Rapid livestock feed assessment tools to support intervention strategies: FEAST and Techfit
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 systemsInteractions between crops and livestockCrop residues are substantial component of livestock dietsFeeding of livestock needs to take account of arable realities: competition for land, free grazing in off season etc.
Challenges to improved feed supplyFood securityLand scarcity/tenureMarkets for livestock productsFree grazingTraction a sink for feed
The way aheadThings 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
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 outputFeast report with some ideas for key problems and solutionsBetter links and understanding between farmers, research and development staff
TechfitA 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 assessmentWhat does the technology cost? – Inputs, labour, land etc?What does the technology deliver? – Enhanced milk yield, improved reproductive performance, better growth etcDoes it make sense?
Final outputIdeas for some promising feed interventions that might workBetter understanding of why the usual suspects often don’t work.