Fodder


Feed for cattle in vietnam

The World Bank just released a new report that “assesses where the demand for feed [for ruminants in developing countries] is likely to change the most, and where investments in feed are most likely to increase animal productivity and improve the livelihoods of those who raise livestock. It covers policy, institutions, knowledge and innovation as well as technical issues – all in the context of rapidly changing demand for livestock products in developing countries.”

Based on growth and market opportunities, number of poor and pro-poor potential and supply constraints the study identifies first Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia as priority areas, and then, within these areas, it identifies three commodity value chains in five regions of particularly great potential to benefit poor producers and consumers. They are:

  • Dairy in East Africa and South Asia;
  • Beef in West Africa;
  • Small ruminant meat in West Africa and Southern Africa.

In terms of feed types and sources, general trends analyzed in the report show a reduction in the use of crop residue such as straws and stovers; an increase in the use of crop-by-products (such as oil cakes and by-products of the milling industry) and concentrates; an increase in the area planted for forages, in particular in dairy systems; and a sharp increase in feed procurement from the market instead of supply from the own farm.

In terms of opportunities for feed-related investments with major positive impacts on the poor, more specific areas of improvement that warrant priority in targeting investments are:

  • Technological feed improving solutions including: more attention to research and development for feed/food crops; better ration formulation; and forage seed production.
  • Institutional issues include access to land and water for all smallholders, as a primary concern and as the main incentive to improve crop-residues. Effective governance on feed quality is also a common institutional issue raised. Similarly, reduction on transaction costs (both to access the feeds and to participate in product markets) is another key area for institutional investment support. The report strongly advocates support to Business Development Services – interpreted in the broadest sense as a key to facilitating access to feeds, markets and for reducing transaction costs.
  • While for many households increasing animal numbers is perceived as attractive, there are severe environmental limitations of the extent this is possible. Policies and investment that increase per animal productivity, such as adequate ration formulation and emphasis on mineral supplementation in the feed and nutrition domain, as well as genetic and health improvement related investment will be important. However, in some areas, increased efficiency (producing the same with fewer animals, or more with the same number of animals) can also be achieved through incentive systems such as payment for environmental services.

Download the report


The report was prepared under the guidance of Jimmy Smith and Francois le Gall of the World Bank by a team consisting of William Thorpe, Derek Baker, Shirley Tarawali of the International Livestock Research Institute (ILR), and assisted by Rainer Asse, Augustine Ayantunde, Michael Blummel, Oumar Diall, Alan Duncan, Abdou Fall, Bruno Gerard, Elaine Grings, Mario Herrero, Chedly Kayouli, Ben Lukuyu, Siboniso Moyo, An Notenbaert, Tom Randolph, Steve Staal, Nils Teufel, Francis Wanyoike and Iain Wright. Further inputs were provided by Cees de Haan and Gunnar Larson from the World Bank. Peer reviewers are Brian Bedard (World Bank), Stephane Foreman (World Bank) and Joyce Turk (USAID).

During the lifetime of the Fodder Adoption Project ILRI established local innovation platforms at various field sites around Ethiopia. The idea behind these was to provide a forum for key livestock feed stakeholders to get together and jointly plan actions to improve the livestock feed situation for smallholder farmers. One such innovation platform was established in our Ada’a site and a key stakeholder was the Ethiopian Meat and Dairy Technology Institute. In all our sites and at our national Fodder Roundtable another key actor was Eden Field Seeds, a local private seed supplier.

At one of our Fodder Roundtable meetings we focused on difficulties with forage seed supply and one of the recommendations was to encourage local agribusinesses to expand and begin to take on the seed supply function from the national research system. As the Fodder Adoption Project wound up we wondered whether some of the linkages established through the local innovation platforms would last beyond the project.

I was encouraged therefore when ILRI was approached by EMDTI recently to co-sponsor a forage seed field day involving Eden Field Seeds. The field day was held at one of the company’s outgrower schemes associated with Ataye Prison Farm in North Shewa. The day brought together a range of stakeholders and the subsequent discussion showed that there was good engagement.

You can read the field day report here.

ILRI staff member Aberra Adie was a key facilitator of the Ada’a platform. He writes:

The FAP platform at Ada’a woreda brought together a number of  stakeholders including private sector players like Eden Fields who continued the efforts to build a sustainable forage seed source for the increasing demand for improved livestock feeding systems in the country. It is  most rewarding that Eden Field Seeds, being the only certified private forage seed supplier in the country is now active in bringing together stakeholders around forage seed supply.

We look forward to seeing this initiative develop; dealing with forage seed supply in Ethiopia is a key constraint to improved livestock feeding and encouraging growth of small agribusinesses to deal with this issue seems a good way forward. I look forward to comments on this…

Earlier this year, ILRI joined national and international partners in two ‘feed assessment’ projects in Ethiopia. The Ethiopian Livestock Feeds project (funded by ACIAR) and the ‘QuickFeed‘ early win project of the Africa RISING program both set out to  test a suite of rapid diagnosis tools to identify promising feed and fodder interventions.

At the recent QuickFeed synthesis meeting, we interviewed Jane Wamatu, Adugna Tolera and Getachew Legesse about their experiences with the FEAST, TechFit and value chain assessment (VCA) tools used in both projects.

Jane and Adugna explained that the first time they used the FEAST and TechFit tools was during the ELF project. By the time of the QuickFeed project they were more experienced and better able to provide training and support to the research teams, and this was one of the reasons why the fieldwork of QuickFeed proceeded more smoothly. Another reason, Getachew felt, was that the research team members were younger and highly motivated, partly because the QuickFeed project was part of the larger Africa RISING project and so researchers were hopeful that their research could be continued under Africa RISING project. Another reason was the improvements resource people made to the tools following ELF. In FEAST, the number of respondents for individual data collection was increased to 9 farmers. In TechFit, the list of technologies was revised and the methodology of VCA was simplified considerably and tailored to fit seamlessly with FEAST and TechFIt.

Jane, Adugna and Getachew agreed that FEAST was very well developed with a clear template, results, analysis and structure for reporting. TechFit, on the other hand, still needed considerable improvements. Adugna felt that the pre-filter worked well but that there is a need to complete and review the list of technologies and their attribute scores. Also, the cost-benefit analysis of potential technologies was very difficult to calculate and required a lot of assumptions. He also felt that there is a need to write fact sheets for each of the technologies. A clear description of potential benefits and cost would also be useful. Finally, there was a need for clear guidelines – a manual – for using the TechFit tool. Having said all this, everyone agreed that there was great potential and need for TechFit.

The VCA tool in QuickFeed was focused on dairy and sheep value chains. This was easier and more useful than the VCA in ELF which focused on feed in general. Getachew felt that VCA now worked well but still required some ‘expert’ guidance during implementation. The reason was that each VCA had different objectives and pathways, and the methodology needed to be adapted to fit the objectives.

Everyone agreed that the participatory nature of FEAST and VCA created a direct, deeper kind of interaction and communication with farmers and other actors along the value chain and that this was extremely useful. In fact, the process of implementing these tools in itself had been very beneficial for creating greater understanding and interaction between researchers , farmers, traders and other stakeholders.

Story by Werner Stur

More on the ELF projectPart of the CGIAR Research Program on Livestock and Fish

More on the QuickFeed projectPart of the Africa RISING program

Three reports from the six-month ‘Fodder and feed in livestock value chains in Ethiopia – trends and prospects’ project were recently produced by ILRI.

The project was led by ILRI and involved the Ethiopian Institute for Agricultural Research, the Amhara Regional Agricultural Research Institute and the International Center for Research in the Dry Areas.

The project aimed to develop a preliminary understanding of how feed components of intensifying livestock production systems in Ethiopia are changing as systems intensify and how this is reflected in the feed-related elements of focal value chains. The project outputs included three synthesis reports along with a series of field reports that can be accessed via links in the synthesis reports.

Download:

This project was funded by the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR); it is part of the CGIAR Research Program on Livestock and Fish.

On 1 June, members of the MilkIT project advisory council held their first meeting in Dehradun. Nils Teufel of the International Livestock Research Institute introduced the project and its intended activities.

View the presentation:

 

The subsequent question and answer session generated lively exchanges; the main questions – with answers – included:

1. What is the meaning of “innovation platform”?

  • It’s about to bringing together experiences of a variety of stakeholders on
  • dairy marketing, feed support , knowledge sharing and innovation/change
  • regarding how to test & adapt these innovations.
  • Innovation platforms are not only a discussion forum and not just an extension activity.

2. What will be the project output in Dec 2014 and who will receive it?

  • As a research project, papers and reports will be major outputs, with IFAD being the first recipient.
  • Research outputs will be aligned with the demands of donors and partners.
  • Documentation of processes and results will enable global and local use.
  • Documentation of establishment and success/failure of innovation platforms will be a major output. Induced changes will be a main indicator.

3. What will be language of dissemination?

  • Main audience will be institutions. Therefore, first language will be English.
  • However, for local institutions documents in Hindi will also be prepared.

4. What will be done to reduce livestock impact on forests?

  • Feed requirements, current sources & opportunities will be assessed with FEAST
  • General land-use change will not be a focus of MilkIT because of its short duration
  • More efficient use of existing resources will probably emphasise farm products and labour efficiency (reducing forest use)
  • Himmothan has already experience with introducing winter fodder. Forest use has already decreased.

5. How can MilkIT improve green fodder supply when the project is only 32 months and most green fodder comes from trees which yield only after 3-5 years?

  • MilkIT will prioritise technologies (with the help of Techfit) which yield fast effects (no planting campaigns, no focus on breed improvement).
  • More efficient use of existing feeds will be focus (supplementation, chopping) and wider use of under-utilised resources (grass-lands).

6. How will feed-related problems be identified? How will local capacity & willingness for adoption be considered?

  • Innovation platforms will improve communication.
  • Specific tools (e.g. Techfit) will enable efficient discussion.

7. What will be main project indicators, milk yield?

  • Milk yield will be important, but profitability and labour returns will also be main indicators.
  • Improved productivity will decrease pressure on forests.

8. How will other aspects of productivity be considered (breed, health) and who will be doing this?

  • Within the project period no major breed improvement effects can be expected.
  • But we know that local cows are being replaced with buffaloes.
  • Feed improvements offer greater effect in improved animals with less labour.
  • Where health issues are important we include local institutions in platform.
  • How will the variation between households and animals be considered?
  • MilkIT will only target groups (e.g. SHGs), not individual households/animals
  • At the platform level discussions will have to consider for which type of households/animals technologies are suitable.
  • When documenting effects we will have to collect household/animal data.

9. How is MilkIT going to compete with strong local dairy organisations?

  • We will map which institutions are working on which issues.
  • The innovation platforms will bring all relevant and willing actors together as a complementary activity.
  • We are aware that compared to local institutions MilkIT will only show a brief appearance and cannot compete.

After reviewing work plans, members formed three groups discussing:

  • Innovation platforms: “How can innovation platforms support development and dissemination of new technologies for dairy development?”
  • Marketing constraints: “What are you most interested in for overcoming institutional and marketing constraints in the dairy sector?”
  • Feeding constraints: “What should MilkIT produce to help with improving productivity of dairy animals among small holders through better feeding, breeding & health?”

The project is funded by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). It started in January 2012 and runs for three years

Basic project information

Project brochure

News on the project

Outputs from this project

Project wiki

This project is part of the CGIAR Research Program on Livestock and Fish.

On 28-29 May we wrapped up the Ethiopian Livestock Feeds Project with a synthesis workshop in Addis Ababa. This brought together the whole project team, the core of which  were colleagues from Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research and Amhara Regional Agricultural Research Institute. We have been working together on refining various tools including FEAST, Techfit and a simple value chain assessment checklist.

This suite of tools is designed to help with developing ideas and plans for feed interventions at local level. This was our chance to review results of using the tools in the field. Also, we used the opportunity to review the tools themselves and look for ways of improving them.

The results showed that the tools are a rapid way of developing a good overview of the farming system and some of the constraints to improved feeding. Generating ideas for feed intervention was more challenging and probably requires an existing insight into what might work. However the tools were helpful in guiding thinking, and in ensuring that suggestions for feed improvement took into account system constraints such as land and labour availability. These tools are certainly not recipes for generating workable feed interventions but the process of working with the tools at field level could help to arrive at interventions which are more likely to succeed – especially if researchers work with development people in applying the tools.

What struck me at the workshop was the context specificity of successful feed interventions. The presentation from EIAR Holeta on a FEAST assessment in a dairy system showed that two areas in close proximity had completely different constraints. In the village of Robe Gebya there are plenty of cross-bred cows and farmers derive much of their livelihood from sale of milk. In nearby Berffetta Tokkoffa, horticultural crops are the dominant livelihood option and most cows are indigenous and primarily kept for draught purposes. Interestingly when farmers were asked about key solutions to improve their livestock-based livelihoods those relying on indigenous cows suggested various feed-related interventions including backyard forage and improved use of crop residues. Those with cross-bred cows were more concerned about arrangements for milk marketing – they seemed already to have sorted out their feeding. This contrast illustrates the dangers of blanket recommendations to improve feeding strategies and is one reason why many previous efforts to improve feeding have been disappointing.

As I stressed in my closing remarks, I hope that as this work develops we can move to the next stage which is working with farmers to test some of the interventions that the tools are coming up with. Time to get our hands dirty….

View the final day presentations:

Ethiopian Livestock Feed Project – approaches, tools, results

Results and experiences using value chain analysis, FEAST and Techfit tools in the Ethiopian Livestock Feed Project

 

This project is funded by the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR); it is part of the CGIAR Research Program on Livestock and Fish.

On 24-25 April scientists from India and Tanzania gathered in Tanga, Tanzania for the inception meeting of the IFAD-funded MilkIT project. The project is implemented by ILRI and CIAT are a major partner. This was the first opportunity for the whole project team to get together, familiarize themselves with the project and begin to develop activities.

Partners from the project in Tanzania are

  • Sokoine University of Agriculture, Department of Animal Science and Production
  • Tanzania Livestock Research Institute, Tanga-Centre, Tanga

and in India:

  • Institute of Himalayan Environmental Research and Education (INHERE)
  • Central Himalayan Rural Action Group (CHIRAG)

Representatives from each partner organization participated in the meeting.

MilkIT is being implemented under the umbrella of the Livestock and Fish Research Program of the CGIAR and we planned activities jointly with a related project in Tanzania funded by Irish Aid.

During the meetings we spent time aligning our thinking on some key concepts: innovation platforms and how they work; and value chain approaches. We also discussed site selection following recent scoping visits to various prospective sites. Partnership arrangements, gender considerations and links to IFAD programs were also on our agenda.

Finally we made a start on developing activity plans for Year 1.

So the MilkIT train has now left the station and we are looking forward to seeing activities begin to take shape in coming months.


The project is funded by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). It started in January 2012 and runs for three years

Basic project information

Project brochure

News on the project

Outputs from this project

Project wiki

This project is part of the CGIAR Research Program on Livestock and Fish.

At last week’s Africa-RISING ‘quick feed‘ project inception meeting, Werner Stür shared some of the reasons why improved animal feeding strategies seem not to be taken up, and some ways to address this.

He started by arguing that current future livestock productivity challenges would benefit significantly from “a little more feed per animal.” He outlined four main ways to get this feed to the animals:

  • Reduce the number of animals, improve herd structure or grow additional feed
  • Introduce forage legumes to improve diet quality; or grasses to increase available feed quantity
  • Grow specific fodder crops
  • Strategic feeding of available feed resources – smarter use

He also explained that these technical solutions are much less simple to accomplish than we might think. Why?

  • Technologies are seldom simple
  • Smallholder farming systems are diverse
  • People and livelihoods differ
  • The incentives to increase production are nor always in place

He concluded that ‘one-size-fits all technologies’ don’t work. Instead we need need a systems-oriented innovation process that

  • includes all relevant stakeholders
  • takes account of the range of farming system and livelihoods in the area
  • places innovation in the context of the value chain to ensure that farmers reap the benefits of innovations

More information on the project

More information on the inception workshop

Seife Ayele, formerly of the International Livestock Research Institute, conducted a synthesis study of “fodder innovation approaches” across the three countries where the Fodder Adoption Project based its activities. The work has now been published in Science and Public Policy and can be accessed here. The study concludes:

… fodder innovation can be successfully triggered and integrated in livestock production by actors interacting and learning in networks, and on farms. However, fodder is one among many inputs in livestock production. The success of fodder innovation, and for that matter innovation in other livestock technologies, depends on other inputs, institutions and markets. The key lesson is that fodder can be an entry point but real improvement occurs when broader value chain issues are addressed in a holistic manner.

Farmers discuss ILRI feed assessment tool FEAST

Following the Ethiopian Livestock Feed (ELF) project inception meeting on 21-22 February 2012, the ELF team arranged a training workshop and field trip to test two tools in livestock value chains, FEAST and Techfit, before beginning research in their selected sites across Ethiopia. 25 participants gathered on 12-16 March 2012 at ILRI in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia to discuss the tools, refine the questionnaire for field testing, and work through any issues and queries about the project.

Alan Duncan led the training session on Techfit, and Ben Lukuyu on FEAST. Trainees included four researchers from each selected site (two experts on feed, the others on socio-economics) and the three key resource people included Abate Tedla of ILRI, Adugna Tolera of Hawassa University and Jane Wamatu of ICARDA.

Farmer explains the cost of labour in rural Ethiopia

On Wednesday, the ELF team traveled to Godino, near Debre Zeit in Ethiopia, to test run the tools with local farmers.

The party split into three smaller groups who will later investigate feed resources in sheep, beef and dairy value chains in the chosen project sites in Debre Birhan, Debre Zeit and Holetta.

The day began with a participatory rural appraisal (PRA) exercise on FEAST, where the experts and farmers answered and discussed a number of questions on land, labor, credit, inputs, and education.

Questions ranged from “How easy is it to hire casual labor as and when required?” to “ What proportion of the PRA group have completed secondary schooling?” All feedback was recorded to calculate context scores. Individual in-depth interviews were then carried out with three different farmers, while the remaining small groups continued with a PRA exercise using the Techfit tool.

The group reconvened on Thursday to reflect on the field trip and discuss next steps for the project. Presentations from the FEAST assessment were prepared during the morning session and presented by each group in the afternoon. Adugna presented the results of the Techfit PRA exercise. An afternoon reflection session looked at what worked during the field testing, what was difficult, and what needs to be changed.

The team agreed that time-keeping went well, with farmers available and present on time, and that data collection had been a success. They felt that the selection of farmers needs to be given more consideration next time, e.g. improve gender balance, age variation, and more diverse educational backgrounds. They also suggested using larger groups of 12 farmers. The group further agreed that the PRA exercise could be improved by creating a more natural and relaxed atmosphere; less like an interview and where no one participant can dominate the conversation so that everyone has an equal say.

At the end of the reflection session, Abate Tedla presented the next steps for the ELF project. The team will now split into individual site groups and aim to complete field data collection for FEAST and Techfit by the end of March, carry out value chain analysis field work by mid-April, and focus on data entry, analysis and report writing for the remainder of April.

Further information on the project and its activities is on the project wiki.

View project photos

Information on FEAST / Information in TechFit

This project is funded by the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR); it is part of the CGIAR Research Program on Livestock and Fish.

ELF team conducts PRA exercise on feed assessment tools

By Kara Brown, ILRI

Next Page »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.