Maass - Using the 'livestock ladder' to exit poverty


Published on

Presentation delivered at the CIALCA international conference 'Challenges and Opportunities to the agricultural intensification of the humid highland systems of sub-Saharan Africa'. Kigali, Rwanda, October 24-27 2011.

Published in: Education, Business, Technology
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Maass - Using the 'livestock ladder' to exit poverty

  1. 1. Using the 'livestock ladder' to exit poverty for poor crop-livestock farmers in South Kivu, eastern DR Congo Brigitte L. Maass in collaboration with Wanjiku L. Chiuri, Rachel Zozo, Dieudonné Katunga-Musale & Eliud Birachi
  2. 2. Status of livestock production in Sud-Kivu, DRC <ul><li>Different survey instruments applied </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Diagnostic survey </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Participatory rural appraisal (PRA) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Value chain analysis (VCA) along a North-South/Southwestern axis around Bukavu </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Small (monogastric) animals dominate after decades of war and unrest </li></ul><ul><li>Mean livestock was only 1-2 TLU per livestock holder </li></ul><ul><li>Locations </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Diagnostic survey </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>8 groupements along N-S/SW axis around Bukavu </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Participatory rural appraisal (PRA) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Miti-Mulungu + Tubimbi </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Value chain analysis (VCA) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Bukavu (urban) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Miti (rural) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Nyangezi (rural) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Kamanyola (rural) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Tubimbi (rural) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Forage adaptation trials with participatory variety selection at 4 representative locations </li></ul>Status
  3. 3. Production of small livestock species <ul><li>Monogastric animals in smallholder farms produced in very flexible backyard systems </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Traditionally fed by household wastes + other feeds sourced by scavenging around the homestead (e.g., seeds, insects, worms) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Under these conditions, animals usually underfed </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Only 10% of the chicken and even less of pigs received small complements of maize </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Productivity is low – but the system provides a steady source of high quality animal protein as eggs and meat for household consumption </li></ul><ul><li>Helps to enhance nutrition security </li></ul>(mean no. of animals per respondent) ~50% Status (% of respondents holding livestock) ~70%
  4. 4. Livestock keeping vs. livestock production <ul><li>The majority of peasants does not produce sufficient livestock throughout the year to have surplus for regular sales </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Local production is even too low to satisfy subsistence </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Majority of interviewees had 1 meat-containing meal per month </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Farmers only sell when needs arise </li></ul></ul>Status
  5. 5. Rural markets for animal-source products <ul><li>Sales take place on local or regional markets </li></ul><ul><li>Rarely reach Bukavu, at a distance of 20-80 km </li></ul><ul><li>Road infrastructure not conducive for gaining access to this urban population of 0.5-1.0 mio. inhabitants </li></ul>Markets
  6. 6. Animal-source product value chain Markets Producers Rural retailers Consumers Urban retailers Legend High flow Low flow
  7. 7. The urban market for animal-source products <ul><li>Trans-border provision of products significant in South Kivu </li></ul><ul><li>Urban market of animal-source products supplied by producers from nearby Rwanda or even Uganda and Kenya </li></ul>Markets
  8. 8. Animal-source product value chain Markets Producers DRC Rural retailers Consumers Urban retailers Legend Highest flow High flow Low flow Producers RWA et al.
  9. 9. People’s attitudes towards production <ul><li>Humanitarian assistance during the past decades of war and unrest seems to have discouraged peasants from taking own initiatives </li></ul><ul><li>Rather receptive to any kind of donation </li></ul><ul><li>Theft + looting of livestock were still among major issues perceived </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Risk of large animals higher </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Challenge under these conditions is to start to enhance production </li></ul>People
  10. 10. The livestock ladder <ul><li>Suggestion to invest and investigate into the lowest rung of the ‘livestock ladder’ by improving the small animal systems emphasizing the provision of dry season feed, raised as a major issue by all respondents to our surveys </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Women would greatly benefit from cash income </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Family/children’s nutrition would benefit </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Some of the experienced cavy breeders purchase other animals, such as goats and pigs, in exchange for a certain number of cavies: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A young she-goat costs USD 30, equivalent to 15-20 cavies (the annual offspring obtained from a cavy under good conditions); </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A piglet costs USD 20, which is exchanged for 10-14 cavies (Metre 2011). </li></ul></ul>Prospects
  11. 11. The livestock ladder in South Kivu: increased complexity, risk, social prestige, economic value Prospects No (formal) market, lack of knowledge, predation, diseases Good potential of reproduction, no competition with humans Cavies Without animals Chicken, rabbits, ducks Goats, swine Cattle Livestock species Market demand (chicken) Fast multiplication (swine), sign of wealth Sign of wealth, abundant manure, milk Advantages Misery, lack of balanced nutrition Diseases (chicken, rabbits), predation Diseases (swine), higher risk More difficult to manage, largest risk Disadvantages
  12. 12. The potential role of forages <ul><li>Improved forages could play an important role to both enhance livestock production and improve soil fertility also preventing from soil erosion </li></ul><ul><li>Introducing forages would help to improve nutrient cycling </li></ul><ul><li>Research has been neglected in the recent past </li></ul><ul><li>Applying participatory variety selection (PVS) on small plots in four locations, farmers chose forages with visible dry season-tolerance, but also those palatable for their small animals, like the herbaceous legume Canavalia brasiliensis </li></ul>Forages # # # # # dry season preference
  13. 13. Possible pathway to livelihood improvement Introduction of (forage) legumes Improved soil fertility Increased crop yields Increased stocking rates Increased cash income Better family nutrition More animal produce More manure produced More feed available Prospects
  14. 14. Animal production to combat undernutrition <ul><li>Very few studies with variable outcomes </li></ul><ul><li>Interventions associated with clear improvements in dietary intake and nutritional status were: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Women either played a critical role in the intervention or </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>the interventions included a nutrition education component </li></ul></ul>Leroy JL & Frongillo EA. 2007. Can interventions to promote animal production ameliorate undernutrition? J. Nutr. 137:2311-2316. ©2007 by American Society for Nutrition Prospects Promoting animal production Animal production Caregiver income Caregiver time Dietary intake Nutritional status Income / expen-diture Zoonosis
  15. 15. Pathway to livelihood improvement Introduction of (forage) legumes Improved soil fertility Increased crop yields Increased stocking rates Increased cash income More manure produced More feed available Larger animal species Prospects Better family nutrition Other livelihood activities More animal produce
  16. 16. Improved feeding? <ul><li>Identify spatial and temporal niches in addition to the potential acceptability of forages by local farmers in a broad systems context </li></ul><ul><li>Modelling together with farmers helps to explore “feasible futures” (Rufino 2008) </li></ul><ul><li>Smallholder farmers strive for balance between productivity, adaptability and reliability </li></ul><ul><ul><li>In risky environments adaptability + reliability are most important </li></ul></ul><ul><li>An approach based on farming systems and participatory research </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Benchmark current farming system </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Identify constraints to (crop/ livestock/crop-livestock?) production and possible strategies to address them </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Model production, economic and social/gender impacts of selected strategies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>On-farm testing of the most promising strategies with a sufficiently large number of smallholder households (Lisson et al. 2010) </li></ul></ul>Prospects Lisson S et al. 2010. A participatory, farming systems approach to improving Bali cattle production in the smallholder crop–livestock systems of Eastern Indonesia. Agric. Syst . 103:486-497. Rufino M. 2008. Quantifying the contribution of crop-livestock integration to African farming. Wageningen University, The Netherlands.
  17. 17. Improved feeding for small animals? <ul><li>Cavies can live on low quality diets, e.g., banana leaves, mango leaves, bamboo leaves because of most efficient fibre digestion > rabbits </li></ul><ul><ul><li>No competition with human nutrition </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Improved nutrition (and husbandry) improves greatly production </li></ul>Prospects Improved cavy husbandry at ‘Village Cobayes’, Mulamba
  18. 18. Conclusions <ul><li>We suggest to use a participatory modelling approach focusing on small animals + feeding systems to re-connect South Kivu farmers to the market </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Improved feeding/cultivation of forages may be the easiest entry point (grasses, tree + herbaceous legumes) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>All stakeholders need to participate – innovation platform approach </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Capacity building at various levels is critical </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The final outcome will, hence, be provision of cash income, enhanced nutrition of family members and, eventually, support for the acquisition of larger animals </li></ul><ul><li>Continuity of project(s) and sustainability of project funding crucial for success </li></ul>Rabbits in Nyangezi Cavy production ‘chez Thierry’
  19. 19. Acknowledgements Project “More chicken and pork in the pot, and money in pocket: Improving forages for monogastric animals with low-income farmers“
  20. 20. General wealth classes defined in Miti-Mulungu and Tubimbi: minimum assets A vehicle, a house in durable materials, private farmland, animals for grazing No animals No animals House of straw; neither land nor animals; is used as hired labour, depends on others to survive Has nothing at all Very poor 1 cassava field, 2 cavies, 1 chicken 2-3 chickens,  3 cavies House of straw, small animals, live under difficult conditions Rabbits and cavies Poor 30 m 2 cassava, neither cattle nor goats, 1 chicken / 4 cavies  5 rabbits,  2 chickens, >3 cavies Children, pets, farmland Goats Inter-mediate 0.5 ha land with cassava, 3 cattle, 1 swine, 1 goat, 5 chicken, 2 ha oil palm >2 swine (1 st ),  4 goats (2 nd ) Goats and swine Rich 1-2 ha land with/ without cassava, >5 cattle, 0.25 ha plantains, 3-4 ha oil palms >2 cattle (1 st ), >5 swine (2 nd ) A personal veterinary; 2 ha of grazing land; cows and swine Very rich Tubimbi: men Tubimbi: women Miti: men Miti: women Wealth class
  21. 21. Nyangezi, 1600 m asl. Kamanyola, 1000 m asl. Mulungu, 1600 m asl. Tubimbi, 1100 m asl. All 4 field sites in DRC, January 2010
  22. 22. Farmer evaluation of herbaceous forage legumes * mentioned, but not among the top five; n.m., not mentioned. Mean rank of top five evaluation criteria applied by farmers to various herbaceous legumes during the dry and rainy seasons in four locations of S Kivu n.m. (6)* Promotes high milk production 5 n.m. Serves for erosion control 4 (9)* Improves soil fertility (8)* 5 Disease resistant 3 4 Well accepted/palatable 2 3 High nutritive value (6)* 2 Dry season tolerance 1 1 High biomass production Rainy season (rank) N=20 women, 14 men Dry season (rank) N=21 women, 26 men Selection criteria identified by farmers