IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v134y2015icp36-47.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Trade-offs around the use of biomass for livestock feed and soil cover in dairy farms in the Alaotra lake region of Madagascar

Author

Listed:
  • Naudin, K.
  • Bruelle, G.
  • Salgado, P.
  • Penot, E.
  • Scopel, E.
  • Lubbers, M.
  • de Ridder, N.
  • Giller, K.E.

Abstract

Conservation agriculture (CA) is promoted as a promising technology to stabilize or improve crop yields in Africa and Madagascar. However, small-scale farmers face difficulties to retain soil cover, mainly because of competing uses for the biomass produced, especially to feed cattle. To explore the relation between dairy production and CA we developed an optimisation model at farm level. Our aim was to explore trade-offs between CA practices and the size of dairy cow herds. Our model includes three main components: the farm, the crops and the cattle herd. The optimisation was made on the total net income for three years. Biomass produced by cropping activities can either serve as mulch or to feed cows. We applied a constraint on the minimum soil cover % to keep at the end of each year for CA fields: from 30% to 95%. We simulated two scenarios of milk market: a small milk market with low forage price and an open milk market scenario with higher price of forage. Three prototypes of farms were simulated with different proportion and size of four kinds of field. These three prototypes were: medium-sized farm with hillsides dominating, medium-sized farm with paddy fields dominating and small-sized farm with hillsides. Changing the degree of soil cover to be retained on CA plots did not significantly modify the total net farm income. It was more strongly influenced by the characteristics of the milk market. In case of a limited milk market it was not profitable to have more than seven cows because the expenses were not compensated by animal production. When setting minimum soil cover to 30% then all of the simulated results include biomass coming from CA cropping system even with 12 cows/farm. Conversely when setting this constraint to 95%, above 6/7 cows/farm forage come only from conventional fields. In all of the situations simulated even with 6 cows, with the current and twice the price for forage, it was possible to keep at least 50% of soil cover on 30–60% of the total farm area. CA was not feasible for farms with no irrigated paddy fields or when forage fetched a high price regardless of the constraint for % of soil cover to be kept on CA fields. Overall, CA systems can be beneficial for dairy cow farmers due to the forage produced, although the milk market and thus the value of biomass for forage, has a strong influence on CA practice at field level.

Suggested Citation

  • Naudin, K. & Bruelle, G. & Salgado, P. & Penot, E. & Scopel, E. & Lubbers, M. & de Ridder, N. & Giller, K.E., 2015. "Trade-offs around the use of biomass for livestock feed and soil cover in dairy farms in the Alaotra lake region of Madagascar," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 36-47.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:134:y:2015:i:c:p:36-47
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2014.03.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X1400033X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agsy.2014.03.003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bruno Barbier, 1998. "Induced innovation and land degradation: Results from a bioeconomic model of a village in West Africa," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 19(1-2), pages 15-25, September.
    2. Jaleta, Moti & Kassie, Menale & Shiferaw, Bekele, 2013. "Tradeoffs in crop residue utilization in mixed crop–livestock systems and implications for conservation agriculture," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 96-105.
    3. Barbier, Bruno, 1998. "Induced innovation and land degradation: Results from a bioeconomic model of a village in West Africa," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 19(1-2), pages 15-25, September.
    4. Jourdain, Damien & Scopel, Eric & Affholder, Francois, 2001. "The Impact Of Conservation Tillage On The Productivity And Stability Of Maize Cropping Systems: A Case Study In Western Mexico," Economics Working Papers 46549, CIMMYT: International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center.
    5. Olaf Erenstein & William Thorpe, 2010. "Crop–livestock interactions along agro-ecological gradients: a meso-level analysis in the Indo-Gangetic Plains, India," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 12(5), pages 669-689, October.
    6. Pannell, David J. & Malcolm, Bill & Kingwell, Ross S., 2000. "Are we risking too much? Perspectives on risk in farm modelling," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 23(1), pages 69-78, June.
    7. Erenstein, Olaf, 2011. "Cropping systems and crop residue management in the Trans-Gangetic Plains: Issues and challenges for conservation agriculture from village surveys," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 104(1), pages 54-62, January.
    8. Alvarez, S. & Rufino, M.C. & Vayssières, J. & Salgado, P. & Tittonell, P. & Tillard, E. & Bocquier, F., 2014. "Whole-farm nitrogen cycling and intensification of crop-livestock systems in the highlands of Madagascar: An application of network analysis," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 25-37.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Turmel, Marie-Soleil & Speratti, Alicia & Baudron, Frédéric & Verhulst, Nele & Govaerts, Bram, 2015. "Crop residue management and soil health: A systems analysis," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 6-16.
    2. Brosseau, Antoine & Saito, Kazuki & van Oort, Pepijn A.J. & Diagne, Mandiaye & Valbuena, Diego & Groot, Jeroen C.J., 2021. "Exploring opportunities for diversification of smallholders' rice-based farming systems in the Senegal River Valley," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    3. Tittonell, Pablo & Gérard, Bruno & Erenstein, Olaf, 2015. "Tradeoffs around crop residue biomass in smallholder crop-livestock systems – What’s next?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 119-128.
    4. Razafimahatratra, Hanitriniaina Mamy & Bignebat, Céline & David-Benz, Hélène & Bélières, Jean-François & Penot, Eric, 2021. "Tryout and (Dis)adoption of conservation agriculture. Evidence from Western Madagascar," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tittonell, Pablo & Gérard, Bruno & Erenstein, Olaf, 2015. "Tradeoffs around crop residue biomass in smallholder crop-livestock systems – What’s next?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 119-128.
    2. Barbier, Bruno & Bergeron, Gilles, 2001. "Natural resource management in the hillsides of Honduras: bioeconomic modeling at the micro-watershed level," Research reports 123, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    3. Ponsioen, Thomas C. & Hengsdijk, Huib & Wolf, Joost & van Ittersum, Martin K. & Rotter, Reimund P. & Son, Tran Thuc & Laborte, Alice G., 2006. "TechnoGIN, a tool for exploring and evaluating resource use efficiency of cropping systems in East and Southeast Asia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 87(1), pages 80-100, January.
    4. Seebens, Holger, 2008. "One size fits all? Female Headed Households, Income Risk, and Access to Resources," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 43609, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Paswel P. Marenya & Menale Kassie & Moti Jaleta & Dil Bahadur Rahut & Olaf Erenstein, 2017. "Predicting minimum tillage adoption among smallholder farmers using micro-level and policy variables," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 5(1), pages 1-22, December.
    6. Pant, Laxmi Prasad, 2016. "Paradox of mainstreaming agroecology for regional and rural food security in developing countries," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 305-316.
    7. Alary, V. & Nefzaoui, A. & Jemaa, M. Ben, 2007. "Promoting the adoption of natural resource management technology in arid and semi-arid areas: Modelling the impact of spineless cactus in alley cropping in Central Tunisia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 573-585, May.
    8. Mahamadou Belem & Sansa Youl & Raphael Manlay & Bruno Barbier & Christophe Lepage, 2000. "MIROT: A multi-Agent System Model for the Simulation of the Dynamics of Carbon Resources of West-African Village Territories," Regional and Urban Modeling 283600008, EcoMod.
    9. Gray, Leslie C. & Kevane, Michael, 2001. "Evolving Tenure Rights and Agricultural Intensification in Southwestern Burkina Faso," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 573-587, April.
    10. Berkhout, E.D. & Schipper, R.A. & Van Keulen, H. & Coulibaly, O., 2011. "Heterogeneity in farmers' production decisions and its impact on soil nutrient use: Results and implications from northern Nigeria," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 104(1), pages 63-74, January.
    11. Kuiper, Marijke H. & Meijerink, Gerdien W. & Eaton, Derek J.F., 2006. "Rural Livelihoods: Interplay Between Farm Activities, Non-farm Activities and the Resource Base," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25442, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Berger, Thomas & Schreinemachers, Pepijn, 2006. "From Bioeconomic Farm Models to Multi-Agent Systems: Challenges for Parameterization and Validation," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25577, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Kazianga, Harounan & Masters, William A., 2002. "Investing in soils: field bunds and microcatchments in Burkina Faso," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(3), pages 571-591, July.
    14. Berger, Thomas & Schreinemachers, Pepijn & Woelcke, Johannes, 2006. "Multi-agent simulation for the targeting of development policies in less-favored areas," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 28-43, April.
    15. Jules R Siedenburg, "undated". "Local Knowledge and Natural Resource Management in a Peasant Farming Community Facing Rapid Change: A Critical Examination," QEH Working Papers qehwps166, Queen Elizabeth House, University of Oxford.
    16. Mirzabaev, Alisher & Strokov, Anton & Krasilnikov, Pavel, 2023. "The impact of land degradation on agricultural profits and implications for poverty reduction in Central Asia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    17. Anna Härri & Jarkko Levänen & Katariina Koistinen, 2020. "Marginalized Small-Scale Farmers as Actors in Just Circular-Economy Transitions: Exploring Opportunities to Circulate Crop Residue as Raw Material in India," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-18, December.
    18. S. Nedumaran & Beleke Shiferaw & M. Bantilan & K. Palanisami & Suhas Wani, 2014. "Bioeconomic modeling of farm household decisions for ex-ante impact assessment of integrated watershed development programs in semi-arid India," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 257-286, April.
    19. Teddie Nakhumwa & Rashid Hassan, 2012. "Optimal Management of Soil Quality Stocks and Long-Term Consequences of Land Degradation for Smallholder Farmers in Malawi," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 52(3), pages 415-433, July.
    20. Vitale, Jeffrey D. & Lee, John G., 2005. "Land Degradation in the Sahel: An Application of Biophysical Modeling in the Optimal Control Setting," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19494, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:134:y:2015:i:c:p:36-47. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.