TechFit : A Tool for Prioritizing Feed
Technologies
Adugna Tolera (ICARDA)
Training on Feed Assessment Tools, ILRI, Addis
...
Objectives
 To have a common understanding, interpretation and application of
the tool
 To learn how to score and match ...
Background
 Reality No. 1 (Reality of farmers)
 Livestock production is important
 Feed is a major constraints (FEAST &...
Feed interventions often do not work – why?
 Failure to place feed in broader livelihood
context
 Lack of farmer design ...
What is TechFit?
 A discussion tool for prioritizing feed technologies
 Helps to identify suitable technologies for eval...
How does it work?
Technology options to address feed
problem (list of potentially available
technologies)
Technologies a...
How does it work? (Cont …)
 Main filter – involves combining scores of technology and context
attributes to arrive at tot...
Match farmers’ context to technology
Score (1-5) for
technology attribute
Land (1-5)
Labor (1-5)
Credit (1-5)
Input (1-5)
...
Technology filter
III.
TECHNOLOGY
FILTER
(Technology
options to
address
quantity,
quality,
seasonality
issues)
Urea treatm...
How to do scoring and ranking?
• List of potential technologies obtained from the research
system
• Context relevance and ...
Cost benefit analysis
• Short list the best 3-4 technologies for cost-benefit analysis
• What does the technology cost?
(t...
Cost-benefit analysis
 Method not yet well developed and refined
 Mostly based on a number of assumptions using partial ...
Intervention name
Clear description focusing processes and actions with pictures and
glossary for specific terms

Technica...
Adoptability Protocol - Process
• Past experiences regarding introduction of technologies,
including uptake, community fee...
Factor
Relative
advantage
superiority

Compatibility
Complexity

Guiding points/questions to keep in
mind in FGD
CBA analy...
Data we need to derive from FEAST to feed into Techfit
 Main constraint
 Seasonality
 Quantity
 Quality
 Dominant com...
Seasonality
 Consult seasonal calendar – estimate proportion of minimum
availability to maximum availability






1...
Quantity
 If you place more basal feed in front of your animals would they
consume it?






With extreme enthusiasm...
Quality
 If you placed more basal feed in front of your animals would they
consume it?






With extreme enthusiasm...
Commodity focus
 On a scale from 1 to 10 how important are the following enterprises to cash
income:
 Beef
 Fattening
...
Farming system
 Which of the following best describes the target group:





Pastoral
Agro-pastoral/mixed
Intensive/m...
Experiences in testing and application of the tool
 Tested to prioritize feed technologies for 3 different
commodities (d...
Strengths of the tool
 Enables rapid location specific prioritization and
short listing of feed technologies in different...
Limitations of the tool
 All scores are based on subjective judgments. Thus
one has to be well versed with the subject ma...
Project partners in Ethiopia
Thank You
Africa Research in Sustainable Intensification for the Next
Generation

africa-rising.net

The presentation has ...
TechFit: A tool for prioritizing feed technologies
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

TechFit: A tool for prioritizing feed technologies

98

Published on

Presented by Adugna Tolera (Hawassa University) at the Training Workshop on Feed Assessment Tools, ILRI, Addis Ababa, 18-21 November 2013

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
98
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Ethiopia
  • TechFit: A tool for prioritizing feed technologies

    1. 1. TechFit : A Tool for Prioritizing Feed Technologies Adugna Tolera (ICARDA) Training on Feed Assessment Tools, ILRI, Addis Ababa, 18-21 November 2013
    2. 2. Objectives  To have a common understanding, interpretation and application of the tool  To learn how to score and match technology attributes and context attributes of farmers  To customize the application of the tool to the local context
    3. 3. Background  Reality No. 1 (Reality of farmers)  Livestock production is important  Feed is a major constraints (FEAST & Other reports)  Farmers are looking for a remedy to the problem  Reality No. 2 (Reality of research & development efforts)  Various feed technologies generated by the research system  Lack of systematic approach for prioritizing available feed technologies  Poor adoption rate of available technologies  Wastage of substantial efforts and resources
    4. 4. 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
    5. 5. What is TechFit?  A discussion tool for prioritizing feed technologies  Helps to identify suitable technologies for evaluation and screening  Designed to filter best bet technologies from a basket of technologies available to farmers  Provides better understanding of why and why not technologies work or do not work
    6. 6. How does it work? Technology options to address feed problem (list of potentially available technologies) Technologies are filtered at different levels Only technologies with high total scores carried forward to the main filter
    7. 7. How does it work? (Cont …)  Main filter – involves combining scores of technology and context attributes to arrive at total score  Technology attributes – requirement of a given technology for land, labor, cash/credit, inputs and knowledge  High score => low likelihood of adoption  Context attributes – availability of land, labor, cash/credit, inputs and knowledge  High score => high likelihood of adoption
    8. 8. Match farmers’ context to technology Score (1-5) for technology attribute Land (1-5) Labor (1-5) Credit (1-5) Input (1-5) Knowledge (1-5) Total score Rank Score (1-5) for context attribute X X X X X Land (1-5) Labor (1-5) Credit (1-5) Input (1-5) Knowledge (1-5) = = = = = = ? If technology demands land => low score for land If farmers do not have or have very small land holding => Low score for land
    9. 9. Technology filter III. TECHNOLOGY FILTER (Technology options to address quantity, quality, seasonality issues) Urea treatment of straw Supplement with UMMB By-pass protein feed Feed conservation (surplus) (HAY) etc etc 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 Scope for improve ment of attribute s Context Impact Total Requ Avail Requ Avail Requ Avail Requ Avail Requ Avail Score 1-5 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 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 6; low- 6; low- X impact) more; less; more; less; high; less; high; less; high; less; 5 for 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) 2 3 6 3 2 5 10 3 1 3 3 3 4 3 12 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 1 2 1 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 3 3 3 0 1 2 3 3 3 Total Score 22 0 3 1 41
    10. 10. How to do scoring and ranking? • List of potential technologies obtained from the research system • Context relevance and impact potential – by experts at each specific location • Technology attributes (requirement of the technology for land, labor, etc. ) – by experts • Context of farmers (availability of land, labor etc.) – by farmers (interview a group of representative farmers and ask them to score)
    11. 11. Cost benefit analysis • Short list the best 3-4 technologies for cost-benefit analysis • What does the technology cost? (type of feed, amount used, % of total feed, cost, % of total feed cost) • What does the technology deliver? (animal performance measure, % contribution to the performance change, % contribution to income gain) • Is it worthwhile?
    12. 12. Cost-benefit analysis  Method not yet well developed and refined  Mostly based on a number of assumptions using partial budget analysis  Compare additional costs and additional benefits i.e. marginal benefits
    13. 13. Intervention name Clear description focusing processes and actions with pictures and glossary for specific terms Technical Information Key technology attributes • Land area required • Labour, including gender • Skills/Knowledge • Cash/Credit • External inputs • Capital / infrastructure Benefits • Primary (including time dimension, etc.) • Secondary • … Applicability • Purpose / Addresses constraints – opportunities • Which animal? • Agroecological, farming system suitability including socio-cultural issues (e.g., taboos) if applicable • Scale • History of use • Potential to integrate with … Adoptability characteristics • (=conclusion: simplicity, observability, use, etc. • …
    14. 14. Adoptability Protocol - Process • Past experiences regarding introduction of technologies, including uptake, community feeling, etc. • Ranking of livelihood ambitions/aspirations in general and for agriculture and livestock in particular After becoming more and more reductionist and analytical, bring it back into the broader perspective Objective  Subjective  FGD on options • Give info on options • Ask community to rank • Discuss ranking, ‘why’, etc. (guiding points/questions)  Link to CBA data  Select trial farmers for AR (model or pioneer farmers)
    15. 15. Factor Relative advantage superiority Compatibility Complexity Guiding points/questions to keep in mind in FGD CBA analysis, but subjective points may be raised in group • Quality of labour (drudgery), etc. • Riskiness - technology, risk aversion • Social acceptability &/or taboos • Effect on gender aspects or child labour • Possibility of adapting to or in local situation Relatable to something simple, familiar, routine, etc. Trialability Resources present for implementation Observability (Should perhaps be made as Techfit filtre) Delivery process • Competence, capacity & buy-in of local extension staff • Enabling environment
    16. 16. Data we need to derive from FEAST to feed into Techfit  Main constraint  Seasonality  Quantity  Quality  Dominant commodity  Beef  Dairy  Sheep/Goats  Pigs/poultry  Farming system  Pastoral  Agro-pastoral/mixed  Intensive/mixed (crop-livestock)  Landless  Core context attributes  Requirement for land  Requirement for labour  Requirement for cash credit  Requirement for inputs  Requirement for knowledge/skills
    17. 17. Seasonality  Consult seasonal calendar – estimate proportion of minimum availability to maximum availability      1.0 = 0 >0.75 = 1 >0.5 = 2 >0.25 = 3 >0.0 = 4  Is minimum in the dry/winter season? – Winter season scarcity  Is minimum in the growing season? – Growing season scarcity
    18. 18. Quantity  If you place more basal feed in front of your animals would they consume it?      With extreme enthusiasm = 4 With considerable interest = 3 With some interest = 2 Yes but not immediately = 1 No = 0  Something also about interest in supplemental/high quality feed?
    19. 19. Quality  If you placed more basal feed in front of your animals would they consume it?      With extreme enthusiasm = 0 With considerable interest = 1 With some interest = 2 Yes but not immediately = 3 No = 4
    20. 20. Commodity focus  On a scale from 1 to 10 how important are the following enterprises to cash income:  Beef  Fattening  Breeding stock  Dairy  Sheep/Goats  Fattening  Breeding stock  Pigs/poultry      0-2 = 0 2-4 = 1 4-6 = 2 6-8 = 3 8-10 = 4
    21. 21. Farming system  Which of the following best describes the target group:     Pastoral Agro-pastoral/mixed Intensive/mixed (crop-livestock) Landless
    22. 22. Experiences in testing and application of the tool  Tested to prioritize feed technologies for 3 different commodities (dairy, beef, sheep) in different parts of Ethiopia  Preceded by assessment of livestock production and feeding systems using Feed Assessment Tool (FEAST)  Enabled rapid prioritization and short listing of potential feed technologies  The pre-filter (context relevance score) helped a great deal to focus attention on those technologies that are relevant in the area.
    23. 23. Strengths of the tool  Enables rapid location specific prioritization and short listing of feed technologies in different agroecologies and production systems  Puts feed in a broader context and filters technologies for specific contexts (agro-ecology, production system, farmers’ contexts etc.) • It is robust in screening out technologies that are not relevant in a given context • Gives good indication why some technologies are not easily adopted
    24. 24. Limitations of the tool  All scores are based on subjective judgments. Thus one has to be well versed with the subject matter and the local conditions to give a realistic score.  Cost benefit analysis is based on a number of assumptions and the validity depends on the soundness of each assumption.  Most feed technologies make only partial contribution to the total diet  a challenge of partitioning the contribution of the feed in question to the performance of the animal
    25. 25. Project partners in Ethiopia
    26. 26. Thank You Africa Research in Sustainable Intensification for the Next Generation africa-rising.net The presentation has a Creative Commons licence. You are free to re-use or distribute this work, provided credit is given to ILRI.
    1. A particular slide catching your eye?

      Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

    ×