Mixed crop-livestock systems in developing countries are crucial for supporting millions of poor people and producing a significant portion of livestock and crop commodities, addressing food needs while balancing environmental and social equity. The future of these systems relies on understanding multiple factors, including intensification, market relationships, and the role of smallholders, particularly in transitioning to more market-oriented approaches. Strategies for improving efficiency, productivity, and market access must be integrated with supportive policies, technological innovations, and a focus on sustainable practices.

1. Pathways for sustainable development of mixed crop-livestock systems in developing countries Shirley Tarawali, Mario Herrero, Katrien Descheemaeker, Elaine Grings, Michael Blümmel Presentation at the Symposium: Assessment for sustainable development of animal production systems 3 November 2011

2. Key messages Mixed crop livestock systems in developing countries support millions of poor and produce more than half the developing world’s livestock and crop commodities Present one of the greatest challenges – and opportunities to address food needs of the future without compromising environment, equity or livelihoods Don’t present a panacea answer and require understanding context and a radically different approach to solutions

3. Crop livestock systems Mixed intensive High population density, high agro-ecological potential/irrigation, good links to markets, some purchased inputs Mixed extensive Medium population density, moderate agro-ecological potential, rainfed agriculture, hardly any purchased inputs (mosaic, interactions)

4. Globally, most people are in mixed crop – livestock systems Herrero et al. 2009 50% or more of income for those in mixed systems comes from livestock (producers, traders, market agents, processors.....)

5. Global cereal production Developing world mixed systems produce almost 50% of the cereals of the World Most production coming from intensive crop livestock systems Herrero et al. 2009

6. Globally mixed systems produce significant amounts of milk and meat Herrero et al. 2009

7. But what about the future? Multiple drivers: Population, urbanization GDP growth Demand from domestic, regional, international markets Climate change Food? Environment? Equity? Livelihoods? Transition or radical change (industrial)?

8. Transition of crop livestock systems Transition of: Production efficiency Role of animals (market engagement) Trajectory depends on: Degree of intensification Stage of economy Livestock commodity

9. Production efficiency – developed countries Capper et al., 2009 Feed, breed, health = 4 fold milk increase

10. Estimated GHG emissions per kg of FPCM at farm gate, averaged by main regions and the world FAO, 2010

11. Role of animals Multiple Comparing cattle systems in Kenya, Zambia and Sri Lanka: Up to 40% of benefits from livestock keeping came from non-market, intangible benefits, mostly insurance and financing Insurance: Financing: Livestock - an inflation-proof savings/investment Manure, traction, social Market focused Don’t increase risk! Genetic base Fewer animals Purchased inputs Single product Reliance on connection to markets, knowledge

12. Smallholders have advantages – but not everywhere Development stage %agric in GDP %livestock in agric GDP Demand for livestock products Smallholder roles Agricultural 30-50 15-45 Rural and urban poor – small quantities Smallholders competitive; informal markets Transforming 15-25 18-50 Increased quantity demanded Urbanized 6-9 30-50 Quantity but especially quality demands Complex value chains; vertical coordination; smallholders not competitive unless where labour and inputs benefit

13. Smallholder market participation Studies in India, Bangladesh and Brazil indicate: For some ruminant production, smallholders can compete, and are likely to do so for foreseeable future Major factor for smallholders remaining competitive is opportunity cost of labour (including lack of good off-farm opportunities) -0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 Rs/litre <=20 20-40 40-80 80-150 >150 Avg. Farm scale - liters of milk/day Source: Sharma et al., 2003

14. Opportunities and challenges Context matters: Intensification Economy Commodity Solutions matter: Institutions and processes Technologies (for production efficiency)

15. Institutions and processes Supportive policies and regulations Infrastructure Knowledge inputs, business services Innovation capacity of all actors

16. Smallholder dairy systems – East Africa and South Asia Evidence (research) for policy making on: Risk analysis of informal milk marketing Employment and income benefits for the poor in dairy production and marketing Business/market development - link poor livestock producers and feed suppliers to more sophisticated input/output systems “ Hub” model

17. Smallholder production systems – Improving productivity and market success in Ethiopia Accelerating the transformation of subsistence systems to more market-oriented ones through: Capacity building of public and private sector actors Knowledge management Increased productivity and access to markets Identifying options for enabling policy and institutional environment Gender and HIV/AIDS issues mainstreamed

18. Improving efficiency – can it be done? Need to “bundle” technology dimensions (feed-breed-health) Sufficient commodity yields using mainly local ingredients? What are environmental implications? GHG Water Land Manure Competition for biomass

19. Crop residues Premium Stover “ Raichur ” Low Cost Stover “ Local Yellow” Blümmel and Parthasarathy, 2006 70% of production cost is feed 70% of feed is crop residues Significant variation in crop residue quality without compromising grain yield Quality and price are correlated Combine: Crop residues Processing Inputs

20. Feed block manufacturing: supplementation, densification Only small non by-product inputs Improved sorghum – 12% better digestibility Ingredients % Sorghum stover 50 Bran/husks/hulls 18 Oilcakes 18 Molasses 8 Grains 4 Minerals, vitamins 2

21. Comparisons of high (Raichur) and low quality (local Yellow) sorghum stover based feed blocks in commercial dairy buffalo Anandan et al. (2009a) Block High Block Low CP 17.2 % 17.1% ME (MJ/kg) 8.46 MJ/kg 7.37 MJ/kg DMI 19.7 kg/d 18.0 kg/d DMI per kg LW 3.6 % 3.3 % Milk Potential 16.6 kg/d 11.8 kg/d

22. Supplementation and processing of sweet sorghum bagasse and response in sheep Anandan et al. (2009b) No processing solution feeds fit all feeding situations Economy driving, optimizing strategies required More emphasis needed on decentralized processing options Mash Pellets Block Control Chaffed SSBRL Concentrate DMI (g/kg LW) 52.5 a 55.6 a 42.1 b 41.5 b ADG (g / d) 132.7 a 130.4 a 89.5 b 81.3 b Processing ($/t) 5.9 7.0 5.2 1.7 Transport ($/t/100km) 6.6 5.8 5.2 13.5

23. Feed opportunities Improved food-feed crops Processing options Implications for: Requirements for land, water Direct GHG Indirect GHG

24. Feed, water and livestock management; integrated crop-livestock systems

25. Manure and nutrient cycling Storage and handling Challenge: specialisation - spatial separation of crop and livestock production

26. Where to begin? Sectors and regions that favour smallholder intensification Dairy – south Asia (124 million people); East Africa (24 million) – low labour cost, local inputs ; Beef – west Africa (70 million) – especially young animal provision? Small ruminants – West (81 million) and Southern Africa (28 million); South Asia – low input, local market, favouring women Pigs – Vietnam, Uganda.... Smallholders, rapidly growing sector

27. Conclusions Mixed crop livestock systems Are not the only answer for global food Extensive systems Transforming economies Dairy, ruminant production Will not happen automatically Does not begin with technology Institutions and processes at all levels important Technology integral part

28. Key messages Mixed crop livestock systems in developing countries support millions of poor and produce more than half the developing world’s livestock and crop commodities Present one of the greatest challenges – and opportunities to address food needs of the future without compromising environment, equity or livelihoods Don’t present a panacea answer and require understanding context and a radically different approach to solutions