Advertisement

Organic Agriculture

, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 249–261 | Cite as

A pilot study into biomass yield and composition under increased stocking rates and increased stocking densities on a Namibian organic beef cattle and sheep farm

  • Lea LudwigEmail author
  • Judith Isele
  • Gerold Rahmann
  • Anita Idel
  • Christian Hülsebusch
Article

Abstract

Sustainable rangeland management is crucial for conservation and improvement of global grassland ecosystems, livestock performance and grassland-linked livelihoods. This applies in particular for Sub-Saharan African countries like Namibia with its rangeland-based low external input livestock husbandry. In the local savannas, productivity and resource distribution is spatially heterogeneous and temporally variable, which calls for adaptive and responsive grazing strategies to meet the needs of livestock and vegetation. The adjustment of stocking rate (SR; kilogramme livestock per hectare per year) and stocking density (SD; kilogramme livestock per hectare during a specific grazing event) is considered as a key success factor but very different rates and densities have been recommended in the past by practitioners, scientific evidence is lacking. On an Organic Namibian beef cattle and sheep farm were these recommendations assessed in order to investigate the responses of savanna rangelands to varying grazing intensities. Since 2014, forage biomass production and composition under three different grazing regimes have been assessed: (1) the routine management (here Holistic Management) as control and in comparison to this (2) an increased SR or (3) increased SD. Destructive biomass sampling was done each May in 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017, respectively. The results showed that the increased SR or SD can be beneficial for average fodder production, but not significantly. However, the negative standing dead biomass accumulation was significantly reduced.

Keywords

Organic farming Ranching Holistic management Biomass Rangeland management 

References

  1. Baumann G (2009) How to assess rangeland condition in semiarid ecosystems? The indicative value of vegetation in the high Atlas Mountains, Morocco. Dissertation thesis at University of Cologne, Cologne. Available at: https://kups.ub.uni-koeln.de/2869/1/Baumann2009.pdf
  2. Bischofberger J, Reutter C, Liehr S, Schulz O (2016) The integration of stakeholder knowledge—how do Namibian farmers perceive natural resources and their benefits? Tropentag Conference, Vienna. Available at: https://www.tropentag.de/2016/abstracts/full/1134.pdf
  3. BLM (USDA Bureau of Land Management) (ed) (1996) Utilization studies and residual measurements. Interagency technical reference. BLM, Denver. Available at: https://www.blm.gov/nstc/library/pdf/utilstudies.pdf. Accessed 11 Aug 2017
  4. Briske DD, Derner JD, Brown JR, Fuhlendorf SD, Teague WR, Havstad KM, Willms WD (2008) Rotational grazing on rangelands: reconciliation of perception and experimental evidence. Rangel Ecol Manag.  https://doi.org/10.2111/06-159R.1
  5. Briske DD, Ash AJ, Derner JD, Huntsinger L (2014) Commentary: a critical assessment of the policy endorsement for holistic management. Agric Syst.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2013.12.001
  6. de Klerk J (2004) Bush encroachment in Namibia: report on phase 1 of the bush encroachment research, monitoring and management project. Ministry of Environment and Tourism, Government of the Republic of Namibia, WindhoekGoogle Scholar
  7. Glatzle A (1990) Weidewirtschaft in den Tropen und Subtropen. Ulmer Verlag, Stuttgart, 359 ppGoogle Scholar
  8. Homewood K, Rodgers WA (1987) Pastoralism, conservation and the overgrazing controversy. In: Anderson D, Grove R (eds) Conservation in Africa: people, policies and practice. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. Laca E (2009) New Approaches and tools for grazing management. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250083366_New_Approaches_and_Tools_for_Grazing_Management
  10. Lee HC, Walker R, Haneklaus S, Philips L, Rahmann G, Schnug E (2008) Organic farming in Europe: a potential major contribution to food security in a scenario of climate change and fossil fuel depletion. Landbauforschung Volkenrode 58(3):145–151Google Scholar
  11. Lohmann D, Tietjen B, Blaum N, Joubert DF, Jeltsch F (2012) Shifting thresholds and changing degradation patterns: climate change effects on the simulated long-term response of a semi-arid savanna to grazing. J Appl Ecol.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2012.02157.x
  12. Lohmann D, Münch E, Jeltsch F (2016) The ‘Rhythm; of rangeland management—rest-rotation strategies in simulated Savannah vegetation dynamics. Tropentag, Vienna. Available at: https://www.tropentag.de/2016/abstracts/posters/1011.pdf
  13. Ludwig LL, Isele J, Rahmann G, Idel A, Hülsebusch C (2017) Rangeland forage biomass production and composition under different grazing regimes on a Namibian organic livestock farm. In: Rahmann G et al (eds) Innovative Research for Organic 3.0 - Volume 2: Proceedings of the Scientific Track at the Organic World Congress 2017 November 9-11 in Delhi.  https://doi.org/10.3220/REP1510908963000
  14. MEA (2005) Millennium ecosystem report: ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  15. NRC (National Research Council) (1994) Rangeland health: new methods to classify, inventory, and monitor rangelands. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.  https://doi.org/10.17226/2212 Google Scholar
  16. Ohm M, Schüler M, Warnecke S, Paulsen HM, Rahmann G (2014) Measurement methods on pastures and their use in environmental live-cycle assessment. Org Agric.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-014-0072-4
  17. Ortega SJ, Lukefahr SD, Bryant FC (2013) Optimum stocking rate, monitoring, and flexibility. Rangelands 35:22–27Google Scholar
  18. Rahmann G (1995) Ökonomisches Handeln von Nomaden, vol 111. Vauk Verlag, Kiel 269 ppGoogle Scholar
  19. Rahmann G, Seip H (2007) Bioactive forage and phytotherapy to cure and control endo-parasite diseases in sheep and goat farming systems—a review of current scientific knowledge. Landbauforschung Volkenrode 57(3):285–295Google Scholar
  20. Rahmann G, Aulrich K, Barth K, Böhm H, Koopmann R, Oppermann R, Paulsen HM, Weißmann F (2008) Impact of organic farming on global warming—recent scientific knowledge. Landbauforschung Volkenrode 58(1–2):71–89Google Scholar
  21. Rahmann G, Oppermann R, Paulsen HM, Weißmann F (2009) Good, but not good enough? Research and development needs in Organic Farming(Article). Landbauforschung Volkenrode 59(1):29–40Google Scholar
  22. Rahmann G, Hülsebusch C, Isele J, Idel A (2015) Organic livestock production: sustainable increase of meat production on natural grasslands. In: Scientific Track Proceedings of the 3rd African Organic Conference: “Achieving Social and Economic Development through Ecological and Organic Agricultural Alternatives 2015 in LagosGoogle Scholar
  23. Rahmann G, Ardakani MR, Bàrberi P et al (2017) Organic agriculture 3.0 is innovation with research. Org Agric 7(3):169–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rass N (2006) Policies and strategies to address the vulnerability of pastoralists in sub-Saharan Africa. Pro-poor livestock policy initiative. PPLPI working paper no.37. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  25. Rothauge A (2001) An evaluation of open rotational grazing. Agricola 12:94–98Google Scholar
  26. Rothauge A (2007) Some principles of sustainable rangeland management in Namibia. Agricola 17:7–15Google Scholar
  27. Savory A, Butterfield J (1999) Holistic management—a new framework for decision making. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 260 ppGoogle Scholar
  28. Scoones I (1989) Economic and ecological carrying cpacity. Implications for livestock development in the dryland of communal areas of Zimbabwe, ODI Pastoral Development Network, Paper 27b, London, 30 ppGoogle Scholar
  29. Smith L, Ruyle G, Dyess J, Meyer W, Barker S, Lane CB, Williams SM, Maynard JL, Bell D, Stewart D, Coulloudon A (2012) Guide to rangeland monitoring and assessment, Basic concepts for collecting, interpreting and use of rangeland data for management planning and decisions. Arizona Grazing Lands Conservation Association, TucsonGoogle Scholar
  30. Steffens T, Grissom G, Barnes M, Provenza F, Roath R (2013) Adaptive grazing management for recovery. Rangelands 35:28–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Teague R, Provenza F, Norton B, Steffens T, Barnes M, Kothmann M, Roath R (2008) Benefits of multi-paddock grazing management on rangelands: limitations of experimental grazing research and knowledge gaps. In: Schroder HG (ed) Grasslands: ecology, management and restoration. Nova Science Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. White R, Murray S, Rohweder M (2000) Pilot analysis of global ecosystems: grassland ecosystems. World Resources Institute, Washington D.CGoogle Scholar
  33. Wilson AD, Tupper GJ (1982) Concepts and factors applicable to the measurement of range condition. J Range Manag 35(6)Google Scholar
  34. WRI (2000) A guide to world resources 2000–2001: people and ecosystems: the fraying web of life. World Resources Institute, Washington D.CGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of KasselWitzenhausenGermany
  2. 2.Farm SpringbockvleyWindhoekNamibia
  3. 3.Thuenen-Institute of Organic FarmingBraunschweigGermany
  4. 4.Anita Idel Project Management AgrobiodiversityBerlinGermany
  5. 5.German Institute for Tropical and Subtropical AgricultureWitzenhausenGermany

Personalised recommendations