rapid livestock feed assessment tools to support intervention strategies: feast and techfit
DESCRIPTION
Presented by Alan Duncan at the FAO West Africa Regional Workshop on Crop Residues, Dakar, 10-13 December 2012TRANSCRIPT
Rapid livestock feed assessment tools to support intervention strategies: FEAST and Techfit
Alan Duncan
FAO West Africa Regional Workshop on Crop Residues, Dakar, 10-13 December 2012
Mixed systems
Interactions between crops and
livestock
Crop residues are substantial
component of livestock diets
Feeding of livestock needs to take
account of arable realities:
competition for land, free grazing in
off season etc.
Challenges to improved
feed supply
Food security
Land scarcity/tenure
Markets for livestock products
Free grazing
Traction a sink for feed
The way ahead
Things are changing
– Dwindling grazing resources forcing
other feed sources to be considered
– Urbanization leading to increased
demand for livestock products
– Improving infrastructure
– Are we about to see things moving?
Feed interventions often
do not work – why?Failure to place feed in
broader livelihood context
Lack of farmer design and
ownership
Neglect of how
interventions fit the
context: land, labour, cash,
knowledge etc
FEAST
Techfit
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.?
How does FEAST work?
• Overview of farming system and livestock feed aspect
• Milk marketing, veterinary services
• Major problems for livestock production
1. PRA Exercise
• Quantitative information on crop-livestock production, feed availability, feeding rations
• Qualitative information - perception on feed quality
2. Individual farmer survey
• Enter data in FEAST template
• Based on result develop ideas for intervention
3. Data analysis and developing interventions
PRA General description of farming system
– range of farm sizes,
– farm labour availability
– annual rainfall pattern
– irrigation availability
– types of animals raised by households.
General description of livestock production– the types of animals raised (% of households raising
these animals and average herd/flock sizes)
– the purpose of raising these animals (e.g. draught, income, fattening, calf production)
– the general animal husbandry (including; management, veterinary services and reproduction).
– Ease of access to credit
– How available are necessary inputs – plastic, urea, concentrates etc
Problem identification and potential solutions
Quantitative questionnaire
Animals – livestock inventory
Crops - yields and areas to derive crop residue availability
Cultivated forages – yields and areas
Collected fodder: proportion of diet
Purchased feed
Grazing: proportion of diet
Contributors to household income
Production. – Milk production
– Sale of livestock
Seasonality. – Feed supply: overall seasonal availability
– What is fed in different months?
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
www.ilri.org/feast
Techfit
The problem
What is your
main problem
Feed
What feed
technologies
have you got?
Planted forage
Urea treated straw
Bypass 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
improve
ment of
attribute
s
Context
relevanc
e (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 straw2 3 6 3 2 2 2 2 0
Supplement with
UMMB2 5 10 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 22
By-pass protein
feed1 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
etc
etc
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
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?
Final output
Ideas for some promising feed
interventions that might work
Better understanding of why the
usual suspects often don’t work.
Links
http://fodderadoption.wordpress.com/
techfit/
http://fodderadoption.wordpress.com/
feast/