IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v134y2015icp97-106.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multi-scale trade-off analysis of cereal residue use for livestock feeding vs. soil mulching in the Mid-Zambezi Valley, Zimbabwe

Author

Listed:
  • Baudron, Frédéric
  • Delmotte, Sylvestre
  • Corbeels, Marc
  • Herrera, Juan M.
  • Tittonell, Pablo

Abstract

Cereal residues represent a major resource for livestock feeding during the dry season in southern Africa. When kept on the soil surface instead of feeding them to livestock, crop residues can contribute to increasing soil fertility and maintaining crop productivity in the short- and the long-term. We explored these trade-offs for smallholder cotton–sorghum farming systems in the semi-arid Zambezi Valley, northern Zimbabwe. The analysis was done using simulation models at three scales, the plot, the farm and the territory, to simulate the effects of different sorghum residue allocations to livestock feeding vs. soil mulching, in combination with different application rates of mineral nitrogen fertilizer on crop productivity. The plot-scale simulations suggest that without N fertilization soil mulching has a positive effect on cotton yields only if small quantities of sorghum residues are used as mulch (average cotton yields of 2.24±0.41kgha−1 with a mulch of 100kgha−1 vs. 1.91±0.29kgha−1 without mulch). Greater quantities of mulch have a negative effect on cotton yield without N fertilization due to N immobilization in the soil microbial biomass. With applications of 100kgNha−1, quantities of mulch up to 3tha−1 have no negative effect on cotton yield. Results at farm-scale highlight the fundamental role of livestock as a source of traction, and the need to feed a greater proportion of sorghum residues to livestock as herd and farm sizes increase. Farmers with no livestock attained maximum crop production when 100% of their sorghum residue remained in the field, as they do not have access to cattle manure. The optimum fraction of crop residue to be retained in the fields for maximum farm crop production varied for farmers with 2 or less heads of cattle (80% retention), with 2–3 heads (60–80%), with 4 or more heads (40–60%). At the scale of the entire territory, total cotton and sorghum production increased with the density of cattle, at the expense of soil mulching with crop residues. The results of our simulations suggest that (i) the optimum level of residue retention depends on the scale at which trade-offs are analyzed; (ii) the retention of all of the crop residue as mulch appears unrealistic and undesirable in farming systems that rely on livestock for traction; and (iii) crop residue mulching could be made more attractive to farmers by paying due attention to balancing C to N ratios in the soil and by promoting small-scale mechanization to replace animal traction.

Suggested Citation

  • Baudron, Frédéric & Delmotte, Sylvestre & Corbeels, Marc & Herrera, Juan M. & Tittonell, Pablo, 2015. "Multi-scale trade-off analysis of cereal residue use for livestock feeding vs. soil mulching in the Mid-Zambezi Valley, Zimbabwe," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 97-106.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:134:y:2015:i:c:p:97-106
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2014.03.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X14000328
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agsy.2014.03.002?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. Fr�d�ric Baudron & Jens A. Andersson & Marc Corbeels & Ken E. Giller, 2012. "Failing to Yield? Ploughs, Conservation Agriculture and the Problem of Agricultural Intensification: An Example from the Zambezi Valley, Zimbabwe," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(3), pages 393-412, March.
    2. Belem, Mahamadou & Manlay, Raphaël J. & Müller, Jean-Pierre & Chotte, Jean-Luc, 2011. "CaTMAS: A multi-agent model for simulating the dynamics of carbon resources of West African villages," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 222(20), pages 3651-3661.
    3. Chikowo, R. & Corbeels, M. & Tittonell, P. & Vanlauwe, B. & Whitbread, A. & Giller, K.E., 2008. "Aggregating field-scale knowledge into farm-scale models of African smallholder systems: Summary functions to simulate crop production using APSIM," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 97(3), pages 151-166, June.
    4. Rufino, M.C. & Dury, J. & Tittonell, P. & van Wijk, M.T. & Herrero, M. & Zingore, S. & Mapfumo, P. & Giller, K.E., 2011. "Competing use of organic resources, village-level interactions between farm types and climate variability in a communal area of NE Zimbabwe," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 104(2), pages 175-190, February.
    5. Manlay, Raphael J. & Ickowicz, Alexandre & Masse, Dominique & Feller, Christian & Richard, Didier, 2004. "Spatial carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus budget in a village of the West African savanna--II. Element flows and functioning of a mixed-farming system," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 79(1), pages 83-107, January.
    6. Haggblade, Steven & Tembo, Gelson, 2003. "Conservation farming in Zambia:," EPTD discussion papers 108, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    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. Wafa Ameur & Aymen Frija & Mohamed Arbi Abdeladhim & Chokri Thabet, 2021. "Patterns of Use of Residue Biomass in Cereal–Sheep Production Systems of North Africa: Case of Tunisia," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-18, June.
    2. Luedeling, Eike & Smethurst, Philip J. & Baudron, Frédéric & Bayala, Jules & Huth, Neil I. & van Noordwijk, Meine & Ong, Chin K. & Mulia, Rachmat & Lusiana, Betha & Muthuri, Catherine & Sinclair, Ferg, 2016. "Field-scale modeling of tree–crop interactions: Challenges and development needs," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 51-69.
    3. Assogba, Gildas G.C. & Adam, Myriam & Berre, David & Descheemaeker, Katrien, 2022. "Managing biomass in semi-arid Burkina Faso: Strategies and levers for better crop and livestock production in contrasted farm systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    4. 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.
    5. Hajer Guesmi & Cyrine Darej & Piebiep Goufo & Salah Ben Youssef & Mohamed Chakroun & Hichem Ben Salem & Henrique Trindade & Nizar Moujahed, 2022. "Stubble Quality of Wheat Grown under No-Tillage and Conventional Tillage Systems, and Effects of Stubble on the Fermentation Profile of Grazing Ewes’ Ruminal Fluid," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-12, April.
    6. Meine van Noordwijk & Erika Speelman & Gert Jan Hofstede & Ai Farida & Ali Yansyah Abdurrahim & Andrew Miccolis & Arief Lukman Hakim & Charles Nduhiu Wamucii & Elisabeth Lagneaux & Federico Andreotti , 2020. "Sustainable Agroforestry Landscape Management: Changing the Game," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-38, July.
    7. Christian Thierfelder & Pauline Chivenge & Walter Mupangwa & Todd S. Rosenstock & Christine Lamanna & Joseph X. Eyre, 2017. "How climate-smart is conservation agriculture (CA)? – its potential to deliver on adaptation, mitigation and productivity on smallholder farms in southern Africa," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 9(3), pages 537-560, June.
    8. 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.

    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. Berre, D. & Diarisso, T. & Andrieu, N. & Le Page, C. & Corbeels, M., 2021. "Biomass flows in an agro-pastoral village in West-Africa: Who benefits from crop residue mulching?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    2. Valbuena, Diego & Tui, Sabine Homann-Kee & Erenstein, Olaf & Teufel, Nils & Duncan, Alan & Abdoulaye, Tahirou & Swain, Braja & Mekonnen, Kindu & Germaine, Ibro & Gérard, Bruno, 2015. "Identifying determinants, pressures and trade-offs of crop residue use in mixed smallholder farms in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 107-118.
    3. Andrieu, N. & Vayssières, J. & Corbeels, M. & Blanchard, M. & Vall, E. & Tittonell, P., 2015. "From farm scale synergies to village scale trade-offs: Cereal crop residues use in an agro-pastoral system of the Sudanian zone of Burkina Faso," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 84-96.
    4. Grabowski, Philip P. & Kerr, John M. & Haggblade, Steven & Kabwe, Stephen, 2014. "Determinants of Adoption of Minimum Tillage by Cotton Farmers in Eastern Zambia," Food Security Collaborative Working Papers 188567, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    5. Tschirley, David L. & Kabwe, Stephen, 2007. "Cotton in Zambia: 2007 Assessment of its Organization, Performance, Current Policy Initiatives, and Challenges for the Future," Food Security Collaborative Working Papers 54485, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    6. Conor Carney & Monica Harber Carney, 2018. "Impact of soil conservation adoption on intra‐household allocations in Zambia," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(4), pages 1390-1408, November.
    7. Ayala Wineman, 2016. "Multidimensional Household Food Security Measurement in Rural Zambia," Agrekon, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(3), pages 278-301, July.
    8. Kabwe, Stephen & Donovan, Cynthia & Samazaka, David, 2007. "Assessment of the Farm Level Financial Profitability of the Magoye RipperiIn Maize and Cotton Production in Southern and Eastern Provinces," Food Security Collaborative Working Papers 54482, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    9. Leroux, L. & Falconnier, G.N. & Diouf, A.A. & Ndao, B. & Gbodjo, J.E. & Tall, L. & Balde, A.A. & Clermont-Dauphin, C. & Bégué, A. & Affholder, F. & Roupsard, O., 2020. "Using remote sensing to assess the effect of trees on millet yield in complex parklands of Central Senegal," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    10. Tarisayi Pedzisa & Lovemore Rugube & Alex Winter-Nelson & Kathy Baylis & Kizito Mazvimavi, 2015. "The Intensity of adoption of Conservation agriculture by smallholder farmers in Zimbabwe," Agrekon, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(3), pages 1-22, September.
    11. Lucio Cecchini & Francesco Romagnoli & Massimo Chiorri & Biancamaria Torquati, 2023. "Eco-Efficiency and Its Determinants: The Case of the Italian Beef Cattle Sector," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-18, May.
    12. Rufino, M.C. & Dury, J. & Tittonell, P. & van Wijk, M.T. & Herrero, M. & Zingore, S. & Mapfumo, P. & Giller, K.E., 2011. "Competing use of organic resources, village-level interactions between farm types and climate variability in a communal area of NE Zimbabwe," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 104(2), pages 175-190, February.
    13. Giller, Ken E. & Andersson, Jens & Delaune, Thomas & Silva, João Vasco & Descheemaeker, Katrien & van de Ven, Gerrie & Schut, Antonius G.T. & van Wijk, Mark & Hammond, Jim & Hochman, Zvi & Taulya, God, 2022. "IFAD Research Series 83: The future of farming: who will produce our food?," IFAD Research Series 322005, International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).
    14. Lalani, Baqir & Aminpour, Payam & Gray, Steven & Williams, Meredith & Büchi, Lucie & Haggar, Jeremy & Grabowski, Philip & Dambiro, José, 2021. "Mapping farmer perceptions, Conservation Agriculture practices and on-farm measurements: The role of systems thinking in the process of adoption," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    15. Haggblade, Steven & Tembo, Gelson, 2003. "Development, Diffusion and Impact of Conservation Farming in Zambia," Food Security Collaborative Working Papers 54464, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    16. Belem, Mahamadou & Manlay, Raphaël J. & Müller, Jean-Pierre & Chotte, Jean-Luc, 2011. "CaTMAS: A multi-agent model for simulating the dynamics of carbon resources of West African villages," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 222(20), pages 3651-3661.
    17. Jindo, Keiji & Schut, Antonius G.T. & Langeveld, Johannes W.A., 2020. "Sustainable intensification in Western Kenya: Who will benefit?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    18. Nweke, Felix, 2004. "New challenges in the cassava transformation in Nigeria and Ghana:," EPTD discussion papers 118, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    19. Tschirley, David L. & Zulu, Ballard & Shaffer, James D., 2004. "Cotton in Zambia: An Assessment of its Organization, Performance, Current Policy Initiatives, and Challenges for the Future," Food Security Collaborative Working Papers 54467, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    20. 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.

    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:97-106. 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.