4. Framework
Feed source Feed type
Own farm
Natural grazing
Planted pastures
Community Other planted forages
Crop residues
Market Crop by products
Other by products
Grains
Policy Roots and tubers
Mineral etc supplements
Balanced concentrates
Opportunities to increase feed:
Produce more --- Utilize better --- Import
4
5. This framework:
Seems to work Tweaking!
Allows for technology Consider different
and non dimensions to “levels”
be articulated Limited prioritisation
Considers dynamic Limitations of “expert”
Apply in context of consultation – non
specific commodity VC quantitative
Allowed some initial Articulation of
quantitative evaluation diversity?
5
6. “intensification” Source of feed (%DM)
Natural grazing
Planted pastures
Planted forages
Crop residues
Crop by-products
Other by-products
Grains
Roots & tubers
Mineral/vit suppl
2010 Balanced concentrates
2030
Own farm
Community
Market
6
7. “intensification” Source of feed (%DM)
Natural grazing
Planted pastures
Planted forages
Crop residues
Crop by-products
Other by-products
Grains
Roots & tubers
Mineral/vit suppl
2010 Balanced concentrates
2030
Own farm
Community
Market
7
8. Produce more Utilize better Import
Knowledge and
Policies Technologies
service provision
8
9. Produce more Utilize better Import
•Institutionalise multi •Knowledge services: •Improve marketing
dimensional crop improvement •Sourcing, balancing, targeting •Provision of knowledge, market
•Improve access to HY forages rations info, credit
and crops •Processing of feeds •Incentives for small scale
•Evaluate price-policy issues •Governance of feed quality; entrepreneurs
•Improve water productivity water
•Access to service delivery
Knowledge and
Policies Technologies
service provision
9
10. Produce more Utilize better Import
Knowledge and
Policies Technologies
service provision
• Infrastructure • Developing BDS: • Farm
• Community • Knowledge management
based NRM • Inputs • Crop husbandry
• Support BDS • Credit • Food-feed crops
• PP consortia for • Forages
food-feed crops • Water
• Governance of harvesting
NR • Processing
• (PES) • Feed storage
• Balanced rations 10
11. Policies
Knowledge and
Technologies
service provision
11
12. In general.....
Investment in infrastructure
Combinations of public and private investments
– Facilitation of adoption/mkt participation
• Reduced transaction costs – improved access to services and information –
smallholders and other market agents
Technologies
– Often private (individual)
– Bundle with other technologies
– Intersection of policies and institutions
Increasing animal numbers – attractive for private investment BUT
negative environment:
– Private investment in better feeding plus incentives to reduce transaction
costs (access to feeds, participation in product markets)
BDS – multiple dimensions
Innovation system approaches
12
13. To consider....
Different levels.... From farm through
community, local, national policies and institutions
provide important context
Seasonality?
Are there some “must haves”?
– Context – eg specific growing livestock commodity value
chain
– Information to guide options?
• “Level” of intensification.... Dynamic?
• Institutional “diagnosis”
• Market engagement
• .....etc
Current and potential feed resources
13
Editor's Notes
This study was commissioned by WB. It is actually one aspect of a two part piece of work, with the other aspect focusing on learning lessons from development projects about the importance and opportunities in relation to livestock market participation. This study focused on identifying opportunities for investment related to feeds that would enhance livelihoods of smallholder farmers. The key issue – development projects and investors who want to ensure that smallholder livestock producers are able to participate in and benefit from markets need to address the feed dimension of animal productivity in ways that ensure appropriate, environmentally sustainable and affordable feed options are accessible for smallholder livestock producers.
Clearly this is a vast, complex and dynamic issue – but for the purposes of developing some systematic way of identifying and prioritising opportunities requires some simplification. Aware of the limitations of such!Considering feed in relation to livestock commodity value chain requires a different approach to the feed –focused supply driven one of the pastProductivity – key to market engagement.Environment – includes trade offs in biomass use, land and water use, impacts on GHGsEquity – issues of rich vs poor; gender; land-no landEconomics – cost of production/feed (70%); labour; costs versus product value; access to fair and viable markets etc
Systematic but limitationsFramework to be applied for specific livestock commodity value chain – can be for a region, but also works for a community (and in between) – might need some tweaking!Allows to articulate issues related to all dimensions; to capture dynamics (eg we applied for 2010 and 2030....)These issues can be translated into dimensions that relate to:institutions and policies (including changing public and private sector roles); knowledge and innovation;as well as technologies themselves
Diagram to illustrate impacts of intensification With intensification:Least market oriented:All feeds sourced at household levelMost market oriented:Feed sourced off farmConsiderable impact of policies; public/private sector interactionsFeeds less variable/diverse
Diagram to illustrate impacts of intensification With intensification:Least market oriented:All feeds sourced at household levelMost market oriented:Feed sourced off farmConsiderable impact of policies; public/private sector interactionsFeeds less variable/diverse
Qualitative and quantitative assessments largely matchedOverall confirmation that all three dimensions intersect and need to be addressed