include Brazil, Cameroon, the DominicanRepublic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras,Kenya, Malawi, Mexico, Nigeria, Senegal, andTanzania. The total fiscal year 1981 contribu-tions by all parties are shown in table 3. About25 percent of the total U.S. contribution comesfrom private and public U.S. institutions, re-flecting some sense that potential benefits

might accrue to U.S. agricultural research in-terests, especially the private sector. A descrip-tion of the CRSP bean projects in Guatemalaand Mexico and the cowp ea project in Senegalfollows, to illustrate the kinds of activities andbenefits coming from the Bean/ Cowp ea CRSP.

Bean CRSP--Guatemala 7

Cornell University and the Instituto de Cien-cia y Technologi Agrcolas (ICTA) of Guate-

7Annu a l Report, op. cit., app. D.

Table 3.Fiscal Year 1981 U.S. Financial Commitments to Bean/Cowpea CRSP Projects

Percent of total projectU.S. AID U.S. institution contribution from

Country/institution Plant contribution contribution U.S. institution

INCAP,aCentral America/Washington State . . . . . . .

Honduras/Puerto Rico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Guatemala/Cornell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Brazil/Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Brazil/Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Brazil/Boyce Thompson Institute. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Dominican Republic/Puerto Rico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Dominican Republic/Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Senegal/UC-Riverside. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cameroon/Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nigeria/Michigan State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nigeria/Georgia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Kenya/UC-Davis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Tanzania/Washington State. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Malawi/Michigan State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dry beanBeanBeanBeanBeanCowpeaBeanBeanCowpeaCowpeaCowpea

CowpeaBeanBeanBean

$159,70050,50089,25083,90083,90083,90092,35092,350

140,000

126,000

67,200

67,200134,400

117,460

92,482

$73,13020,07527,87111,61726,80929,70431,16848,32048,83031,54631,542

21,33344,84063,68212,928

$1,480,592 $523,395

31!0282412

2426253426203224253512

260/o

alnstitute for Nutrition in Central America and panama.SOURCE: Tfre Annual Repoti oftheBean/Cowpea Co//aborathe Research Supporf Program (CRSP), 1981, Bean/Cowpea CRSP, Management Office Staff, Michigan State

University, December 1981.


16/79

Ch. IIBreeding Beans and Cowpeas for Drought Resistance and Heat Tolerance q 11

mala are collaborating on bean research to de-termine, on a worldwide basis, how variationsin day length an d temperature affect plant d e-velopment, maturity, and adaptation. Theseplant characteristics, in turn, affect how much

water a crop requires. Cornell University scien-tists have found, for instance, that the time ittakes the bean plant to grow to the floweringstage is imp ortant in d etermining its yield. Thetime factor, in turn, is influenced by length ofdaylight and d ay/ night temp erature differ-ences.

A number of factors make U.S.-Guatemalancooperation in this research beneficial. Plantgeneticists who work on breeding to prod ucea particular characteristic, such as optimumtime from planting to flowering, need a v ariety

of beans with that characteristic from whichto draw genetic material. Guatemala, one of theareas in Central America where the bean origi-nated , offers a greater d iversity of bean p lantsthan d oes the United States, since the plant hashad a comparatively longer time to developthere. Guatemala also has both high an d mod-erate altitude locations in close proximity. Thisprovides a greater variety of day/ night temper-ature ran ges in wh ich to field-test new strains.

Bean CRSP--Mexico 8

Collaborative bean research began in 1982between the Instituto Nacional de Investiga-ciones Agrcolas (INIA) in Durango, Mexico,and U.S. universities. Two initial considera-tions make Mexico a natural partner for beanresearch. First, the bean originated in the h igh-lands of Mexico as well as Guatemala. Thus,the genetic material available in Mexico alsois rich in diversity. Second, Mexico is the sec-ond largest bean-producing nation in theworld.

The United States and Mexico have collabo-rated on research in two specific areas. Mex-ican researchers have made some progress de-veloping bean varieties that are drou ght resist-ant. U.S. researchers have worked on improv-ing the pr ocess by which beans convert atmos-

3 Adams interview, op. cit.

ph eric nitrogen to a u sable form, allowing pr o-du ction without the need for sup plemental ni-trogen fertilizer. If drought resistance andgreater biological nitrogen fixation can bemerged, bean farmers in both countries may

be able to get along with less fertilizer andwater, Drought resistance in bean productionmay not seem imm ediately critical to U.S. agri-culture. However, beans already are grown insome semiarid U.S. areas, and nationally thebean is a major crop. As world food demandincreases, production of drought-resistantbeans on U.S. water-limited land s may becomeincreasingly important to make optimal use ofthose lands and help meet world food needs.

The second area that th e joint Mexico/ U.S.bean research has been pursuing is the further

development of strains w ith a structural adap-tation that deters water loss through transpira-tion. Such bean plants turn their leaves in dryperiods so that the surface through which wa-ter is lost is pointed away from the Sun. Fiveof the top yielding strains of beans being re-searched through this program at MichiganState University have this capability.

Cow pea CRSP--Senega l 9

The Cowpea CRSP is especially active be-tween the Un iversity of California at Riverside

and the Senegalese Institute for AgriculturalResearch, This program began 6 years ago asa small component of an AID-fun ded effort byUC/ Riverside to assist with rural developmentin semiarid Africa w ith emp hasis on the Sahel.The principal reasons that Senegal was so at-tractive for this collaborative research werethat: 1) the cowpea probably originated inAfrica, and 2) Senegalese plant breeders hadbegun using the available diverse cowpeagenetic stock to develop cowpeas specificallyadapted for semiarid zones.

The objectives of the cowpea research pro-gram include: 1) developing imp roved cowp eavarieties and management methods for subsist-ence farmers in the semiarid zone of Senegal,and 2) developing cowpea varieties with im-

gIbid.


17/79


proved drought adaptation, heat tolerance, andyield stability for use in semiarid zonesthroughout the world, including the UnitedStates.

10During the first 2 years (1980-82) of the

project, a number of significant findings were

made by the joint efforts of U. S., Senegalese,and other researchers. The major findingsfollow.

Im prov ing D rough t A dap ta t i on

Field screening techniques are being u sed inCalifornia to select cowpeas with: 1) roots moreable to extract water from the soil, 2) earlierflowering, and 3) greater proportions of totalcarbohydrate in the pods. For example, someof the material produced will mature in 60days, the length of the short rainy season in

part s of Africa. Cowpeas w ith these impr ovedcharacteristics are being crossed to producesuperior progeny. About 30 of the advancedcowpea lines originating from crosses betweenSenegalese and Californian cowpeas have beenevaluated for drought resistance and yield sta-bility in cooperative tests in Senegal and Cali-fornia.

Screening for Heat Tolerance

Hot weather in both Africa and the UnitedStates causes flowers to drop and therefore

pods never form. This reduces cowpea yields.Research by a Sud anese studen t at UC/ River-side has established a connection between ex-cessive flower drop and high night tempera-tures just before flowering. Cowpeas from

throughou t the world have been grown du ringhot weather in the Imperial Valley, Calif., tosearch for strains with tolerance to heat. TwoAfrican strains were discovered that havegreater heat tolerance than both th e local vari-eties grown by farmers in Senegal and theblackeye pea types grown in California.

The challenge in research is to overcome theproblems caused by the harsh environments insemiarid zones by breeding into the high-yield-ing California varieties the heat tolerance anddrought adaptation characteristics identified

in the more hardy Senegalese and other Afri-can cowp eas. According to one UC/ Riversidescientist on the project, the cooperative yieldtests have demonstrated that some of the ad-vanced cowp ea lines are adapted to Californiaand have improved drou ght resistance, where-as other lines are extremely early and requireonly 60 days from sowing to harvest in Africanconditions. During extreme droughts, with ashort rainy season, these early lines have thepotential to produce substantial yields whilemost cowpeas would fail to produce seed.

11

loHa]l, op. Cit., pp . 1-2.

TECHNOLOGY

The bean/ cowp ea collaborative

l Ibid., pp. 3-4.

TRAN SFER CONSIDERATIONS

research yields and water use efficiency through thisprojects are relatively new and have not yet collaborative plant breed ing research. Cowp eabeen imp lemented d irectly in commercial agri- varieties developed by this program with im-culture. Initial signs indicate, however, signifi- proved drought-resistance and heat-tolerancecant p otential for improved bean and cowp ea characteristics could increase the productivi-


18/79

Ch. IIBreeding Beans and Cowpeas for Drought Resistance and Heat Tolerance q 13

ty and profitability of dryland and irrigatedagriculture in semiarid regions of both devel-oped and developing countries.

Agricultural productivity of arid and semi-

arid lands will become increasingly importantto help meet growing food demands. Cropssuch as the cowpea may not now be of majorimportance to U.S. diets, but they could be-come an important export crop in the yearsahead. This could become a factor in helpingmaintain a favorable U.S. balance of paym entsas well as provid ing a m eans of foreign assist-ance. Such foodstuffs would be particularly im-portant for feeding children and pregnantwomen in countries where protein shortagesdevelop.

12

Promotion of this collaborative research an dits potential benefits depends almost entirely

IZHal l interview, op. Cit.

on efforts of the involved scientists. In theviews of some United States scientists partici-pating in this international research, generalU.S. interest in and use of the know ledge gen-

erated so far is insignificant. The matter hasbeen given little attention by the U.S. Govern-ment.

13In contrast, both Canada and Australia

have specific organizations and programs de-signed to encourage international agriculturalcollaboration for use in foreign assistance aswell as in their own agriculture.

14The benefits

to U.S. agriculture from the brief collaborationto date in the Bean/ Cowpea CRSPs suggest thatmore U.S. participation in this kind of inter-national research could provide important fu-ture benefits for U.S. farmers in arid and semi-arid agriculture,

lsAn Assessment ofU.S. Food and Agricultural Research, op.cit., pp. 151-169 (see footnote 5).lqDona]d p]ucknett, Science Advisor to the CGIAR Secretariat,World Bank, May 1982, telephone interview.


19/79

Chapt er I I I

Gam e Ranc hing in Af r i ca


20/79

Chapter I I I

Game Ranching in Af r ica

This use of dry grasslands in Africa provides q analogous efforts in the United Statesa striking contrast to most uses of U.S. range- which relate to and draw on the African

lands. In particular, this chapter illustrates: experience, and

q attempts to make productive use of de-. difficulties inherent in developing animal

graded grassland s and to p revent their fur-agriculture tailored to long-term resource

ther d eterioration by relying on na tive ani-sustainability.

mal species,

INTRODUCTION

In years past, the low rainfall grasslandplains of Africa, with th eir immen sely rich an dvaried wild animal p opulations, formed a ma-

jor natural resource of the continent. Todaythese once beautiful and productive areas arein varying degrees of degradation.

Both climatic factors and hu man exploitationhave influenced the condition of these lands.In many instances, wild animal populationshave been eliminated or threatened as the landhas become d egraded and moved increasinglytoward arid and semiarid conditions.

Human activity has played a large role in de-stroying the delicate natural balance betweenvegetation and wild animals.

1Desert shrubs

have been stripped from the land for use asfirewood to the extent that local supplies havevirtually disappeared, and charcoal must nowbe shipped 100 to 200 miles for use in somecities. Such woody ground cover normallyserved to hinder erosive water ru noff and en-hance retention of wa ter in the soil. Overgraz-ing and compaction of the soil by domestic ani-mals, in a region where land is consideredcommon property by stock owners, also has

contributed to the degradation. 2

Southwest Research Laboratories, The Establishment ofWildlife Ranches in Developing Countries (Los Alamitos, Calif.:November 1981), p. 1.

ZL. Chatterton and B. Chatterton, Combating Desertificationin Winter Rainfall Regions of North Africa and the Middle East, Outlook orI Agriculture, vol. 10, No. 8, p. 397,

Commercial produ ction of imported domes-ticated livestock (primarily cattle, sheep, andgoats) continues in the African savanna in spiteof the impact on the land. The animals aremaintained in African countries with the assist-ance of mu ch livestock research and social ex-penditure, in part because they have becomean integral p art of the local social and econom-ic systems. Owning a large herd is a mark ofprestige; it also ensures a constant milk sup-ply despite the low productivity of milkingcows and the shortness of their milking period.A herd provides insurance for survival through

its meat, dairy, and other products should acalamity such as an outbreak of disease ordrought occur. Sheep are retained becausemu tton is the preferred m eat of the region. Theconsumption of goat meat is generally re-stricted to the p oor. Nevertheless, goat is of par -ticular value in arid lands because it surviveswhen sheep and cattle perish, thus providinga more secure supply of milk, meat, and skinsin emergencies.

3These multiple social benefits

have tended to override the fact that the qual-ity of beef is often inferior to that of beef pro-duced in a more favorable climate. Moreover,

seasonal variations in water and forage availa-bility are not conducive to the rapid growth ofcattle, sheep, or goats.

sSmi t h son ian magazine, vol. 10, No, 5, August 1979, p, 38.17


21/79

18 . Water. Related Technologies for Sustainable Agriculture in Arid/Semiarid Lands: Selected Foreign Experience

In contrast, indigenous animals have natural-ly adapted to the arid and semiarid environ-ment of the African savanna. In one importan taspect they are particularly adapted: they re-quire little water. If fresh grass is available,

camels, for example, require virtually no water.Even when water is available in such areas ascentral Sudan, camels are often not given watermore than once every couple of months. TheSudan exports tens of thousands of camels toupper Egypt for meat each year. Because oftheir adaptability, camels in the Sudan are val-ued more highly for their m ilk and for transpor-tation than for their meat.

4

Antelopes, gazelle, oryx, and other gam e spe-cies also are well adapted to life in arid regions.(See table 4 for scientific names of common

African game species.) The eland, for example,can endu re fairly large variations in body tem-perature w ithout sweating, so they can redu cewater loss. The ostrich can survive a 25 per-cent loss of body weight, much of which iswater that can be replaced in a single drinksGame animals also have potential as an ex-cellent source of high-quality meat. With itshigher pr oportion of protein to fat, some gamemeat may be nutritionally superior to domesticmeats. And if allowed to grow natu rally on therange, game meat may contain lower levels ofthe kinds of chemicals, including growth hor-

mones, commonly used in modern ranching.6

4J. L. Cloudsley-Thompson, Animal Utilization, Arid Lands

in Transit ion, Harold E. Dregne (cd,) (Washington, D. C.:American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1970),p. 67.SIbid., p. 68.qbid., p. 58.

Table 4.Common and Scientific Names of AnimalsCited in Text

Since much information about animals is classified byscientific names, this list is provided to help readers locateadditional data. There may be cases where disputes in

synonomy or regional variation are not reflected.Domestic and wild cattle and their relatives:

Domestic cattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Domestic goats . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Domestic sheep. . . . . . . . . . . . . .African buffalo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .American bison

(buff ale).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Antelopes and their relatives:

Dik-dik . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Duiker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Eland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Gerenuk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Grants gazelle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Hartebeest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Kudu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Impala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .oryx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Springbok . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Steenbok. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Thomsons gazelle . . . . . . . . . . .Wildebeest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Deer and their relatives:Axis deer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .North American elk. . . . . . . . . . .White-tailed deer . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other animals:African camel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Giraffe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Zebra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Birds:Ostrich . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ring-necked pheasant . . . . . . . .

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.

Bos taurusCapra hircusOvis ariesSynceruscaffer

Bison bison

Madoqua spp.Sylvicapra spp.,

Cephalophus spp.Taurotragus spp.Litocranius walleriGazella grantiAlcelaphus buselaphusTragelaphus spp.

Aepyceros melampusoryx spp.Antidorcus marsupialsRaphicerus campestrisGazella thomsoniConnochaetes spp.

Cervus axisCervus canadensisOedicoileus virginiana

Came/us dromedariesGiraffa camelopardalisEquus spp.

Struthio came/usPhasianus colchicus

A growing awareness of the serious impacts digenous wildlife species in order to help pre-domesticated cat tle, sheep, and goats are hav- serve them.ing on the African savanna has spurred interestin game ranching of native species. In the The feasibility of game farms in severalIWOS a number of ranches in Africa began ex- African countries is an area of ongoing re-perimenting with a mixture of domestic and search in the more productive use of arid andgame animals to counter grow ing land d egra- semiarid lands. On both experimental and com-dation and to boost the economic value of in- mercial ranches, workers are testing the hy-


22/79

Ch. IllGame Ranching in Africa q 19

potheses that indigenous species are betteradapted to the savanna environment and thusmore easily and profitably raised than commondomestic animals. For these reasons, gameranching has been called the use and enhance-

ment of natures technology. The basic con-cept is to take economic advantage of the nat-ural balance between vegetation and wild ani-mals.

Major p rojects at the following ran ches werestarted in the 1970s: Ubizana and Theunis inNatal, South Africa; Doddieburn and Mkwa-sine in Zimbabwe; Kruger in South Africa; andAthi River in Kenya. The limited d ata reportedon these ranches to date indicate that the mostsignificant costs of game ranching are in cap-turing and stocking animals, erecting a perim-

eter fence, and, wh en necessary, building proc-essing facilities. Stocking costs have rangedfrom $50,000 at the Ubizana Game Ranch to$146,000 over 3 years at the Theunis GameRanch in South Africa. Fencing costs were es-

7David HopCraft, Natures Technology, 19, TechnologicalForecas ting and S ocial Change (198 0).

timated at $1,044 per k ilometer in South Africain the early 1970s. The Mkwasine Game Ranchin Zimbabwe spent over $56,600 to fence59,304 acres (24,000 hectares). Processing facil-ities that comply with veterinary and health

standards have been found also to be costly.A canning and drying facility in the Kruger N a-tional Park in South Africa, for example, costthe equivalent of $1.5 million. However, thatfacility retur ned the investmen t with in 3 years.A smaller, less sophisticated facility on theTheunis Game Ranch, which prepared freshcuts and sausage, cost about $146,000.

8

One of the largest experimental game ranchesin Africa is the Athi River, Kenya ranch, es-tablished in the mid -1960s by David Hop craft.This experiment has attracted interest from

both d eveloped and developing countries andis the focus of a major portion of the remaind erof this chapter.

%. Mossman and A. Mossman, Wildlife Utilization and GameRanching, IUCN Occasional Paper No. 17 (Merges, Switzer-land: International Union for Conservation of Nature and Nat-ural Resources, 1976).

THE HOPCRAFT PROJ ECT9

Athi River, Kenya Demonstration WildlifeRanch is located abou t 25 miles from Nairobi.It contains 20,000 acres, some of which areused for cattle ranching. Hopcraft began hisproject with the help of a 1966 U.S. NationalScience Foundation research grant for a 3-yearcomparison of the land effects and the meatand hide yields of cattle and game raised onKenya grasslands. In the study, he fenced offand halved a un iform 300-acre plot of land . Oneside was stocked with cattle, the other withgazelle.

Hopcraft found the physical effects of the

two sp ecies on the land to be substantially dif-ferent. The cattle significantly reduced grasscover and other typ es of stable vegetation, cre-ated serious tracking problems, and trampled

QDavid Hopcraft, op. cit.

the vegetation on their daily trek to the waterhole, compacting the soil. In contrast, accord-ing to H opcraft reports, the gazelle left an areathat retained 32 percent more grass cover and100 percent more self-perpetuating species.The gazelle area did not show either trackingproblems or land devastation around the waterhole.

Economically, Hopcraft found the gazellecarcass to be more profitable than the cattlecarcass. His figures indicated that 47 percentof the gazelle was lean meat, compared to 32

percent in cattle; the cattle in this experimentyielded 7.9 pounds per acre per year, the ga-zelle produced 14.6 pounds per acre. Cattleraised under trad itional stock raising methods,according to Hopcraft, would yield much lesslean meat than those on his farm.


23/79


Income from the gazelle substantially ex-ceeded that from cattle because of the gazelleshigher market price, almost double that of do-mestic meat, and production of 50 to 100 per-cent more meat per acre. Hide sales favored

the game species as well, the gazelle hides re-turning a price roughly 25 percent higher thanthat received for cattle hides. Approximately10 acres per head and 3 years were needed toproduce one cowhide, while Hopcraft esti-mated that 1 acre could produce eight gazellehides in only 1 year.

Hopcraft interpreted his findings to indicatethat adaptation to the environment is a very im-portant factor. An indigenous animal spend sfar less energy than an im ported beast in over-coming the harsh environmental conditions

such as disease, weather, and vegetation. Thus,more energy becomes available for growth. The advantage is augmented, he maintains, bythe negligible costs of herd maintenance.Gazelle, for examp le, require n o p esticide d ip-pings, inoculations, or night enclosures. Hop-craft estimated that expen ses on a cattle ranchconsume about 66 percent of income, com-pared to only 20 percent on a game ranch.

In 1976, Hopcraft received a grant from theLilly End owm ent of Indianap olis for the large-scale application of his findings. This grant was

increased in 1977. The funding covered con-struction of an 8%-foot-high fence around the31-mile perimeter of his ranch, a project requir-ing 15 months to com plete. This fence enclosedmore th an 5,000 indigenou s anim als of 20 dif-ferent speciesgiraffes, eland, wildebeest,dik-diks, impala, zebra, hartebeest, and oth ers.About half were from the gazelle family.

According to Hopcraft, this variety of gamehas helped maximize the productivity of thevegetation. The treetops are forage for the gi-raffe; the higher bu shes are eaten by the eland ,

kudu, and gerenuk; the lower bushes by thegazelle and impala; and the grasses by bu ffalo,zebra, wildebeest, and hartebeest. Smallershoots and leaves serve the duiker, steinbuck,and dik-dik. The seeds are eaten by the ostrichand other game birds. There is some overlapin browsing, but according to one report this

Photo credit: A@ncy for lnternatbna/ DevelopmentThe eland of East Africa is the largest of the plains

animals that graze across the vast savannas

,

Photo credit: Agency for International Development

Herds of zebra and wildebeest roam across the grassfields inside Ngorongoro Crater in Tanzania

arrangement is conducive to helping the vege-tation remain in natural balance.

10

Erecting the perimeter fence was a majorendeavor in the large-scale project. Once opera-tional, the project faced a second hurdle andone of its greatest impediments: securing theKenyan Governments permission to marketthe game meat. Hopcraft lobbied for 7 yearsbefore obtaining an exemption from gamingand food laws. Cropping game on the Hopcraftranch began early in 1981. Plans are to crop

about one-quarter to one-third of the gamepopulation annually. * Now, the ranchs game

losouthwest Research Laboratories, OP. cit., p.8.*Gabriel Von Latham, April 1982, telephone interview. Von

Latham and Hopcraft have formed a French-based firm, WildIndigenous Livestock Development (WILD), to export gameranching to other countries.


24/79

Ch. IlIGame Ranching in Africa q 2 1- -

meat is sold in hotels and restaurants inNairobi as a luxury item, and outlets are be-ing sought outside Kenya.

Some of H opcrafts p reliminary find ings are:

1. it is possible to live within the natur al bal-ance of land and animals in this part ofAfrica and to u se extremely pr ofitably thenatu ral increase of animals for p rodu ction

2. ranching indigenous animals requires lit-tle input and little imported energy; and

3. far greater production of meat is attainedper acre, gaining profits of nearly fivetimes those of traditional livestock rearing,

in a sustained multicultural environment.11

of meat and hides;

Some controversy exists

DISCUSSION

over Hopcraftsfindings and extrapolation of results obtainedon h is relatively small plot of land. The ad vis-

ability of game ranching as an approach to in-creased economic productivity is under ques-tion because of the high capital outlay neededto establish and outfit a fenced range of ade-quate size.

In general, substantial costs are involvedwith gam e ranching where the pr oject mu st ac-quire land, construct perimeter fences, stockand harvest the animals, and construct slaugh-terhouse facilities. Hopcraft was able to avoidmany of these costs. Local circumstances, forexample, helped Hopcraft minimize stocking

costs. In fencing the ranch, several thousandanimals were trapped within, saving the time,money, and effort of capturing and transport-ing them from outside. The weaving of thefencing material onsite from local materialsfurther reduced operating costs. Hopcraft alsowas able to purchase inexpensively a mobileslaughterhouse from the United Nations Foodand Agriculture Organization.

Similar economizing may be possible inother game ranching d evelopments in the Afri-can savanna and elsewhere if indigenous spe-cies are used. Certain other experiments, how -

ever, which must trap and transport game fromoutside, may find their initial costs mu ch high-er. Many game ranchers may have to constru ctslaughterhouses because of the distance of theiroperations from commercial facilities.

IISouthwest Research Laboratories, op. cit., p. 9.

A group of Cornell University researchersvisited Hopcrafts ranch several times to con-duct research and to report their findings to

the Lilly Endowment. * They have gathereddata on range ecology and the digestibility ofvarious plant species by game animals. Co-director Daniel G. Sisler has concentrated hisstudy of the project on the economics of meatproduction, handling, and marketing. Dr. Sislerraises a number of points about the economicsof game ranching:

1 . Costs o f es tab l ish ing and operat ing a

game ranch. Although Hopcraft has shownthat gam e meat sales will cover variable operat-ing costs, according to Dr. Sisler, he has not

shown that their sales will cover all the fixedcosts associated w ith setting up a ranch. If thefence, slaughterhouse, cooling facilities, vehi-cle, capture of animals, and labor were all in-cluded, the net income might be well belowthat of a well-managed cattle ranch. The costsof establishing a cattle ranch wou ld have to becompared with those of establishing a gameranch, or the assumption would have to bemade that both kinds of ranches are opera-tional at the time of the comparison.

*This section discussing the controversy over Hopcrafts re-sults is based on information from Daniel Sisler and RobertMcDowell, Professors of Agricultural Economics, and RobertP. Bauer, graduate student, Cornell University, April 1982, andwith McDowell again in August 1982.


25/79


Cropping, handling, and marketing gamemeat are distinctly different from similaroperations associated with domestic animals.Table 5 shows some of the characteristics ofcropped game animals to consider in handling

and marketing. The initial investment inslaughterhouse and refrigeration facilities andtheir operating expenses may be substantial.The services of a veterinarian maybe neededto meet inspection requirements. These costsare in contrast to cattle ranching, where ani-mals are typ ically sold live, with slaugh ter andinspection taking place at a publicly ownedslaughterhouse.

In contrast, harvesting at the Hopcraft fa-cility was labor intensive and unusual. Crop-ping of all animals took place at night, with a

crew of three men shooting the animals froma Land Rover. Cropping was reasonably effi-cient, and dead animals were at the slaughter-house within 1 hour. During the first year ofoperation, the game meat was found to be ofhigh quality and accepted by customers. Fatcontent w as low. Statistics relative to cropp ingindicated that there was no significant seasonalvariation in carcass weight of game animals.

Sisler estimates that the establishment costsare roughly equal to th ose in establishing a cat-tle ranch. Net operating income may be about

equal if the p rice received for gam e meat is ap -proximately twice that for cattle (the price ratioin the first year of the Kenya ran ch operation).

2. Ga m e r a n c h m a n a ge m e n t . A w ell-man-aged gam e ranch requires highly sophisticatedtechnical knowledge as to rates of growth foreach game species, plant food preferred, degreeof predation by other species, fawning rates,growth rates, sex composition, compatibility

of species, gestation period, and age of sexualmaturity of differing species. The availabilityof this expertise adds cost to the project.

3. Use of en e rgy . Although the energy used

for a game ranch is less than that for cattleranching, Sisler estimates imported energy fora game ranch is approximately 40 percent ofthat required for a comparable cattle ranch.Vehicles use diesel fuel, as does the operationof the slaughterhouse and chilling facilities.

4. Developmen t o f marke t s . A ready m arketexisted for all game meat produced from theHopcraft ranch during 1981 operations. Thisdoes not mean that there would necessarily bea consistently adequate market for game meatwithin Kenya. The absolute quantity of gamemeat marketed is a small proportion of totalred meat consumption in Nairobi. It seemsprobable that any sizable increase in gamemeat p rodu ction could cause p rices to decline.The most serious obstacle facing continued ef-ficient m arketing of gam e meat in Kenya is as-suring a strong market for all would-be pro-ducers. Hopcraft was successful as the onlyproducer operating on a small scale in thecapital city of Nairobi.

The majority of Hopcrafts clients were res-taurants, although one butchery was a steadyclient. The meat was sold at 25 shillings per

kilo, approximately twice the price of qualitybeef. The clientele of these restaurants andbutcheries has been more than 90 percent ex-patriate, and wholesale purchasers knew thatthe high price could be passed onto their cus-tomers. When surveyed, clients stated thatgame m eat constitut ed abou t 5 percent of totalsales. Restauranteurs estimated that the costof preparing a game meat meal was 20 to 30

Table 5.Characteristics of Cropped Game Animals

Percent total weight dressed

Species Body length (cm) Shoulder height (cm) Dressed weight (kg) Annual range Average

Thomsons gazelle . . . . . . . 78 67 13 53-55 54Grants gazelle . . . . . . . . . . 108 91 33 52-61 55Kongoni . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 119 69 49-52 52Wildebeest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 132 125 49-60 53

SOURCE: An Economic Analysis of Harvesting Techniques, Game Meat Characteristics and Marketing Prospects, tables 1, 2, and 3, paper by Daniel Sisler, Professorof Agricultural Economics, Cornell University, prelimina~ draft, October 1982.


26/79

Ch. IIIGame Ranching in Africa 23

percent more than that of a beef, poultry, orpork meal. Retail price per plate, however, isusually about the same for game and traditionalmeats. Table 6 shows the monthly average ofkilos of game meat delivered to four or fiveclients each week and the corresponding rev-enue from each delivery.

Limited qu antities of sausage have been p ro-duced from the game meat. The market ap-pears to be strong for this high-value product,which could be marketed at a lower expensethan chilled meat. However, equipment forsausage manufacturing is costly, as are someingredients, notably fat. While sausage produc-tion shows signs of profitability, more effortis needed on marketing and promotion of thisspecialty item.

According to Sisler, game meat w ill continu eto be a high-priced specialty meat if game meatproduction is to be profitable. Because of itscost, it seems likely that in the foreseeablefuture game meat will not be a source of lowcost animal protein for native peoples.

5. P r i c e o f h i d e s w h e n s o l d i n q u a n t i t y .Sisler found hide sales extremely difficult tocalculate. If they can be sold at a favorableprice, this would be an added source of rev-enue for game ranching. The development ofa mar ket for specialty hides, how ever, was d if-

ficult for Hopcrafts 1981 operations.

6. Wa te r u s e . Theoretically, the expense ofdrilling wells or installing dams and wateringfacilities can be considerably less than what isrequired for cattle. However, a p erimeter fence

may prevent migration of animals to naturalwatering points and better range. So any areawou ld need to be large enough to take care ofthis requirement.

7. S t o c k i n g r an c h e s . The financial break-even p oint for gam e ranches of H opcrafts size,calculated by Cornell University reviewers, isrough ly 2,000 animals-about tw ice the curr entlevel of Hopcrafts harvest. This figure repre-sents about 40 percent of the 5,000 game thatHopcraft estimated in his 1980 report. Morerecent estimates from Corn ell ind icate that t hegame animals on the ranch number about 2,500to 2,800. The costs of establishing a similarranch elsewhere would be extremely high. Alsothe cost of importing animals would be high.In the first year of operation, only four sp ecies

of adult malesThomsons gazelle, Grants ga-zelle, wildebeest, and kongonis were h arvested.It is unclear what will happen to the ecologywhen all cattle are removed and game animalsexpanded.

Other questions remain. What will happento the off-take rate of game animals whenyounger animals and a part of the females ofeach species are harvested? Will the price ofgame meat be less when it is sold in largerquantities? At present, cropping is completedin accord with what can be sold rather than

in a mann er to regulate or sustain species com-position and number. Achieving a balance be-tween meat production and the natural sustain-ability of the animals in their local environmentwill be one of the most critical facets of ranch-ing.

Table 6.Monthly Deliveries to Nairobi and Revenues (game meat only)

Number of deliveries Total monthly Mean weekly Monthly revenueMonth per month delivery (kg) delivery (kg) Kenyan shillings U.S. dollars

January . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 954 239.6 23,962 $2,188February . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 769 192.3 19,227 1,756

March . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1,008 252.0 25,200 2,301April . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 857 214.3 21,430 1,957May . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1,469 293.8 36,725 3,354June . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1,614 403.5 40,345 3,685July . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1,481 296.2 37,025 3,381August . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1,276 319.0 31,898 2,913

SOURCE: An Economic Analysis of Harvesting Techniques, Game Meat Characteristics and Marketing Prospects, paper by Daniel Sisler, Professor of AgriculturalEconomics, Cornell University, prelimina~ draft, October 1982.


27/79

24 q Water-Related Technologies for Sustainable Agriculture in Arid/Semiarid Lands: Selected Foreign Experience

TECHNOLOGY T RANSFER CONSIDERATI ONS

Data are not available to make definitivestatements about the economic feasibility of ex-panding game ranching to other parts of

Africa. However, because of the optimism forHopcrafts efforts, the U.S. Agency for Inter-national Developm ent (AID) has fund ed a gameranching feasibility study by Hopcraft for theDepartm ent of Wildlife in Botswan a. Hop craftis looking at the possibility of establishing tw odemonstrations similar to the Kenya ranch, onein a comm unal area and the other on a privateranch in Botswan a. The commu nal area wou ldinvolve some 20 farm families living on 5,000acres, who would be trained to manage theanimals. *

Developing international markets for gamemeat wou ld help assure game ranching profitsand increase the desirability of starting suchoperations. Hopcraft has proposed that Rhode-sian and Botswanan game be shipped to Eu-rope throu gh South African p orts and airports.The development of widespread markets forthese high-priced specialty meats will take amajor effort, although some researchers believethat a market is there.

12Game meats are still

an insignificant factor in world food produc-tion and world trade. According to U.S. De-partment of Commerce figures, the United

States imported less than $1 million of gamemeats in 1981. Both the United States and Eu-rope (especially West Germany, Switzerland,and England) could prove to have substantialpotential as markets if a reasonably priced,secure supply became available.

Some research on game ran ching, parallel tothat in Africa, is under way in the WesternUnited States assessing the advisability of apartial shift to native or imported stock. Asmuch as 85 percent of agricultural land in theAmerican West is used as range, and a grow-

ing aw areness of the p roblems of overgrazing,redu ced w ater availability, and lower econom-

*Reservations expressed by AID officials in telephone inter-views in August 1982 are strongest regarding the economic feasi-bility of game ranching without a major export market.IZFred Wagner, Associate Dean, College of Natural Resources,Utah State University, June 1982, telephone interview.

ic return from ranching operations has influ-enced American ranchers to look into alterna-tive ranching systems. Experimentation with

native American bison is under way, and theadaptation of imported African species as aU.S. cash crop is being considered. In light ofthis American interest in importation, the ob-jectives pursu ed and r esults identified by gam eranchers in African countries may provide in-sight for U.S. consideration.

Two typ es of operations in the United Statesare similar to th e wildlife managemen t schemesin Africa: 1) game ranches that perm it huntingof wildlife, and 2) native gam e farming or herdmanagement of a single indigenous species

such as buffalo or elk to produce meat, hides,and other products.

Game Ranches

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department re-ports m ore than 800 game ran ches in that State.The Exotic Wildlife Association, a group ofgame ranches, has 200 members. The Statesboom in game ranches has been encouraged,in part, by the promotional efforts of energycompanies that provide their top executiveswith trips to such ranches.

13

Many ranches have game indigenous to theUnited States, as w ell as imp orted animals. The50,000-acre Y. O. Ranch in Mountain Home,Tex., for instance, has 10,000 game animals.Half are drawn from native species. The bal-ance are animals culled from 35 African andAsian species. These include antelopes, axisdeer, zebras, ostriches, and giraffes.

14

Game ranches in the United States are almostexclusively focused on sport. They might be-come more profitable if excess animals couldbe slaughtered and marketed. A major factor

in marketing game meat is Federal and Statelegislation that bars such sale except undervery restrictive conditions. For example, leg-

IsCharles Schreiner IV, manager and co-owner of Y. O. Ranch,Mountain Home, Tex., April 1982, telephone interview.laIbid.


28/79

Ch . ///Game Ranching in Africa 25

islation requires inspection of wild animalsbefore they are slaughtered for public con-sumption. Federal laws also require slaughter-hou se facilities for gam e that are separa te fromthose for dom estic meat. If game an imals have

to be first captured and then transported to aspecific slaughterhouse for inspection beforebeing killed, the process may make the finalproduct cost prohibitive.

15

Nat ive Herd Management

One of the pr incipal w ild species being man-aged for commercial exploitation in the West-ern United States is the American bison (buf-falo). Some h erds a re being raised on sem iaridrangeland, particularly on those lands whereprecipitation for forage production for cattle

is inadequate. The National Buffalo Associa-tion has som e 800 mem bers, of wh om ap pr oxi-mately 500 have herds. Ironically, the d emandfor buffalo meat from some supermarkets andrestaurants exceeds the available supply, main-ly because of the lack of both a centralized mar-keting system and uniform health inspectionregulations.

l6

Experts on game ranching abroad are dividedon the feasibility and advisability of introduc-ing foreign (exotic) species to U.S. domesticranges or expanding native species. Raymond

Dasmann, who helped set up one of the pio-neering game ranches in Rhodesia, believesthat wild ungulates (hoofed mammals), in somesettings, are capable of producing more meatthan domestic animals.

17Certain areas of scrub

vegetation in California, he estimates, couldyield up to 550 kilograms of meat per squarekilometer, or more than seven times the aver-age yield from domestic livestock. While theevidence is far from conclusive about the effi-ciencies of wild ungulates versus cattle in con-verting biomass to meat, advocates suggest itis sufficient to justify more research on m anag-

lsIbid.16Jud1Hebbring, Executive Director of the National BuffaloAssociation, July 1982, telephone interview.

17R. Dasmann, Biomass, Yield, and Economic Value of Wild

and Domestic Ungulates, Transactions of the 6th InternationalUnion of Game Biologists (London: Nature Conservancy), pp.227-233.

ing ungulates for meat production. Raised inproximity with domestic cattle, they do notnecessarily compete w ith the latter for vegeta-tion bu t instead actually may assist in maintain-ing a better balance of forage for both.

To help develop a U.S. market for game meat,Texas Tech University is evaluating mixedgroun d m eats comp rised of venison, pork, andbeef for palatability and nutrition .18 Generally,landow ners w ith large stocks of wildlife are notyet investing much capital and other resourcesinto its management. They are turning insteadto more intensive production of livestock andother primary activities.

l9

Other experts state that imported animalswould bring little, if any, ecological benefit.They suggest that such animals usually com-

pete with the range of domestic or native spe-cies already competing for forage and may car-ry parasites that can be transmitted to animalsor humans. One expert who holds this viewsuggested five ecological principles to considerin determining the efficacy of introducing anexotic animal to a new environment:

20

Every habitat tends to be full. Nature ab-hors a vacuum and there are few vacantspaces in natural communities. Physicalspace alone does not constitute a vacancyin the anim al commu nity. Sufficient vege-

tation, preferably not that favored by exist-ing animals, must exist to supp ort new ani-mals.Each species has a specific set of toler-

ances and must be placed in an environ-

ment to which it can adapt. Ecologica lhomologs are the best candidates for in-troduction to new lands. These are ani-mals with identical counterparts, frequent-ly found on another continent. They areoften look-alikes, have identical habits, and

IBRobert Warren, Assistant Professor, Department of Rangeand Wildlife Management, Texas Tech University, April 1982,telephone interview.

IEG.Bu rge r and J. Teer, Economic and Socioeconomic IssuesInfluencing Wildlife Management on Private Land (unpublishedpaper).James G. Teer, Introduction of Exotic Animals, W ild l ifeConservation Principles (Washington, D.C.: Wildlife Society,1979), pp. 173-175.


29/79

26 q Water-Related Technologies for Sustainable Agriculture in Arid/Semiarid Lands: Selected Foreign Experience

q

q

q

occupy similar habitats. The axis deer, forinstance, is a homolog to the white-taileddeer.Plast ic species have higher probabi l i t iesof succeeding . A plastic species is one that

is able to adapt to varying conditions. Sucha species often has large variations in itsappearance as indicated by large numbersof races. North American ring-neckedph easants, for example, have su btle differ-ences in coloration and other attributeswh ich r eflect the un derlying genetic varia-tion that makes them successful in a vari-ety of locations.I n t r o d u c e d s p e c i e s i n d i r e c t c o m p e t i t i o nfo r r e s o u r c e s w it h c l os e l y r e la t e d a n i -m als will fail . Although dislocations ofnative species can occur, they usually have

the advantage because they evolved inplace.T r a n s p la n t in g a n ima l s fr o m c o mp le x

communi t ies , such as the i r na tura l habi -

t a t , t o r e l a t ive ly s imp le commun i t i es ,

such as farms or game ranches , has beensuccess fu l . The significantly decreasedpresence of other types of life may give ex-otics an advantage in their new environ-ment.

This same expert suggests that the Sonoran andC hihua hua de se r t s o f t he sou thw e s te r n

United States and northwestern Mexico mightbe suitable for oryx, gazelle, or springbok. Butsuch mar ginal lands are few in N orth Am erica,

and good rangeland is almost fully u sed by d o-mestic animals.

21

Adv ocates of game ranching believe that thetechnological and ecological aspects of gameranching are favorable. They believe institu-

tional factors su ch as encroachm ent of w ildlifeon neighboring lands, lack of marketing mech-anisms, and health regulations are the mainbarriers to future development.

22The long-term

potential of game ranching, whether in theUnited States, Africa, or elsewhere, will de-pend on economic, social, and ecological con-ditions of the area.

If the p otential exists for eventually market-ing low-cost game meat in quantity, game meatcould p rovide a m ore significant sou rce of pro-tein than now exists. With more secure mar-

kets, game ranching operations that fit into theecology of the area in their use of the water,land, and vegetation also could provide onemore means of economic productivity fromarid and semiarid lands. As human exploita-tion destroys the natural habitats of wildanimals, their existence as a wild species isthreatened. This technology may have theadded benefit of helping to preserve them forfuture generations.

ZIJames G. Teer , Director, Welder Wildlife Foundation, April1982, telephone interview.ZZR