Supplemental feeding on rangelands: new dynamics of the livestock in the El Ouara rangelands in southern Tunisia

doi:10.1016/j.regsus.2023.10.001

Abstract

Abstract:

Fodder production in arid rangelands has been traditionally considered as the main source of nutrition for livestock. However, the production of these fodder may be influenced by some socio-economic and climatic factors. This study aims to identify the various rangeland use forms and determine the types of livestock feeding system in the El Ouara rangelands of Ben guarden District in southern Tunisia by analysing the importance of supplemental feeding and main determinants of this practice. Data were collected by a survey that targeted a sample of 50 breeders in the El Ouara rangelands. Descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression were used to analyse the data. The results showed that there are two types of association practiced by breeders: “Cherka” association practiced by 10.00% of breeders and cash payment association practiced by 53.00% of breeders. Then, transhumance, sedentary, and semi-urban forms are the main ways in which breeders use the rangelands. There are four livestock feeding systems in the El Ouara rangelands being used to feed livestock: natural rangeland, rangeland-based, mixed, and concentrate-based feeding systems. Supplemental feeding has become fundamental for the livestock feeding system in the El Ouara rangelands. The breeders with the largest camel size still use the natural rangeland feeding system, while the breeders who have the largest herd size practice the mixed feeding system. The logistic regression results reveal that breeder age, cereal area, herd size, migrant remittance, second activity, and agricultural development group membership can significantly impact the supplemental feeding. In summary, this study can help policy-makers plan innovative practices based on climatic change, ensure the sustainability of livestock feeding system, and make effective decisions for local development.

Key words: Livestock feeding system, Supplemental feeding, Rangeland use forms, “Cherka” association, Cash payment association, El Ouara rangelands

Houda RJILI, Mohamed JAOUAD, Chaker SELMI. Supplemental feeding on rangelands: new dynamics of the livestock in the El Ouara rangelands in southern Tunisia[J]. Regional Sustainability, 2023, 4(4): 359-368.

Figures/Tables 9

Fig. 1.

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Fig. 2.

Table 6

Table 7

References 32

[1]	Abaab, A., Genin, D., 2004. Agropastoral development policies in the Maghreb: Lessons for new research and development issues. In: Picouet M., Sghaier, M., Genin, D., (eds.). Changing Environment and Rural Societies: Alternative Approaches. Paris: Ile-de-France (IRD), 341-358 (in French).
[2]	Abaab, A., Neffati, M., Sghaier, et al., 2021. Synthesis of the main achievements of the Tunisian experience in the development of pastoral territories. Arid Regions Review. 7-47 (in French).
[3]	Ahmed, M.T., Bhandari, H., Gordoncillo, P.U., et al., 2018. Factors affecting extent of rural livelihood diversification in selected areas of Bangladesh. SAARC Journal of Agriculture. 16, 7-21. doi: 10.3329/sja.v16i1.37419
[4]	Ayoub, B., 2021. Camel breeding between mobility and sedentary life: Characterization of demographic and economic parameters and typology of breeding systems. Engineering Degree. Rabat: Hassan II agronomic and veterinary institute (in French).
[5]	Ben Saad, A., Bourbouze, A., 2010. The new faces of “modern” pastoralism in the great southern Tunisia. In: Lerin, F., (ed.). Mediterranean Pastoralism: Cultural and Landscape Heritage and Sustainable Development. Montpellier: International Center for Advanced Mediterranean Agronomic Studies, 99-116 (in French).
[6]	Ben Salem, H.B., 2011. Changes in sheep feeding systems in Tunisia and place of alternative resources. In: Khlij, E., Ben Hamouda, M., Gabiña, D., (eds.). Changes in Sheep Farming Systems and Prospects for their Sustainability. Zaragoza: International Center for Advanced Mediterranean Agronomic Studies, 29-39 (in French).
[7]	Bernués, A., Boutonnet, J.P., Casasús, I., et al., 2011. Economic, social and environmental sustainability in sheep and goat production systems. In: International Centre for Advanced Mediterranean Agronomic Studies (CIHEAM). 7^th International Seminar. Zaragoza, Spain, 283-288.
[8]	Bourbouze, A., 2006. Breeding systems and animal production in the steppes of North Africa: a rereading of the pastoral society of the Maghreb. Sci. Chang. Planétaires Sécheresse. 17, 31-39 (in French).
[9]	Bourbouze, A., 2018. The great transformations of Mediterranean pastoralism and the emergence of new modes of production. Watch Lett. Veille CIHEAM, 7-12 (in French).
[10]	Capillon, A., 1985. Knowing the diversity of farms: a prerequisite for finding regional technical references. Agriscope. 6, 31-40 (in French).
[11]	Carvalho, W.F., Alves, A.A., Gândara, F.C., et al., 2022. Seasonal strategic feed supplements for sheep grazing Caatinga rangeland: Behavior and performance. Small Rumin. Res. 206, 106572, doi: 10.1016/j.smallrumres.2021.106572.
[12]	Climate-data, 2023. Medenine Climate: Average Temperature and Rainfall, Ombrothermic Diagram of Medenine. [2023-01-02]. https://fr.climate-data.org/afrique/tunisie/medenine/medenine-29379/ (in French).
[13]	Dobremez, L., Bousset, J.-P., 1996. Take into account the diversity of farms. An analytical approach by joint exploration of statistical, accounting and technical-economic sources. Clermont-Ferrand: Cemagref Editions, Territory Management Series, 17 (in French).
[14]	Djohy, G.L., Bouko, B.S., Dossou, P., et al., 2022. Productivity of natural pastures and pastoral mobility practices in a context of climate change in West Africa. Moroccan Review of Agronomic and Veterinary Sciences. 10, 92-105 (in French).
[15]	Elloumi, M., Nasr, N., Selmi, S., et al., 2001. Rangeland Management Options and Individual and Community Strategies of Agro-Pastoralists in Central and Southern Tunisia. Communication at the International Seminar: Policy and Institutional Options for the Management of Rangelands in Dry Areas, Hammamet. [2023-01-02]. https://www.academia.edu/8812538/OPTIONS_DE_GESTION_DES_PARCOURS_ET_STRATEGIES_INDIVIDUELLES_ET_COMMUNAUTAIRES_DES_AGRO_PASTEURS_DU_CENTRE_ET_DU_SUD_TUNISIEN (in French).
[16]	Faye, B., 2001. The role of livestock in the fight against poverty. Journal of Livestock and Veterinary Medicine of Tropical Countries. 54, 231-238 (in French).
[17]	Ferreira, L., Hitchcock, D.B., 2009. A comparison of hierarchical methods for clustering functional data. Communications in Statistics-Simulation and Computation. 38, 1925-1949. doi: 10.1080/03610910903168603
[18]	Gaddour, A., Najari, S., Abdennebi, M., 2014. Specificity and diversity of goat and sheep production systems in Tunisian arid regions. In: Chentouf, M., López-Francos, A., Bengoumi, M., (eds.). Technology Creation and Transfer in Small Ruminants: Roles of Research, Development Services and Farmer Associations. Zaragoza: International Center for Advanced Mediterranean Agronomic Studies, 477-480 (in French).
[19]	Godde, C., Dizyee, K., Ash, A., et al., 2019. Climate change and variability impacts on grazing herds: Insights from a system dynamics approach for semi-arid Australian rangelands. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 3091-3109. doi: 10.1111/gcb.v25.9
[20]	Guillaume, H., 2009. Agro-pastoral mutations, rurality and development in the Tunisian South-East. In: Bonte, P., Elloumi, M., Guillaume, H., et al., (eds.). Rural Environment. Territories Issues. Perspectives from Eastern Morocco and Southeast Tunisia. Tunisia: Ceres editions, 19-43 (in French).
[21]	Ibidhi, R., Salem, H.B., 2018. Analysis of small ruminants-based farming systems and their interaction with freshwater resources in Tunisia: Interventions for improving water productivity. Annales Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique de Tunisie (INRAT). 91, 227-242.
[22]	Jaouad, M., Sghaier, M., Bechir, R., et al., 2022. Beyond food and nutritional security: what importance of pastoral livestock in livestock sectors in south-eastern Tunisia? European Journal of Social Law. 54, 112-120 (in French).
[23]	Jeder, H., Sghaier, M., 2010. Application of the model of optimal control of the animal load on the courses of the Tunisian South: Case of Eloura and Dhahars. New Medit Mediterr. J. Econ. Agric. Environ. 9, 11-16 (in French).
[24]	Kanoun, M., 2016. Adaptation of sheep breeders in the face of multiple environmental and socioeconomic changes in steppe territories. Case of agropastoralists in the region of El-Guedid Djelfa. Doctoral thesis. Algeria: National Higher Agronomic School El-Harrach (in French).
[25]	McFadden, D., 1973. Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior. Berkeley: California, 113-119.
[26]	Montcho, M., Babatounde, S., Aboh, A.B., et al., 2018. Perception and adoption of technical innovations in ruminant feeding in Benin. Agron. Afr. 30, 31-45 (in French).
[27]	Najari, S., Gaddour, A., Abdennebi, M., et al., 2011. Small ruminant production systems on rangelands in arid Tunisian regions. In: Khlij, E., Ben Hamouda, M., Gabiña, D., (eds.). Changes in Sheep Farming Systems and Prospects for Their Sustainability. Zaragoza: International Center for Advanced Mediterranean Agronomic Studies, 61-65 (in French).
[28]	Nasr, N., Salem, M.B., Rachidi, Y.L., et al., 2000. Mutation of farming systems and management of collective rangelands in arid zones: El Ouara de Tataouine (Tunisia). Sci. Chang. Planétaires Sécheresse. 11, 93-100 (in French).
[29]	Powell, J.M., Pearson, R.A., Hiernaux, P.H., 2004. Crop-livestock interactions in the West African drylands. Agron. J. 96, 469-483. doi: 10.2134/agronj2004.4690
[30]	Rjili, H., Muñoz-Ulecia, E., Bernués, A., et al., 2023. Evolution of pastoral livestock farming on arid rangelands in the last 15 years. Animal. 17, 100748, doi: 10.1016/j.animal.2023.100748.
[31]	Vall, E., Marre-Cast, L., Kamgang, H.J., 2017. Pathways to intensification and sustainability of mixed crop-livestock farms in sub-Saharan Africa: contribution of the agriculture-livestock association. Cah. Agric. 26, 1-12 (in French).
[32]	Zaied, A.J., Geli, H.M., Sawalhah, M.N., et al., 2020. Historical trends in new mexico forage crop production in relation to climate, energy, and rangelands. Sustainability. 12(5), 2051, doi: 10.3390/su12052051.

Description of variable	Type of variable	Percentage of breeders who indicated yes (%)
Use of barley in autumn in the total flock diet (1=yes, 0=no)	Categorical	75.61
Use of bran in autumn in the total flock diet (1=yes, 0=no)		43.90
Use of straw in autumn in the total flock diet (1=yes, 0=no)		31.71
Use of natural rangeland in autumn (1=yes, 0=no)		46.34
Use of barley in winter in the total flock diet (1=yes, 0=no)		12.20
Use of bran in winter in the total flock diet (1=yes, 0=no)		7.32
Use of natural rangeland in winter (1=yes, 0=no)		58.54
Use of barley in spring in the total flock diet (1=yes, 0=no)		31.71
Use of bran in spring in the total flock diet (1=yes, 0=no)		29.27
Use of agro-industrial by-products in spring in the total flock diet (1=yes, 0=no)		7.32
Use of natural rangeland in spring (1=yes, 0=no)		82.93
Use of barley in summer in the total flock diet (1=yes, 0=no)		100.00
Use of bran in summer in the total flock diet (1=yes, 0=no)		63.41
Use of straw in summer in the total flock diet (1=yes, 0=no)		41.46
Use of agro-industrial by-product in summer in the total flock diet (1=yes, 0=no)		12.20
Use of natural rangeland in summer (1=yes, 0=no)		46.34
		Mean of breeders who indicated yes
Cost of concentrate feed uses per year (USD/a)	Continuous	7321.05
Cost of bran feed uses per year (USD/a)		1568.19
Cost of straw uses per year (USD/a)		758.70
Cost of agro-industrial by-product uses per year (USD/a)		15.53
Cost of purchased water (USD/a)		254.67

Explanatory variable	Description of explanatory variable	Type of explanatory variable	Expected sign
Household size	Household size of persons (persons)	Continuous	+ or -
Breeder age	Breeder age (years old)		-
Cereal area	Farm area used for cereal crops (hm²)		+
Rangeland period	The period spent by the herd on rangelands (month)		+ or -
Herd size	Total herd size in livestock units (such as sheep, goat, and camels). Livestock unit (LU) coefficient for camels is 1.00 and for sheep and goats is 0.15.		+ or -
Another economic activity	Breeder practicing another economic activity other than livestock farming activity (yes or no)	Categorical	+
Migrant remittance	Possession of income from emigrated family members (yes or no)		+
Agricultural development group membership	Breeder is an agricultural development group membership (yes or no)		+

Feature	Mean	Standard deviation
Average breeder age (years old)	64.82	15.50
Household size (persons)	5.74	2.94
Breeder practicing another economic activity (persons)	41.21	10.36
Permanent labour (persons)	1.80	0.40
Occasional labour (persons)	1.72	0.45
Camel size (LU)	23.50	42.05
Herd size (LU)	71.64	74.89
Rangeland period (month)	9.12	3.42
Transhumance period (month)	2.38	1.82
Ownership vans	1.12	0.33

Rangeland use form	Number of breeders	Percentage of the total samples (%)	Average number of small ruminants	Average number of camels
Transhumant form	29	58.00	51	45
Sedentary form	17	34.00	44	15
Semi-urban form	4	8.00	9	0

Principal component	Observed variable	Correlation coefficient	Percentage of explained variance (%)	Percentage of accumulated variance (%)
PC1	Cost of straw uses per year	0.49	4.31	20.54
	Cost of agro-industrial by-product uses per year	0.54
	Use of barley in autumn in the total flock diet	0.69
	Use of natural rangelands in autumn	0.53
	Use of natural rangelands in winter	0.48
	Use of barley in summer in the total flock diet	0.41
	Use of agro-industrial by-product in spring in the total flock diet	1.56
	Use of natural rangelands in summer	0.63
PC2	Use of barley in spring in the total flock diet	1.05	3.45	36.98
PC2	Use of agro-industrial by-products in spring in the total flock diet	2.22	3.45	36.98
PC3	Cost of purchased water	0.60	2.99	51.21
PC3	Use of bran in spring in the total flock diet	0.62	2.99	51.21
PC4	Use of barley in winter in the total flock diet	1.96	1.73	59.45
	Use of natural rangelands in spring	0.75
	Use of bran in winter in the total flock diet	1.88
PC5	Cost of concentrate feed uses per year	0.47	1.42	66.21
	Use of barley in autumn in the total flock diet	0.32
	Use of straw in autumn in the total flock diet	-0.28