Innovation in forage development: empirical evidence from Alaba Special District, southern Ethiopia

This article was downloaded by: [113.23.128.34]On: 30 October 2013, At: 23:09Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Development in PracticePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cdip20

Innovation in forage development:empirical evidence from Alaba SpecialDistrict, southern EthiopiaAbebe Shiferaw , Ranjitha Puskur a , Azage Tegegne b & DirkHoekstra ca IPMS project , International Livestock Research Institute , AddisAbabab IPMS project , International Livestock Research Institute , AddisAbabac IPMS project , International Livestock Research Institute , AddisAbabaPublished online: 30 Nov 2011.

To cite this article: Abebe Shiferaw , Ranjitha Puskur , Azage Tegegne & Dirk Hoekstra (2011)Innovation in forage development: empirical evidence from Alaba Special District, southernEthiopia, Development in Practice, 21:8, 1138-1152, DOI: 10.1080/09614524.2011.591186

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2011.591186

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

113.

23.1

28.3

4] a

t 23:

09 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

013

Innovation in forage development:empirical evidence from Alaba SpecialDistrict, southern Ethiopia

Abebe Shiferaw, Ranjitha Puskur, Azage Tegegne,and Dirk Hoekstra

Forage development is one of the strategies to address feed scarcity and low livestock pro-

ductivity in Ethiopia. In line with government strategy, multiple actors took part in a forage

development programme for six years (2004–09) in Alaba Special District, in southern Ethio-

pia. This paper analyses the six-year forage development programme, comparing its two

phases, from an innovation systems perspective to identify best practices. The study shows

that key forage innovative practices are: targeting innovative forage farmers, developing

local forages, establishing private forage sources, forage promotion and diversifying capacity

building. These best practices can be scaled up and out to address feed scarcity and increase

livestock productivity.

Innovation en matiere de developpement des forages : donnees empiriques du District speciald’Alaba, sud de l’EthiopieLe developpement de forages fait partie des strategies mises en œuvre pour lutter contre l’insuf-

fisance de fourrage et la faible productivite du betail en Ethiopie. Conformement a la strategie

gouvernementale, de multiples acteurs ont pris part a un programme de developpement de

forages pendant six ans (2004–09) dans le District special d’Alaba, dans le sud de l’Ethiopie.

Ce document analyse le programme de developpement de forages de six ans, en comparant les

deux phases d’un point de vue de systemes d’innovation afin d’identifier les meilleures pra-

tiques. Cette etude montre que les pratiques cles innovantes en matiere de forages sont :

ciblage des agriculteurs innovants utilisant des forages, developpement des forages locaux, eta-

blissement de sources privees pour les forages, promotion des forages et diversification du

renforcement des capacites. L’echelle de ces meilleures pratiques peut etre accrue en termes

de portee et de nombre afin de lutter contre la penurie de fourrage et d’augmenter la produc-

tivite du betail.

Inovacao no Desenvolvimento das Forrageiras: Evidencia Empırica do Distrito de AlabaSpecial, no sul da EtiopiaO desenvolvimento das forrageiras e uma das estrategias para abordar a escassez de racao e

baixa produtividade da producao de gado na Etiopia. Alinhados com a estrategia do governo,

varios agentes participaram de um programa de desenvolvimento de forrageiras durante deis

1138 ISSN 0961-4524 Print/ISSN 1364-9213 Online 081138-15 # 2011 Taylor & Francis

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2011.591186 Routledge Publishing

Development in Practice, Volume 21, Number 8, November 2011

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

113.

23.1

28.3

4] a

t 23:

09 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

013

anos (2004–09) no Distrito de Alaba Special, no sul da Etiopia. Este artigo analisa o programa

de desenvolvimento das forrageiras de seis anos de duracao, comparando suas duas fases a

partir de uma perspectiva de sistemas de inovacoo para identificar as melhores praticas. O

estudo mostra que as praticas cruciais e inovadoras relativas as forrageiras sao: ter como

alvo produtores inovadores de forrageiras, desenvolver forrageiras locais, estabelecer fontes

de forrageiras privadas, promover as forrageiras e diversificar a capacitacao. Estas melhores

praticas podem ser intensificadas e expandidas para abordar a escassez de racao e aumentar

a produtividade do gado.

Innovacion en el cultivo de forrajes: datos empıricos del Distrito Especial de Alaba en el sur deEtiopıaEl cultivo de forrajes es una de las estrategias para responder a la escasez de alimentos y a la baja

productividad ganadera en Etiopıa. En lınea con la estrategia gubernamental, varios produc-

tores del Distrito Especial de Alaba en el sur de Etiopıa participaron en un programa de

cultivo de forrajes durante seis anos (2004-2009). Para identificar las mejores practicas, este

ensayo analiza el programa y compara sus dos fases desde una perspectiva de innovacion de sis-

temas. El programa mostro que las practicas mas innovadoras para la produccion de forraje son:

orientar a los productores que utilizan nuevas practicas en sus cultivos de forraje, desarrollar

forrajes locales, crear fuentes privadas de forrajes, promover los forrajes y diversificar el forta-

lecimiento de capacidades. Estas buenas practicas pueden darse a conocer y propagarse para

responder a la escasez de alimentos e incrementar la productividad ganadera.

KEY WORDS: Aid; Environment; Labour and livelihoods; Sub-Saharan Africa

Introduction

In Ethiopian agriculture, livestock farming systems play a vital role for the livelihood of the

people. However, the livestock sector has low productivity owing to several factors such as

genetic make-up, poor nutrition and veterinary care. Various studies have confirmed that

feed is the major limiting factor for livestock productivity in Ethiopia (Tedasse 1998,

Gebremedhin et al. 2009) and that holds true in the Alaba Special District in southern Ethiopia.

In Ethiopia, livestock obtain feed from natural pastures, crop residues, agro-industrial by-

products, cultivated pastures and forage-crop species (Mengitsu 2003). The key challenges

in forage development are as follows. First, forage has a low adoption rate in Ethiopia

(Duncan 2009). Second, apart from forage innovation, limits in institutional structures have

also hindered forage innovation (Hall et al. 2007). Third, there is scarcity in the quantity

and quality of animal fodder (Tadesse 1998, Gebremedhin et al. 2009, Yeshitila 2008).

Lastly, the rise in fodder price and inefficacy in the feed market is another set of problems

(Gebremedhin et al. 2009). In spite of the government and other partners’ efforts to develop

forage and other sources of animal feed in Ethiopia, existing challenges have hindered the

expected progress to reach the desired levels of livestock productivity because insights were

not gained from interventions based on an innovation systems perspective. Thus, it is worth

examining forage development from an innovation perspective to understand the systems

involved in forage development, gain insights and identify innovative ‘best’ practices, to

address the challenges confronted in forage development.

In the southern part of Ethiopia, and the Alaba Special District, a mixed crop-livestock farming

system dominates. Livestock breeds are mostly indigenous and dominated by cattle and shoats

Development in Practice, Volume 21, Number 8, November 2011 1139

Innovation in forage development

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

113.

23.1

28.3

4] a

t 23:

09 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

013

(young pigs). Farmers practice different animal feeding and management strategies (Kategile

et al. 1987). Domestic livestock grazes communally on fallow land, pasture, and on cropland

after harvest. The livestock and fodder system in the study area shows that the agro-climate is

suitable to grow a wide range of forage species. Nevertheless, the total land area allocated for

forage production is small (IPMS 2005, Yeshitila 2008). Grazing land management is poor

and has low productivity (Yeshitila 2008; Kategile et al. 1987) The practice of using additional

sources of animal feed (industrial by-products) is rare. Natural pastures are poor and grazing lands

are being converted to crop land. Moreover, the forage is scarce in quantity (with high seasonal

variation) and inferior in quality. Thus, forage availability is currently far from reaching the needs

of livestock system. Fodder production and management is predominantly traditional, with

modern efforts in forage development being undertaken by the Office of Agriculture and Rural

Development (OoARD), and community and non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

To overcome some of the challenges in forage development, there is a need to examine the

development from an innovation systems perspective. The innovation systems concept offers

opportunities for a holistic understanding of how knowledge is produced, diffused, and used.

The concept enables us to make use of new knowledge and design alternative interventions

because it places emphasis on actors and processes that have become and are becoming increas-

ingly important in agricultural development (World Bank 2006). The concept of innovation

systems can be used to gain additional insights into forage development, and to suggest innova-

tive types of forage intervention for the future. This paper, therefore, examines forage develop-

ment from an innovation systems perspective to draw out lessons and suggest innovative

practices, based on the development efforts of multiple actors for six years (2004–09) in the

Alaba Special District, southern Ethiopia.

According to the World Bank (2006) ‘innovation’ is the use of new ideas, technologies or

ways of doing things, in a place where – or by people who – they have not been used

before. Hall et al. (2007) and the World Bank (2006) define innovation as the application of

knowledge (of all types) to achieve desired social or economic outcomes. The distinction

between ‘invention’ (the creation of new knowledge) and ‘innovation’ (in the sense of first

application) is crucial (World Bank 2006). In line with the above definitions, this paper docu-

ments actors involved in the processes of how forage (seeds, cuttings and seedlings) is: intro-

duced, produced and multiplied, promoted, disseminated, marketed, and benefits farmers. This

study focuses on past and present innovation efforts in forage development, while also exam-

ining innovative features of actors’ roles and in the processes of forage introduction, multipli-

cation, production, dissemination, promotion, dissemination and marketing. The paper begins

with an introduction, and continues in the second part with outlining the study methodology.

The third part presents results and discussions focusing on forage innovation systems, actors,

innovation history, innovative forage farmers, and forage development activity. The study

draws conclusions and recommendations in the fourth part.

Methodology

The study involved methods such as ranking, interviews and focus group discussions methods

to analyse livestock feed problems, and to describe forage systems at the district level. Infor-

mants included OoARD staff, Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development (BoARD) staff,

South Agricultural Research Institute (SARI) staff, farmers and NGO staff from a European

Union project (Ley Volunteer International Association [LVIA]) (IPMS 2005). As a research

and development project, the Improving Productivity Market Success (IPMS) project and its

partners implemented various activities for six years in selected peasant associations, such as

training, demonstrations, providing credit for forage producers through farmers unions,

1140 Development in Practice, Volume 21, Number 8, November 2011

Abebe Shiferaw, Ranjitha Puskur, Azage Tegegne, and Dirk Hoekstra

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

113.

23.1

28.3

4] a

t 23:

09 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

013

organising visits, establishing forage production on farmer households and plots, promoting

forage in open markets, facilitating the marketing of forage; and collected relevant forage

data. Innovation histories were analysed using timelines. Tools such as the mapping of actor

networks, an actor matrix and analysing linkages were used as described in Douthwaite and

Ashby (2005) and Bolo (2005). Comparative analysis of the two phases of innovation (Phase

One from 2004–06, and Phase Two, from 2007–09) was undertaken. Comparison was based

on the rate of dissemination, the number and roles of key actors, driving forces, knowledge

sources, the focus of initiatives, and capacity building efforts in forage development. IPMS

project data was collected from innovative forage farmers, Farmers Training Centres (FTC),

and experimental forage shops, in addition to secondary data review. Findings were validated

in a stakeholder workshop in 2008.

Description of the study area

Alaba Special District is located 310km south of Addis Ababa and 85km southwest of Awassa,

the capital of the Southern Nations, Nationalities, and People’s Region (SNNPR). The district is

located at 78 17′ N latitude, and 388 06′ E longitude (see Figure 1). The district has 79 peasant

associations (PAs). The total population of the district is 210,243 (49.7 per cent are women).

There are six ethnic groups in the area; the dominant ones are Alaba and Gurage which

account for 81 per cent and 10 per cent of the population respectively. The altitude of the district

ranges from 1554m to 2149m above sea level. The topography of the district is dominantly

level, and agro-ecologically the district is described as Weyna Dega or a temperate climate,

cool sub-humid highlands (Tropical Climate I). Mean annual rainfall ranges from 857mm to

Figure 1: Location of the study area – Alaba Special District

Development in Practice, Volume 21, Number 8, November 2011 1141

Innovation in forage development

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

113.

23.1

28.3

4] a

t 23:

09 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

013

1085mm per year with a bimodal distribution pattern. Annual mean temperature varies from 17

degrees Celsius to 20 degrees Celsius.

Overview of forage in the study area

The agro-ecology, soil and topography of the area is favourable for the production of a wide

range of forage species. Forage is an important input supply for the population of 67,302

shoats and 161,728 cattle of the district to enhance food security and improve livelihoods.

Of the total 64,116.25 ha of the district only 6.8 per cent is grazing land (IPMS 2005). Yeshitila

(2008) indicates that feed shortage in dry periods causes tremendous losses to livestock pro-

ductivity. Feeds are deficient in their nutrient content and not utilised to the optimum efficiency.

Population pressure on land, small land-holding, expansion of arable land, inadequate and

uneven rainfall, and low awareness levels about the use of animal feed have exacerbated live-

stock feed problems in the district. Agro-industrial by-products (as supplementary feed) is sup-

plied by 11 animal feed shops in Kulito town and the service of the shops is limited to peasant

association (PA) beneficiaries surrounding Kulito town. To address the problem of inadequate

livestock feed, the need for forage development is paramount.

Introduction of improved forage seeds, cuttings and seedlings, as well as demonstrations

around these, started in the district in 2000. Significant forage development in the study

area started from 2004 onwards, with support from BoARD at the regional level and

donor supported projects like the EU Food Security Project. Over the past years the

OoARD at district level, and its partners, have undertaken various development efforts to

address forage problems; nevertheless, there is still an inadequate supply of forage for live-

stock as verified recently by Yeshitila (2008). The most commonly identified forages in the

district are: Rhodes grass (Chloris gayana), Elephant grass (Pennisetum purpureum), Cow

pea (Vigna unguiculata), Oat (Avena sativa), Lablab (Dolichos lablab), Leucanea (Leucanea

leucocephala), Vetch (Vicia spp.), Sesbania (Sesbania Sesban) and Panicum (Panicum spp.),

Alfalfa (Medicago sativa), Desmodium (Desmodium uncinatum) and local grass introduced

from an adjacent district called ‘Desho’ grass (Pennisetum pedicellatum). There are three

forage production and multiplication sites owned by OoARD (Laygnaw Aresho – 2 ha;

Alem Tenna – 1 ha; Tachenaw Bedene – 3 ha). These sites were previously funded by

National Livestock Development Project (NLDP) and the EU food security project, and

are now supported by the district OoARD budget, Safety Net programme, and Food for

the Hungry International (FHI), who started support as of 2009. After 2007, farmers’ forage

production and multiplication sites were also established in Gedeba, Lagenaw Bedene,

Asore, Gerema, Andegna Ansha and Hulegeba Kukie PAs. Moreover, four model FTCs sup-

ported by the IPMS project in Andegan Ansha, Mekalla, Alem Tenna and Misrak Gortancho

also became a source of forage seeds, cuttings and seedlings for surrounding PAs.

Results and discussion

Forage innovation systems

Innovation is essentially the result of interactive process between many actors (Dantas 2005).

The dynamics of multiple actors in forage development in the study area was visualised in

two phases (Figure 2).

There was interactive learning in forage innovation in Phase Two, compared with Phase

One, because phase two included the involvement of research institutes, and so increased

the number of actors. Compared with Phase One, there is more interaction (reflected in

1142 Development in Practice, Volume 21, Number 8, November 2011

Abebe Shiferaw, Ranjitha Puskur, Azage Tegegne, and Dirk Hoekstra

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

113.

23.1

28.3

4] a

t 23:

09 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

013

number of arrows, arrow width and bi-directional arrows) among actors in Phase Two. The

strength of the linkage between actors is depicted by the width of the arrow. In the first

phase, OoARD was a key actor, and a similar role is played by farmers and FTCs in

Phase Two. There was a significant increase in the role of farmers (reflected in actor size

and position in the system) in Phase Two, compared with Phase One. Hall et al. (2007)

state that a successful innovation system is characterised by a high degree of interactive

learning where farmers act as key actors among multiple actors. In both phases, however,

the missing role among actors is the lack of a central coordinating body (which should

have been done by OoARD). In describing the nature of innovation and innovation capaci-

tates, the World Bank (2006) indicates that research, the collaborative effort of partners, and

the existence of a broad set of attitudes and practices, the role of public sector and market in

promoting interaction, are all important components of innovation. In Phase Two, the invol-

vement of multiple actors (research, public, different NGOs and private sector actors) has led

to a broad set of attitudes and practices which foster culture of forage innovation. Trends

over the two phases of innovation show some radical, and many small and continuous,

improvements (for example, the increasing involvement of innovative forage farmers, invol-

vement of seed laboratories, and increase in forage marketing). Comparatively speaking, in

Phase One actors had limited access to new knowledge (sources of forage knowledge are

diversified), weak organisational learning, and weak connection to sources of financing for

innovation. Development projects like the IPMS have provided credit for forage innovator

farmers through the Alaba Farmers Union (Menchenon), and the involvement of multiple

actors has created diversified support.

As reviewed by Dantas (2005), in an innovation system none of the actors acts in isolation,

each operates according to a set of ‘rules of the game’ which can be both formal and informal.

Existing partnerships in forage development among actors remained informal in both phases.

Figure 2: Actor linkage map in forage innovation

Development in Practice, Volume 21, Number 8, November 2011 1143

Innovation in forage development

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

113.

23.1

28.3

4] a

t 23:

09 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

013

Formal linkages are needed for joint planning to set common goals, to define roles and set

common procedures. The number of actors and forage production sites increased in Phase

Two (2007–09). This reflected increased access to forage and better options for diffusion

and adoption of forage technology in the study area. Bolo (2005) describes the three key attri-

butes of innovation as learning, linkages and investment. In both phases, forage actor partner-

ships in the district lacked formal learning mechanisms (e.g. forage platform, joint planning

meetings, monitoring, evaluation and reporting sessions) and linkages, which should have

been coordinated by OoARD. Actor influences in partnership were rated through a group dis-

cussion, based on the roles actors played over all forage development phases, and validated

during stakeholder workshops. Forage partners which phased in more recently to the study

area, such as FHI, Durame Seed Laboratory and Ethiopian Sheep and Goat Improvement

(ESGI) Project are omitted (Figure 3).

Actor network matrix and innovation timeline

Partnerships between actors in the network matrix were rated and described in a stakeholder

workshop held in 2008. Partnerships were described as:

S¼ Strong

W¼ Weak

M¼ Medium

Actor relations were described as:

A ¼ Crucial

B¼ Problematic

C ¼ Absent but needed

Actor networks are loose in Phase One, compared with firm connections between actors in

phase two (Figure 2) where the IPMS project played a partial role as a ‘node’ for actor coordi-

nation. Thus, linkages between IPMS, FTC, farmers, OoARD became strong (S). Linkages

between NLDP, OoARD, FHI, the FAO-funded natural resource development project

Figure 3: Relative influence of actors in forage innovation

1144 Development in Practice, Volume 21, Number 8, November 2011

Abebe Shiferaw, Ranjitha Puskur, Azage Tegegne, and Dirk Hoekstra

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

113.

23.1

28.3

4] a

t 23:

09 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

013

(MERET project), and the ESGI project, were medium (M); whereas linkage between the Inter-

national Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), farmers, OoARD, ARC, and the Durame Seed

Laboratory were weak (W). There are better networks between the public and private actors

in the forage system, especially in Phase Two. The better degree of linkage among actors in

Phase Two shows a better flow of knowledge, skills and experience in the forage innovation

system. Likewise, Hall et al. (2007) indicate that an effective network is needed to bring

large institutional dimension to bring innovation in addition to fodder technology.

In Phase One, except for relations between OoARD and the EU, and OoARD and the 4th

Livestock Project, which were rated as strong (S), most of the relations among actors were

rated as medium (M). Relations between farmers and other actors were rated absent but

needed (C) except for their relationship with OoARD. Other donors or projects did not have

direct and frequent contact with farmers, which was the most important – but missing – link

which has undermined the role of farmers in development processes. In Phase Two, mapping

the actor linkages shows the existence of strong partnerships between OoARD, IPMS, FTCs,

farmers, and their relationships were described as crucial (A). The emerging roles of some of

the actors (including innovative forage farmers) and FTC in forage development was described

as crucial (A). The new roles of farmers emerging in Phase Two increase the capacity of the

system to be sustainable.

Linkages between the EU Food Security Project and farmers, the ILRI, and the 4th Livestock

Development Project were absent but needed (C). Actor linkages between farmers, OoARD, the

IPMS project, FTC, and the ARC (Awassa Research Center) were described as crucial (A),

whereas links between projects and NGOs (the MERET project, IPMS project, ESGI project,

FHI, EU Food Security Project) were rated as problematic (B) because the focus and goals

of the projects vary to the extent that they can contradict one another. For example, while

food security projects (EU and FHI) distribute forage free of charge, the IPMS project promotes

forage on a cash basis.

An innovation timeline is a sequential list of key events in innovation history (Douthwaite

and Ashby 2005). A forage innovation timeline for the study area was developed and validated

in a stakeholder workshop. A process of innovation can be triggered by a number of factors

(Bolo 2005). In Phase One, the key triggering factor for forage development was OoARD’s

goal to introduce forage and establish forage multiplication sites. The three forage production

or multiplication sites are government-owned, run with external project funding support and

provided forage supply free of charge. The free distribution of forage seeds, seedlings and cut-

tings restricted forage diffusion in Phase One. In Phase Two, however, the economic benefits

gained from forage by innovative farmers and the sale of forage seed, cuttings and seedlings are

triggering factors. With the involvement of more farmers in forage development, forage (seeds,

cuttings and seedlings) started to be sold on a cash basis. The practice of forage production

diversified from government-owned nurseries to farmers’ plots (described as private forage

production/multiplication sites) and model FTCs (Andegan Ansha, Mekalla, Alem Tenna

and Misrak Gortancho). In Phase Two, there were seven privately owned forage production

sites established. In addition to OoARD and SMS (subject matter specialists), knowledge

sources diversified to include FTCs, innovative farmers and others. In Phase Two (after

2007), various actors like the IPMS project, ILRI, the ESGI, the Safety Net and MERET

Project (FAO-funded natural-resource management project) were also involved in forage

development. Farmers’ capacity building included visits to forage sites and farmer-to-farmer

training on forage production sites (IPMS 2008). Study tours were organised to increase aware-

ness, and enable farmers to share their experiences on forage production. Although farmer-to-

farmer learning is an innovative approach in Phase Two, most farmers who live adjacent to

innovator farmers had still not adopted the practice of forage seed production/multiplication.

Development in Practice, Volume 21, Number 8, November 2011 1145

Innovation in forage development

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

113.

23.1

28.3

4] a

t 23:

09 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

013

The key reason lies in the lack of capacity to invest (land, time and money) and to take the risk

to go into forage production. However, it is worth noting that there are seven farmers who have

established forage production sites in the district.

Targeting innovative forage farmers

In Phase Two (after 2007), the forage development programme focused on farmers which are

described here as ‘innovative forage farmers’. The process started with the identification of

innovative farmers in consultation sessions around forage production (cuttings and seedlings)

and seed multiplication. Forage ‘innovator farmers’ were identified by asking and understand-

ing what these farmers do differently with forage as ‘outliers’ from most other farmers. The

innovative forage farmers are isolated groups or individuals working with the same constraints

and resources as every farmer and who prevail against the odds. These farmers have a ‘positive

deviant’ as recognised in business literature indicated in Hall et al. (2007). In the consultation

sessions, forage innovator farmers were identified based on key parameters like

budget allocation for forage, and their ‘positive deviance’ in areas such as looking at forage

types, land allocation, forage production skills, knowledge and experience, and attempts to

sell forage (seedlings, cuttings and seed).

A typical forage innovator farmer, identified by the IPMS project and OoARD, is Bergena

Basore. Bergena lives in Galato PA at Andegna village. He gained knowledge and skills on

forage from an OoARD-owned forage production and demonstration site. He allocated 0.5

ha of land for forage in 2006 and was willing to invest in an ‘experimental forage shop’. His

private nursery was established in 2007 in Gedeba PA, on over 1ha of land (which expanded

later) and he has taken part in forage promotion in open markets. Land was allocated from

an enclosed area by the MERET project in consultation with OoARD. Credit support of Birr

10,000 was provided through the IPMS project for the establishment of the experimental

forage shop and nursery site through the Alaba Farmers Union. Initial annual forage yield pro-

duction was 5.56 qt in 2006, which increased to 18 qt in 2008. Like Bergena, in Phase Two,

development partners have identified six farmers as forage producers and multipliers. These

farmers have allocated between 0.1 ha to 2.5 ha of land for forage and have become sources

of forage seeds, cuttings and seedlings for their area.

The innovator forage farmers have the following common features which can be

described as positive deviants. The first is their willingness to accept risk in forage pro-

duction and multiplication. Second is their capacity to produce various and large quantities

of forage (seedlings/cuttings in numbers, seed in qt). Third is their willingness to invest

time, money and allocate land (in ha) for forage development. Last, they search for

additional knowledge, skills and support from various sources, in and out of their area of

residence. By the end of 2009, the seven innovative farmers have distributed forage to

164 households in 20 PAs (Table 1). This figure does not include forage sold to NGOs

and during promotion sessions. The average annual income from one type of forage

called ‘Desho’ alone ranges from 120–2490 birr/year (1US$ ¼ 13 birr) while average

income is 991 birr/year. Thus, the authors believe that targeting such innovative forage

farmers in each district brings significant change in the supply and diffusion of forage

seed/cuttings and seedlings. Targeting innovative farmers may address some of the pro-

blems associated with the slow uptake of improved forage among smallholders in Ethiopia

as indicated by Duncan (2009).

Although OoARD has also produced forage on farmers’ fields in past years (Phase One)

with what they called ‘model farmers’, the involvement of most farmers in forage

production and seed multiplication only started recently. Looking at the diversity of

1146 Development in Practice, Volume 21, Number 8, November 2011

Abebe Shiferaw, Ranjitha Puskur, Azage Tegegne, and Dirk Hoekstra

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

113.

23.1

28.3

4] a

t 23:

09 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

013

model farmers targeted in Phase One, there are no commonly agreed features of model

farmers that one can draw in terms of forage production and multiplication. However,

farmers targeted as ‘innovative forage farmers’ in Phase One do have common features,

described above. According to IPMS (2008), farmers targeted for forage seed production

at their household plots in Galato, Hulegeba Kukie, Andgena Choroko, Wanja PAs were

able to produce at least three common types of forages: Oat (Avena sativa), Rhodes grass

(Chloris gayana), and Desho (Pennisetum pedicellatum). The factors that trigger innovation

are quite diverse (World Bank 2006), and forage innovator farmers were triggered by

knowledge, skills gained, experiences achieved and above all economic benefit from

forage production and seed multiplication. Farmer visits to farmers’ forage production

and multiplication sites have stimulated innovative forage farmers to sell and promote

forage seedlings and cuttings as produce.

Local forage, forage promotion and marketing

Despite the development efforts to introduce forage and build the capacity of farmers in the

study area by multiple actors, effort are missing around the areas of marketing forage (seed,

seedlings and cuttings) and promoting forage as a product. Berhanu et al. (2009) described

the existence of an inefficient animal feed market in Ethiopia. Likewise, the forage market in

Table 1: Established private forage sites in the study area (2007–09)

No.

Innovative

forage

farmer PA

Forage

area (ha)

Forage

types

(No)

Desho

production

(kg/yr)

Desho

annual

income∗ ∗

(Birr∗ ∗ ∗/

yr)

Start

(m/y)

Service

coverage

(Household)

Service

coverage

(PA)

1

Bergena

Bsssore Gedeba 2.58 11 61,890 2490 June 2007 90 4

2

Zeynu

Hordofa

Layenaw

Bedene 0.17 3 31,620 500 July 2008 13 2

3

Kassim

Mohmded

Laynew

bedene 0.18 3 28560 1317 June 2009 27 5

4

Sulatan

Haji

Mohammed Asore 0.10 1 18540 400 July 2009 4 1

5

Ahmed

Endires in Gerema 0.07 2 2780 120 July 2009 2 1

6

ShieJemal

Bekere

Andegna

Ansha 0.13 1 37,500 1130 July 2009 12 5

7

Nuriy Abdo

Hulegeba

PA

Hulegeba

Kukie 0.13 1 30,000 980 June 2008 16 4

Source: IPMS Project forage data, 2007–09∗The three most common types of forage, in order of availability in the production/multiplication

sites are, local grass (‘Desho’ grass, Pennisetum pedicellatum), Elephant grass (Pennisetum purpureum),

Oat (Avena sativa). There is also Vetch (Vicia spp), Cow pea (Vigna unguiculata), Lablab (Dolichos

lablab).∗∗Desho is harvested three times/year (a unit of Desho (‘Dubbo’) corresponds to a bundle of 60–80 tillers

or seedlings) while price varies between Peasant Associations (PAs) (3–15 Birr/dubbo)∗∗∗1 US$ ¼ 13 Birr (in 2009), 9.57 Birr (in 2008) and 8.83 Birr (in 2006/2007)

Development in Practice, Volume 21, Number 8, November 2011 1147

Innovation in forage development

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

113.

23.1

28.3

4] a

t 23:

09 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

013

Alaba is at an infant stage (with an informal structure, irregular and variable demand and

supply). The demand for forage is high owing to a high livestock population, a prolonged

dry season, poorly managed grazing land, and conversion of grassland into croplands. Although

demand for forage is very high, supply is inadequate in open markets where hay, crop residues

and grasses are sold in irregular patterns. The supply of animal feed in open markets is under-

taken as a coping mechanism by women farmers for additional income. The quantity of feed

supplied is still too small to meet existing demand.

Forage promotion and marketing resulted in establishing ‘experimental forage shops’ from

2006 to 2008. Promotion of the shops and forage was undertaken in open markets (at Kulito,

Guba and Besheno). Forage promotion involves the display of forage seeds, cuttings and seed-

lings in an open market (like technology exhibitions) so that the public can have access to forage

knowledge and technology. On a promotion days the number of farmers who attend session

varied from 250 to 2,000 (n ¼ 18 promotional events). Farmers also buy and sell the forage

at the venue, which stimulates marketing of forage. Promotion involves the use of loud speakers

to disseminate knowledge and it is usually accompanied by the distribution of leaflets on

forages. The promotion session is what is described as ‘going public’ – a recent extension

method advocated by Bentley et al. (2003). Venues for forage promotion sessions were

mainly open markets and four model FTCs. The experimental forage shops played a role as

marketing points for forage seeds, seedlings and cuttings. For example, sales data from

forage shops show that the maximum monthly forage sale was 110kg in May 2007 and the

minimum was 5kg of forage in Oct 2006 (Figure 4). Farmers purchase more forage seeds

during the rainy season; consequently income from shops is lower in dry season. In Phase

Two, FTCs became marketing points for forage. Field data on ‘Desho’ forage sales from

Ansha FTC shows that ‘one dubo’ (a bunch of grass with 60–80 seedlings) has a price of 2

Birr/bunch (1 US$ ¼9.57 Birr in 2008). In October 2008, forage seedlings were provided

for 45 farmers as part of a demonstration (40 per cent of them purchased extra seedlings). In

Phase Two, distributions from four Model FTCs (Andegan Ansha, Mekalla, Alem Tenna and

Misrak Gortancho) over two years reached over 800 farmers.

The IPMS project took part in the promotion of forage in open markets in cooperation with

OoARD and innovative farmers. Tens of thousands of farmers attended the promotion sessions

in Guba, Kulito and Besheno markets (IPMS 2008). Such practices of exhibiting forage seeds,

seedlings and cuttings in open markets were innovative, and addressed gaps in capacity through

training. Such sessions can impart knowledge while selling forage seeds, seedlings and cuttings.

Unlike the efforts of forage development in Phase One, which focused more on exotic species, in

Phase Two focus was given to local forage species. Hall et al. (2007) point out the existence of

renewed interest in indigenous knowledge in recent years, which has included efforts to document

Figure 4: Monthly income of experimental forage shop in Alaba (June 2006 to June 2007)

1148 Development in Practice, Volume 21, Number 8, November 2011

Abebe Shiferaw, Ranjitha Puskur, Azage Tegegne, and Dirk Hoekstra

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

113.

23.1

28.3

4] a

t 23:

09 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

013

traditional livestock feeding and fodder systems. Discussions with farmer groups and experts in

the study area shows farmers’ preference for local grass (‘Desho’) for having a fast growth rate,

high biomass production, capacity to tolerate drought, ease in planting and managing, and wide

adaptation to various soils and topographies. These features of the forage reflect ‘appropriateness’.

In 2009, the authors could confirm that no other forage (of the 11 most commonly growing forages)

has been as widely distributed and adopted as ‘Desho’ grass in the district. The estimated land

covered by the grass in Bedene, Asore, Gerema, Hulegeba, Chambulla, four model FTCs and sur-

rounding PAs, land of seven innovative forage farmers, and forage seed multipliers farmers

(Gedeba, Galato, Wanja) reached over 85 ha of grass in the district in 2009. Working with local

forage ‘Desho’ which is described as ‘appropriate technology’ has provided a lesson on how

forage’s fast dissemination and adoption can be achieved if supply is on a cash basis.

Review of forage innovation and future outcomes

Recognising the dynamism of innovation systems, increased monitoring and evaluation of forage

development and coordination is certainly needed among actors. Future coordination is expected to

be undertaken by OoARD (extension process coordinators). For monitoring and evaluation, indi-

cators were suggested at impact (goal level), outcome (result level) and output (input level) during

a stakeholder workshop. The indicator at goal level is the increase in livestock produce (kg of meat

or L of milk/year/household). The outcome indictors are the amount of forage seed multiplied (qt/year/household) or income from forage (Birr/year/household) or the amount of forage seed

exchanged among farmers. Output indictors (at activity or input levels) are the number of house-

holds involved in forage seed multiplication or else the area covered by forage production and mul-

tiplication (ha). Coordination, monitoring and evaluation processes should involve all partners, be

led by OoARD, and be conducted to strengthen institutional learning.

A review of first and second phases of forage development shows differences in emphasis,

approach, and goals among actors. There is change in the number of actors, their roles, the

number of forage sites, the economic benefit gained from forage, a diversification in forage

activity, a shift from exotic forage to local forages, and a change in access to forage seeds, seed-

lings and cuttings for farmers (Table 2).

Conclusions and recommendations

This study from an innovation perspective points out how forage development can be enhanced

through innovative practices to diversify and disseminate forage and increase forage sources

and availability while ensuring economic benefit from forage, in a bid to contribute to increased

livestock productivity, reduce feed scarcity and develop market-oriented forage production.

Key innovative practices in the six years of forage development documented (which can be

taken as best practices) are, first, targeting and working with innovative forage framers. The sus-

tainability of private forage production sites is ensured by the economic benefit they give to

owners, and forage technology dissemination is faster and continuous as farmers’ involvement

increases in the process. Second, giving emphasis to ‘appropriate’ local forages is essential in

addition to exotic forages, as exemplified by the adoption of the local grass ‘Desho’ in this case

study. Farmers’ preferences and the nature of the local forage (high biomass producing

capacity, high rate of growth, wide agro-ecological adaption of forage, resistance to drought

and ease of management) lead to wider dissemination and a higher adoption rate. Third, the

establishment and development of private forage production and multiplication sites (owned

by farmers) and forage shops as forage sources, and the economic gain associated with these

things, is a driving force for forage dissemination. Farmer-owned forage production sites accel-

Development in Practice, Volume 21, Number 8, November 2011 1149

Innovation in forage development

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

113.

23.1

28.3

4] a

t 23:

09 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

013

erated dissemination of technology and ensured economic gains (because of cash-based supply)

as triggering factor. Fourth, forage promotion in open market sites, FTCs and at private forage

production sites has led to wide dissemination of forage technology. Promotion can be under-

taken as routine activity by OoARD and also by innovative farmers. Lastly, diversifying

capacity building efforts from conventional training and demonstration to include of forage

study tours (farmer-to-farmer visits), forage field days, credit support for forage development,

forage seed quality testing, and forage monitoring and evaluation are best practices to stimulate

forage development processes. The IPMS project recommends the scaling out of the above

innovative practices in the district by OoARD and piloting of these best practices in areas

with similar agro-ecology in the region by BoARD to enhance current government efforts in

forage development as part of the livestock extension programme. It is recommended that

OoARD play the coordination role among multiple actors in forage joint planning, reporting,

monitoring and evaluation to develop better links and develop formal partnerships between

actors. It is also recommended that further quantitative and comprehensive study be undertaken

on forage innovation in the study area and region.

Acknowledgements

The authors are very grateful to Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) for funding the

Improving Productivity and Market Success (IPMS) of Ethiopian Farmers’ Project. The IPMS project

Table 2: Review of forage innovation in the study area

Phase One (2004–06)Past forage development

Phase Two (2007–09)Present forage development

Slow dissemination and adoption of forage

technology

Fast dissemination and adoption of forage technology

Focus on government forage multiplication

sites and exotic forages

Focus diversified: farmers’ plots, FTC and private forage

production/multiplication sites and both exotic and local

forages

No direct forage promotion or marketing

effort

Promotion of forage in market sites and marketing effort

Limited partners and QoARD as key actor Multiple partners and farmers and FTCs as key actors

Driving force was technology introduction Driving force is benefit (economic gain) from forage

Farmers’ preferences not taken into account Consideration of farmers’ preferences

No scale-out: forage development confined

to forage production sites

Scale-out of forage development between PAs and from

farmer to farmer

Limited knowledge sources: QoARD and

SMS (subject matter specialists)

Diversified knowledge sources (QoARD, SMS, FTCs

and innovative farmers, ESGI Project, IPMS project)

Capacity-building was limited to training

and demonstration

Capacity-building included training, demonstrations,

forge promotion, forage field days, forage visits (PA to

PA) credit provision, and marketing support

Forage development increased farmers’

awareness and results were predictable

Forage development increased farmers’ benefits and

forage development has unpredictable results with

experimental approaches (forage shops, forage sales in

FTCs, private forage sites emerging)

Source: Forage Stakeholder Workshop, June 2008

1150 Development in Practice, Volume 21, Number 8, November 2011

Abebe Shiferaw, Ranjitha Puskur, Azage Tegegne, and Dirk Hoekstra

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

113.

23.1

28.3

4] a

t 23:

09 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

013

is owned by Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MoARD), managed by

International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) and implemented with multiple partners. Special

thanks go to Bereket Dindamo (Research and Development Assistant). Semsu Mohammed (Field

Assistant) and Selamu Chamisso (forage Subject Matter Specialist) at the district OoARD for data

collection.

References

Bentley, J., E. Boa, P. Van Mele, J. Almanza, D. Vasquez, and S. Eguino (2003) ‘Going public: a new

extension method’, International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 1 (2): 108–23.

Bolo, M. (2005) ‘Applying Innovation Systems Approach to Agricultural Research, the Case of Kenya’s

Floriculture Industry’, paper presented at the ACTs training course on Innovation Systems and Develop-

ment, Nairobi, Kenya, 20–24, March 2005.

Dalrymple, D. (2005) ‘Innovation systems: old wine in a new bottle?’, SciDevNet policy brief [online], 13

April, Science and Development Network, available at http://www.scidev.net/dossiers/research and devel-

opment (retrieved 10 May 2008).

Dantas, E. (2005) , ‘The ‘System of Innovation’ approach, and its relevence to developing countries’, Sci-

DevNet policy brief [online], April, Science and Development Network, available at http://www.scidev.

net/dossiers/research and development (retrieved 14 July 2008).

Douthwaite, B. and J. Ashby (2005) ‘Innovation Histories: A Method for Learning from Experience’,

ILCA Brief 52515 Available at: http://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/ilacbr/52515.html (retrieved 5 September

2011).

Duncan, A. (2009) ‘Forage Seed Systems in Ethiopia: Fodder Round Table Meeting’, flyer prepared based

on workshop held at International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 12 March

2009 Available at http://fodder-adoption-project.wikispaces.com/file/view/Ethiopian+seed+system:

flyer+final.pdf (retrieved 10 June 2008).

Gebremedhin, B., A. Hirpa, and K. Berhe (2009) ‘Feed Marketing in Ethiopia: Results of Rapid Market

Appraisal’, IPMS project working paper 15, ILRI, Nairobi, Kenya: IRLI. Available at: www.fao.org/

fileadmin/templates/agphome/images/iclsd/documents/wk2_c6_gerard.pdf

Hall, A., R. Sulaiman, and P. Bezkorowajnyi (2007) ‘Reframing Technical Change: Livestock Fodder

Scarcity Revisited as Innovation Capacity Scarcity, A Conceptual Framework’ Available at http://www.

merit.unu.edu/publications/wppdf/2008/wp2008-003.pdf (retrieved 5 June 2009).

IPMS (2005) ‘Design and Diagnosis of Alaba Pilot Learning Site (PLS)’, project consultation workshop,

Alaba Kulito, May 2005, available at www.ipms-ethiopia.org/content/files/documents/PLS-DPD/Ala-

ba.pdf (retrieved 10 May 2008).

IPMS (2008) Bi-annual reports for year 2006, 2007 and 2008, Alaba PLW report, Available at www.ipms-

ethiopia.org/Documents-Publications/Reporting/Progress-Reports (retrieved 20 May 2008).

Kategile, J., A. Said, and B. Dzowela (eds.) (1987) ‘Animal Feed Resources for Small-Scale Livestock

Producers’, proceedings of the second PANESA (Pastures Network for Eastern and Southern Africa)

workshop, Nairobi, Kenya, November 1985. Available at: http://www.fao.org/wairdocs/ILRI/x5548E/

x5548e00.htm (retrieved 7 July 2011).

Mengistu, A. (2003) A Practical Guide to Forage Seed Production and Marketing in Ethiopia, Addis

Ababa: Institute for Sustainable Development.

Tadesse, A. (1998) ‘The unexploited potential of improved forages in the mid altitude and low land areas

of Ethiopia’, in B. H. Dzowela, A. N. Said, W. Asrat, and J. A. Kategile (eds.) Proceedings of the

PANESA/ANRAB First Joint Workshop on Utilisation of Research Results on Forage and Agricultural

by-products, Addis Ababa: ILCA.

World Bank (2006) Enhancing Agricultural Innovation: How to Go Beyond the Strengthening of

Research Systems, Washington, DC: World Bank.

Yeshitila, A. (2008) ‘Assessment of Livestock Feed Resources Utilization in Alaba Woreda, Southern

Ethiopia’, unpublished MSc thesis, Haramaya University, Ethiopia. Available at http://www.ipms-ethiopia.

org/content/files/Documents/publication/Msc-Thesis/Final_Thesis_YeshitilaAdmasu.pdf (retrieved 10 May

2008).

Development in Practice, Volume 21, Number 8, November 2011 1151

Innovation in forage development

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

113.

23.1

28.3

4] a

t 23:

09 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

013

The authors

Abebe Shiferaw (corresponding author) works as research and development officer for ILRI. He is an

associate PhD student (University of Bern) and holds BSc and MSc degrees. He worked as academic

staff for Asmara University, Alemaya and Mekelle University College before joining World Vision

Ethiopia as programme development coordinator. ,[email protected].

Ranjitha Puskur is an Innovation System Scientist (PhD) on the IPMS project at the International

Livestock Research Institute, Addis Ababa.

Azage Tegegne is an Animal Scientist (PhD) on the IPMS project at the International Livestock Research

Institute, Addis Ababa.

Dirk Hoekstra is a Project Manager on the IPMS project at the International Livestock Research Institute,

Addis Ababa.

1152 Development in Practice, Volume 21, Number 8, November 2011

Abebe Shiferaw, Ranjitha Puskur, Azage Tegegne, and Dirk Hoekstra

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

113.

23.1

28.3

4] a

t 23:

09 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

013