Description of the technology orinnovation

Thistechnology is a portfolio of feed options which are associated with enhancingfeed availability and use, and are focused on three major livestock feedresources: 1) enhancing supply of high quality green forages; 2) enhancingsupply and nutritional quality of crop residues; and 3) enhancing biomasssupply from communal rangelands.

1)Enhancing supply of high quality green forages

Foragegrasses, legumes and fodder trees are important components of natural pasturesand are important for soil stabilisation, providing ground cover and windbreaks to prevent soil erosion, and contribute to soil fertility throughdecomposition of organic matter and microbial nitrogen fixation. Forage grassesand natural pastures may also be important for carbon sequestration.

Welladapted and productive forages (Table 2.1) can play an important role in droughtaffected areas by having multipurpose value to the farmer, as well as providinga feed resource for livestock. Forage legumes fix nitrogen, improve soilfertility and provide soil cover, while fodder trees also provide shade and actas windbreaks. Most forage legumes and grasses, which are tolerant to longperiods of drought are short-lived annuals, which can rapidly produce drymatter and complete a life cycle in a limited period when the soil moisture isavailable.

Table 2.1: Listof promising species for use as feeds for dryland areas

⁴Indicates potential commercialavailability, not necessarily in the East Africa region at present.

2)Enhancing supply and nutritional quality of crop residues

Cropresidues are a major component of the livestock feed resource in manydeveloping countries. This basal livestock feed resource can be improvedthrough promotion of superior dual-purpose (i.e. food and fodder) varieties ofkey cereals (maize, wheat, rice, sorghum, pearl millet) and legumes (groundnut,cowpea, pigeon pea) by:

§  Exploiting variation in existingcultivars; and by further genetic enhancement towards dual-purpose traits usingconventional and marker assisted selection (MAS) approaches to cropimprovement.

§  The utilisation of basal crop residueand crop by-product based diets can be improved by feed processing methods suchas chopping, mashing, and feed block and pellet production.

InIndia, strategically combining these approaches in beef and dairy value chainshas shown that daily weight gains of about 1000 g/day and daily milk yields ofmore than 15 litres can be achieved on diets consisting of more than 80% ofcrop residues and other agro-by-products. There are significant opportunitiesfor south-south learning to promote such approaches in the East Africa region.

3)Enhancing biomass supply from communal rangelands

Thetechnology is about enhanced management of rangeland resources in dryland areaswhere rainfall is extremely variable in order to improve the income ofsmallholder farmers through market-led animal husbandry development. Threetypes of traditional grazing areas are identified: valley bottomlands, upperand lower portions of the bottomlands. To improve and diversify theproductivity and production of communal forage resources, integratedinterventions include the introduction of:

§  Improved community-based market-orientedforage development approaches

§  Cut and carry system for animal feedingto enhance natural forage regeneration

§  Improved forage species such as Napierand Rhodes grasses, and Sesbania sesban (upper and lower portion of thebottomlands)

§  Improved skills and capacity inknowledge management.

Applicationof such strategies in Northern Ethiopia has resulted in improvements in naturalforage groundcover of 70–100% compared to 20–30% before such interventions inthe bottomland grazing areas. Improved forage development helps therehabilitation of the environment, cover and abundance of bee forage plants andin return improves the productivity of market-oriented commodities.

Withimproved market-oriented forage development in sites in Northern Ethiopia,fattening (11,802 shoats and 3315 cattle), dairy (1128 crossbreed and 27,063local dairy cows) and beekeeping (21,000 honey bee colonies) emerged as keybusiness-oriented commodities benefitting about 60–70% of the households in thedistrict in 2009. Even under extremely variable rainfall conditions, it ispossible to produce some forage which can be transformed into cash, either directlyor via animal production.

Scaling-up approaches

Highquality forages:Smallholder livestock keepers and farmers with available land and labour forforage production, who can produce feed for their own livestock enterprise orfor sale as inputs for dairy and fattening value chains.

Improvedcrop residues:Improving basal diets through superior dual purpose type cultivars has shortdelivery pathways since ideally only a change of seeds is required and theapproach does not demand implementation of new technologies per se. Farmersare, therefore, the first beneficiaries of such interventions. In addition, allactors in feed value chain such as livestock owners, fodder sellers andtraders, feed manufacturers and specialised livestock enterprises benefit fromthe proposed innovations. It is also important to engage national andcommercial seed sector players.

Enhancedrangeland resources:Beneficiaries include farmers and private sector actors, landless youthspecialised mainly in sheep fattening and beekeeping, female-headed householdsin shoat fattening and in the case of dairy, specialised private serviceproviders such as bull service providers.

Followingare the critical and essential factors for successful promotion and adoption ofthe technology:

Highquality forages

1)   Targetingto ensure a match of biophysical parameters with the requirements of differentforage species Anumber of biophysical factors support adoption of high quality forages.Rainfall distribution, soil type and its water-holding capacity and level ofthe water table are all important factors. In sandy soils the water is quicklylost from the surface, whereas in clay with a high water-holding capacity,water may be available for a sufficiently long period to allow good plantgrowth.

2)   Appropriatemarket demand for livestock products resulting in demand for high qualityforage material as feedForage technologies have had variable adoption in the livestock systems ofdeveloping countries and it has been shown that the successful integration ofsown forages depends on the existence of a genuine need (i.e. market demand forlivestock product) for improved feed by farmers.

3)   Availableand economical source of planting material to support uptake and scaling-up Demand for forage seeds varies fromyear to year, constraining seed supply and commercial production. Most plantingmaterials in the region come from research institutes and public-privatepartnerships for forage seed production of a broad range of well-adapted foragespecies needed to support increased forage adoption.

4)   Informationon options and forage managementInformation on the benefits of forages, options available and good managementpractices has been shown to promote adoption. Strong extension services supportfarmers to make informed choices of forages that best match their environmentaland socio-economic conditions and address the sometimes knowledge-intensiverequirements for new forage species.

Improvedcrop residues

1)   Closecollaboration of all actors in research, development and in feed and livestockcommodity value chainsfor enhanced impact in this area, livestock and crop improvement scientists,economists, private entrepreneurs (seed and feed related) and developmentagents need to collaborate closely with all actors in feed and livestock valuechains.

2)   Systematicevaluation and promotion of crop residue based options Steps required:

§ Identificationand promotion of cultivars with high grain/pod yield and high crop residuequantity and fodder quality.

§ Identificationof best breeding methods for further genetic enhancement.

§ Systematicinventory of feed resources including price: quality relationships.

§ Identificationof all pertinent actors in given feed/livestock value chains.

§ Optimisationof feed/diet design and physical form to get optimum livestock performance andfeed transport and storage worthiness.

Enhancedrangeland resources

1)   Explicitlinkage of the forage development initiatives with market-oriented livestockdevelopment Linkage between short-term community benefits and market-orientedanimal production was found to be particularly important in the drylands wheremost of the farmers are unlikely to test risky technological options to improvetheir income.

2)   Participatoryappraisal of community resources and prioritisation of interventions This isrequired to instil a strong sense of community ownership and facilitate thesubsequent scaling-out of interventions. Initially, the generation, adoptionand promotion of the initiatives were demand-driven and participatory based ona thorough analysis/diagnosis of the gaps in knowledge and knowledgeacquisition. Learning of the communities through participation wasimportant—the forage development initiatives were demonstrated through fieldvisits, farmer-to-farmer exchange and sharing of experience, and space was leftfor farmers and partners to modify the technology or innovation according totheir context and understanding.

Thechallenges encountered with respect to further disseminate the technology/innovation, adoption and scaling-up/out were:

Highquality forages

1)   Lackof evidence of economic profitability Successful adoption of forage legumesoccurred where the technologies were profitable, often with multiple benefits(e.g. the “push-pull” system, where the legume assists in stem borer control aswell as providing feed).

2)   Inadequatetechnical support (such as seed or planting material availability). Access toforage seeds is another constraint to scaling-up and out. In East Africa muchof the seed is still produced in research institutions in small quantities andis not widely available through dissemination networks. There are fewcommercial companies dealing with a limited range of species, and seed sourcingand import in some countries of the region is constrained by lack ofinformation and foreign currency.

3)   Thelack of a network of actors to sustain the innovation process Participatoryfarmer-led research involving close interactive partnerships between acoalition of committed stakeholders/actors over many years is essential tosupport adoption of forage technologies as is an innovation approach (see alsothe section on enhancing productivity of local chicken).

4)   A poormatch between the production system niche and skills of farmers Forages arerarely cultivated as sole crops and adoption is increased when farmers deviseways to integrate them into their existing production system with minimaladditional input, labour or land requirement. This requires an understanding ofhow forages combine with each other and with crops, how they compete for waterand nutrients and how best to manage them to increase systems sustainabilityand productivity.

Improvedcrop residues

1)   Competitionfor crop by-products Generally biomass availability in smallholder systems isdeclining and competition is increasing, for example between the needs oflivestock keepers for crop residues as fodder and demand for the same resourcefor soil improvement interventions such as conservation agriculture. Allocatingcrop residues to meet both shorter and longer term needs of farmers is achallenge.

2)   Economicviability of best-fit feeding interventions Very often feed interventionstargeted at ruminant animals (in contrast to monogastric animals, particularlypoultry) have failed because livestock keepers often prefer to prepare theirown rations. This will change with increasing market orientation, but a betterunderstanding is required of how much farmers are willing to invest in feedrelative to what they get from selling their products. Costs of transportationand processing of residues as well as concentrates are also part of thisequation.

3)   Cashflow problems, lack of credit Traditionally feed ingredients (especially cropresidues) could often be obtained on credit or through bartering and exchangeof goods. Commercial feed producers are reluctant to extend credit.

4)   Feedquality control is often problematic Lack of an appropriate regulatory frameworkoften decreases the interest of farmers in purchasing appropriate supplementsfor crop residue based diets because of the variable quality of the feedoptions for sale. This makes it uncertain that production aims can always berealised and that the money spent was matched by adequate feed quality.

Enhancedrangeland resources

1)   Practicalknowledge gaps on how to introduce improved forage management initially Lack ofexperience on participatory market-oriented and knowledge-intensive approachesto assess gaps in knowledge and strategies for knowledge acquisition, use andsharing among farmers and partners.

2)   Effectivepartnerships for initiating forage development are often lacking Traditionally,investment in market-oriented forage development is not common among thecommunity and other partners. As a result, reaching a common understanding onthe forage intervention approaches was time-consuming.

3)   Communitieswere initially sceptical about the expected results of the improved forageinterventions

Therecommendations for addressing the challenges listed above include:

Highquality forages

1)   Lackof evidence of economic profitability The first step is understanding how totarget the use of best-bet forages, fodder trees and food-feed crops in specificniches by exploiting their multiple attributes for sustainable agriculture,including provision of livestock feed, soil amelioration, and weed and pestcontrol. The next step is action research and participatory forage selectionwith farmers and users to better understand how they value and select foragesas part of crop-livestock systems. Involving farmers early in the selectionprocess is important for uptake of technologies.

2)   Inadequatetechnical support (such as seed or planting material availability and anetwork) Farmer selection of technologies and timely delivery of inputs,including seeds and planting material, supported by adequate local livestocksupport organisations and extension is essential to support uptake. Carefulattention to socio-economic and policy issues in provision of technical supportshould also be considered. The ILRI herbage seed unit is addressing issues offorage seed supply and is an important source of seeds and information in theregion to encourage national forage seed production.

3)   Thelack of a network of actors to sustain the innovation process Foragetechnologies have conventionally been promoted through traditionalresearch–extension–farmer linkages but with limited success. New thinking inthis area has recognised the need for involvement of a broader coalition ofactors including input service providers (e.g. seed suppliers), co-operatives,researchers, extension agents, civil society groups and local government linedepartments. Establishing knowledge flow and joint action in such coalitionshas proved more successful in eliciting change in feeding systems and a moreprominent role for forages. Making forages work for the benefit of farmers insmallholder systems appears to require this more actor-oriented approach to besuccessful.

4)   Abetter match between the production system niche and skills of farmersInformation on options for systems, farmer participation in selection ofspecies and information on management practices that take into account farmerconstraints help farmers to better match forages to niches and ensuresuccessful forage production and adoption.

Improvedcrop residues

1)   Competitionfor crop by-products Thorough diagnosis for targeting of efforts to enhancecrop residue supply and use is needed. Competition for crop residue biomass inspecific locations and the availability of alternative feed sources needs to beunderstood before embarking on interventions.

2)   Theeconomic viability of best-fit feeding interventions Innovative partnershipsand arrangements are required to ensure functioning credit options. Such may becomplemented by an appropriate and user-friendly tool to facilitate broadeconomic evaluation of options.

3)   Cashflow problems, lack of credit Engagement with a broad set of market-linked actorsincluding establishment of small-scale business finance models.

4)   Feedquality control is often problematic Engagement with regulatory bodies andproducers, and incentives for appropriate quality and small-scale packaging offeed supplements/concentrates, together with targeted information onutilisation.

Enhancedrangeland resources

1)   Practicalknowledge gaps on how to introduce improved forage management Introduction ofparticipatory, knowledge-based, market-oriented forage development integratedwith the culture of knowledge use and sharing among the community and beyond.

2)   Effectivepartnerships for initiating forage development are often lacking Capacitybuilding on effective partnership approaches in forage development to respondcollectively to emerging market opportunities in animal production and forageintervention.

3)   Communitiescan be initially sceptical about the expected results of the improved forageinterventions The presence of committed and enthusiastic leadership atcommunity and local level is important. Flexible leadership with excellentexperience in collaborative working culture is needed. Development of a closerelationship and collaboration among the partners, mainly the local decisionmakers and extension service providers, community leaders and the community, isa prerequisite for successful community based forage development.

In termsof lessons learnt about the best ways to get technologies or innovationsadopted by the largest number of people, the research has shown that addressingthe feed needs in arid and semi-arid environments requires a combination ofapproaches spanning technologies (and their delivery), knowledge andinformation sharing/ access, innovation system approaches to engage a broadcoalition of actors, and policy dimensions, often engaged simultaneously and inmany cases not beginning with the technology dimension per se. Furthermore,each case has a prerequisite for a growing livestock product market to providethe driving force or “pull” for adoption, utilisation and at times delivery offeed interventions.

Highquality forages

Studieshave shown that forages will be adopted when the following conditions are met:

§  Market opportunity and strong demand forlivestock products, especially milk/ dairy

§  Feed shortages and a strong demand forfeed

§  Lack of alternative market opportunitiesor low-cost feed resources

§  Suitable biophysical environment

§  Adequate land and labour to incorporateforages into existing systems

§  Source and delivery of availableplanting material, and ease of establishment and management

Improvedcrop residues

§  Identification and engagement of allactors in pertinent value chains; this spans the spectrum frombreeding/selection to seed production through transport and processing tomarketing/delivery.

§  Participation of private entrepreneursis particularly important.

§  Business plans for feed processingoptions need to be considered very carefully, particularly the choice ofcentralised versus decentralised processing options.

Enhancedrangeland resources

Ourexperience has identified a series of lessons about enhancing uptake of foragedevelopment technologies for rangelands:

§  Understand the spatial variation inbiophysical and socio-economic settings, in other words define the geographicalareas into domains to scale-out innovations.

§  Identify key market-oriented commoditieswith their advantages, limitations and possible intervention needs along thevalue chains in each geographical domain.

§  Enumerate the knowledge gaps,acquisition and use, and share experiences interactively.

§  Develop the capacity of actors toimprove the uptake and dissemination of innovation.

Highquality forages

Feedcollection and feeding of dairy animals is typically women’s work, whilechildren are involved in herding. Uptake of forage technology supports womenand children through providing a ready source of feed on farm, reducing timespent on feed collection and herding, and sale of cut and carry forages canincrease household income that can be spent on food and schooling. It alsoincreases time that can be spent on their traditional engagement in processingand marketing livestock products such as dairy products, and woollen andleather goods.

Improvedcrop residues

Oftencrop-based interventions are led by men while livestock interventions,specifically feeding, are the responsibility of women in the household.Selection and promotion of dual purpose type cultivars need to take account ofthese different responsibilities.

Enhancedrangeland resources

Withimproved forage development, female-headed households (FHHs) have improvedaccess and better benefits from the forage plots. They rent out their forageplots for 10–20 times more cash than unimproved forage plots. With cut andcarry system of animal feeding, children, particularly girls, have betterchances of attending school.

In oursites, FHHs have benefitted more in the improved forage development thanmale-headed households (MHHs). Usually MHHs have more animals than FHHs. Thusin open grazing situations FHHs are disadvantaged when it comes to utilisationof the feeds. However, after improved forage development, most FHHs sell theirforage either in cash or in kind in exchange for ploughing of their land andthreshing of their crops. Decreasing economic dependence of FHHs on men mayalso decrease the risk of HIV/AIDS spread.

Name and contact of the organisation:

InternationalLivestock Research Institute (ILRI),

P. O.Box 5689,

AddisAbaba, Ethiopia;

Contact person:

ShirleyTarawali;

Email: s.tarawali@cgiar.org;

Tel:+251 11 617 2000;

Fax:+251 11 617 2001

Name and contact of presenter:

AlanDuncan, ILRI,

P. O.Box 5689,

AddisAbaba, Ethiopia;

Email: a.duncan@cgiar.org;

Tel:+251 11 617 2000;

Fax:+251 11 617 2001

Name and contact of key scientists:

High quality forages:

JeanHanson, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI),

P. O.Box 5689,

AddisAbaba, Ethiopia;

Email: j.hanson@cgiar.org;

Tel:+251 11 617 2000;

Fax:+251 11 617 2001

Improved crop residues:

MichaelBlummel,

InternationalLivestock Research Institute (ILRI),

c/oICRISAT, Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh 502 324, India;

Email: m.blummel@cgiar.org;

Tel: +9140 3071 3653 110

Enhanced rangeland resources:

GebremedhinWoldewahid and Dirk Hoekstra,

ILRI/IPMS,

P. O.Box 5689,

AddisAbaba, Ethiopia;

Email:g.woldewahid@cgiar.org; d.hoekstra@cgiar.org;

Tel +25111 617 2000;