نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استاد گروه مرتع و آبخیزداری، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد

2 دانش آموخته کارشناس ارشد مرتعداری، گروه مرتع و آبخیزداری، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد

3 استاد، گروه اقتصاد کشاورزی ، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد

چکیده

دامداران مرتعی بطور سنتی از مراتع برای تولید انواع محصولات نظیر شیر، گوشت و پشم استفاده می کنند، اما در سال-های اخیر روش تولید گوشت به عنوان تنها محصول (روش بره‌پی) در بین برخی دامدارن خراسان رضوی دامداران در حال گسترش است. در این تحقیق تاثیر 7 سال بهره برداری از مرتع به دو روش بره پی و شیردوشی بر روی شرایط اکولوژیک و منافع اقتصادی دامداران در دو مرتع مجاور هم مقایسه شد. ابتدا با انجام بازدید‌های صحرایی، تاج پوشش، تولید و کلاس‌های خوشخوراکی در دو مرتع اندازه‌گیری و با آزمون t مقایسه شد.در مرحله بعد وزن دام، میزان تولید شیر و گوشت، زمان صرف‌شده برای مدیریت دام و فعالیت‌های شبانه‌روزی دام‌ها مقایسه شد. براساس نتایج ، از نظر تولید علوفه و کلاس‌های خوشخوراکی تفاوتی بین دو شیوه بهره‌برداری مشاهده نشد. در روش بره‌پی درآمدها به میزان 17% بیشتر ولی هزینه‌ها 70% کمتر از روش شیردوشی بود که باعث افزایش سود خالص به میزان 24 % شد. در روش بره‌پی دامها مدت 4 ساعت بیشتر ی برای چرا و راهپیمایی در شبانه روز صرف کردند، که این خود باعث کاهش حفاطت خاک شده بود. پیش بینی می شود که سود بالاتر و مدیریت آسان‌تر در روش بره پی سبب تشویق دامداران به استفاده از این روش در آینده شود. لذا پیشنهاد می‌گردد مطالعات آینده به منظور یافتن راهکارهایی جهت استفاده از مراتع تحت روش بره پی با کمترین آسیب به خاک و پوشش گیاهی متمرکز شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Investigating ecological and economic aspects of rangeland livestock managements for meat or milk production

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mohammad Farzam 1
  • Yasamin Fazeli 2
  • mohammad Ghorbani 3

1 Professor, Department of Range and Watershed Management, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Iran

2 MSc in Range Management, Department of Range and Watershed Management, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Iran

3 Professor, Department of Agriculture Economy, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad

چکیده [English]

Rangeland stockholders are traditionally using their rangeland for producing various livestock productions such as milk, wool and meet (Several Products, SP). However in recent years, meat production as the only product (Meat Production, MP) is implemented in some rangelands of Khorasan Razavi. We compared effects of 7 years rangeland utilization methods (SP or MP) on the rangeland ecology and their economic benefits for the stockholders. By doing field visits, plant canopy cover, productivity, rangeland conditions and trends, and species diversity were measured and then calculated. Moreover, livestock weight, milk and meat productions, the time spent for livestock management, and 24 hours activities of animals in the rangelands were measured and compared between SP and MP methods. Results indicated similar species diversity and plant production for both MP and SP methods. Major differences were found in terms of incomes, total incomes was 17% higher but total expenses were 70% lower in MP method, leading to 24% higher net income. Moreover, rangers had to spend more time for preparing milk products and selling them in cities, by the MP method. In their daily activity, livestock spent hours more for walking and grazing, which had led to higher soil and vegetation deterioration in MP site. In future, higher income and easier livestock management may encourage stockholders towards higher implementation of MP method. Therefore, future studies should consider best MP method that leads to least side effects on the rangeland soil and vegetation.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • rangeland economy
  • meat production
  • milk production method
  • daily livestock activity
  • livestock management in rangelands
[1] Agudelo, C., Rivera, B., Tabasco, J. and Estrada, R. (2003). Designing Policies to Reduce Rural Poverty and Environmental Degradation in a Hillside Zone of the Colombian Andes, World development, 31(11): 19-24.
[2] Ahmadzadeh, B. (2006). Investigating relationship between economic and social factors affecting desertification. MSc Thesis, Gorgan University of Agriculture and Natural Resources. 166p.
[3] Arzani, H., Abedi, M. (2015). Rangeland Assessment, Vol. 2 Vegetation Measurement. Tehran University Press. 322p, ISSBN: 978-9640367971
[4] Arzani, H., Azarnivand, H., Mehrabi, A. A., Nikkhah, A., Fazel Dehkordi, L. (2007). Minimum Area required for livestock managers in Semnan province. Pajouhesh va Sazandegi Journal in Natural Resources 74:107-113
[5] Bajian, Gh. R. (2007). A review on management of nomadic rangelands in the past and present times: their changes, challenges and recommendations. Seasonal Scientific and Research Journal on Rangelands and Deserts of Iran, 14(4): 524-538
[6] Breman, H. (1983). Rangeland productivity and exploitation in the Sahel, Journal of Science, (221): 4618.
[7] Bugalho, M. N., Lecomte, X., Goncalves, M., Caldeira, M.C., Branco,M. (2011). Establishing grazing andgrazing-excluded patches increases plant and invertebrate diversity in a Mediterranean oak woodland. Forest Ecology and Management: 261: 2133–2139.
[8] Dehghanian, S., Kohansal, M. (2010). A study on production economy on Khorasan nomads. Journal of Agriculture Economy and Development, 8(2): 24-35.
[9] Khdashenas, M., Farzam, M., Abrishamchi P. (2016).  Morphological and Phenological responses of Stipa turkestanica, Melica persica and Elymus elongatus to microclimate changes during growth season. Rangeland, 10 (3): 267-257.
[10] Fitzimons, J. (1996). Sedentarization: It’s Impact on Production Systems, Natural Resources and Resource Ownership. Sub-Regional Workshop on Land Tenure Issues in Natural Resources Management in the Anglophone East Africa, with a Focus on the IGAD Region. Addis Abbaba.
[11] Hoffman, K., (2002). The changing face of pastoralism in the Kush-Himalayan-Tibetan plates Highlands’s fringing a sustainable path for the further. A regional strategy workshop in the international year of mountains, Lhasa. P.R. China, 132-140.
[12] Jankju M., Ghorbani, M. (2007). New approach to economic evaluation of range management projects in Iran. Rangeland 1 (3) 292-307.
[13] Jankju, M., Delavari, A., Ganjali, A. (2008). Pit seeding of Bromus kopetdaghensis in shrublands. Rangeland 2(4) 314-328.
[14] Khaksarzade, V., Jankju, M., Lagzian, A. (2105). Effects of livestock grazing and canopy cover of range shrubs on the symbiosis between Mycorrhiza and Bromus kopetdaghensis. Rangeland, 9(4) : 344-355.
[15] Kafilzadeh, F., Esmaeilizadeh, A., Seyyedan, M. (2001). Journal of Agriculture Economy and Development, 12(38): 12-23
[16] Kardovani, P. (2002). Rangelands their challenges and resolutions in Iran. Tehran University Press, 3rd Edition, 342 p.
[17] Khakipur, L., Barani, H., Darijani, A., Karamian, R. (2011). Investigation relative incorporation of rangelands in the incomes of nomadic families (Case Study: Hamian Watershed). Scientific and Research Journal of Rangelands, 5(4): 430-437.
[18] Lynam, T., Stafford Smith, M. (2003). Monitoring in a complex world: seeking slow variables, a scaled focus and speedier learning. The 7th International Rangeland Congress, Durban, South Africa, pp 69-78.
[19] Mansoori, M. (2002). A comparative study on production economy of nomads and their readiness for changes in the production methods; case studies Jalaili Tribe, Northeast of Iran. Journal of Social and Humanity Science of Shiraz University 19(1): 45-56
[20] Mesdaghi, M. (2007). Range Management in Iran. 5th Edition. Imam Reza University Press. 352p.
[21] Razavi, M. (2010). Economy of settled nomads in the summer rangelands on north Semnan and role of local community on it. Journal of Agriculture Economy and Development, 8(31): 12-23
[22] Shahmohammadi, A., Khatoonabadi, A. (2001). Evaluating Economic and Social effects of entrance and removal of grazing livestock on summer rangelands of Ferydoonshahr rangelands. Proceeding of 3rd National Conference on Rangelands and Rangeland Management in Iran. Published by National Center on Forests and Rangelands, page 123.