Rapid livestock feed assessment tools to support intervention strategies:  FEAST and Techfit
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Rapid livestock feed assessment tools to support intervention strategies: FEAST and Techfit

on

  • 4,643 views

Presented by Alan Duncan at the FAO West Africa Regional Workshop on Crop Residues, Dakar, 10-13 December 2012

Presented by Alan Duncan at the FAO West Africa Regional Workshop on Crop Residues, Dakar, 10-13 December 2012

Statistics

Views

Total Views
4,643
Views on SlideShare
1,536
Embed Views
3,107

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
45
Comments
0

2 Embeds 3,107

http://unjobs.org 3106
http://femtoo.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Rapid livestock feed assessment tools to support intervention strategies:  FEAST and Techfit Rapid livestock feed assessment tools to support intervention strategies: FEAST and Techfit Presentation Transcript

  • Rapid livestock feed assessment tools to support intervention strategies: FEAST and TechfitAlan DuncanFAO 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 FEAST Lack of farmer design and ownership Neglect of how interventions fit the context: land, labour, cash, Techfit knowledge etc
  • FEASTThe 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 aspect1. PRA • Milk marketing, veterinary servicesExercise • Major problems for livestock production • Quantitative information on crop-2. livestock production, feedIndividual availability, feeding rationsfarmer • Qualitative information - perceptionsurvey on feed quality3. Data • Enter data in FEAST templateanalysis and • Based on result develop ideas fordeveloping interventioninterventions
  • 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 outputContribution of livelihood activities to household income (as a percentage) 6% 6% 32% Agriculture 14% Livestock Remmitance Labour Others Business 20% 22%
  • More sample output DM content of total diet Crop residues Purchased 5% 7% Naturally Cultivated occurring and fodder collected 25% 33% Grazing 30%
  • 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
  • TechfitThe problem
  • What is your Feedmain problem
  • What feed technologies Planted foragehave you got? Urea treated straw Bypass protein OK, let’s try those
  • A solution
  • TechfitA discussion support tool for prioritizing feed technologies
  • The core conceptKey context attributes Key technology attributes Land Land Labour Labour Credit Credit Input Input Knowledge Knowledge
  • Matching context to technologyKey context Key technology attributes attributes Land Land Labour x Labour = Score Credit Credit Input InputKnowledge Knowledge
  • Technology filter Score the pre-selected technologies based on the requirement, availability and scope for III. improvement of five technology attributes Pre-select the obvious TECHNOLOGY (5-6) based Scope for FILTER Attribute 5: improve on context relevance Attribute 1: Attribute 2: Attribute 3: Attribute 4: (Technology Knowledge ment of and impact potential Land Labour Cash /credit Input delivery attribute options to /skill s address Total Context Impact Total Requ Avail Requ Avail Requ Avail Requ Avail Requ Avail Score 1-5 quantity, Score relevanc potential score Score 1-3 Score 1-3 Score 1-3 Score 1-3 Score 1-3 Score 1-3 Score 1-3 Score 1-3 Score 1-3 Score 1-3 (1 for quality, e (score 1- (score 1- (context (1 for (1 for (1 for (1 for (1 for (1 for (1 for (1 for (1 for (1 for less and seasonality 6; low- 6; low- X impact) more; less; more; less; high; less; high; less; high; less; 5 for issues) high)) high) 3 for 3 for 3 for 3 for 3 for low) 3 for 3 for low) 3 for 3 for low) 3 for more) less) more) less) more) more) more) more)Urea treatment 2 3 6 3 2 2 2 2 0of strawSupplement with 2 5 10 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 22UMMBBy-pass protein 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 0feedFeedconservation 4 3 12 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 41(surplus)(HAY)etcetc
  • 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/