Integrating crops and livestock for improved food security and livelihoods in rural Zimbabwe

Overview of the ZimCLIFS ProjectG.J. Manyawu, S. Moyo, S. Homann – Kee Tui, I. Nyagumbo, A.

van Rooyen and W. Mupangwa

Section A

BACKGROUND

(Project duration June 2012 –May 2015)

Crop-livestock integration: Multiple interactions and benefits

Household

Crop Production Livestock Production

Goats CattleCereals Legumes Food security

On

farm

Value chains

Off farm income

Manure + draft powerCrop residues

Cash reinvestments

+ Food security+ Income+Livelihoods

Conventional approach to agricultural research

Technologies

Source: Duncan, 2011

SECTION B

PROJECT OBJECTIVES

and

APPROACH

Specific objectives of the ZimCLIFS Project

To increase the productivity of SH crop-livestock households by identifying and adapting appropriate technologies and associated management practices

To improve farmers’ access to resources, technologies, information and markets by characterising and strengthening crop and livestock value chains

increase the skills of research and extension staff and agribusiness in the design and implementation of integrated farming systems research for development programs in Zimbabwe

ZimCLIFS project sites in Zimbabwe

Project approach – summary

ZimCLIFS aims to assist SH farmers

to intensify and integrate crop-

livestock production systems through

the use of Innovation Platforms (a

stakeholder approach) to promote the

adoption of appropriate

technologies and value chain

innovations

Section C

The IP Process and farming systems

approach

• Uncovering a high potential for groundnuts in Nkayi– High market potential– Food, feed and organic fertilizer– Women’s crop

Participatory technology selection, development and evaluation (Example)

Commodities Potential for profitability

Potential for large scale adoption

Potential for food security

1. Cattle +++ +++ +++2. Groundnuts +++ ++ ++3. Goats + +++ +++4. Maize + +++ +++5. Sorghum ++ + +++

Farming systems: Complex, diverse, dynamiccommunity visions to guide interventions

Nkayi: crop-livestock intensification

Gwanda: livestock market-led development

Section D

TECHONOLOGIES TESTED

• Maize and groundnuts are the most preferred crops when rainfall is both sufficient and insufficient

• 97.5 % grow hybrid seed maize!!

Source Girma, 2013, Baseline survey

It’s a maize-groundnut cropping system!!!%

% re

spon

dent

s %

% re

spon

dent

s

Rainfall sufficient/insufficient -1st Choice crop= Maize

Rainfall insufficient -2nd Choice crop= groundnuts

• Basin planting

• Jab-planter

• AT Direct seeder

• Hoe-planter

CA techniques tested for different farmer typologies

• Magoye ripper

CA and residue cover provision• Provision of permanent residue cover is one of the three

principles upon which Conservation Agriculture is hinged.

• Competition between using residues as cattle feed or leaving it for soil cover provision remains a lively discussion point among CA researchers (Valbuena et al 2012); Baudron, et al., 2014)

• It is recommended farmers provide permanent residue cover and use at least 30% residue cover or 2-3t/ha by time of planting

• Zim CLIFs seeks to enable co-existence of CA and livestock through addressing Food, Feed and the Soil

Residue types by ward!(results from a residue survey, April 2014)

Hyparrhenia Thatch grass most common! Maize only dominant in ward 28 Murehwa

Hyparrhenia thatch grass the most commonly used residue type!

When are farmers applying residues?

Murehwa (% farmers) Goromonzi (% farmers)Time of application of residues Ward 4 Ward 11 Ward 14 Ward 28 Ward 4 Ward 11

Before planting - 8 - 8 - 17

At Planting 8 - - 8 - -After planting 75 67 75 84 75 83

No mulch applied 17 25 25 - 25 -

Mostly > 70% well after planting!Labour cited as the most important reason for applying them late!

Dual-purpose (Pulse) legume technologies

1. Testing and demonstration of pulse / forage legumes

1.1 Use of Rhizobium inoculants

1. 2 Intercropping staple cereal –legume for…

1.3 Intercropping with / without CA. for…

1.4 Ann. / bi-annnual legumes with/out CA as ley crop to …

1.5 Siratro (M. atropurpreum), Silverleaf Desmodium (D. uncinatum) to reinforce native pasture and provide quality feed

Forage Legume technologies

2. Promotion of forage conservation

2.1 Lablab purpureus2.2 Maize / sorghum silages2.3 Mixed crop (cereal-legume) silages

Forage conservation

3. Dry season feeding strategies for beef, dairy cattle, goats.

3.1 Legume-based protein rations for beef and goat fattening.

3.2 Legume-based protein ratios for dairy cattle

Livestock feeding demonstrations

Section E

C-L Integration Research

(Simulation Modeling)

Reducing the cost of milk production through the use of home-grown feeds Example

It actually cost less to produce milk using home grown forages

A 50Kg bag of commercial supplement 16% CP costs between $22 - $25

A 50Kg bag of Mucuna based diet 16%CP cost about $13

On average, It costs a smallholder farmer $0.46 to produce a litre of milk using commercial concentrates

It can cost him $0.26 to produce a litre using home-mixed Mucuna-maize based rations.

Plus, there are other of using legumes: - food, BNF, income form excesses sold to the market.

Reducing the cost of beef production through the use of home-grown feeds.

It actually cost less to produce beef using home-grown forages compared to using commercial concentrates

A 50Kg bag of beef concentrate 32.6% CP costs between $17 - $20

A 50Kg bag of Mucuna-maize based beef fattening ration (14%CP) costs about $14.60

It costs an average $1.70 to produce a kilogram of beef using commercial concentrates.

It can cost $1.10 to produce 1.0 kg of beef using home-mixed Mucuna-maize-based rations

Economic analysis

Expected Sales Control(Veld)

Mucuna Lablab+ cowpea

Commercial Conc.

Cattle Sale (3 per trt) 947.30 1,270.43 1,234.50 1,175.39Expenditure

Feed 0.00 177.99 196.09 135.64

Init. Cattle Cost 883.35 798.68 763.53 816.27

Labour 60.00 20.00 20.00 20.00Veterinary Cost 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00Total Cost 949.35 1002.66 985.62 977.92

Gross Margin/(Loss) (2.06) 267.77 248.88 197.48

Sources of income for Chikwaka households (US$)

Source

Household typology

Resource constrained Average Wealthy

Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev.Dairy GM Beef GM Goat GM Poultry GM Pigs GM Crops GM  Total farm GM

-221  -20  -30 266  -5 252  345

1794  333  58 1163  24  813  2872

118 -530  -54  -10  65  502   221

1940  903  159  729  314  819  2884

25  400  24 2315  -495  749  2313

4408  807  45 2827 1565 1374 6375

Results from Apsim + IAT simulation modeling

• Only 22% of farmers have livelihoods based on dairy farming.

• Maize-Mucuna rotation had the highest yields (cf. Lablab and cowpeas).

• Household food security & economic viability in dairying met by 0.55 ha of Maize (0.96 tons/ha) and 0.95 ha of mucuna (4.4 tons/ha).

Section D

LINKING FARMERS TO MARKETS

Value Chain Analysis – Beef in Goromonzi

Goromonzi Beef Cattle value Chain Key Missing link Existing link

Abattoirs Surrey, Koala Montana, Carswell

Farmers

Middlemen

Consumers (Harare, Goromonzi, Murehwa, Mutoko, Hatcliff)

Butcheries Juru , Mverechena

Supermarkets Hotels, Restaurants Fast Foods outlets

Inputs

Support Services

Quality standards Vet & Livestock Department Police, village head

Transport

Financial Services

Extension AGRITEX, NGOs e.g. CTDT, CADS

Research CIMMYT, ILRI DRSS

Functions

Retailing

Wholesaler

Collection / Broker

Production

Input Supply

Exports

Auction

Imports Botswana, SA

$$$!!

What is limiting SH farmers from entering the local supermarket chains?

• Poor access to market information,

• little knowledge on marketing of

livestock,

• slow technology adoption

• inferior infrastructure in rural areas.

• Risk evasiveness / Fear Factor

• Poor husbandry practices

• Neglecting niche markets

P

Marketing gives her

recognition & dignity

!!!

Photos supplied by A. van Royen (ICRISAT) and H. Katjuonqua (ILRI)

Section D

WAY FORWARD

Technologies ready for out-scaling

1. Conservation Agriculture

a. Need to finalize task of identifying alternative mulch types b. Increasing use of herbicide c. Increasing use of mechanized CA esp. ripping.

2. Cereal – legume rotation for soil improvement & fodder

a. Available legumes – Groundnut, Velvet bean, Lablab purpureus, cowpeas

b. Promoting appropriate behavioral change towards cash farming as farmers begin to view livestock as a source of income.

c. Opportunity for marketing of fodder between farmers

3. Tropical forage legume seed production and marketing

Acknowledgements

• This work is financed by ACIAR

• It contributes to the CGIAR Research

Program on:

CRP 1.1 (Dryland Systems) :-

o SRT 2 “reduce vulnerability &

manage risk”

o SRT 3 “sustainable intensification”

CRP 2 (Policies, Institutions and Markets) :–

o Theme 3 “Linking SH producers to

markets.

CRP 3.2 (SI 2 “SI &income” and 15 “ x2 Mz”)

CRP 3.7 (Livestock & fish) – goat, Milk VCs