Ethiopian Livestock Feed Project – Approaches, Tools, Results

Alan Duncan

Ethiopian Livestock Feed Project Synthesis workshop, Addis Ababa, 28-29 May 2012

Objectives

Original: 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

Evolving: To develop refined tools for rapid assessment of feed resources to allow effective feed intervention strategies to support intensification of livestock production in value chains benefiting smallholder producers.

Outputs Refined tools for feed resource assessment, value chain

analysis, rapid market appraisal and feed technology prioritization

Targeted value chain assessment of feed elements of dairy, beef and sheep value chains

Data base of price, quality and volume data on a seasonal basis for key feeds associated with the target value chains.

Synthesis of experiences with successful small ruminant feeding strategies from elsewhere and their local applicability

Assessment of feed availability and demand for small ruminant production in Menz area*

Synthesis workshop

EIAR/ARARI Researchers

Adugna Tolera

Bill Thorpe/ Jane Wamatu

Amare Haileslassie/Michael

Blummel

Workshop objectives

Review and refine the experience of using VCA, FEAST and Techfit tools and draw lessons for their improvement

Think about application of the tools in wider contexts

Anticipated links to other initiatives

CGIAR Research Programme 3.7, More milk, meat and fish, for and by the poor which involves targeted research on the small ruminant value chain in Ethiopia.

Gates-funded East Africa Dairy Development Project (Phase 2)

Multi-donor funded Agricultural Growth Programme for Ethiopia

CIDA-funded Livestock Value Chain Enhancement (LIVES) project

Which tools?

Value chain analysis (VCA)Feed assessment tool (FEAST)Feed technology prioritization

(Techfit)

Process vs output

Tools are designed as “discussion tools”

No recipes or blue prints. Only a way of guiding and informing enquiry and suggesting options

Use of tools needs to involve a range of actors: research, development, private sector, NGO etc

Menz

Sheep

Dairy

Beef

Value chain assessment

Inputs & services Production Processing Marketing Consumers

FEAST

The problem

Feed assessment

Conventionally focuses on:– The feeds– Their nutritive value– Ways of improving nutritive value

FEAST broadens assessment:– Is livestock an important livelihood strategy? – How important are feed problems relative to

other problems?– What about labour, input availability, credit,

seasonality, markets for products etc.?– Involves dialogue with farmers

How does FEAST work?

Sample output

32%

22%

20%

14%

6%

6%

Contribution of livelihood activities to household income (as a percentage)

Agriculture

Livestock

Remmitance

Labour

Others

Business

More sample output

Crop residues5%

Cultivated fodder

25%

Grazing30%

Naturally occurring and

collected33%

Purchased7%

DM content of total diet

Final output

Feast report with some ideas for key problems and solutions

Better links and understanding between farmers, research and development staff

Techfit

The problem

What is your main problem

Feed

What feed technologies

have you got?Planted forage

Urea treated strawBypass protein

OK, let’s try those

A solution

TechfitA discussion support tool for

prioritizing feed technologies

Key context attributes

Land

Labour

Credit

Input

Knowledge

Key technology attributes

Land

Labour

Credit

Input

Knowledge

The core concept

Key context attributes

Land

Labour

Credit

Input

Knowledge

Key technology attributes

Land

Labour

Credit

Input

Knowledge

x = Score

Matching context to technology

Technology filter

Scope for improvement of attribute

s

Context relevance (score 1-

6; low-high))

Impact potential (score 1-6; low-high)

Total score

(context X impact)

Requ Score 1-3

(1 for more; 3 for less)

Avail Score 1-3

(1 for less; 3 for

more)

Requ Score 1-3

(1 for more; 3 for less)

Avail Score 1-3

(1 for less; 3 for

more)

Requ Score 1-3

(1 for high;

3 for low)

Avail Score 1-3

(1 for less; 3 for

more)

Requ Score 1-3

(1 for high;

3 for low)

Avail Score 1-3

(1 for less; 3 for

more)

Requ Score 1-3

(1 for high;

3 for low)

Avail Score 1-3

(1 for less; 3 for

more)

Score 1-5 (1 for

less and 5 for

more)

Urea treatment of straw

2 3 6 3 2 2 2 2 0

Supplement with UMMB

2 5 10 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 22

By-pass protein feed

1 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 0

Feed conservation (surplus) (HAY)

4 3 12 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 41

etcetc

III.

TECHNOLOGY FILTER

(Technology options to

address quantity, quality,

seasonality issues)

Pre-select the obvious (5-6) based

on context relevance and impact potential

Score the pre-selected technologies based on the requirement, availability and scope for improvement of five technology attributes

Attribute 1: Land

Attribute 2: Labour

Attribute 3: Cash /credit

Attribute 4: Input delivery

Attribute 5: Knowledge

/skill

Total Score

Technology list

Pre-filter Main filte

rScore

Cost-benefit assessment

What does the technology cost?– Inputs, labour, land etc?

What does the technology deliver?– Enhanced milk yield, improved reproductive

performance, better growth etc

Does it make sense?

Adugna price/quality dataset helps here

Final output

Ideas for some promising feed interventions that might work

Better understanding of why the usual suspects often don’t work.

Fitting the tools together

VCAVCA

Framework: is productivity the main issue?

yes no

FEASTFEAST

Homing in: is feed the main issue?

yes no

TechfitTechfit optionsparticipatory

testing

Current

effort

Needed effort

“If you do what you’ve always done, you’ll get what you

always got.” Mark Twain

Key messages

More Information: http://elfproject.wikispaces.com

29