Poster prepared by Valbuena, D., Homann-Ken Tui, S., Duncan, A.J., Gérard, B., November 2011.

1. Crop residue tradeoffs in crop-livestock systems
factors, processes & implications
www.vslp.org
Background
Smallholders mixed crop‐livestock systems constitute most of the farming
enterprises in developing countries. In those systems, crop residues (CR) are
fundamental biomass resources used to achieve short‐term objectives (e.g.
animal feed, fuel and construction material) and mid‐term environmental
sustainability (e.g. soil conservation). Inadequate agricultural production to cover
an increasing demand for CR causes trade‐offs between these short and mid‐term
objectives.
This study aims at better understanding the tradeoffs in CR uses in contrasting
mixed systems across Sub‐Saharan Africa and Asia (Figure 1) to better target
technical, institutional and policy (TIP) options to improve livelihoods without
compromising long term system sustainability.
Research Questions
‐ What determines decisions about crop residue use?
‐ What is the impact of those decisions on livelihoods and system sustainability?
‐ What TIP options would enhance farm livelihood and environmental benefits?
Figure 1: Study regions and allocation along density gradients (after Valbuena et al. 20111). Regions with high human and livestock populations
Regions with intermediate human and livestock populations
sustainability Regions with relatively low human and livestock populations
TIP Conceptual Approach
drivers
CR trade‐offs are determined by their production, demand and farmers’
preferences2. In turn, CR production and demand are influenced by the spatial
livelihood institutions stakeholder and temporal interaction of factors and drivers of both social and ecological
consultation systems. Factors can be roughly grouped into 3 main interrelated components3,4
agro‐ecosystem (Figure 2):
Livelihood: set of strategies used by individuals and households to make or gain a
living, determined by their capability (e.g. capitals and networks).
Institutions: rules that humans employ to organize all forms of repetitive and
Figure 2: conceptual approach including factors, processes and implications
structured interactions including those with family, farmers, markets, government.
Agro‐ecosystem: spatial and temporal factors and interactions mediating
agricultural production and other ecosystem services in the short and long‐term,
Research Approach including biodiversity, carbon sequestration and water storage.
Complementary methodological approaches are being used to study CR trade‐
offs (Figure 3). Also, to study CR trade‐offs and suggest relevant TIP options, five Interactions of these factors largely determine major processes influencing CR
interconnected steps are considered:
trade‐offs, and hence the sustainability of agro‐ecosystems. Sustainability includes
the short‐ and long‐term viability, resilience and adaptability of farming systems in
‐ To describe CR use and trade‐offs, and link them with farmer livelihoods and response to current and future factors and drivers (e.g. climate change,
environmental effects, socio‐economic surveys on CR use, drivers, management, urbanization, market development).
perceptions and livelihood capitals were conducted at both village (N=96) and
household (N=1960) levels. These data will be analyzed by combining farm Potential implications of research to better target TIP options to improve CR
typologies econometrics, bio‐economic models and ex‐ante trade‐off analyses trade‐offs and related processes need to be explored with stakeholders, in
(livelihood analysis). particular farmers. Additionally, outcomes should target a broader audience,
including farmers, development organisations and policy‐makers.
‐ To understand how institutions influence CR trade‐offs, and potential options
(e.g. mapping value chain actors) and conducting focus groups discussions
(institutional analysis).
livelihood institutional
surveys
‐ To analyse how current and potential CR use and potential technical options analysis analysis
can affect the sustainability of the agro‐ecosystem, specifically soil characteristics
and agricultural production, we combine primary and secondary data collection primary data
with ex‐ante farm modelling tools (soil modelling). modelling focus groups synthesis
secondary data
‐ Research outputs will be discussed with different stakeholders to reassess
major problems in CR trade‐offs, as well as to better identify TIP options. This will soil R4D
lead to concept notes for future R4D projects. modelling proposals
‐ A final synthesis will integrate and link factors and processes to give an overall Figure 3: research approach
view on CR trade‐offs and potential TIP options for diverse sites and mixed
systems. This will represent the transformation and merging of SLP into the new References: 1 Valbuena D, Erenstein O, Homann Ken‐Tui S, et al. Under review. Conservation Agriculture in mixed crop‐livestock systems: Scoping
crop residue trade‐offs in Sub‐Saharan Africa and South Asia. Field Crops Research. 2 Erenstein O, Samaddar, N, Teufel, N, et al. 2011. The paradox
CGIAR Research Programmes. of limited maize stover use in India`s smallholder crop‐livestock systems. Experimental Agriculture, 1‐28. 3 Fraser E. 2007. Travelling in antique
lands: using past famines to develop an adaptability/resilience framework to identify food systems vulnerable to climate change. Climatic Change,
83:495‐514. 4 Plummer R, Armitage, D. 2007. A resilience‐based framework for evaluating adaptive co‐management: linking ecology, economics and
society in a complex world. Ecological Economics, 61:62‐74.
The SLP funded project entitled ‘Optimizing livelihood and environmental benefits from crop residues in smallholder
crop‐livestock systems in sub‐Saharan Africa and South Asia’ is conducted by CGIAR centres (IITA, ICRISAT, ILRI,
IWMI, CIMMYT and CIP) and WU Poster prepared by Valbuena D, Homann‐Ken Tui S, Duncan AJ, Gérard B. 2011. CGIAR