Minutes on:Improving Agricultural Productivity and Food Scarcity-Livestock, Markos Tibbo and Lourdes Lim

IFAD/ICARDA Knowledge Exchange Workshop, 26-29 October 2009

Knowledge and Technology Exchange for Enhanced Quality of

IFAD/ICARDA Operations in the NENA region

Minutes on:Improving agricultural productivity and food

scarcity - Livestock

Presented by Markos Tibbo and Lourdes Lim

Participatory community-development plan: a vehicle for knowledge sharing and sustainable developmentby El-MouridProgram overview was presented on Mashreg-Magreb project

Questions and responses:

Has any of these technologies influenced policy making in the region. Whether there is any policy implication that worked in any of the government in the region?

In South Tunisia, the IFAD-funded project PRODESUD established a community development organization, a legal framework which allowed them to manage rangeland and get incentive. The protected area increased form 10,000 to 45,000 ha.

Additional examples from Morocco and Algeria was mentioned.

Technologies to improve livestock productivity in drylands by B. Rischkowsky

Summaries on Livestock Technologies elaborated by the presenter

1. Feeding technologies: strategic feeding of low cost balanced diets: low cost balanced diets for intensive and semi-intensive systems using available by-products and crop residues; balanced ration has improved lamb production and milk production; the technologies are profitable; bringing in a small enterprises to produce feed blocks (PPP) which is entrusted by the farmers; in doing so you can easily replace concentrates; economic analysis revealed that the profitability ranges from 58-87%.

2.Feeding technologies - enhancing the nutritive value of cereal crops: urea treated straw, a well known and fully tested technology but low adoption rate; this technology raises quality of wheat straw, easy to learn and local available material. However, it is labor intensive.


3. Alternative feed resources - Spineless cactus: water use efficient, drought tolerant, high in sugar, etc. Cactus makes nearly 50% of the feed supplement in different seasons of the year

4. Alternative feed resources – fodder shrubs and trees: benefit from tanniniferous fodder shrubs, act against internal parasites; they are used in alley cropping; return on investment (cactus 53%, without subsidy 17%; atriplex, 29%)

5. Technologies for improved milking technologies: traditional milking is not good for health for women and also increases the chance of milk contamination (simple milking rump: comfortable milking, cleaner milk, better udder examination, mastitis detection, higher quality products and better market price)


6. Technologies for improved yoghurt processing

7. Technologies for improved cheese processing – case study from Mexico: solutions to the quesadulla problem:

8. Technologies for fodder production: example from Afghanistan: high yielding forages were identified together with farmers. The project also helped to improve milk production in dairy animals. Testing and demonstrating on field

9. Monitoring and assessment of rangeland condition at local scale: digital charting technique…

10. Maintaining biodiversity – characterization and conservation: multipurpose pastoral species


11. Rehabilitation techniques: shrub plantation, alley cropping, seeding, water harvesting, land scarification, etc. Institutional issues are more than the technologies!

12. Sustainable development of depressions in pastoral ecosystems: if you protect such areas you can see the impact very quickly which is useful when working with communities to convince them. Studies in Tunisia has shown .

13. Technology packages for community development:

- community-based breeding (performance recording, technology packages together)

- Major technologies in M&M project: dual purpose barley, vetch, etc;

- Community-based rangeland rehabilitation in Badia in Syria

- Women livelihood and dairy goat project in Afghanistan and Pakistan

Technologies to improve livestock productivity in drylands – Q&A

Questions and responses:

Issues of improving productivity of livestock at all levels has been presented. However, we have not seen breed improvement aspect of the animals, for e.g. Crossbreeding.

Crossbreeding is an easy solution as crossbred are robust and more productive than the inferior parents. However, maintaining pure breeds is a necessity to keep it going. It is therefore high investment. At the end the productivity of the crossbreds goes down as it also may be related to environmental situation. For example Awassi is the most adapted breed for this region. We have to improve our good animals than crossbreeding. ICARDA has community-based breed programs in Ethiopia, Central Asia and Latin America to improve local breeds. But IFAD funded project which lasts only three years doesn't allow us to see the genetic progress.


In Tunisia more crossbreeding of fat-tailed Barbarine sheep is being done with thin-tailed sheep. Do you have any information on reasons why this is happening?

Market demand is shifting the focus of breeders/farmers. The butchers are the ones who are deciding what sort of animals they would like to purchase. The apparently considered that the fat-tail is not liked by consumers without real evidence on this. A survey undertaken has shown that the consumers indeed do not have the idea from which animals the meat is coming. Most of the consumers preferred the meat from Barbarine breed (the fat-tailed). Lack of transparency of marketing system has contributed to indiscriminate crossbreeding of the most adapted fat-tailed with the thin-tailed sheep in Tunisia.

In Morocco, demarcating of breeding area for a breed and branding of products has been the most important strategy to conserve local breeds.


Nomads are no longer able to continue in their traditional way because of the climate change and drought. Do you have technologies in the management of nomadic herds? Have you tried incentives for de-stocking?

This is important issue and we have noticed that nomads are adjusting to the changes through moving towards cropping land and cotton fields by grazing their animals on stubbles and providing supplementary feeds in severe seasons. Often conflicts between nomads and crop farmers occurs particularly who should graze the stubbles – the owner of the land or the nomads. The strategy followed by the crop farmers was to have some animals and graze before nomads graze them.

The sustainable solution for this is to manage rangelands and encourage de-stocking through incentives or other government policies.


Do you have drought resistant fodder varieties?

ICARDA has been tasting several fodder varieties. ICARDA is collecting seeds for various drought and salt resistant rangeland species and testing it on station including palatability (cafeteria) trials on sheep.

Have you done benefit-cost analysis on feed blocks with respect to labor cost?

This has been studied and proved profitable. However, it was not easy to convince farmers to adopt its use. Feed blocks could be stored up to 5 years which is an added value. Institutional issues are important here – for e.g. in Iraq there were huge private companies who have been producing feed blocks and selling them to farmers but after the collapse of Iraq this was stopped. The knowledge is still there, however.


You have presented range of technologies. Have you done similarity mapping for the technologies on their potential to succeed in similar areas.

Similar mapping works better when it comes with crops. In livestock, you have to think in two layers: which are is suitable for which feed resources and then animals comes in. We are expecting grants from FAO as to analyze to map which animal breed would best matches with which production systems. Technologies such as dairy processing has to do with local practices and preferences. This is also true with meat types – goat meat may be liked with one society while mutton is liked by others. Therefore, it is not so easy to directly use this approach.


Have you tied Lactroperoxidase enzyme which is advocated by FAO in milk processing?

Lactoperoxidase inhibits the activity of bacteria and slow down the process which will increase the shelf-life of the milk. However, since it affects the taste of the products (cheese) some people are not in favor of the enzyme. The nomads are normally process in their tent at night and will deliver to the nearest market in the next morning. Therefore, the use lactoperoxidase may not be necessary.


What are reasons for low adoption rate of the technologies?

Some technologies may work but others may not depending on the socio-economic and institutional set-ups. Farmers are reluctant to risk high investment. Generally low cost technologies are better adopted than the high cost technologies. IFAD is looking on least-cost technologies or some technology adoption has been proven.