Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T11:24:31.411Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Development of livestock production in the tropics: farm and farmers’ perspectives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2014

S. J. Oosting ,
H. M. J. Udo  and
T. C. Viets
S. J. Oosting*
Affiliation:
Animal Production Systems Group, Wageningen University, PO Box 338 6700 AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands
H. M. J. Udo
Affiliation:
Animal Production Systems Group, Wageningen University, PO Box 338 6700 AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands
T. C. Viets
Affiliation:
Animal Production Systems Group, Wageningen University, PO Box 338 6700 AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Because of an increasing demand for animal-source foods, an increasing desire to reduce poverty and an increasing need to reduce the environmental impact of livestock production, tropical farming systems with livestock must increase their productivity. An important share of the global human and livestock populations are found within smallholder mixed-crop–livestock systems, which should, therefore, contribute significantly towards this increase in livestock production. The present paper argues that increased livestock production in smallholder mixed-crop–livestock systems faces many constraints at the level of the farm and the value chain. The present paper aims to describe and explain the impact of increased production from the farm and farmers’ perspective, in order to understand the constraints for increased livestock production. A framework is presented that links farming systems to livestock value chains. It is concluded that farming systems that pass from subsistence to commercial livestock production will: (1) shift from rural to urban markets; (2) become part of a different value chain (with lower prices, higher demands for product quality and increased competition from peri-urban producers and imports); and (3) have to face changes in within-farm mechanisms and crop–livestock relationships. A model study showed that feed limitation, which is common in tropical farming systems with livestock, implies that maximum herd output is achieved with small herd sizes, leaving low-quality feeds unutilised. Maximal herd output is not achieved at maximal individual animal output. Having more animals than required for optimal production – which is often the case as a larger herd size supports non-production functions of livestock, such as manure production, draught, traction and capital storage – goes at the expense of animal-source food output. Improving low-quality feeds by treatment allows keeping more animals while maintaining the same level of production. Ruminant methane emission per kg of milk produced is mainly determined by the level of milk production per cow. Part of the methane emissions, however, should be attributed to the non-production functions of ruminants. It was concluded that understanding the farm and farmers’ perceptions of increased production helps with the understanding of productivity increase constraints and adds information to that reported in the literature at the level of technology, markets and institutions.

Keywords

development constraintsvalue chainsfeed availabilityproductivitymethane emissions
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 8 , Special Issue 8: Agroecology: integrating animals in agroecosystems , August 2014 , pp. 1238 - 1248
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abegaz, A, van Keulen, H and Oosting, SJ 2007. Feed resources, livestock production and soil carbon dynamics in Teghane, Northern Highlands of Ethiopia. Agricultural Systems 94, 391–404.Google Scholar
Aklilu, HA 2007. Village poultry in Ethiopia. PhD, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Amankwah, K 2013. Enhancing food security in northern Ghana through smallholder small ruminant production. PhD, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Amankwah, K, Klerkx, L, Oosting, SJ, Sakyi-Dawson, O, van der Zijpp, AJ and Millar, D 2012. Diagnosing constraints to market participation of small ruminant producers in northern Ghana: an innovation systems analysis. NJAS Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 60−63, 37–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayantunde, A, de Leeuw, J, Turner, MD, Said, M 2011. Challenges of assessing the sustainability of (agro)-pastoral systems. Livestock Science 139, 30–43.Google Scholar
Baltenweck, I, Ouma, R, Anunda, F, Mwai, O and Romney, D 2004. Artificial or natural insemination: the demand for breeding services by smallholders. Proceedings of 9th KARI Biennial Scientific Conference and Research week. 8 to 12 November, Nairobi, Kenya, pp. 1−11.Google Scholar
Barrett, CB 2008. Smallholder market participation: concepts and evidence from eastern and southern Africa. Food Policy 33, 299–317.Google Scholar
Bebe, BO 2008. Dairy heifer rearing under increasing intensification of smallholder dairy systems in the Kenya highlands. Livestock Research for Rural Development 20. article no. 23.Google Scholar
Bebe, BO, Udo, HMJ and Thorpe, W 2002. Development of smallholder dairy systems in the Kenya highlands. Outlook on Agriculture 31, 113–120.Google Scholar
Bebe, BO, Udo, HMJ, Rowlands, GJ and Thorpe, W 2003a. Smallholder dairy systems in the Kenya highlands: breed preferences and breeding practices. Livestock Production Science 82, 117–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bebe, BO, Udo, HMJ, Rowlands, GJ and Thorpe, W 2003b. Smallholder dairy systems in the Kenya highlands: cattle population dynamics under increasing intensification. Livestock Production Science 82, 211–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behnke, R and Muthami, D 2011. The contribution of livestock to the Kenyan economy. IGAD LPI working paper No. 03-11. Odessa Centre, Great Wolford, UK. Retrieved August 19, 2013, from http://www.igad-lpi.org/publication/docs/IGADLPI_WP03_11.pdf Google Scholar
Bernard, T and Spielman, DJ 2009. Reaching the rural poor through rural producer organizations? A study of agricultural marketing cooperatives in Ethiopia. Food Policy 34, 60–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosman, HG, Ayeni, AO and Koper-Limbourg, HAG 1996. Farmers’ response to a package of innovations in goat production in south-west Nigeria. Tropical Science 36, 92–100.Google Scholar
Budisatria, IGS, Udo, HMJ, CHAM, Eilers and van der Zijpp, AJ 2007. Dynamics of small ruminant production: a case study of central Java, Indonesia. Outlook on Agriculture 36, 145–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Candler, W and Kumar, N 1998. India: the dairy revolution. The impact of dairy development in India and the World Bank’s contribution. The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux (ARC) 1980. The nutrient requirements of ruminant livestock. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough, UK.Google Scholar
Dahl, G and Hjort, A 1976. Having herds. Pastoral herd growth and household economy. Department of Social Anthropology, University of Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
De Haan, C, Steinfeld, S and Blackburn, H 1997. Livestock & the environment. Finding a balance. Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
De Haas, Y, Calus, M, Mulder, H, de Haan, M, Bannink, A, Dijkstra, J, Windig, J and Veerkamp, R 2011. Gensignalen voor voerefficiëntie en methaanemissie. Rapport 450. Wageningen UR Livestock Research, Lelystad, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
De Jong, R 1996. Dairy stock development and milk production with smallholders. PhD, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
De Vries, M and de Boer, IJM 2009. Comparing environmental impacts of livestock products: a review of life cycle assessments. Livestock Science 128, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dieye, PN, Duteutre, G, Cuzon, J-R and Dia, D 2007. Livestock, liberalization and trade negotiations in West Africa. Outlook on Agriculture 36, 93–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorward, A, Anderson, S, Nava, Y, Pattison, J, Paz, R, Rushton, J and Sanchez Vera, E 2009. Hanging in, stepping up and stepping out: livelihood aspirations and strategies of the poor. Development in Practice 19, 240–247.Google Scholar
Doumbia, D, van Paassen, A, Oosting, SJ and van der Zijpp, AJ 2012. Livestock in the rice-based economy of Office du Niger: the development potential for increased crop-livestock integration through multi-actor processes. NJAS Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 60−63, 101–115.Google Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 2006. Livestock’s long shadow. Environmental issues and options. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
FAO 2009. The state of food and agriculture – livestock in the balance. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
FAO 2013. FAOSTAT. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy. Retrieved June to September 2013, from http://faostat3.fao.org/faostat-gateway/go/to/home/E Google Scholar
Frisch, JE and Vercoe, JE 1978. Utilizing breed differences in growth of cattle in the tropics. World Animal Review 25, 8–12.Google Scholar
Gerber, P, Chilondra, P, Franceschini, G and Menzi, H 2005. Geographical determinants and environmental implications of livestock production intensification in Asia. Bioresource Technology 96, 263–276.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gerber, P, Vellinga, T, Opio, C and Steinfeld, H 2011. Productivity gains and greenhouse gas emissions intensity in dairy systems. Livestock Science 139, 100–109.Google Scholar
Gildemacher, PR, Kaguongo, W, Ortiz, O, Tesfaye, A, Woldegiorgis, G, Wagoire, WW, Kakuhenzire, R, Kinyae, PM, Nyongesa, M and Struik, PC 2009. Improving potato production in Kenya, Uganda and Ethiopia: a system diagnosis. Potato Research 52, 173–205.Google Scholar
Gryseels, G 1988. Role of livestock on mixed smallholder farms in the Ethiopian highlands. A case study from the Baso and Worena Wereda near Debre Berhan. PhD, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Hardin, G 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162, 1243–1248.Google Scholar
Herrero, M, Grace, D, Njuki, J, Johnson, N, Enahoro, D, Silvestri, S and Rufino, MC 2013. The roles of livestock in developing countries. Animal 7, 3–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herrero, M, Gerber, P, Vellinga, T, Garnett, T, Leip, A, Opio, C, Westhoek, HJ, Thornton, PK, Olesen, J, Hutchings, N, Montgomery, H, Soussana, J-F, Steinfeld, H and McAllister, TA 2011. Livestock and greenhouse gas emissions: the importance of getting the numbers right. Animal Feed Science and Technology 166−167, 779–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrero, M, Thornton, PK, Notenbaert, AM, Wood, S, Msangi, S, Freeman, HA, Bossio, D, Dixon, J, Peters, M, van de Steeg, J, Lynam, J, Parthasarathy Rao, P, Macmillan, S, Gerard, B, McDermott, J, Seré, C and Rosegrant, M 2010. Smart investments in sustainable food production: revisiting mixed crop-livestock systems. Science 327, 822–825.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hounkonnou, D, Kossou, D, Kuyper, TW, Leeuwis, C, Nederlof, ES, Röling, N, Sakyi-Dawson, O, Traoré, M and van Huis, A 2012. An innovation systems approach to institutional change: smallholder development in West Africa. Agricultural Systems 108, 74–83.Google Scholar
Hristov, AN, Oh, J, Lee, C, Meinen, R, Montes, F, Ott, T, Firkins, J, Rotz, A, Dell, C, Adesogan, A, Yang, W, Tricarico, J, Kebreab, E, Waghorn, G, Dijkstra, J and Oosting, SJ 2013. Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions in livestock production – a review of technical options for non-CO2 emissions. In FAO animal production and health paper No. 177. FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Jayne, TS, Mather, D and Mghenyi, E 2010. Principal challenges confronting smallholder agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa. World Development 10, 1384–1398.Google Scholar
Jones, RJ and Sandland, RL 1974. The relation between animal gain and stocking rate − derivation of the relation from the results of grazing trials. The Journal of Agricultural Science 83, 335–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemp, DR and Michalk, DL 2007. Towards sustainable grassland and livestock management. Journal of Agricultural Science 145, 543–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ketelaars, JJMH and Tolkamp, BJ 1992. Towards a new theory of feed intake regulation in ruminants. 1. Causes of differences in voluntary intake: critique of current views. Livestock Production Science 30, 269–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kilelu, CW 2013. Unravelling the role of intervention intermediaries in smallholder agricultural development: case studies from Kenya. PhD, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Kimani, K and Pickard, J 1998. Recent trends and implications of group ranch sub-division and fragmentation in Kajiado district, Kenya. Geographical Journal 164, 202–213.Google Scholar
Kitano, H 2004. Biological robustness. Nature Review Genetics 5, 826–837.Google Scholar
Mahama, EA, Andah, EK, Amegashie, DPK and Mensah-Bonsu, A 2013. Break even analysis of broiler production in the Accra-Tema and Kumashi areas. Proceedings 1st International Interdisciplinary Conference, 24 to 26 April, Azores, Portugal. Retrieved September 27, 2013, from http://eujournal.org/index.php/esj/article/view/1492 Google Scholar
McCabe, JT, Leslie, PW and DeLuca, L 2010. Adopting cultivation to remain pastoralists: the diversification of Maasai livelihoods in Northern Tanzania. Human Ecology 38, 321–334.Google Scholar
McDermott, JJ, Staal, SJ, Freeman, HA, Herrero, M and van der Steeg, JA 2010. Sustaining intensification of smallholder livestock systems in the tropics. Livestock Science 130, 95–109.Google Scholar
Mekoya, A, Oosting, SJ, Fernandez-Rivera, S and van der Zijpp, AJ 2008. Farmers’ perceptions about exotic multipurpose fodder trees and constraints to their adoption. Agroforestry Systems 73, 141–153.Google Scholar
Moll, H 2005. Costs and benefits of livestock systems and the role of market and non-market relationships. Agricultural Economics 32, 181–193.Google Scholar
Omiti, JM, Otieno, DJ, Nyanamba, TO and McCullough, E 2009. Factors influencing the intensity of market participation by smallholder farmers: a case study of rural and peri-urban areas of Kenya. Afjare 3, 57–82.Google Scholar
Omiti, JM, Wanyoike, F, Staal, S, Delgado, C and Njoroge, L 2006. Will small-scale dairy producers in Kenya disappear due to economics of scale in production? Contributed paper prepared for presentation at the International Association of Agricultural Economists Conference, 12 to 18 August, Gold Coast, Australia, Retrieved October 1, 2013, http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/25674/1/cp060516.pdf Google Scholar
Omore, A, Kurwijila, L and Grace, D 2009. Improving livelihoods in East Africa through livestock research and extension: reflections on changes from the 1950s to the early twenty first century. Tropical Animal Health and Production 41, 1051–1059.Google Scholar
Onono, JO, Wieland, B and Rushton, J 2012. Productivity in different cattle production systems in Kenya. Tropical Animal Health and Production 45, 1–8.Google Scholar
Oosting, SJ 1993. Wheat straw as ruminant feed. Effect of supplementation and ammonia treatment on voluntary intake and nutrient availability. PhD, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Oosting, SJ, Boekholt, HA, Los, MHM and Leffering, CP 1993. Intake and utilization of energy from ammonia treated and untreated wheat straw by steers and wether sheep fed a basal ration of grass pellets and hay. Animal Production 57, 227–236.Google Scholar
Oosting, SJ, Mekoya, A, Fernandez-Rivera, S and van der Zijpp, AJ 2011. Sesbania sesban as a fodder tree in Ethiopian livestock farming systems: feeding practices and farmers’ perceptions of feeding effects on sheep performance. Livestock Science 139, 135–142.Google Scholar
Pica-Ciamarra, U and Otte, J 2011. The ‘livestock revolution’: rhetoric and reality. Outlook on Agriculture 40, 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, ND, Chitundu, M and Msoni, R 2013. Commercialisation: a meta-approach for agricultural development among smallholder farmers in Africa? Food Policy 41, 155–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, S and Rangnekar, DV 2006. Farmer adoption of urea treatment of cereal straws for feeding of dairy animals: a success in Mithala milkshed, India. Livestock Research for Rural Development 18. article no. 8.Google Scholar
Rufino, MC 2008. Quantifying the contribution of crop-livestock integration to African farming. PhD, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Samdup, T, Udo, HMJ, CAHM, Eilers, Ibrahim, MNM and van der Zijpp, AJ 2010. Crossbreeding and intensification of smallholder crop–cattle farming systems in Bhutan. Livestock Science 132, 126–134.Google Scholar
Sarnklong, C, Cone, JW, Pellikaan, W and Hendriks, W 2010. Utilization of rice straw and different treatments to improve its feed value for ruminants: a review. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 23, 680–692.Google Scholar
Schiere, JB 1995. Cattle, straw and system control: a study of straw feeding systems. PhD, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Schiere, JB and van der Hoek, R 2001. Livestock keeping in urban areas. A review of traditional technologies based on literature and field experience. FAO animal production and health paper No. 151. FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Sendalo, ED 2009. Understanding socio-economic dynamic of Maasai pastoralists under changing ecological and policy environment in Tanzania. Thesis, Animal Production Systems Group, Wageningen University, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Seré, C, van der Zijpp, AJ, Persley, G and Rege, E 2008. Dynamics of livestock production systems, drivers of change and prospects for animal genetic resources. Animal Genetic Resources Information 42, 3–24.Google Scholar
Sharma, VP, Staal, S, Delgado, C and Singh, RV 2003. Policy, technical, and environmental determinants and implications of the scaling-up of milk production in India. Annex III. Research Report of IFPRI-FAO. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington DC.Google Scholar
Sumberg, J 2002. The logic of fodder legumes in Africa. Food Policy 27, 285–300.Google Scholar
Sumberg, J and Lankoandé, GD 2013. Heifer-in-trust, social protection and graduation: conceptual issues and research questions. Development Policy Review 31, 255–271.Google Scholar
Ten Napel, J, van der Veen, AA, Oosting, SJ and Groot Koerkamp, PWG 2011. A conceptual approach to design livestock production systems for robustness to enhance sustainability. Livestock Science 139, 150–160.Google Scholar
Tittonell, P, Muriuki, A, Shepherd, KD, Mugendi, D, Kaizzi, KC, Okeyo, J, Verchot, L, Coe, R and Vanlauwe, B 2010. The diversity of rural livelihoods and their influence on soil fertility in agricultural systems of East Africa – a typology of smallholder farms. Agricultural Systems 103, 83–97.Google Scholar
The International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) 2011. More meat, milk and fish by and for the poor. Retrieved October 8, 2013, from http://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/3248/CRP37Proposal.pdf?sequence=6 Google Scholar
Udo, HMJ, Aklilu, HA, Phong, LT, Bosma, RH, Budisatria, IGS, Patil, BR, Samdup, T and Bebe, BO 2011. Impact of intensification of different types of livestock production in smallholder crop-livestock systems. Livestock Science 139, 22–30.Google Scholar
Van Mierlo, B, Regeer, B, van Amstel, M, Arkesteijn, M, Beekman, V, Bunders, J, de Cock Buning, T, Elzen, B, Hoes, A-C and Leewis, C 2010. Reflexive monitoring in action. A guide for monitoring system innovation projects. Communication and innovation studies Wageningen University. Athena Institute Free University, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Whittaker, WG 2000. One hundred years of herd improvement and farm management systems in New Zealand 1900-2000. Livestock Improvement Corporation, Hamilton, New Zealand.Google Scholar
World Bank 2007. World development report 2008: agriculture for development World Bank, Washington, DC. Retrieved August 18, 2013, from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDRS/Resources/477365-1327599046334/8394679-1327606607122/WDR_00_book.pdf Google Scholar
World Bank 2009. Awakening Africa’s sleeping giant: prospects for commercial agriculture in the Guinea savannah zone and beyond World Bank, Washington, DC. Retrieved August 18, 2013, from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTARD/Resources/sleeping_giant.pdfGoogle Scholar
Zemmelink, G, Ifar, S and Oosting, SJ 2003. Optimum utilization of feed resources: model studies and farmers’ practices in two villages in East Java, Indonesia. Agricultural Systems 76, 77–94.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Oosting Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material

Download Oosting Supplementary Material(File)
File 43.4 KB