IntechOpen

Home > Books > Grazing Strategies and Animal Production Systems

Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Farmers’ Strategies for Managing Forage Supply Crises in Niger

Written By

Hamadou Moussa, Valentin Kindomihou, Idrissa Soumana, Thierry D. Houehanou, Mahamadou Chaibou, Oumarou Souleymane and Brice Sinsin

Submitted: 10 March 2024 Reviewed: 05 July 2024 Published: 02 April 2025

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.115291

Grazing Strategies and Animal Production Systems IntechOpen
Grazing Strategies and Animal Production Systems Edited by Arnoldo González-Reyna

From the Edited Volume

Grazing Strategies and Animal Production Systems

Edited by Arnoldo González-Reyna

Book Details Order Print

Chapter metrics overview

169 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics
Advertisement

Abstract

In Niger, in recent years, there has been a systematic cutting and collection of millet straw after the grain harvest in order to feed livestock. This appears in many ways to be a very worrying phenomenon. This study seeks to determine the factors involved in the collection of millet straw based on farmers’ perceptions and following the analysis of local pastoral strategies. This specifically involves the following: (i) identifying the motivating factors for collecting millet straw, (ii) evaluating farmers’ strategies for adapting to the effects of the factors incriminated, and (iii) analyzing farmers’ knowledge and choices of fodder resources used to feed livestock. The motivations for collecting millet straw indicated four determining factors: fodder deficit, climate change, and the fodder use of straw and poverty. However, the analysis of the factors in question showed a general trend toward achieving livestock food security. As a result, three types of livestock farming were considered on the basis of the animal feed resources used: the urban type using more coarse fodder with legume tops supplements, the peri-urban type combining coarse fodder and small quantities of legume tops, and the rural type where the supplementation is based on cereal straw.

Keywords

  • millet straw
  • fodder
  • adaptation strategies
  • livestock farming
  • Niger

1. Introduction

The spatio-temporal variability of rainfall and rising temperatures are the most important indicators of climate change in the world [1]. This inter- and intra-annual rainfall variability is particularly high, in the Sahelian zone with risks of drought [2]. Agriculture is negatively impacted by the loss of yields of cultivated species (millet, sorghum, and maize) [3]. Drought frequencies are considered to be the climatic factors that most limit agricultural production, particularly rainfed agriculture, with adverse consequences for food security [4].

With global warming and the extension of arid zones, millet (Pennisetum glaucum) is emerging as a key species in the fight against drought [5]. Indeed, millet has interesting properties for adapting agriculture to climate change [5, 6]. Millet is one of the most drought-tolerant cereals. It is grown in regions where rainfall is generally between 150 and 800 mm [7]. Millet is an important food crop and a vital source of energy for the millions of poor people living in semi-arid tropical zones [8, 9, 10]. The crop occupies 10 million hectares in India, which accounts for 1/3 of the world’s production area [11]. Millet is grown on over 31.2 million hectares in the arid and semi-arid tropical regions of Asia, Africa, and Latin America as a grain staple [12]. In the USA and Europe, on the other hand, millet is grown as fodder and livestock feed [11]. Millet is well adapted to growing areas characterized by drought, low soil fertility and high temperatures and performs well in highly saline or low pH soils [12].

Today, several scientific resilience approaches are proposed by research to significantly reduce the impact of climate change on agricultural production [13]. But all too often, the opinions and knowledge of rural farmers on this topic are ignored by scientists [13]. Yet the local knowledge of rural farmers could well contribute to the implementation and adoption of new, innovative agricultural strategies [14]. Indeed, farmers’ perceptions of the factors influencing agricultural activities have in many cases helped to maintain the agricultural diversity cultivated in many countries [13].

In Niger, as in other Sahelian countries, farmers are increasingly cutting and systematically collecting millet straw just after the grain harvest. A number of studies have reported the emergence of new behaviors among farmers in sub-Saharan Africa, which were previously considered abnormal. These behaviors include the massive use of cereal roughage (millet, sorghum, and rice) in animal feed in Sahelian zones [15, 16, 17]. In the past, crop residues left in the fields were an important source of feed for migrating livestock and transhumant herds [18, 19, 20]. In addition, millet straw and that of other cereals left in the field helped to improve field fertility and prevent wind and/or water erosion [21]. Given this observation, what are the determinants of such a peasant attitude in Niger? What alternatives are used locally to adapt to the induced effects? What is the rationale behind farmers’ choices for critical-season animal feed in the Sahelian regions of Niger?

The present study investigates the factors involved in collecting millet straw based on farmers’ perceptions and the strategies implemented to make up for the forage deficit. Specifically, it aims to (i) identify the factors that motivate the collection of millet straw according to farmers’ perceptions, (ii) evaluate farmers’ strategies for adapting to the effects of the factors identified, and (iii) analyze farmers’ knowledge and choices of forage resources solicited for animal feed in Niger. Should it not be included here the animal production systems mentioned in the abstract, as objective?

Advertisement

2. Materials and methods

2.1 Study area

This study was carried out in the eight regions of the territory of Niger (Figure 1). Niger covers an area of 1,267,000 km2. About 3/4th of the country is occupied by deserts, including the Ténéré desert, which is among the most austere deserts in the world. The relief is characterized by low altitudes (200–500 m) but also by mountainous massifs in the northwest (Aïr mountain massif) and plains and plateaus in the south [22].

Figure 1.

Geographic location of surveyed sites.

The country’s climate is particularly arid. Rainfall is characterized by a strong variation in space and time. One can distinguish from the south to the north of the country [22]:

  • The Sahelo-Sudanian zone, representing about 1% of the total area of the country, receives 600–800 mm of rainfall per year in normal years, and is conducive to agricultural and livestock production;

  • The Sahelian zone (350–600 mm per year) covering 10% of the country is characterized by agropastoralism;

  • The Sahelo-Saharan zone (150–350 mm per year) representing 12% of the country is adapted to transhumant livestock farming;

  • The Saharan zone (0 to less than 150 mm per year) which covers 77% of the country.

Each of these areas includes ecological features (oases, basins, valleys, rivers, plateaus, or plains) giving rise to a diversity of agro-sylvo-pastoral production systems [23].

The soils are sandy or sandy-clay, poor in nutrients and organic matter. The cultivable soils are 80% dune, and 15–20% are hydromorphic soils with a medium clay content [24].

Agriculture is limited to the north by the 350 mm isohyet, beyond which agricultural production is practically non-existent. The Sahelo-Sudanian and Sudanian zones of Niger are considered potentially sedentary. However, in the northern areas, the populations lead an essentially nomadic life. The main cultivated species are pearl millet, sorghum, cowpea, and groundnuts. Pearl millet, the most drought-resistant cereal, accounts for nearly two-thirds of total agricultural production [22].

Grazing land represents 62 million hectares (45% of the territory). They are divided between pastoral, agro-pastoral, and agricultural areas [23]. According to agro-ecological zones, there are three main livestock systems: two-thirds (66%) of the livestock are in the agricultural zone (sedentary livestock farming), 18% in the sub-desert to desert zone (nomadic livestock farming), and 16% in a north-south and north-west transhumance system (transhumant livestock farming) [23]. The livestock is estimated at 36 million heads (cattle, sheep, goats, camels, and asins) distributed among 87% of households [23]. Livestock farming is the second most important activity of the Nigerien population, contributing to 16% of the national gross domestic product (GDP) [25]. Livestock production in Niger is based on extensive grazing, but climatic hazards, the extent and quality of pastures, as well as health and economic constraints are significant obstacles to its performance [25]. The share of cultivated land is increasing and is severely competing with livestock management [26]. Fodder production is handicapped by the recurrence of climatic hazards. As a result, animal husbandry is increasingly limited today in the north of Niger [25].

2.2 Data collection

Data were collected through semi-structured ethnobotanical surveys using individual interviews and focus groups (groups of six to several people) with 508 stakeholders from the eight country regions in selected localities, based on three-stage purposive sampling. The first stage concerned the choice of regions in which to carry out the surveys, based on the criteria of millet production and/or consumption as the main cereal in the regions. Indeed, the literature shows that millet is grown in all regions of Niger, even in the most arid areas of the country (Aïr). The second stage involved the choice of two departments with the best millet production in each region. This choice was made firstly on the basis of the quantity of millet produced over the past 5 years, and secondly on the basis of the opinions and advice of agents from the respective regional directorates of agriculture. The third stage involved the choice of two villages with the best millet production in each department, based on not only information on the quantity of millet produced over the past 5 years, but also the opinions and advice of agents from the respective departmental directorates of agriculture. The opinions and advice of agricultural technicians generally extend beyond the quantities produced, not only to the accessibility of the sites to be surveyed but also to the availability of the actors to be surveyed. In all, 32 sites corresponding to 32 villages were identified for our investigations into the reasons for collecting millet straw and the fodder resources used to feed local livestock. The administration of the questionnaires required the prior agreement of the local administrative and customary authorities. Respondents were selected at random [27, 28, 29]. Interviews were conducted in the local languages most commonly spoken in Niger (Haoussa and Zarma) or, failing that, using translators.

2.3 Statistical analyses

Data on the factors involved in pearl millet straw collection were subjected to descriptive analysis to identify general trends and multivariate analysis including principal component analysis (PCA). When the variables did not follow the normal distribution, the Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric test with the Dunn-Bonferroni multiple comparison method at the 5% threshold was used as an alternative to the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to ensure comparison of group means in the choice of forage resource variables. Principal component analysis (PCA) was performed to present, as appropriate, an overview of the similarities and differences between the variables/individuals and to highlight the correlations between the variables/individuals analyzed. The data were analyzed using XLSTAT 2016 [30] and R 3.5.1 [31].

Advertisement

3. Results

3.1 Socio-economic profile of respondents

From the study of socio-economic factors, we can see that the Hausa (36.61%) and the Zarma-Sonhraï (29.33%) are the most represented, while the Gourmantché (0.98%) and the Toubou (0.39%) are the least represented among the socio-cultural groups. On the other hand, for the socio-professional categories, the respondents are mainly farmers (89.72%). Similarly, depending on the age group of respondents, adults (55.31%) constitute the best represented layer (Table 1).

Socio-economic factorsNumberProportion (%)
Age groups
Young (age ˂ 40ans)15430.31
Adult (40 ans ˂ ages ˂ 60ans)28155.31
Old (˃60 years old)7314.37
Socio-cultural groups
Gourmantché50.98
Haoussa18636.61
Kanouri7715.16
Peulh5410.63
Touareg356.89
Toubou20.39
Zarma-Sonhraï14929.33
Socio-professional categories
AgEl101.98
Agri45489.72
Autre163.16
Comm91.78
Elev112.17
Fonc61.19

Table 1.

Characteristics of the socio-economic factors considered.

AgEl: Farmer-Herder; Agri: Farmer; Autre: Other; Comm: Trader; Elev: Herder; Fonc: Civil servant.

3.2 Analysis of motivations for the practice of pearl millet straw collection

From our investigations related to the post-harvest collection of millet straw, important information has come to light. Thus, for 68% of respondents, millet straw collection was a completely new practice, while 26% of respondents considered it an old practice. On the other hand, 6% of respondents were completely unaware of it. What then are the determinants of such a practice in this region? Three important socio-economic factors, including age group, ethnicity and socio-professional category, in the surveys could help to elucidate this fact.

3.2.1 Revolutionary perceptions (age group) of the motivations for pearl millet straw collection

The results of the principal component analysis (PCA) show that the first two axes alone express 100% of the variability (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Factor map relating age classes and factors involved in pearl millet straw collection. CClim: climate change; BqueFourr: fodder bank; DéfiFour: fodder deficit; Elev.intensif: livestock farming intensification; Fourrage: fodder; MquePât: lack of pasture; NoCoupe: absence of pearl millet straw cutting; PressChept: livestock demographic pressure; Sédentar: sedentarisation; ValMarch: pearl millet straw’s market value; Vente: sale of pearl millet straw; Bon_Rdt: good yield of pearl millet biomass; Building: pearl millet stubble as a construction tool; Pauvreté: poverty; Sécheresse: drought; ValFourr: forage value of pearl millet straw; RédPât: pasture reduction; DéfiCéréal: cereal deficit; Désertif: desertification; PauvrSol: soil poverty; PressDemo: demographic pressure; MauvPluie: bad rains; Mque.terres: lack of land.

Axis 1 (Dim. 1) expressing 75.6% of the total variability (Table 2) is defined by variables such as climate change (CClim), cereal deficit (DéfiCéréal), fodder deficit (DéfiFour), intensive livestock farming (Elev.intensif), the need for fodder (Fourrage), bad rains (MauvPluie), the absence of straw cutting (NoCoupe), economic poverty (Pauvreté), the demographic pressure of livestock (PressChept), the reduction of pastures (RédPât), the sale of straw (Vente), and the fodder value of pearl millet straw (ValFourr).

Dim. 1Dim. 2
Eigenvalue17.45.6
Variability (%)75.624.4
Cumulative %75.6100.0
Bon_Rdt0.853−0.521
BqueFourr−0.8530.521
CClim0.9710.238
Building0.853−0.521
DéfiCéréal0.9930.118
DéfiFour0.9810.192
Désertif0.478−0.878
Elev.intensif0.8780.478
Fourrage0.996−0.089
MauvPluie1.000−0.025
MquePât0.853−0.521
Mque.terres0.6730.739
NoCoupe0.9340.358
Pauvrété0.9380.348
PauvrSol0.703−0.711
PressChept0.9990.039
PressDémo0.7380.675
RédPât1.000−0.025
Séchéresse0.5210.853
Sédentar0.853−0.521
ValFourr−1.0000.025
ValMarch0.6730.739
Vente0.954−0.301

Table 2.

Eigenvalues and correlations between the variables and the two axes.

Axis 1 characterizes adults and the elderly. Indeed, the latter believed that the post-harvest collection of millet straw is motivated by climate change, the cereal deficit, the forage deficit, the intensification of livestock farming, the search for fodder, bad rains, the poverty, the demographic pressure of the livestock, the reduction of pastures and the sale of straw. This perception opposes to the idea that pearl millet straw is collected because of its fodder value.

Axis 2 (Dim. 2) expressing 24.4% of the total variability (Table 2) is defined by variables such as good millet straw yield (Bon_Rdt), construction of houses and fences (Building), desertification (Desertif), lack of pasture (MquePât), poor agricultural soils (PauvrSol), sedentarisation of pastoralists (Sédentar), lack of land (Mque.terres), human population pressure (PressDémo), drought (Sécheresse), the market value of millet straw (ValMarch), and the cutting and storage of millet straw as a fodder bank (BqueFourr). Axis 2 characterizes young agricultural producers. Thus, in the perception of young people, the systematic collection of pearl millet straw after harvesting is explained by the good level of biomass yield obtained in the fields and the use of pearl millet straw for the construction of houses and fences. Young people also considered desertification, lack of pasture for animals, poor agricultural soils, and the sedentarization of pastoralists in towns and villages as factors responsible for the collection of pearl millet straw. This perception is however opposed to the idea that pearl millet straw collection is due to land shortage, demographic pressure, recurrent droughts, the market value of pearl millet straw, and also to the constitution of fodder banks (collection and storage of pearl millet straw on the ground in various geometric forms on sheds or trees) (Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Some pearl millet straw storage techniques. (a) Stubble on banco granary; (b) stubble loosened and piled up on the ground, one on the top of the other in a cubic plan so that the root parts occupying the outer part protect them from invasion by animals; (c) stubble harvested and stored on small wooden supports; (d) stubble harvested and stored on a shed; (d) stubble tied in bunches and erected on their heights, one against the other, the whole protected by branches of thorny trees; (e) stubble stored on worn tires not far from the dwellings.

3.2.2 Socio-cultural perceptions of the motivations for pearl millet straw collection

The results of the principal component analysis showed that the first four axes alone account for 96.22% of the variability (Figure 4).

Figure 4.

Socio-cultural groups and factors involved in pearl millet straw collection.

Axis 1 (Dim.1) expressing 50.7% of the total variability (Table 3) is defined by the variables: climate change (CClim), cutting and storage of pearl millet straw as a fodder bank (BqueFourr), fodder deficit (DéfiFour), livestock farming intensification (Elev.intensif), pearl millet straw as fodder (Fourrage), the lack of pasture (MquePât), the absence of pearl millet straw cutting (NoCoupe), the demographic pressure of livestock (PressChept), sedentarisation (Sédentar), the market value of pearl millet straw (ValMarch), and the sale of pearl millet straw (Vente). Axis 1 characterizes the Hausa ethnic group. Thus, among the Hausa, the reasons for collecting pearl millet straw include climate change (CClim), the cutting and storage of pearl millet straw for the creation of fodder banks (BqueFourr), the fodder deficit (DéfiFour), the increasing intensification of animal husbandry (Elev.intensif), the collection of pearl millet straw as fodder (Fourrage), the lack of pasture for the animals (MquePât), the demographic pressure of livestock (PressChept), the sedentarisation of pastoralists (Sédentar), the acquisition of a market value by pearl millet straw (ValMarch), and the sale of pearl millet straw (Vente).

Dim.1Dim.2Dim.3Dim.4
Eigenvalue11.75.82.81.8
Variability (%)50.725.412.08.0
Cumulative %50.776.288.296.2
Bon_Rdt0.3170.918−0.237−0.001
BqueFourr0.857−0.4760.006−0.176
CClim0.972−0.0620.0720.149
Building0.3920.888−0.239−0.015
DéfiCéréal0.2550.7620.5810.087
DéfiFour0.8740.2720.1620.315
Desertif−0.1020.1050.9710.132
Ele.intensif0.857−0.4760.006−0.176
Fourrage0.898−0.3360.081−0.262
MauvPluie−0.113−0.220−0.3020.911
MquePât0.985−0.0030.009−0.156
Mque.terres−0.138−0.229−0.235−0.486
NoCoupe0.840−0.055−0.4030.262
Pauvreté0.3630.859−0.3090.187
PauvrSol0.527−0.3310.7420.237
PressChept0.8290.505−0.205−0.113
PressDemo0.707−0.563−0.1770.390
RédPât0.769−0.563−0.1390.269
Sécheresse0.5940.6730.4380.010
Sédentar0.857−0.4760.006−0.176
ValFourr0.7160.654−0.225−0.085
ValMarch0.962−0.170−0.073−0.176
Vente0.9690.0910.184−0.127

Table 3.

Eigenvalues and correlations between the variables and the two axes.

Axis 2 (Dim.3) expressing 25.4% of the total variability (Table 3) is defined by variables such as good pearl millet biomass yield (Bon_Rdt), pearl millet stubble as a construction tool (Building), poverty (Pauvreté), drought (Sécheresse), and forage value of pearl millet straw (ValFourr), and pasture reduction (RédPât). Axis 2 characterizes the Zarma-Sonhraï ethnic group. In the Zarma-Sonhrai perception, the collection of pearl millet straw is due to factors such as the good biomass yield of the pearl millet species or certain accessions of pearl millet (Bon_Rdt), the use of pearl millet stubble to build houses or fences (Building), inability to provide for certain family needs (Pauvreté), drought (Sécheresse), and the fodder value of pearl millet straw (ValFourr). However, this idea is opposed to the perception that the reduction of pastoral spaces (RédPât) would be the main motivation of pearl millet straw collection.

Axis 3 (Dim.3) expressing 12% of the total variability (Table 3) is defined by the following variables: cereal deficit during bad agricultural seasons (DéfiCéréal), desertification (Désertif), and soil poverty (PauvrSol). Axis 3 characterizes the Kanouri ethnic group. Indeed, among the Kanouri, the collection of pearl millet straw is essentially due to an action to compensate for the cereal deficit during bad farming seasons (DéfiCéréal), desertification (Desertif), and soil poverty (PauvrSol).

Axis 4 (Dim.4) expressing 8% of the variability (Table 3) is defined by three variables which are demographic pressure (PressDemo), bad rains (MauvPluie), and lack of land (Mque.terres). Axis 4, like axes 1, 2, and 3, characterizes two ethnic groups, the Peulh and the Tuareg. In reality, Axis 4 opposes the Peulh to the Tuareg. Indeed, while the phenomenon of pearl millet straw collection is perceived among the Peulh as a consequence of demographic pressure (PressDémo) and bad rains (MauvPluie), recorded during the agricultural season, among the Tuareg, it is rather the lack of cultivable land (Mque.terres) that is incriminated as the main cause of pearl millet straw collection after harvests.

3.2.3 Socio-professional perceptions of motivations for collecting pearl millet straw

The results of the principal component analysis showed that the first four axes alone account for 95.5% of the variability (Figure 5).

Figure 5.

Socio-professional categories and the factors involved in pearl millet straw collection.

Axis 1 (Dim.1) expressing 89.8% of the variability (Table 4) is defined by the variables: climate change (CClim), forage deficit (DéfiFour), livestock farming intensification (Elev.intensif), pearl millet straw as fodder (Fourrage), lack of pasture (MquePât), absence of pearl millet straw cutting, (NoCoupe), the demographic pressure of livestock (PressChept), sedentarisation (Sédentar), market value through pearl millet straw (ValMarch), the sale of pearl millet straw (Vente), good biomass yield (Bon_Rdt), use of stubble for construction (Building), cereal deficit (DéfiCéréal), desertification (Desertif), lack of land (Mque.terres), poverty (Pauvrété), soil poverty (PauvrSol), drought (Sécheresse), and the fodder value of pearl millet straw (ValFour).

Dim. 1Dim. 2
Eigenvalue20.71.3
Variability (%)89.85.7
Cumulative %89.895.5
Bon_Rdt0.999−0.021
BqueFourr0.8280.312
CClim0.997−0.039
Building0.9970.023
DéfiCéréal0.989−0.101
DéfiFour0.997−0.009
Désertif0.999−0.021
Elev.intensif0.999−0.021
Forage0.999−0.025
MauvPluie−0.4190.870
MquePât0.999−0.009
Mque.terres0.999−0.021
NoCoupe0.928−0.082
Pauvreté0.999−0.021
PauvrSol0.996−0.039
PressChept0.999−0.013
PressDemo0.5700.615
RédPât0.8850.232
Sécheresse0.996−0.002
Sédentar0.999−0.021
ValFourr0.999−0.021
ValMarch0.9560.029
Vente0.998−0.041

Table 4.

Eigenvalues and correlations between the variables and the two axes.

Axis 1 characterizes farmers. Thus, in the perception of the latter, the collection of pearl millet straw would be motivated by climate change (CClim), the fodder deficit (DéfiFour), the increasing intensification of livestock farming (Elev.intensif), the collection of pearl millet straw as fodder (Fourrage), the lack of pasture for the animals (MquePât), the demographic pressure of livestock (PressChept), the sedentarisation of pastoralists (Sédentar), the acquisition of a market value by pearl millet straw (ValMarch), the sale of pearl millet straw (Vente), the good biomass yield (Bon_Rdt), the use of stubble for all kinds of constructions (Building), the cereal deficit (DéfiCéréal), desertification (Desertif), the lack of arable land (Mque.terres), economic poverty (Pauvreté), soil poverty (PauvrSoil), drought (Sécheresse), and the fodder value (ValFour) that is attributed to pearl millet straw.

Axis 2 (Dim.2) expressing 5.7% of the total variability (Table 4) is essentially defined by two variables: the demographic pressure of livestock (PressDemo) and bad rains (MauvPluie). Axis 2 opposes agro-pastoralists and civil servants against traders and pastoralists on the one hand and traders and pastoralists on the other. The latter believe that the collection of pearl millet straw would be induced by demographic pressure of livestock (PressDemo) and bad rains (MauvPluie).

3.3 Analysis of the main fodder resources (non-timber) in livestock fodder in Niger

The variables used in the analysis matrix are related to the use of the following forage resources in the feeding of farm animals. The list of variables is as follows: Pearl millet straw (Plle_Mil), sorghum straw (Plle_Sorgh), rice straw (Plle_Rice), bush straw (Plle_brsse), groundnut haulms (Fne_Arach), and cowpea haulms (Fne_Niéb).

Table 5 shows a highly significant difference between the three groups (G1, G2, and G3) for all the forage resources considered, except for pearl millet straw, for which they remain identical.

VariableH (Kobserved)KcritiqueP-value
Plle_Mil3.1765.9910.204
Plle_Sorgh24.4545.991< 0.0001
Fne_Niéb9.8655.9910.007
Fne_Arach273.0485.991< 0.0001
Plle_brsse216.2495.991< 0.0001
Plle_Rice23.8295.991< 0.0001

Table 5.

Results of the Dunn-Bonferroni pair-wise comparison.

Grn_Mil: pearl millet grain; Grn_Sorgh: sorghum grain, Grn_Achide: groundnut grain; Grn_Niéb: cowpea grain; Plle_Mil: pearl millet straw; Plle_Sorgh: sorghum straw; Fne_Achide: groundnut haulms; Fne_Niéb: cowpea haulms.

The results of the principal component analysis (PCA) show that the first three axes alone express 63.99% (≈64%) of the total variability (Table 6). This means that the first three axes are sufficient to represent the information as a whole. Graphs from the factor analysis show groupings, contrasts and trends.

F1F2F3
Eigenvalue1.5191.2821.038
Variability (%)25.32521.37017.303
Cumulative %25.32546.69563.997
Plle_Mil0.0840.1800.873
Plle_Rice0.845−0.075−0.063
Fne_Niéb0.359−0.351−0.353
Fne_Arach−0.349−0.6430.250
Plle_brsse−0.1510.835−0.179
Plle_Sorgh−0.725−0.105−0.231

Table 6.

Eigenvalues and correlations between the variables and the first 3 axes.

Axis 1 (F1) expresses 25.32% of the total variability and contrasts the use of fodder based on rice straw with that based on sorghum straw. However, the use of fodder based on rice straw is closely related to that of cowpea haulms. Axis 1 characterizes farmers with alternative uses of rice straw and sorghum straw.

Axis 2 (F2) expresses 21.37% and opposes the use of fodder based on bush straw and that based on groundnut haulms. Axis 2 characterizes farmers who make non-complementary uses between bush straw and groundnut straw.

As for axis 3 (F3), expressing 17.30% of the variability highlights the use of fodder resources based essentially on millet straw. Following the example of axes 1 and 2, axis 3 characterizes the farmers who make an unmoderate use of pearl millet straw in animal feed.

The principal component analysis also identified a typology of users of the various forage resources into three distinct groups as follows (Figure 6):

Figure 6.

Factor map showing the links between three groups of farmers and the main fodder resources.

Group G1: composed mainly of young producers, characterized by individuals who make extensive use of pearl millet, sorghum and bush straw, cowpea haulms and a low use of rice straw, but still a very low use of groundnut haulms.

Group G2: composed essentially of adult producers plus the largest number of elderly people. The actors in this group use the same fodder resources and in the same proportions as those in group G1, with the difference that here, groundnut haulms are much more abundantly used.

Group G3: composed mainly of adult producers, this group has the same characteristics as group G2. However, in this group there is a very low use of bush straw and a very high use of sorghum straw in animal feed.

Advertisement

4. Discussion

4.1 Analysis of pearl millet straw collection practice

The collection of pearl millet straw is perceived by adults and the elderly as a phenomenon linked to climate change, cereal and fodder deficit, intensive animal husbandry, fodder-seeking, bad rains, poverty, demographic pressure of livestock, reduced grazing, and the sale of straw. In the perception of the youth, the collection of pearl millet straw was motivated by the good biomass yield of pearl millet, the use of pearl millet straw for house construction. For young people, the collection of straw also seemed to be the consequence of natural or unnatural phenomena such as desertification, poor soils, lack of pasture, and the sedentarization of pastoralists in urban centres in search of better living conditions.

Analysis of the practice of pearl millet straw collection among socio-cultural groups seems to yield similar results. Thus, the Hausa appeared to be the group that provided the most reasons for it. Indeed, in the Hausa perception, the factors involved in pearl millet straw collection were climate change, the constitution of fodder banks by cutting and storing pearl millet straw, the fodder deficit, the intensification of livestock farming, the fodder use of pearl millet straw, the lack of pasture, the demographic pressure of livestock, the sedentarization of pastoralists, the increase in the market value of pearl millet straw, and its sale. After the Hausa, the Zarma-Sonhrai also provided ample reasons for this. In the perception of the latter, pearl millet straw collection was mainly motivated by the good biomass yield of pearl millet, the use of pearl millet stubble in constructions, the satisfaction of certain financial needs through the sale of pearl millet straw, drought, and the fodder value of pearl millet straw. Following the example of the first two socio-cultural groups, the Kanouri, Peulh, and Touareg also brought their own reasons for collecting pearl millet straw. Thus, the collection of pearl millet straw was essentially due to a concern to compensate for cereal deficits, desertification, and soil poverty among the Kanouri. On the other hand, the phenomenon would be explained by demographic pressure and bad rains among the Peulh, whereas it would rather be the consequence of a lack of cultivable land among the Tuareg.

Among the socio-professional categories, farmers appeared to be the most knowledgeable about the phenomenon of pearl millet straw collection, a posture certainly linked to their status. Farmers justified pearl millet straw gathering by climate change, fodder deficit, livestock intensification, fodder search, livestock demographic pressure, pastoralists’ sedentarization, market value acquired by pearl millet straw, sale, good biomass yield, its use in constructions, cereal deficit, desertification, lack of land, economic poverty, soil poverty, drought, and the fodder value that is (currently) attributed to it. This position of farmers in mentioning the factors motivating the collection of pearl millet straw is quite legitimate given the role they play in the selection, maintenance, and conservation of pearl millet genetic diversity [32, 33, 34, 35]. Herders in turn believed that the collection of pearl millet straw would be induced by population pressure and bad rains. These factors mentioned by the herders are also no less important given their potentially detrimental impacts on the balance of agrarian systems, especially in semi-arid zones. Indeed, demographic pressure can be a source of fragmentation of agricultural areas and encroachment on grazing land, while bad rains are a source of early or late drought and poor harvests [26, 36, 37, 38]. Several studies have reported the emergence of new behaviors among farmers, particularly in the management of crop residues in arid and semi-arid zones [21, 37, 39, 40]. Thus, the systematic collection and storage of crop residues, including pearl millet straw, to cover periods of food shortages by farmers and agro-pastoralists is widely cited [17, 18, 37, 41, 42] as well as the emergence of phenomena of commodification of bush straw and cultivated cereals (rice, maize, sorghum, and pearl millet) in the Sahelian zone [16, 17]. One of the threats cited with regard to bush straw was the preservation of the genetic material of forage species, as too often cutting and collection take place before the end of their reproductive cycles. This would pose a real threat to biodiversity conservation [43, 44] and also to pasture productivity [40, 43, 44, 45, 46]. In the case of crop residues, they are traditionally left in the fields to prevent erosion (wind or water) and improve the fertility of the plots. As a result, the collection of pearl millet straw is considered by many authors to be detrimental to the conservation of the agro-ecological balance of soils [21, 47, 48].

However, climate change is one of the most incriminating factors in the collection of millet straw in Niger. Indeed, the impact of climate change on agricultural production systems in sub-Saharan Africa has been mentioned in numerous studies [2, 39, 49, 50]. Faced with this threat of climate change and its corollaries, the Sahelian populations are trying to adapt as best they can. Thus, in the intertropical zone, adaptation to hazards and risk management are taken into account everywhere in traditional agrarian systems [26, 40, 51, 52]. The mechanisms at stake are based on the complementarity between speculation and between spaces used within farms and/or communities [20, 49, 50, 53]. Thus, they are looking for earlier varieties to cope with the drop in rainfall and favor hardier crops [39, 49, 53, 54]. The use of means of production (labour, inputs) is reasoned to take into account the risks: in some cases, this translates into extensification, in other cases into the concentration of means on “safer” areas [53, 55]. Among herders, the change is evident in the structure of herds and in fodder calendars based on herd mobility: change of grazing areas and/or dates of movement [53]. Pastoralists have also adopted transhumance, destocking by sale or distribution among relatives and friends in order to minimize the risk of loss in disaster areas in case of drought [53]. Agricultural policies in recent decades seem to favor the sedentarization of agropastoralists, which has not been without dangers in times of drought and degradation of pastures around water points [21, 49].

The impacts of climate change on agriculture in Africa’s semi-arid zones are reported in a number of studies. Thus, some authors did not hesitate to attribute the decline in pearl millet, sorghum, and yam yields in this part of the continent (Burkina Faso, Benin, Niger, and Chad) to climate variability and change, as well as to the decline in soil fertility [39, 50, 55, 56]. Studies conducted among local populations in arid and semi-arid zones of Africa and Asia on the impacts of climate change on agriculture and natural resources seem to point to climate change as the main factor generating or amplifying other “socio-pedo-bio-climatic” phenomena threatening survival and livelihoods [39, 50, 57].

Moreover, as a result of climate change, the irregular distribution of rainfall and poor agricultural campaigns leading to food and fodder deficits, many livestock breeders and agro-pastoralists find themselves obliged to settle in towns and villages [17, 53]. This situation leads to additional efforts on the part of producers to feed livestock, hence the massive use of fodder resources (including pearl millet straw) to ensure increasingly expensive feed for urban and peri-urban livestock [15, 16, 17, 41, 42, 58].

Overgrazing also motivates people to collect pearl millet straw. Indeed, the latter leads to saturation, a degradation of both the state of the herbaceous mat and the structure of the soil that supports it. The consequence is indeed an ecological imbalance, a loss of biodiversity with its corollaries of erosion phenomena and loss of soil fertility [43, 59, 60].

4.2 Analysis of fodder resources reported in livestock fodder in Niger

The results of the surveys on the forage resources used in animal feeds indicate three distinct user groups. Group G1, composed mainly of young producers, is marked by abundant use of pearl millet straw, sorghum straw, bush straw, cowpea haulms, and low use of rice straw and groundnut haulms. As a result, it can be said that producers in this group seem to be more inclined to breed large ruminants (bovines) to the detriment of small ruminants (ovines and goats). Thus, would it be wrong to equate them with large livestock farmers? Certainly not, since these farms are more similar to those in peri-urban areas, with sufficient roughage (pearl millet straw, sorghum, rice) from the surrounding farms [61]. These observations are similar to those of Zoundi et al. [20], who further specified that supplementation strategies were based on feeds from the farm or harvested in the bush with a frequency of use of 70–80% in the diet, most of which had no cash cost. However, it should be noted that these herders benefit greatly from the proximity of urban centres to sell milk and other animal products, to obtain zootechnical inputs and to take advantage of veterinary services [17, 19, 20, 40, 62, 63, 64].

Group G2 is composed of producers of advanced ages (adults and old). They are actually little different from those in G1, using almost the same forage resources in the same proportions, unlike the groundnut haulms which they use extensively. Group G2, in view of the types of fodder resources used to feed the animals, can be assimilated to a group of large ruminants (bovines) which nevertheless benefits from a very high protein supplement, in this case groundnut haulms. Consequently, two hypotheses can be made. Firstly, it can be stated that these are breeders of small ruminants fed rations composed of Groundnut haulms meal and cereal straw (grinding or chopping of roughage using chopping machines or mills). Secondly, it can be said that these are the large ruminant farmers from whom roughage (crushed or not) with groundnut haulms supplementation is used. However, in either case, this type of farming is characteristic of more or less well-off producers (traders and civil servants) in urban areas who are able to combine roughage (bush straw and cereals) and legume haulms (rich in nitrogen, protein, and energy). The practices and characteristics of these urban livestock farms have been relatively well documented in sub-Saharan Africa [20, 26, 42, 46, 61, 64, 65].

The G3 group is for adult producers. However, they make little use of bush straw and a lot of use of sorghum straw in animal feed. This group is more akin to the extensive livestock rearing practiced in the villages for the large livestock (cattle, asins) that are given to idle grazing. The animals are thus left free in the fields (after harvesting) and available pasture throughout the dry season [40]. Thus, at the start of the rainy season, when the pastures are completely devoid of quality herbaceous plants and young grass, producers remove the sorghum straw stored in houses or in the fields (on sheds or large trees) to feed the animals in order to compensate for the serious food shortage of the moment. This type of farming is characteristic of extensive livestock farming in rural areas where animals are generally left to roam around to dispose of any available forage resources in the rangelands during the day and receive supplementation in the evening in the pen or barns. These observations corroborate those of Gnanda et al. [64], since the latter reported from the Sahel Burkinabé that the feeds most frequently used in supplementation are, in order of frequency of use, cereal straws (pearl millet and sorghum), legume haulms (cowpea and groundnut), local pearl millet bran, cotton cake, cotton seeds, mineral supplements, and natural hay. The same authors indicated that the Peulh (essentially nomadic herders) seem to have kept the tradition of practicing mobility livestock farming, based mainly on the exploitation of pastures with little additional inputs [64]. Such livestock farming practices are often found among agro-pastoralists or some farmers who invest their surplus agricultural production as savings in livestock [18, 20, 26, 63]. Or, they may simply be typical livestock husbandry practices of rural farmers or agro-pastoralists who are very diligent in maintaining draught animals [18, 20, 40]. In fact, most animals are raving during the dry season and the provision of supplements makes it possible to accustom the animals to return on their own to the living areas or even not to move away from the concessions, which greatly reduces the number of thefts recorded during this period of the year [20]. Thus, this behavior can be observed in rural areas even when the quality of the feed supplement is not guaranteed. On this subject, Bennison et al. [18] concluded that producers are only willing to provide an additional input allocation if they perceive significant economic benefits in it. Our results are confirmed by several studies related to farmers’ livestock husbandry practices. It is thus shown that these livestock husbandry practices are common among farmers/agro-pastoralists in Sahelian zones where the issue of fodder resources is of real concern. However, it should be noted that these complementing practices vary according to production objectives [20, 52, 63].

Advertisement

5. Conclusion

Farmers’ perceptions of the motivations behind the new practice of pearl millet straw collection in Niger have indexed a number of diverse and varied supporting factors. This practice is recognized by all the age groups, socio-cultural groups and socio-professional categories surveyed. Overall, the motivations for collecting pearl millet straw stipulate forms of adaptation strategies to climate change and variability to increase people’s resilience. Four key factors that are unanimously identified as the most important determinants of pearl millet straw collection are fodder deficit, climate change, the use of straw as fodder, and poverty. However, whatever the cause of such a practice, all agree that the overall objective remains to achieve food security for livestock. Furthermore, livestock farming practices discriminate against three groups of producers (herders). Urban animal husbandry practices with the use of roughage enriched with legume haulms, peri-urban animal husbandry practices with the use of more roughage and fewer legume haulms, and rural animal husbandry practices where the additional feed intake was limited to stored cereal straws to control nutritional stress during the lean season.

Advertisement

Abbreviations

GDP

gross domestic product

PCA

principal component analysis

ANOVA

analysis of variance

IPCC

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

References

  1. 1. IPCC. In: Core Writing Team, Pachauri RK, Meyer LA, editors. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC; 2014. 151 pp
  2. 2. Chaibou M, Mouctari OMM, Chaibou GZ, Saidou O. Climate change effects on beerding practices and adaptation analysis options: Case of the Bouza-Niger zone. Environmental and Water Sciences, Public Health and Territorial Intelligence Journal. 2019;3:131-140
  3. 3. Jalloh A, Nelson GC, Thomas TS, Zougmoré RB, Roy-Macauley H. West African Agriculture and Climate Change: A Comprehensive Analysis. Washington, DC, USA: International Food Policy Research Institute; 2013. pp. 233-258
  4. 4. Agossou D, Tossou C, Vissoh V, Agbossou K. Perception des perturbations climatiques, savoirs locaux et stratégies d’adaptation des producteurs agricoles béninois. African Crop Science Journal. 2012;20:565-588
  5. 5. Ullah A, Ahmad A, Khaliq T, Akhtar J. Recognizing production options for pearl millet in Pakistan under changing climate scenarios. Journal of Integrative Agriculture. 2017;16:762-773. DOI: 10.1016/S2095-3119(16)61450-8
  6. 6. Rahal-Bouziane H. Quelques cultures stratégiques pour l’Algérie face aux changements climatiques: l’orge (Hordeum vulgare L.) et le Mil (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br). Algerian Journal of Arid Environment. 2016;6:15-31
  7. 7. Bezançon G, Renno J-F, Kumar KA. Le mil. Diversité génétique des plantes tropicales cultivées. Montpellier: CIRAD; 1999. p. 309
  8. 8. Govindaraj M, Selvi B, Rajarathinam S, Sumathi P. Genetic variability and heritability of grain yield components and grain mineral concentration in India’s pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L) R. Br.) accessions. African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development. 2011a;11:1
  9. 9. Moussa H, Kindomihou V, Houehanou TD, Soumana I, Souleymane O, Chaibou M. Inter and intra cultural variations of millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br) uses in Niger (West Africa). Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine. 2019;15:1-11 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-019-0321-4
  10. 10. Saïdou A-A. Etude moléculaire, évolution et caractérisation de gènes impliqués dans l’adaptation du mil (Pennisetum glaucum [L.] R. Br.) aux changements climatiques [Thèse de doctorat]. Montpellier, France: Montpellier SupAgro; 2011. 236 p
  11. 11. Govindaraj M, Selvi B, Sudhir Kumar I. Genetic diversity studies in indigenous pearl millet [Pennisetum glauccum (L.) R. Br.] accessions based on biometrical and nutritional quality traits. Indian Journal of Plant Genetic Resources. 2011b;24:186
  12. 12. Sankar SM, Satyavathi CT, Singh S, Singh MP, Bharadwaj C, Barthakur S. Genetic diversity analysis for high temperature stress tolerance in pearl millet [Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br]. Indian Journal of Plant Physiology. 2014;19:324-329. DOI: 10.1007/s40502-014-0099-2
  13. 13. Bougma LA, Ouerdraogo M, Sawadogo N, Sawadogo M, Balma D, Vernooy R. Perceptions paysannes de l’impact du changement climatique sur le mil dans les zones sahélienne et soudano-sahélienne du Burkina Faso. Afrique Science. 2018;14:264-275
  14. 14. Liu Z, Yang X, Hubbard KG, Lin X. Maize potential yields and yield gaps in the changing climate of Northeast China. Global Change Biology. 2012;18:3441-3454
  15. 15. Chaibou M, Yaou O, Gouro A, Laouali A. Diversité, disponibilité et circuits d’approvisionnement des aliments du bétail dans la communauté urbaine de Maradi. Journal des Sciences de l’Environnement. 2012;1:27-34
  16. 16. Fall-Touré S, Traoré E, N’Diaye K, N’diaye, N., and Sèye, B. M. Utilisation des fruits de Faidherbia albida pour l’alimentation des bovins d’embouche paysanne dans le bassin arachidier au Sénégal. Livestock Research for Rural Development. 1997;9:1-17
  17. 17. Lawal AM, Chaibou M, Garba M, Mani M, Gouro A. Gestion et utilisation des résidus de cultures pour l’alimentation animale en milieu urbain et périurbain: cas de la communauté urbaine de Niamey. Journal of Applied Biosciences. 2017;115:11423-11433
  18. 18. Bennison J, Barton D, Jaitner J. The production objectives and feeding strategies of ruminant livestock owners in the Gambia: Implications for policy makers. Agricultural Systems. 1997;55:425-444. DOI: 10.1016/S0308-521X(97)00002-4
  19. 19. Gouro A, Ly C, Makkar H. Résidus agricoles et sous-produits agro-industriels en Afrique de l’ouest: Etat des lieux et perspectives pour l’élevage. Rome (Italy): Bureau Régional pour l’Afrique de la FAO Accra, Organisation des Nations unies pour l’Agriculture et l’Alimentation; 2014
  20. 20. Zoundi J, Sawadogo L, Nianogo A. Pratiques et stratégies paysannes en matière de complémentation des ruminants au sein des systèmes d’exploitation mixte agriculture-élevage du plateau central et du Nord du Burkina Faso. Tropicultura. 2003;21:122-128
  21. 21. Adimassu Z, Langan S, Johnston R. Understanding determinants of farmers’ investments in sustainable land management practices in Ethiopia: Review and synthesis. Environment, Development and Sustainability. 2016;18:1005-1023. DOI: 10.1007/s10668-015-9695-1
  22. 22. INS. Agriculture et conditions de vie des ménages au Niger. Institut National de la Statistique du Niger (INS), Ministère de l’Economie et des Finances, République du Niger. République du Niger: Institut National de la Statistique du Niger (INS); 2014
  23. 23. I3N. Initiative “les Nigériens Nourrissent les Nigériens” (I3N). Vol. 1. République du Niger: Haut-Commissariat à l’Initiative 3N (HC3N); 2012b. p. 80
  24. 24. I3N. Initiative 3N. République du Niger: Haut-Commissariat à l’Initiative 3N (HC3N); 2012a. p. 40
  25. 25. Amadou AMB, Chaibou M, Yahaya A, Issa H. Rôle de l’exploitation commerciale du bétail dans l’économie des ménages pastoraux: cas des éleveurs de la zone de Bermo au Niger. Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences. 2018;35:5639-5650
  26. 26. Zoundi J, Nianogo AJ, Sawadogo L. Utilisation optimale de ressources alimentaires localement disponibles pour l’engraissement des ovins au sein des exploitations mixtes agriculture-élevage du plateau central du Burkina Faso. Revue d’élevage et de médecine vétérinaire des pays tropicaux. 2002;55:53-62. DOI: 10.19182/remvt.9847
  27. 27. Atakpama W, Batawila K, Gnamkoulaba A, Akpagana K. Quantitative approach of Sterculia setigera Del.(Sterculiaceae) ethnobotanical uses among rural communities in Togo (West Africa). Ethnobotany Research and Applications. 2015;14:063-080
  28. 28. Kébenzikato AB, Wala K, Atakpama W, Dimobé K, Dourma M, Woégan AY, et al. Connaissances ethnobotaniques du baobab (Adansonia digitata L.) au Togo. Biotechnologie, Agronomie, Société et Environnement. 2015;19:247-261
  29. 29. Uprety Y, Poudel RC, Shrestha KK, Rajbhandary S, Tiwari NN, Shrestha UB, et al. Diversity of use and local knowledge of wild edible plant resources in Nepal. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine. 2012;8:16. DOI: 10.1186/1746-4269-8-16
  30. 30. Addinsoft. XLSTAT 2016.02: Logiciel de statistiques et d’analyse de données pour Microsoft Excel., Vol. Pearson Edition. Paris, France: Addinsoft; 2016
  31. 31. R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2018
  32. 32. Akanvou L, Akanvou R, Kouakou CK, N’da HA, Koffi KGC. Evaluation de la diversité agro morphologique des accessions de mil [Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.] collectées en Côte d’Ivoire. Journal of Applied Biosciences. 2012;50:3468-3477
  33. 33. Beninga M, Sangare A, N’guetta A, Coulibaly Y. Mise en place d’une collection de ressources génétiques du mil, Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. BR., en Côte d’Ivoire. Agronomie Africaine. 2011;23:193-204
  34. 34. Dagba RA, Missihoun AA, Adoukonou-Sagbadja H, Savi MK, Ahanhanzo C, Agbangla C. Agromorphological variability of pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.) cultivars grown in Benin. Journal of Experimental Biology and Agricultural Sciences. 2015;3:394-406. DOI: 10.18006/2015.3(5).394.406
  35. 35. Jika AN, Dussert Y, Raimond C, Garine E, Luxereau A, Takvorian N, et al. Unexpected pattern of pearl millet genetic diversity among ethno-linguistic groups in the Lake Chad Basin. Heredity. 2017;118:491. DOI: 10.1038/hdy.2016.128
  36. 36. Bodo BS, Morvan X, Issa OM, Adamou DT, Karimou J-MA, Marin B, et al. Connaissance locale de la variabilité de surface du sol et des contraintes associées pour la production du niébé en zone sahélienne du Niger. Etude et Gestion des Sols. 2019;26:65-79
  37. 37. Djenontin A, Amidou M, Baco N. Diagnostic gestion du troupeau: gestion des ressources pastorales dans les départements de l’Alibori et du Borgou au nord Bénin. Bulletin de la Recherche Agronomique du Bénin. 2004;43:30-45
  38. 38. Karimou M, Atikou A. Les systèmes agriculture-élevage au Niger. In: Tarawali G, Hiernaux P, editors. Improving Crop-Livestock Systems in the dry Savannas of West and Central Africa, 22-27 November 1998. Ibadan, Nigeria: IITA; 2002. p. 78
  39. 39. Boureima M, Soumana I, Basso A, Abasse T, Boureima A, Sanousso M, et al. Farmers’ perceptions about climate change and their adaptation strategies: A case study in the Fakara region of Niger. Journal of Recent Research and Applied Studies. 2017;4:40-46
  40. 40. Savadogo M. Crop Residue Management in Relation to Sustainable Land Use: A Case Study in Burkina Faso. The Netherlands: Wageningen University; 2000. 150 p
  41. 41. Abdou N, Basha N, Gouro AS, Nsahlai IV. Effect of urea treatment of roughages and in vitro digestibility of available feed resources in Maradi area of Niger. American Journal of Agriculture and Forestry. 2018;6:78-83. DOI: 10.11648/j.ajaf.20180604.13
  42. 42. Abdou N, Nsahlai I, Chimonyo M. Effects of groundnut haulms supplementation on millet Stover intake, digestibility and growth performance of lambs. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 2011;169:176-184. DOI: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.07.002
  43. 43. Ali A, Idrissa S, Saley K, Issa C, Ali M, Mahamane S. Flore et végétation des parcours naturels de la région de Maradi, Niger. Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences. 2017;34:5354-5375
  44. 44. Maidadji B. L’élevage au Niger: systèmes en place, politiques commerciales, atouts et limites. In: Ehui S, Barry MB, Williams TO, Koffi-Koumi M, Paulos Z, editors. Quelles politiques pour améliorer la compétitivité des petits éleveurs dans le corridor central de l’afrique de l’ouest: implications pour le commerce et l’intégration régionale. Proceedings of a workshop held in Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire, 17-18 September 2001. Nairobi, Kenya: ILRI (Institut International de Recherche Sur l’élevage); 2001. p. 27. 88 pp
  45. 45. Hiernaux P. Effects of grazing on plant species composition and spatial distribution in rangelands of the Sahel. Plant Ecology. 1998;138:191-202. DOI: 10.1023/A:1009752606688
  46. 46. Sanou S, Sawadogo L, Kabore-Zoungrana C-Y. Amélioration de la valeur nutritionnelle des gousses de Piliostigma reticulatum (DC) Hochst dans l’alimentation du bétail en période de soudure. International Journal of Biological and Chemical Sciences. 2010;4:9-11. DOI: 10.4314/ijbcs.v4i5.65569
  47. 47. Boubacar I, Idrissa S, Yacouba B, Karimou JA. Effet de Balanites aegyptiaca sur le niveau de fertilité chimique d’un sol de terrasse du fleuve Niger. Journal of Applied Biosciences. 2019;137:13940-13950. DOI: 10.4314/jab.v137i1.2
  48. 48. León JD, Osorio NW. Role of litter turnover in soil quality in tropical degraded lands of Colombia. The Scientific World Journal. 2014;2014:9. DOI: 10.1155/2014/693981
  49. 49. Amoukou IA. Un village nigérien face au changement climatique: Stratégies locales d’adaptation au changement climatique dans une zone rurale du bassin du Niger. Niamey, Niger: ABN, GTZ; 2009. 100 p
  50. 50. Kabore P, Barbier B, Ouoba P, Kiema A, Some L, Ouedraogo A. Perceptions du changement climatique, impacts environnementaux et stratégies endogènes d’adaptation par les producteurs du Centre-nord du Burkina Faso. VertigO: la Revue Électronique en sciences de L’environnement. 2019;19:9-10. DOI: 10.4000/vertigo.24637
  51. 51. Bambara D, Zoundi JS, Tiendrébéogo J-P. Association céréale/légumineuse et intégration agriculture-élevage en zone soudano-sahélienne. Cahiers Agricultures. 2008;17:297-301. DOI: 10.1684/agr.2008.0203
  52. 52. Opitz U, Thomson E, Christiansen S, Steinbach J. Farmers’ knowledge of sheep management and performance in north-west Syria. Publication-European Association for Animal Production. 1997;89:114-118
  53. 53. Dugué M-J, Delille H, Malgrange S. Caractérisation des stratégies d’adaptation au changement climatique en agriculture paysanne. In: Etude de capitalisation réalisée sur les terrains de coopération d’AVSF. Lyon, France: Agronomes et Vétérinaires Sans frontières (AVS); 2012. 50 p
  54. 54. Wood SA, Jina AS, Jain M, Kristjanson P, DeFries RS. Smallholder farmer cropping decisions related to climate variability across multiple regions. Global Environmental Change. 2014;25:163-172. DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.12.011
  55. 55. Sarr B, Atta S, Ly M, Salack S, Ourback T, Subsol S, et al. Adapting to climate variability and change in smallholder farming communities: A case study from Burkina Faso, Chad and Niger (CVCADAPT). Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development. 2015;7:16-27. DOI: 10.5897/JAERD14.0595
  56. 56. Loko Y, Dansi A, Agre A, Akpa N, Dossou-Aminon I, Assogba P, et al. Perceptions paysannes et impacts des changements climatiques sur la production et la diversité variétale de l’igname dans la zone aride du nord-ouest du Bénin. International Journal of Biological and Chemical Sciences. 2013;7:672-695. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02774.x
  57. 57. Uddin MN, Bokelmann W, Dunn ES. Determinants of farmers’ perception of climate change: A case study from the coastal region of Bangladesh. American Journal of Climate Change. 2017;6:151-165. DOI: 10.4236/ajcc.2017.61009
  58. 58. Blama Y, Ziebe R, Zoli AP. Valeur nutritive et efficacité économique des ingrédients alimentaires utilisés dans l’alimentation des ruminants en zone semi-aride du Cameroun. Afrique Science. 2018;14:257-273
  59. 59. Moussa H, Soumana I, Chaïbou M, Souleymane O, Kindomihou V. Potentialités fourragères du mil (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br): Revue de littérature. Journal of Animal & Plant Sciences. 2017;34:5424-5447
  60. 60. Soumana I, Ayssiwede S, Issa S, Missohou A. Effets de la complémentation avec des blocs multi-nutritionnels concentrés à base de Sida cordifolia L., une plante invasive, sur les performances zootechnico-économiques des antenais de race Balami à Déréki/Dosso (Niger)/[Effects of supplementation with concentrate multi-nutritional blocks containing Sida cordifolia L., an invasive plant, on zootechnical performances and economics results of young Balami sheep in Dereki/Dosso (Niger)]. International Journal of Innovation and Applied Studies. 2016;15:716
  61. 61. Lawal AM, Chaibou M, Mani M, Garba M, Gouro A. Pratiques d’éleveurs et résultats économiques d’élevage dans les exploitations urbaines et périurbaines de Niamey. International Journal of Biological and Chemical Sciences. 2018;12:294-309. DOI: 10.4314/ijbcs.v12i1.24
  62. 62. Ali L, Van Den Bossche P, Thys E. Enjeux et contraintes de l’élevage urbain et périurbain des petits ruminants à Maradi au Niger: quel avenir? Revue d’Elevage et de Médecine Vétérinaire des Pays Tropicaux. 2003;56:73-82. DOI: 10.19182/remvt.9879
  63. 63. Boukari AR, Chaibou M, Marichatou H, Vias GF. Caractérisation des systèmes de production laitière et analyse des stratégies de valorisation du lait en milieu rural et périurbain au Niger: cas de la communauté urbaine de Niamey et de la commune rurale de Filingué. Revue d’Elevage et de Médecine Vétérinaire des Pays Tropicaux. 2007;60:113-120. DOI: 10.19182/remvt.9963
  64. 64. Gnanda B, N’Diaye AW, Sanon H, Somda J, Nianogo J. Rôle et place de la chèvre dans les ménages du Sahel burkinabé. Tropicultura. 2016;34:10-25
  65. 65. Nyarko-Badohu D, Kayouli C, Ba A, Aziza G. Valorisation des pailles de cereales en alimentation des ovins dans le nord de la Tunisie: 1. Traitement aux alcalis (ammoniac/urée) 2. Complementation par des blocs melasse-uree. Livestock Research for Rural Development. 1993;5:11

Written By

Hamadou Moussa, Valentin Kindomihou, Idrissa Soumana, Thierry D. Houehanou, Mahamadou Chaibou, Oumarou Souleymane and Brice Sinsin

Submitted: 10 March 2024 Reviewed: 05 July 2024 Published: 02 April 2025

© 2025 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Continue reading from the same book

View All

Your cart

Discounts available on purchase of multiple copies. View rates

Subtotal €0.00

Local taxes (VAT) are calculated in later steps, if applicable.

Support: orders@intechopen.com