| Livestock Research for Rural Development 26 (5) 2014 | Guide for preparation of papers | LRRD Newsletter | Citation of this paper |
The paper highlights the many good reasons why the right response to the opportunities and challenges presented by the rapidly growing demand for livestock products is to facilitate, promote and support commercialisation of the smallholder livestock production system and the communities involved, through identification of the major constraints that hinder their participation and inclusion in profitable value chains and through formulation of interventions necessary to overcome these constraints.
Key words: capacity building, competitiveness, contract farming, effective livestock production, efficient linkages, employment, empowerment, farmers’ association , improved technologies, job creation, landholding, livelihood, market access, market needs, organisation, population in urban centres, productivity, Public-Private-Partnership , regulatory framework, technical advisory services, transformation, uptake, young farmers’ education, value addition, value chains, women’s ability
The demand for livestock products is predicted to more than double during the next 20 years mainly because of rapidly growing population in urban centres coupled with economic growth, especially in developing countries (Delgado 1999; World bank 2005; Costales et al 2006). This scenario presents, maybe, the greatest opportunity for profitable increase in livestock production ever seen in Africa for the smallholders – who in many countries produce the lion’s share of all food products including livestock products such as milk, meat and egg (Inforesources 2007). It is, however, also presenting emerging constraints for the smallholder farming community, as the majority of consumers, the urban population, are getting more and more remote in relation to food production areas. Consequently, the consumer demands and expectations concerning food preferences, quality and variety are significantly different from the rural societies, who produce the food. The smallholders, therefore, have to produce what is demanded – instead of trying to sell the odd surplus from the traditional production of food for their household consumption. If developing countries are to satisfy this doubled demand, livestock production has to become much more productive and efficient i.e. higher production per animal and per farmer. The production has to be directed towards the demand (demand driven) and the needs of the markets. Livestock production, therefore, has to be commercial oriented and the smallholder producers have to participate as a partner and included into the value chains. In industrial countries, we have seen a concentration of livestock production into big units over the last 50 years and most of the smallholders have, more or less, totally disappeared from the livestock sector in these countries. Will the same happen, and quickly, in the developing countries and is this a necessary change for commercialisation of livestock production to occur?
In developing countries, women play great role in livestock production and therefore, specific interventions and support may be required to give women an equal opportunity to participate actively in the commercialisation process – women constitute almost half of the work force in agriculture. On the other hand, there is also a great opportunity for empowerment of women as women in most rural communities traditionally are responsible for many livestock activities. Appropriate interventions could increase women’s ability to take advantage of new opportunities for income and food security (FAO 2011). The income from the limited sale of livestock products (egg, milk, meat) is traditionally often at the disposal of the women for the benefit of the household. Commercialisation of the smallholder livestock sector can, therefore, have a significant and positive impact on the empowerment of rural women. It can also enhance their equal and active participation in economic growth of the country. There is, however, also a risk that women could lose control of the income from sale of livestock products, if sales reaches above certain level and become the major income for the household. That is if nothing specific is done. Women’s involvements in management of assets and cash income from an increased sale, as well as their membership and participation in leadership of the smallholder organisations, increase their social status and their influence on decisions important for the daily life of rural families. As already pointed out earlier, specific interventions and support may be required to enable women smallholders to share the benefits of commercial production, not only as producers but also as decision-makers. It may be necessary to take steps to ensure that women are adequately represented as members and in the leadership of producer organisations and that they have equal opportunities to attend training courses and to access advisory and financial services. In a recent special session in “The Farmers Forum” (IFAD 2010), it was emphasized that economic empowerment of women was the essential condition to advance their voice and leadership in farmers’ organisations. Capacity building was seen as a most critical intervention to promote greater leadership of women within farmers’ and rural producers’ organisations. The needed capacity building was identified very broadly and did not differ much from the capacity building needed for men. The capacity building for women should specifically focus on their need to participate in and get equal access to information, technical skills, confidence building and leadership skills. It is, furthermore, important to enable women to change attitude and appreciate the need for their own involvement in policy issues that affect them as farmers as well as in their participation in farmers’ organisations and local (national) policies.
Women are – at least – as good farmers as men, in particular if they would get the same access to land, credit and technical assistance.
This paper will highlight the many good reasons why the right response to the opportunities and challenges presented by the rapidly growing demand for livestock products is to facilitate, promote and support commercialisation of the smallholder livestock production system and the communities involved, through identification of the major constraints that hinder their participation and inclusion in profitable value chains and through formulation of interventions necessary to overcome these constraints.
Why is commercialisation of the smallholder livestock farming systems such a good idea ?
1. Because the smallholder livestock farming community already produces and supplies a major share of food for the population and raw material for the processing industry .
Large scale commercial farming is at present only producing a minor share of the food for consumption in urban areas in most African countries. The landholding structure, dominated by many smallholder farmers (in millions) is simply the basis for production of domestic food supply and raw material for the industry. Despite the many constraints such as poor infrastructure, limited access to services, input supply and market links, the livestock sector has been quite successful in keeping up with the growing demand. However, most African countries are still importing food, particularly high value added food products of animal origin and there is a lot of room for improvements along the entire livestock products value chain. The landholding structure is not easy to change and the smallholder farming community will, at least in the immediate to medium term perspective, continue to be most important for supplying livestock products for domestic consumption – and eventually for regional export.
2. Because the smallholder livestock farming community constitutes more than 70% of the population in most African countries.
Most rural people – including the poor – depend on agriculture for livelihood, either directly or as service providers or as hired seasonal farm workers. Rural poverty can only be alleviated if more jobs are created or wages would increase. The obvious option to creating more jobs is by development of a more effective livestock and crop production based on the improvements of the prevailing smallholder production system together with more efficient linkages to the urban markets. Development of the dairy sector in Kenya and Uganda over the last 40 years is excellent examples of such a process. Presently, there are very few alternative employment opportunities in rural areas. However, commercialisation of the smallholder agriculture will create job opportunities along the value chain and many of them will be outside the farm and away from the primary agricultural production.
3. Because large scale livestock farming systems do NOT have a proven advantage in production efficiency compared to smallholder systems.
Most African countries have limited number of large scale livestock farmers, mainly in the poultry sector and the emerging pig industry, close to the major urban centres whereas ruminant production is totally dominated by the smallholders. The poor infrastructure that makes transaction cost much higher for the rural smallholders compared to the peri-urban large scale poultry farms, together with the “relaxed” implementation, enforcement and monitoring of environmental regulations, provides the greatest advantage for the large scale system in Africa who are able to exploit the economies of scale. For the large scale farming system to take over the food production and supply from the smallholders, it would require a major change in the policy on land ownership and user’s right and a significant capital investment and man power training. At the same time, the displacement of smallholder systems by large scale farming systems would create huge problems for the livelihood of the majority of people living in rural areas (GRAIN 2011).
It is important to note that large scale farmers can act as a link in the inclusion of the smallholders to the value chain, either as contract farmers or by providing a market outlet for the smallholders in the vicinity. The large-scale farmers can alone, due to the large amount of produce by an individual, attract market players and indirectly provide market outlet also for the smallholders. But this will not happen by itself, even if it seems so obvious and straight forward, and therefore the smallholders will require assistance to exploit this opportunity. ILRI has in a recent publication documented smallholders’ competitiveness in the process of transforming from subsistence to market production and emphasized the need for defining where opportunities to enhance efficiencies can be tapped and viable options identified, demonstrated and supported (Stall et al 2011).
4. Because non-sustainable agriculture encroaches on existing natural forests, range land etc., the increase of agricultural productivity and efficiency is essential for protecting the remaining natural resources.
Increased agricultural production in Africa is mainly the outcome of increased land for cropping and keeping more livestock. Production per ha and per livestock unit is on average below 30 % of what is achievable. This level of production is not sustainable, either in the short term or in the long term. If existing natural forests and rangeland are to be maintained for future generations, the productivity of agricultural and livestock has to be increased significantly, now and in the immediate future. We have the tools and technology ready but we miss a lot on how to organise the interventions to fully exploit the potential for more effective and productive agricultural and livestock in the smallholder production systems. Such interventions include all the externalities to the farming, such as transport, market information, power supply, input supply and services (in particularly farmers’ advisory services), and education.
5. Because the smallholder production system has the greatest potential for increased productivity.
The smallholder farming system is based on family labour, traditional production knowledge and methods (low use of new/modern production technology) together with very low capital investments. Generally, the smallholders lack access to technical advisory services and most other input and supply services, including financial services. They have, however, excellent knowledge about livestock keeping and all the (limited) farm resources at their disposal, including the benefit of mixed farming (crop and livestock production).
The smallholders are in urgent need of more income (which they have to generate) to maintain and eventually improve family livelihood. The smallholder farming community is, therefore, open minded and motivated to take up new and improved methods and technologies that firstly, has the potential to reduce the risk of livestock production and secondly, to increase income from the livestock enterprise – including more efficient links to the value chain supplying the urban markets.
The general experience is, however, that the smallholder farming system in Africa has low productivity - less than half of what is obtained in large scale livestock farming. This presents at the same time a great opportunity for increased production and productivity. We have the tools and technologies to exploit this potential through upgrading the smallholder livestock farming system and through increased efficiency and productivity. However, we need, together with the smallholder community, to identify more effective ways and means to bring this knowledge into use by the smallholders. The simple intervention required is to demonstrate economic advantage of the improved technologies and methods for market oriented production with assured entrance to the value chain. Experiences tell us that the uptake of new methods will be significant if smallholders are convinced of the benefits. Stall et al (2011) conclude that improved technologies in feed, breed, and animal health are critical to transform subsistence, less efficient systems into more efficient, highly-functioning and better performing value chains to meet consumer demands (See also the field example in box 7).
6. Because many smallholders have already initiated this transformation with increasing yields and they are converting from subsistence to market oriented commercial production .
Commercialisation of smallholder livestock production is not new – it is an ongoing process where smallholders move from producing for household consumption with the option of selling surplus, into market oriented production for the profitable product. The household then buys the food needed using the income from the marketed production. The change in priority from household consumption to production for the market is a difficult transformation against the traditions of the rural population. However, it is already happening at different regions (milk production in Kenya and Uganda are good examples) and this process of change can be enhanced by focussed interventions which demonstrate to the smallholders that livestock farming for the market is good business that will provide them with more income and security than the traditional production system. They will then be willing to invest capital and labour in more productive livestock systems with higher quality products and more efficient incorporation into the value chain (See example in box 7).
7. Because investing in higher productivity in the smallholder farming community has a significant higher positive impact on employment and rural economic growth than any other private sector investment.
Investment in higher productivity has to be supported by intervention for a more effective value chain for the marketable products to: -
i) ensure market access/availability;
ii) ensure a fair share of product/commodity value goes to farmers/producers;
iii) ensure transparency in price and market;
iv) ensure highest level of appropriate value addition in the rural areas through primary processing such as bulking, cooling, sorting, packing, drying etc., for creation of rural employment opportunities which is important for poverty alleviation.
In spite of having highlighted the above, commercialisation of smallholder livestock farming needs public support to ensure active inclusion of smallholders in economic growth, such as
1. Support for development of viable farmer organizations – also to strengthen collective actions.
For smallholders to participate and benefit from market oriented production it is a must that they organise. It is not possible to exploit the full potential for profit by doing it as individuals. As an individual: the product volume is too small; the input is too small; transport too expensive; services not discounted (or available); etc. Collective action is necessary and farmers’ organisations such as commodity and/or dairy farmers’ association are proven to be the best option for collective action. Generally, the farmers association take care of volume purchases for input supplies at discounted prices and also take care of marketing (taking advantage of bulking) of products on behalf of the members. The individual farmers continue independently to organise and implement primary livestock (and crop) production on their small farms. Input supplies and marketing could be through cooperatives or through contracts with private entrepreneurs and business people. Farmers’ associations and cooperatives help to bulk (create volume) and can be involved in some kind of processing and adding value to get the maximum income before passing on the product to other stakeholders along the value chain. The best known example of this is perhaps the smallholder dairy cooperatives that are collecting milk from members, bulking and cooling it before selling it to the large scale dairy processor. Some cooperatives go even further and have established full scale dairy processing plant before delivering the milk to the retail market.
2. Building capacity in the smallholder farming community, in particular through development of formal training programmes for future generations of young commercial smallholder farmers.
Generally, the rural population and the smallholder farming community are less educated and have low capacity for planning and making economic calculations/decisions necessary in commercial/market oriented farming. It is the responsibility of the public sector to ensure that the smallholder farming community is getting this capacity – preferably through the farmers own organisations with public support. There are two targets for this: first, the present generation of smallholders, and second, the up-coming generation of farmers. The interventions to the two targets are very different. For the present generation it is a question of short term training and strengthening of their organisations and facilitating provision of farmer’s advisory service for commercial/market oriented production. For the future generation of farmers, it is a question of providing formal training programmes for young smallholder commercial farmers. All are aware that smallholder agriculture is the backbone of the economy in most African countries and provides livelihood for more than 50 % of the population. It is therefore surprising that there are no formal training systems for those expected to take over farming in the near future – the next generation of smallholder commercial farmers. Furthermore, smallholders are not only doing farming, they are also the custodians and daily managers of our environment, in particular soil, water and natural resources and therefore need to have the capacity/knowledge, through proper training programmes, to deal with these issues. (See in Annex: box 1 and box 2 for more details on capacity building of the smallholder farming community and box 3 with the most important tools and means available).
3. Develop and facilitate delivery of appropriate and efficient technical advisory services for the smallholder community – based on their actual needs.
There is a growing need and demand for advisory service partly due to the growing demand for food and particularly livestock products, and partly because of the need for higher productivity. For improved technologies and innovations to be useful to the commercial smallholder farmers, efficient and relevant technical advisory service is a must. The question is how to implement and finance such a service – the smallholders cannot do it on their own. And why should they? Smallholder farmers’ advisory service is not only going to benefit the smallholders alone but many other stakeholders would also benefit – including the public sector – and they should therefore all contribute to the financing. The public benefits accrued from efficient advisory service will include:
i) better utilisation of natural and human resources;
ii) improved productivity;
iii) promotion and facilitation of economic growth in rural areas;
iv) generation of rural employment opportunities;
v) creation of increased profit and income – also for taxation; and finally,
vi) capacity building in the smallholder farming community.
The private sector/industry stakeholders will similarly get benefits such as more and better quality raw material for additional economic processing and marketing of higher quality products – also for export.
The costs of farmers’ advisory services should therefore be distributed among all the stakeholders. The easy way to meet the costs is through taxation of the industry and other form of public contribution. A Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) arrangement would be the obvious choice for funding and management of an efficient technical advisory service for the commercial/market oriented smallholders. Planning and design of smallholder farmers’ technical advisory service should be open to idea of using new technologies similar to what has already happened with the mobile telephones. Involvement of private service providers, including farmer organisations, should be promoted and enhanced.
4. Establish the regulatory framework and infrastructure imperative for efficient input supply and for collection, bulking and marketing of primary production.
The most important factors for inclusion of smallholders in the value chain are the primary steps from farmers to the immediate off-farm activities such as milk collection centres and milk processing plants. Interventions to promote smallholders participation in the value chains should therefore focus on the primary steps.
5. Create a forum for dialogue between the public sector and the smallholder farming community with the strong farmer organizations playing a significant role.
Such a forum should become an important tool for Knowledge Sharing between farmers, advisors, researches, policy makers and the industry regulators/administrators.
6. Establish policies, standards and the regulatory framework that ensure inclusion of the smallholders into the value chains and economic growth in agriculture .
ILRI research has documented that appropriate interventions can lead to progressive development when proper and suitable policies and institutions are in place to facilitate the process (Stall et al 2011). To promote inclusion of the smallholder producers, it is important to prepare appropriate quality and food safety standards for livestock products according to the national or regional context and not just transfer standards from the industrialised countries with mainly large scale livestock farming (GRAIN 2011).
On the other hand, the following issues are important to consider
1. Commercialisation and increased productivity will naturally, over time, increase land holdings (consolidation of land holding) – the most efficient smallholders will acquire more land and livestock and the less efficient will sell and leave agriculture for other employment. More productive agriculture will of course need fewer people to produce.
2. Commercialisation of the smallholder production system will create employment opportunities for those who will leave the primary agricultural production;
3. The increased production and productivity will reduce transaction costs per unit through the value chain; and finally;
4. The capacity building will provide the industry with raw material of better quality;
Moreover, commercialisation of smallholder livestock production has (potential) important positive side effects, such as
1. More domestically produced food will reach consumers at lower prices – and of improved quality – both nutritionally and health wise;
2. Increased economic activities in rural areas – both on-farm and off-farm – in the service and transport sector;
3. The capacity building and training of the smallholder farming community will help those leaving agriculture to qualify for employment in other sectors.
Costales A, Gerber P and Steinfeld H 2006 Underneath the livestock revolution. In Livestock Report 2006. FAO
Delgado C, Rosengrant M, Steinfeld H, Ehui S and Courbois C 1999 Livestock to 2020. The next Food Revolution. Food, agriculture and environment. Discussion paper 28. IFPRI.
FAO 2012 Institutions for Dairy Development. Animal Production and Health Division (AGS) and Rural Infrastructure and Agro-industries Division (AGS). Unpublished.
FAO 2011 Notes on Livestock, Food Security and Gender Equity. Animal Production and Health Working Paper. No. 3. Rome.
GRAIN 2011 The great milk robbery. www.grain.org/article/categories/14-reports.
Henriksen J 2011 IFAD Review of Smallholder Livestock Investment Project, Zambia. Unpublished
IFAD 2010 Promotion of women’s leadership in farmers ‘and rural producers’ organisations. Special session of the third global meeting of the Farmers’ Forum, IFAD, Rome, February 12-13, 2010.
Inforesources 2007 Focus No 1/07. The livestock revolution: An opportunity for poor farmers? www.inforesources.ch/pdf/focus07_1_e.pdf
Stall S, Lapar L, Gebremedhin B and Wanyoike F 2011 Smallholder competitiveness and market-driven technology uptake. ILRI Livestock Exchange Issue Brief 19.
Technical advisory 2011 Enhancing Livelihoods of Poor Livestock Keepers through Increased Use of Fodder: Smallholder cattle fattening in Viet Nam. IFAD TAN 853 CIAT2.
World Bank 2005 Managing the livestock revolution. Policy and technology to address the negative impacts of a fast-growing sector.
|
Box 1: Technical advisory services to smallholders. Who benefits and who should pay? |
|
|
1 |
Advisory services are only viable if the benefits cover more than the expenses |
|
2 |
There will be a growing need/demand for advisory services due to growing demand for food and particularly livestock products due to the population increase, economic growth and expanding urban centres. Moreover, development of new technologies and innovations also demands efficient advisory service to become useful for farmers |
|
3 |
It is unrealistic to believe that all costs can be covered by smallholder farmers in the foreseeable future, even if farmers are expected to improve their economic results |
|
4 |
Besides, farmers are not the only ones benefitting from advisory services. The public sector, traders, industry and consumers benefits as well |
|
5 |
The public benefits of efficient technical advisory services include: |
|
a. Better utilization of natural and human resources |
|
|
b. Promotion and facilitation of economic growth in rural areas |
|
|
c. Improved productivity |
|
|
d. Creation of employment opportunities |
|
|
e. Increased profit and income for taxation |
|
|
6 |
The industry gets more raw material of improved quality for additional economic processing and marketing of better quality products – also for export |
|
7 |
The costs, therefore, also have to be distributed accordingly among all the stakeholders. The easiest way to do this is through taxation and public contribution to an efficient advisory service |
|
8 |
Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) would be an obvious option for funding and management of smallholder livestock farmers’ advisory services |
|
Source FAO 2012 |
|
|
Box 2: Why capacity building of the smallholder farming community? |
|
|
1 |
To enable smallholders to appreciate and use new technologies |
|
2 |
To increase productivity and utilization of natural resources, human capacity and knowledge |
|
3 |
To become further market oriented and commercial in their farming |
|
4 |
To participate actively in the development process |
|
5 |
To benefit and get fair share of the economic benefit of higher productivity |
|
6 |
To participate actively in the political dialogue and the processes of agricultural development and preparation of an enabling environment ensuring smallholder inclusion |
|
7 |
To gain influence on the democratic political process |
|
8 |
Build improved knowledge and understanding of the farming systems, economic and production technologies |
|
9 |
Promote an improved level of general knowledge and understanding of the development and political process |
|
Source |
FAO 2012 |
|
Box 3: Important tools and means for capacity building in the smallholder farming community |
|
|
1 |
Strong farmers’ organisations |
|
2 |
Conducive policy environment |
|
3 |
Farmers’ schools on crops and livestock |
|
4 |
Farmer managed advisory services |
|
5 |
Young commercial farmers’ education programme |
|
6 |
Farmers’ involvement in action research |
|
7 |
Improved rural primary and secondary education with farming subjects included in the curricula – with issues on farmer organisations integrated |
|
8 |
To a large extent 1 to 7 above is public goods expected to be provided for by the public sector. Possibly with cost sharing contributions from farmers’ organisations depending on the tool and economic stage of development |
|
Source |
FAO 2012 |
|
Box 4: The many different roles of a commercial smallholder |
|
|
1 |
Farmer and producer of food |
|
2 |
Producer of raw material for the processing industry |
|
3 |
Farm manager responsible for planning, finance and economy |
|
4 |
Employer |
|
5 |
Manager of natural resources |
|
6 |
Participant in debates – both as a farmer and as politician |
|
7 |
Member of board of directors for companies owned by farmers’ organisations |
|
8 |
Member of board of directors or advisory boards for national agricultural institutions, such as research institutions |
|
Source |
FAO 2012 |
|
Box 5: Example of identification of problem areas in a value chain – beef value chain analysis in Zambia |
|
|
1 |
Western province in Zambia has good opportunity for beef production for the commercial markets in Lusaka and the Cobber Belt. There is apparently an easy access to the market for smallholders as already 3-4 abattoirs are established including the biggest national ZAMBEEF company. The abattoirs are, however, complaining about lack of animals and about poor quality. Market access is normally one of the critical constraints, but in Mongu and Senanga districts market access is easy and a major bottleneck is therefore already eliminated. A preliminary value chain analysis has identified the following major problem areas: |
|
2 |
Problem area 1. Liver fluke is diagnosed in 90 % of all animals brought to the abattoir which results in discarded livers and poor slaughter quality. And it results in slow growth rate during production |
|
3 |
Problem area 2: Lack of seasonal access to appropriate cattle feed, in particular when the cattle is in the uplands because the Zambezi river valley is flooded |
|
4 |
Problem area 3: poor carcass quality – the majority of cattle is in poor body condition when presented to the abattoir |
|
5 |
Problem area 4: Lack of planning in the smallholder beef production system. As a result, animals are brought to market/ abattoir when the household is in need for cash and neither related to the quality of animal nor the price at selling time. Price on cattle for slaughter varies up to 25 % between high and low season |
|
6 |
Problem area 5: Poor health and high calf mortality results in very low production and productivity and consequently leaves very little room for investments in beef production |
|
7 |
Problem area 6: Low genetic potential for growth together with high level of inbreeding results in low production and productivity. As a consequence of this, fewer animals then potentially possible are brought to the market/abattoir, and there is a reduced incentive for further investments and improvements of the value chain and links to the urban markets. The cost per unit will be increased when few cattle are brought to the abattoir. However, the genetic potential might be there and just not expressed due to the other problem areas. Improvement of health and nutrition could alone increase production |
|
8 |
Depending on the specific options for intervention the next step in the process is to identify possible activities to mitigate and/or eliminate the above critical constraints. It is important to focus the interventions towards the 3 to 5 most critical constraints as indicated above, instead of trying to introduce a new general scheme for improved beef production |
|
Source |
Henriksen 2011 |
|
Box 6: Example of interventions to mitigate identified problem areas in a value chain. Beef value chain analysis in Zambia |
|
|
1 |
Western province in Zambia has good opportunity for beef production for the commercial markets in Lusaka and the Cobber Belt. There is apparently an easy access to the market for smallholders as already 3-4 abattoirs are established including the biggest national ZAMBEEF company. The abattoirs are, however, complaining about lack of animals and about poor quality. Market access is normally one of the critical constraints, but in Mongu and Senanga districts markets access seems to be easy and a critical constraint is therefore already eliminated. Box 5 has an outline of the major 5 constraints and below is examples of possible interventions to mitigate these constraints |
|
2 |
Problem area 1 : Liver Fluke. Possible intervention : Assistance to farmers in developing a liver fluke control programme (treatment and grazing management). Involvement of the abattoirs in the programme is necessary and introduction of special payment for animals with a “clean” liver would make profitability of the intervention more visible. |
|
3 |
Problem area 2 . Lack of seasonal access to appropriate cattle feed. Possible intervention: Assess the crop production system and availability of crop by-products. Assess the opportunity for improved fodder production, harvesting and conservation |
|
4 |
Problem area 3 . Poor carcass quality Possible intervention: Develop a farm programme for supplementary feeding of a few selected animals to “finish” them before slaughtering. Such an intensive “finishing” programme may increase the value of the animal by 25 %, including better grading and higher weight |
|
5 |
Problem area 4. Lack of planning in the smallholder beef production system. Possible intervention : Develop business plans for smallholder beef production to help farmers to take the best decision at the right time (season and age of slaughter; season and frequency of parasite treatment; season and frequency of vaccinations against critical diseases). The business plan could include the initial selling of 1 or 2 animals to get cash for investments in improvements of the production system, such as a finishing programme mentioned above. The business plan should of course emphasise the economic issues of commercial beef production |
|
6 |
Problem area 5 . Poor health and high calf mortality. Possible interventions: Development of appropriate animal health control programme and a specific calf rearing programme with a set of standard operations for reducing calf mortality. All costs and benefits should be included in the programme with emphasis on the economic aspects of beef production. Shorter production time than the present 8 years is of great economic benefit, but not yet appreciated by the smallholders |
|
Source Henriksen 2011 |
|
|
Box 7: Transition of smallholder farmers from traditional “cattle keepers” to market oriented “ meat producers” |
|
|
1 |
Many smallholder families keep 1-3 animals as part of a mixed farming system. They graze cattle on grass, herbs, and shrubs growing along the road sides, field and waterways, and in nearby forests. In intensively cropped lowland area, farmers supplement grazing with freshly cut native grasses and crop residues. There are two main problems/constraints with this type of traditional production system: a) feed supply is insufficient for appropriate animal growth and production; b) herd management is labour intensive (herding) and production poor |
|
2 |
This results often in animals of poor condition with low meat yield at slaughter and poor reproductive performance. The animals can only be sold on local markets for local consumption as the quality is not adequate for the demanding urban markets. Price is accordingly low. On the other hand, the traditional production system is not really market related for many reasons – also because of difficult market access. Cattle keeping have usually been related to preserving capital as a resource in case of household problems such as lack of food or disease. However, there are now opportunities for smallholders to benefit from the increasing demand for beef in the urban centres if the smallholders manage to change the production system to produce beef of an improved quality according to the market demand |
|
3 |
IFAD is funding a research programme entitled “enhancing livelihoods of poor livestock keepers through increase use of fodder”, including the “Smallholder cattle fattening in Viet Nam” as described in the Technical Advisory Note (TAN 853 CIAT2). This note describes a successful transition of smallholder farmers from cattle keepers to beef producers in Ea Kar District, Daklak. |
|
4 |
The key to this success was a combination of a. Convincing technology – farm growing of fodder b. An innovative and participatory process together with the actors in the value chain c. Focus on both production and marketing at the same time |
|
5 |
The immediate benefits of easy access to fodder of improved quality stimulated smallholders’ interest and provided an entry for innovation and change. As cattle production and carcass quality improved both the smallholders and the other stakeholders realised that production of high quality animals was possible. The new market opportunities became the key driver for change and commercialisation of the smallholder beef production system |
|
6 |
The project outcomes were in short: a. Farmers adopted the new production system and produce much better quality beef, formed producer groups and entered into contracts with traders b. Traders were encouraged by the improved carcass quality and forged linkages with abattoirs and meat outlets in larger cities c. Local government and extension officers learnt to facilitate commercial beef production for the benefit of the smallholders and other stakeholders d. Efficiency of cattle production increased significantly and provided additional income to the smallholder families |
|
Source |
Technical Advisory 2011 |
|
Box 8: Summary and overview . Commercialisation of agriculture in Africa does NOT mean elimination of the smallholder farming systems and replacing it with large scale farming. On the contrary, it means commercialisation of the smallholder farming |
|
|
WHY? |
a. Because the smallholder farming community forms the basis of existence for more than 70 % of the population in most African countries |
|
b. Because the smallholder farming community produces and supplies the major share of food for the population and raw material for the processing industry |
|
|
c. Because the large scale farming system does NOT have a proven advantage in production efficiency compared to the smallholder system |
|
|
d. Because non-sustainable agriculture encroaches on existing natural forests, range land etc., the increase of agricultural productivity and efficiency is essential also for protecting the natural resources |
|
|
e. Because the smallholder production system has the greatest potential for increased productivity |
|
|
f. Because many smallholders are already increasing yields and converting from subsistence to a market oriented and commercial production |
|
|
g. Because investing in higher productivity in the smallholder farming community has a significant higher positive impact on employment and rural economic growth than any other private sector investment |
|
|
In spite of this |
Commercialisation of the smallholder farming needs public support to ensure inclusion of the smallholders into economic growth and development |
|
a. Support to development of viable farmers’ organisations – also to strengthen collective actions |
|
|
b. Build capacity in the smallholder farming community, in particular through development of education programmes for future generations of young commercial smallholder farmers |
|
|
c. Develop through research and facilitate delivery of appropriate and efficient technical advisory services for the smallholders – based on their needs |
|
|
d. Establish the regulatory framework and infrastructure imperative for efficient input supply and for collection, bulking and marketing of primary production |
|
|
e. Create a forum for dialogue between the public sector and the smallholder farming community with strong farmer organizations playing a significant role |
|
|
f. Establish standards and the regulatory framework that ensure inclusion of the smallholders into the value chains and economic growth in agriculture |
|
|
On the other hand |
a. Commercialization and increased productivity will naturally - over time – increase landholdings. The most efficient smallholders will acquire more land as the less efficient will sell and leave agriculture for other employment |
|
b. Commercialization of the smallholder production system will create employment opportunities for those who will leave farming |
|
|
c. The increased production and productivity will reduce transaction costs per unit through the value chain |
|
|
d. The capacity building will provide the industry with raw material of better quality through a more reliable delivery system and value chain |
|
|
Moreover |
a. The domestic produced food reach consumers at lower prices and will improve food security and food sovereignty |
|
b. The capacity building and training of the smallholder farming community will help to qualify those leaving farming for employment in other sectors |
|
Received 19 February 2014; Accepted 22 March 2014; Published 1 May 2014