Auteur: admin

Geplaatst op

Sheep and goat systems

Small ruminants are increasing very much in numbers, in particular in the least developed countries. Literature suggests that small ruminants can really contribute to improving livelihoods of the rural poor.

Research on small ruminants in Indonesia showed that small ruminants are very much appreciated by rural households, however, they are more a sign of poverty than that they lift a farming family out of poverty. In Indonesia small ruminant systems intensify: they are kept more and more indoors, other breeds (other tropical breeds) are being kept and numbers increase due to promotion by government institutions, and intensifying of cropping areas, so less grazing is available. The most important drivers for small ruminant keeping are found at household level, there has to be household labour and a small capital available. If so, then about 4-6 animals are kept. On average a household spends considerable time on their small ruminants, mainly to find sufficient feed, in particular in the dry season. This results in labour productivities below the minimum wage level. But most of the family labour is not competitive in the job market, so, farmers do not consider the family labour as real costs.

In Indonesia, the development focus is on goats, but research results indicate that sheep are just as productive as goats. Small ruminants are an appreciated secondary activity. Farmers always say that they keep them as a security and for their manure. They sell them to cover expenses for the start of the school year, a new school uniform, or for buying fertilizers for preparing the paddy fields. Small ruminant farmers not only supply local markets, their animals are being bought by traders who transport them to major cities. Males are being slaughtered for the feast of sacrifice. We explored whether farmers could specialize in fattening males for this purpose, but the numbers they can fatten are too small, with these small herd sizes, to really have an impact. In West Africa this is more of a success for a small group of farming households; here flocks are bigger and there is more grazing available.

Research in Mexico showed that dairy goat keeping is an important component of the portfolio of livelihoods strategies for resource-poor rural households. Flocks are much larger than in African or Asian farming systems. Goat milk generates a regular income. Farmers said that having goats was better than not having goats, but goat farming does not lift the poor out of poverty.

Relevant publications

*
*
*
  • Budisatria, I.G.S.; Udo, H.M.J.; Eilers, C.H.A.M.; Zijpp, A.J. van der (2007)
    Dynamics of small ruminant production. A case study of Central Java, Indonesia
    Outlook on Agriculture 36 (2). – p. 145 – 152.
*
*
  • Bosman, H.G.; Moll, H.A.J.; Udo, H.M.J. (1997)
    Measuring and interpreting the benefits of goat keeping in tropical farm systems.
    Agricultural Systems 53 . – p. 349 – 372.
Geplaatst op

Cattle systems

Livestock has many different livelihoods functions. They produce the traditional livestock products for home consumption and for the market, they support crop production, and they are an insurance that future financial requirements can be met and help households to avoid costs for financing urgent cash expenses, in particular in areas where financial institutions are not functioning well or are not trusted. Research on quantification of these different motives for keeping animals has helped us to find out what different benefits of livestock are in different situations, to understand the decision making of farmers with regard to the allocation of their resources and, for instance, the selling of animals, and it has made us realize that smallholders are more productive than often suggested.

Intensification of livestock keeping is widely promoted to meet the increasing demands for animal source foods and to improve livelihoods of smallholders. Intensification is also expected to reduce the environmental impact of livestock. Life Cycle Assessment studies indicate that the impact of intensification on environmental impacts is not that straight –forward. Intensification implies more external inputs, the production of these inputs also has an environmental impact. A major trade-off of intensification is that only the relatively better off farmers are able to take advantage of the increased demands. Are the poorer households interested in investing their scarce labour, capital and land resources in more intensive livestock systems? The social, cultural and capital asset livestock functions will remain important for these households.

In cattle, crossbreeding has become the standard intensification approach. Indonesia is a prominent example where crossbreeding with European breeds is promoted to increase beef production. This crossbreeding is threatening local breeds. Research has shown that crossbreeding has not changed the mixed farming systems. Crossbreds are about 25 per cent bigger than local cattle and fetch higher sale prices, but they are fed more supplementary feed too. Hence, no differences in gross margins were found between farms with local or crossbred breeding stock.

Relevant publications

*
  • Chaminuka, P.; Udo, H.M.J.; Eilers, C.H.A.M.; Zijpp, A.J. van der (2013)

Livelihood roles of cattle and prospects for alternative land uses at the wildlife/livestock interface in South Africa

Land Use Policy 38 –p. 80-90

*
  • Widi, T.S.M.; Udo, H.M.J.; Oldenbroek, K.; Budisatria, I.G.S.; Baliarti, E.; Zijpp, A.J. van der (2013)

Unique cultural values of Madura cattle: is cross-breeding a threat?

Animal Genetic Resources doi:10.1017/S2078633613000349

*
*
  1. Augustine, A.A.; Kango, M.; Hiernaux, P.; Udo, H.M.J.; Tabo, R. (2007)
    Herders’ Perceptions on Ruminant Livestock Breeds and Breeding Management in Southwestern Niger
    Human Ecology 35 (1). – p. 139 – 149.
*
  • Udo, H.M.J.; Cornelissen, A.M.G. (1998)
    Livestock in resource-poor farming systems.
    Outlook on Agriculture 27 (4). – p. 237 – 242.
Geplaatst op

Smallholder dairy development

Dairying, based on European dairy breeds or crossbreds, is a relatively successful livestock intensification strategy in smallholder mixed farming systems. Studies on smallholder dairying show that dairying can give substantial income improvement. Households need sufficient resources to go into dairying; it is not an option for the really resource-poor farming households. Milk production levels are everywhere about the same, 5-6 kg per lactation day plus milk for the calf. This is what the local feed resources can support. Market is the pull factor, and this market is mainly informal. This market gives better prices for the farmers and lower prices for consumers, and creates a lot of employment.

Smallholder dairying has a competitive advantage over large-scale dairying: family labour is much more reliable than hired labour and less investments are needed. A prominent example of smallholder dairying is Kenya, where increasing demands, the reduction in farm sizes and the favourable ecological conditions in particular in the Highlands have resulted in a successful dairy intensification strategy. Intensification is done through a change in breeds and zero-grazing. The labour productivity in dairying is considerably higher than for crops or wage labour.

The livestock sector is widely challenged to reduce its impact on climate change. Global studies indicate that the carbon footprint of milk production in smallholder systems is very much higher compared to the carbon footprint of milk in intensive milk production systems, due to lower production levels and less efficient milk production in developing countries. Greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation options emphasize the milk production component of farming systems. Smallholder mixed farms, however, are complex systems. Livestock keepers will assess proposed changes (keeping fewer animals, improving feeding and increasing production levels) in their husbandry practices in the context of their objectives and resources.

A pilot study on the carbon footprint of milk production in contrasting farming systems in Kenya, differing in their degree of intensification, showed that if one allocates total GHGs of a smallholder farm to various functions of the animals, based on their relative economic value, GHG emissions per kg milk produced are not that different between large-scale specialized milk production systems and smallholder systems. Milk yields are much smaller in smallholder systems, but also much less feed supplements are used. Recommendations for innovations in smallholder dairy development focused only on marketed milk instead of broader livelihoods strategies of farming households will fail.

Relevant publications

*
*
*
*
*
  • Patil, B.R.; Udo, H.M.J. (1997)
    The impact of crossbred cows at farm level in mixed farming systems in Gujarat, India.
    Asian Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 10 (6). – p. 621 – 628.
Geplaatst op

Smallholder poultry and pigs

Probably more than 75% of rural households keep village poultry (family poultry or rural poultry, whatever we call them). Production systems are very much comparable worldwide, with some variation in numbers, from about 10 to even 40, depending on local feeds available, disease and predator pressures and consumption peaks. Village poultry are a safety net for the poor. Production is low: a hen can sit on 10-15 eggs, but only few chicks survive, due to diseases and predators. Labour productivity, however, is very high; they mainly feed and manage themselves.

A lot of research is being done on improvements in village poultry. We experienced that only low cost improvements will work. In most areas, you have to start off with vaccination against New Castle Disease. One of our students once wrote in her thesis that ‘predators like vaccinated chickens just as much as unvaccinated chickens’. So, the next step has to be protection against predators. In the end you need a whole package of innovations, and for this most households do not have the resources.

Rural people really prefer the taste of local chickens and their eggs. The demands and prices are increasing, so what really could be helpful is a better organised marketing network. But, village poultry systems will not supply the growing urban markets. For this we need commercial poultry systems. You can do this with 50 hens or 500, or 5000. It requires commercial hybrids, commercial poultry feed, commercial equipment. So, commercial poultry farming needs cash inputs and labour, and a market. This also means competition with other farmers, large- or small-scale, and competition with imports. In periods of economic crises, commercial poultry keeping is the first intensive livestock industry that will stop. But it is also very easy to start again.

Also, the whole range of pig production systems, from extensive village production to commercial pig production systems is rather similar throughout the world. In developing countries and up-coming economies, pig production increases with about 4 per cent per year. This increased production mainly occurs outside the traditional agricultural sector. However, there is renewed interest in village pig keeping. SE Asia has a long tradition of integrated farming. The use of concentrates and hybrid pigs are major tools in intensification of pigs in such farming systems. Research in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam, showed that, in particular, the off-farm impact of the production of concentrate sources contributed most to the relatively large environmental impact of pigs. In the South Pacific, pigs have a very important role in the social life of people, they represent prestige and wealth. This often precludes any extra inputs into them, because there is a high probability that the owner of the pigs will have to contribute them to important social activities.

Relevant publications

*
*
*
  1. Aklilu, H.A.; Udo, H.M.J.; Almekinders, C.J.M.; Zijpp, A.J. van der (2008)
    How resource poor households value and access poultry: Village poultry keeping in Tigray, Ethiopia
    Agricultural Systems 96 (1-3). – p. 175 – 183.
*
*
  • Udo, H.M.J. (1997)
    Relevance of farmyard animals to rural development.
    Outlook on Agriculture 26 (1). – p. 25 – 28.