IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v145y2016icp64-75.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Meat and milk production scenarios and the associated land footprint in Kenya

Author

Listed:
  • Bosire, Caroline K.
  • Krol, Maarten S.
  • Mekonnen, Mesfin M.
  • Ogutu, Joseph O.
  • de Leeuw, Jan
  • Lannerstad, Mats
  • Hoekstra, Arjen Y.

Abstract

Increasing demands for meat and milk in developing countries and the associated production growth are driving the expansion of agriculture at the expense of environmental conservation and other land uses. While considerable attention has been directed at improving crop yields to alleviate the pressure on land, there has been far less attention on the implications of the expected intensification of livestock production. Here, we present and analyse the land availability and land footprints of livestock intensification for five scenarios representing various degrees of intensification of meat and milk production by cattle, sheep, goats and camels in arid, semi-arid and humid production systems in Kenya. The first three scenarios are defined by increasing levels of input and management, ranging from low (scenario S1), intermediate (S2) to high (S3) input feed crop cultivation and livestock production. Reference scenario S1 has production practices and output of meat and milk similar to current production practices. In scenarios S2 and S3, the total land used for livestock production remains the same as in S1. Two additional scenarios, S4 and S5, explore opportunities for lessening environmental pressure through reduction of the land footprint of meat and milk production. For each scenario, we quantify the potential availability of grassland and cropland for meat and milk production by cattle, sheep, goats and camel in the arid, semi-arid and humid production systems. A resource use indicator, land footprint (ha), is used to assess changes in land use associated with livestock production. We estimate that the potential increase in production due to intensification from scenario S1 to S2 is 51% for milk and 71% for meat. The potential increase due to improving production from scenario S1 to S3 is 80% for milk and 113% for meat. The area of grazing land, as a percentage of the total potentially available grazing land, decreases from 10% to 6% as productivity increases from scenario S1 to S5. Cropland usage increases from 4% in scenario S1 to 11% in scenario S5. Reduced land demand in scenarios S4 and S5 indicates the possibility that intensification may help reduce the pressure on land and hence promote environmental conservation. Overall, the results suggest that it is possible to increase production to meet increasing demands for meat and milk while also gaining land for environmental conservation through intensification. Realizing the potential presented by the intensification scenarios will be contingent upon successfully establishing and operationalizing enabling policies, institutional arrangements and markets and ensuring that relevant information, services, inputs, and other essential requirements are available, accessible and affordable to herders and farmers.

Suggested Citation

  • Bosire, Caroline K. & Krol, Maarten S. & Mekonnen, Mesfin M. & Ogutu, Joseph O. & de Leeuw, Jan & Lannerstad, Mats & Hoekstra, Arjen Y., 2016. "Meat and milk production scenarios and the associated land footprint in Kenya," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 64-75.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:145:y:2016:i:c:p:64-75
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2016.03.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X16300415
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.03.003?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. Marra, Michele & Pannell, David J. & Abadi Ghadim, Amir, 2003. "The economics of risk, uncertainty and learning in the adoption of new agricultural technologies: where are we on the learning curve?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 75(2-3), pages 215-234.
    2. Sutherland, A. J. & Irungu, J. W. & Kang'ara, J. & Muthamia, J. & Ouma, J., 1999. "Household food security in semi-arid Africa--the contribution of participatory adaptive research and development to rural livelihoods in Eastern Kenya," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 363-390, August.
    3. Klapwijk, C.J. & Bucagu, C. & van Wijk, M.T. & Udo, H.M.J. & Vanlauwe, B. & Munyanziza, E. & Giller, K.E., 2014. "The ‘One cow per poor family’ programme: Current and potential fodder availability within smallholder farming systems in southwest Rwanda," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 11-22.
    4. Angelsen, Arild, 1995. "Shifting cultivation and "deforestation": A study from Indonesia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 23(10), pages 1713-1729, October.
    5. David Tilman & Kenneth G. Cassman & Pamela A. Matson & Rosamond Naylor & Stephen Polasky, 2002. "Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices," Nature, Nature, vol. 418(6898), pages 671-677, August.
    6. Upton, Martin, 2004. "The Role of Livestock in Economic Development and Poverty Reduction," PPLPI Working Papers 23783, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative.
    7. Claessens, L. & Stoorvogel, J.J. & Antle, J.M., 2008. "Ex ante assessment of dual-purpose sweet potato in the crop-livestock system of western Kenya: A minimum-data approach," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 99(1), pages 13-22, December.
    8. Ngigi, S. N., 2002. "Review of irrigation development in Kenya," IWMI Books, Reports H030832, International Water Management Institute.
    9. Headey, Derek D. & Jayne, T.S., 2014. "Adaptation to land constraints: Is Africa different?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 18-33.
    10. Bouwman, A.F. & Van der Hoek, K.W. & Eickhout, B. & Soenario, I., 2005. "Exploring changes in world ruminant production systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 84(2), pages 121-153, May.
    11. Wirsenius, Stefan & Azar, Christian & Berndes, Göran, 2010. "How much land is needed for global food production under scenarios of dietary changes and livestock productivity increases in 2030?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(9), pages 621-638, November.
    12. Charles F. Nicholson & Philip K. Thornton & Rahab W. Muinga, 2004. "Household‐level Impacts of Dairy Cow Ownership in Coastal Kenya," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(2), pages 175-195, July.
    13. Stephen Biggs, 2007. "Building on the positive: an actor innovation systems approach to finding and promoting pro poor natural resources institutional and technical innovations," International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 6(2), pages 144-164.
    14. Robinson, Lance W. & Ericksen, Polly J. & Chesterman, Sabrina & Worden, Jeffrey S., 2015. "Sustainable intensification in drylands: What resilience and vulnerability can tell us," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 133-140.
    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. Tian, Xu & Bruckner, Martin & Geng, Yong & Bleischwitz, Raimund, 2019. "Trends and driving forces of China’s virtual land consumption and trade," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    2. Abdul Rehman & Zhang Deyuan & Abbas Ali Chandio, 2019. "Contribution of Beef, Mutton, and Poultry Meat Production to the Agricultural Gross Domestic Product of Pakistan Using an Autoregressive Distributed Lag Bounds Testing Approach," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(3), pages 21582440198, September.
    3. Maria-Jose Ibarrola-Rivas & Sanderine Nonhebel, 2019. "Does Mexico Have Enough Land to Fulfill Future Needs for the Consumption of Animal Products?," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-21, September.

    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. Aude Ridier & Caroline Roussy & Karim Chaib, 2021. "Adoption of crop diversification by specialized grain farmers in south-western France: evidence from a choice-modelling experiment," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 265-283, September.
    2. Soler, Louis-Georges & Thomas, Alban, 2020. "Is there a win-win scenario with both limited beef production and reduced beef consumption?," TSE Working Papers 20-1067, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    3. Dutilly, Céline & Alary, Véronique & Bonnet, Pascal & Lesnoff, Matthieu & Fandamu, Paul & de Haan, Cees, 2020. "Multi-scale assessment of the livestock sector for policy design in Zambia," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 401-418.
    4. Peters, Christian J. & Picardy, Jamie A. & Darrouzet-Nardi, Amelia & Griffin, Timothy S., 2014. "Feed conversions, ration compositions, and land use efficiencies of major livestock products in U.S. agricultural systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 35-43.
    5. Wirsenius, Stefan & Azar, Christian & Berndes, Göran, 2010. "How much land is needed for global food production under scenarios of dietary changes and livestock productivity increases in 2030?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(9), pages 621-638, November.
    6. Erqi Xu & Hongqi Zhang & Yang Yang & Ying Zhang, 2014. "Integrating a Spatially Explicit Tradeoff Analysis for Sustainable Land Use Optimal Allocation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(12), pages 1-22, December.
    7. Nilsson, Pia & Backman, Mikaela & Bjerke, Lina & Maniriho, Aristide, 2019. "One cow per poor family: Effects on the growth of consumption and crop production," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 1-12.
    8. Kathrin Hasler & Hans-Werner Olfs & Onno Omta & Stefanie Bröring, 2017. "Drivers for the Adoption of Different Eco-Innovation Types in the Fertilizer Sector: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-22, November.
    9. Vaiknoras, Kate & Kiker, Greg & Nkonya, Ephraim & Morgan, Savannah & Beckman, Jayson & Johnson, Michael E. & Ivanic, Maros, 2024. "The Effect of Climate Change on Herbaceous Biomass and Implications for Global Cattle Production," Economic Research Report 347200, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    10. Havlik, Petr & Herrero, Mario & Mosnier, Aline & Obersteiner, Michael & Schmid, Erwin & Fuss, Sabine & Schneider, Uwe A., 2011. "Production system based global livestock sector modeling: Good news for the future," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114552, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Vine Mutyasira & Dana Hoag & Dustin L. Pendell & Dale T. Manning, 2018. "Is Sustainable Intensification Possible? Evidence from Ethiopia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-13, November.
    12. Mutyasira, Vine & Hoag, Dana & Pendell, Dustin & Manning, Dale T. & Berhe, Melaku, 2018. "Assessing the relative sustainability of smallholder farming systems in Ethiopian highlands," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 83-91.
    13. Asci, Serhat & Borisova, Tatiana & VanSickle, John J., 2015. "Role of economics in developing fertilizer best management practices," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 251-261.
    14. Elisa Morri & Riccardo Santolini, 2021. "Ecosystem Services Valuation for the Sustainable Land Use Management by Nature-Based Solution (NbS) in the Common Agricultural Policy Actions: A Case Study on the Foglia River Basin (Marche Region, It," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-23, December.
    15. Giuseppe Maggio & Marina Mastrorillo & Nicholas J. Sitko, 2022. "Adapting to High Temperatures: Effect of Farm Practices and Their Adoption Duration on Total Value of Crop Production in Uganda," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(1), pages 385-403, January.
    16. Liu, Duan & Tang, Runcheng & Xie, Jun & Tian, Jingjing & Shi, Rui & Zhang, Kai, 2020. "Valuation of ecosystem services of rice–fish coculture systems in Ruyuan County, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    17. Skutsch, Margaret & Turnhout, Esther, 2020. "REDD+: If communities are the solution, what is the problem?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    18. Greiner, Romy & Miller, Owen & Patterson, Louisa, 2008. "The role of grazier motivations and risk attitudes in the adoption of grazing best management practices," 2008 Conference (52nd), February 5-8, 2008, Canberra, Australia 6002, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    19. Coxhead, Ian A. & Jayasuriya, Sisira, 2003. "Trade, Liberalization, Resource Degradation and Industrial Pollution in Developing Countries: An Integrated Analysis," Staff Papers 12691, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    20. Bensch, Gunther & Grimm, Michael, 2024. "Behavioural constraints in energy technology uptake: Evidence from real-purchase offers in rural Rwanda and Senegal," Ruhr Economic Papers 1081, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.

    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:145:y:2016:i:c:p:64-75. 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.