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

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

2

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)

3

Globally, most people are in mixed crop – livestock systems

4

Herrero et al. 2009

50% or more of income for those in mixed systemscomes from livestock(producers, traders, market agents, processors.....)

Global cereal production

5

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

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)?

7

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

8

Production efficiency – developed countries

9

Capper et al., 2009

Feed, breed, health =

4 fold milk increase

Estimated GHG emissions per kg of FPCM at farm gate, averaged by main

regions and the world

10

FAO, 2010

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

11

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

12

Smallholders have advantages – but not

everywhere

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

Opportunities and challenges

Context matters:– Intensification– Economy– Commodity

Solutions matter:– Institutions and processes– Technologies (for production

efficiency)

14

Institutions and processes

Supportive policies and regulationsInfrastructureKnowledge inputs, business servicesInnovation capacity of all actors

15

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

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 18

19

Crop residues

44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 552.8

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

4.2y = -4.9 + 0.17x; R2 = 0.75; P = 0.03

Stover in vitro digestibility (%)

Sto

ver

pri

ce (

IR/k

g D

M)

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

Ingredients %

Sorghum stover 50

Bran/husks/hulls 18

Oilcakes 18

Molasses 8

Grains 4

Minerals, vitamins 2

Only small non by-product

inputs

Improved sorghum – 12% better digestibility

21

Comparisons of high (Raichur) and low quality (local Yellow) sorghum stover based feed

blocks in commercial dairy buffalo

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

Anandan et al. (2009a)

22

Supplementation and processing of sweet sorghum bagasse and response in sheep

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

Anandan et al. (2009b)

No processing solution feeds fit all feeding situations Economy driving, optimizing strategies requiredMore emphasis needed on decentralized processing options

Feed opportunities Improved food-feed crops Processing options Implications for:

– Requirements for land, water– Direct GHG

Indirect GHG

23

24

Feed, water and livestock

management; integrated crop-

livestock systems

Manure and nutrient cycling

Storage and handlingChallenge: specialisation - spatial

separation of crop and livestock production

25

Where to begin? Sectors and regions that favour smallholder intensification

26

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

ConclusionsMixed 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

27

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

28