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

Alan Duncan

FAO West Africa Regional Workshop on Crop Residues, Dakar, 10-13 December 2012

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 security

Land scarcity/tenure

Markets for livestock products

Free grazing

Traction 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

FEAST

The 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 straw

Bypass 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

improve

ment of

attribute

s

Context

relevanc

e (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 straw2 3 6 3 2 2 2 2 0

Supplement with

UMMB2 5 10 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 22

By-pass protein

feed1 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

etc

etc

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

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.

Links

http://fodderadoption.wordpress.com/

techfit/

http://fodderadoption.wordpress.com/

feast/