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

Rapid livestock feed assessment tools to support

intervention strategies: FEAST and Techfit

Alan Duncan and Ben Lukuyu

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 securityLand scarcity/tenureMarkets for livestock productsFree grazingTraction 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

Lack of farmer design and ownership

Neglect of how interventions fit the context: land, labour, cash, knowledge etc

FEAST

Techfit

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 aspect• Milk marketing, veterinary services• Major problems for livestock

production

1. PRA Exercise

• Quantitative information on crop-livestock production, feed availability, feeding rations

• Qualitative information - perception on feed quality

2. Individual farmer survey

• Enter data in FEAST template• Based on result develop ideas for

intervention

3. Data analysis and developing interventions

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 output

32%

22%

20%

14%

6%

6%

Contribution of livelihood activities to household income (as a percentage)

Agriculture

Livestock

Remmitance

Labour

Others

Business

More sample output

Crop residues5%

Cultivated fodder

25%

Grazing30%

Naturally occurring and

collected33%

Purchased7%

DM content of total diet

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

Techfit

The problem

What is your main problem

Feed

What feed technologies

have you got?Planted forage

Urea treated strawBypass protein

OK, let’s try those

A solution

TechfitA discussion support tool for

prioritizing feed technologies

Key context attributes

Land

Labour

Credit

Input

Knowledge

Key technology attributes

Land

Labour

Credit

Input

Knowledge

The core concept

Key context attributes

Land

Labour

Credit

Input

Knowledge

Key technology attributes

Land

Labour

Credit

Input

Knowledge

x = Score

Matching context to technology

Technology filter

Scope for improvement of attribute

s

Context relevance (score 1-

6; low-high))

Impact potential (score 1-6; low-high)

Total score

(context X impact)

Requ Score 1-3

(1 for more; 3 for less)

Avail Score 1-3

(1 for less; 3 for

more)

Requ Score 1-3

(1 for more; 3 for less)

Avail Score 1-3

(1 for less; 3 for

more)

Requ Score 1-3

(1 for high;

3 for low)

Avail Score 1-3

(1 for less; 3 for

more)

Requ Score 1-3

(1 for high;

3 for low)

Avail Score 1-3

(1 for less; 3 for

more)

Requ Score 1-3

(1 for high;

3 for low)

Avail Score 1-3

(1 for less; 3 for

more)

Score 1-5 (1 for

less and 5 for

more)

Urea treatment of straw

2 3 6 3 2 2 2 2 0

Supplement with UMMB

2 5 10 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 22

By-pass protein feed

1 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 0

Feed conservation (surplus) (HAY)

4 3 12 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 41

etcetc

III.

TECHNOLOGY FILTER

(Technology options to

address quantity, quality,

seasonality issues)

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

Total Score

Technology list

Pre-filter Main filter

Score

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.