1. Reflections on TechFit Werner Stur

2. My involvement so far • Participated in Dehra Dun workshop • Missed March workshop in Addis Ababa • Asked to assign scores based on the latest spreadsheet • TechFit has come a long way since Dehra Dun! • Basically very happy, but run into some issues with scoring, both my own and when comparing my scores to those of other people. • So I held my own 1 person workshop. I tried to articulate my own process of deriving at particular interventions, and then related this to TechFit. • Here are some thoughts.

3. Feed improvement strategy - the basics • Ad lib feeding – quantity rules • Almost invariably animals in smallholder systems are underfed. They simply do not get enough feed to grow well; just above maintenance requirements of the animals. Even small increases in feed supply result in substantial growth responses since all additional feed goes towards growth of the animal. • The key priority is to increase the amount of feed provided (bulk), rather than to worry too much about feed quality. • Ad lib feeding is not an intervention – it has no core attributes. • Smart feeding – quality diets are expensive so need to be clearly targeted • Once ad lib feeding has been achieved, further increases in productivity can only be achieved by improving the quality of the diet. This needs to be clearly based on the needs of animals and economic efficiency. • Smart feeding is knowledge-intensive and often requires purchased inputs. • Smart feeding is a strategy (again no core attributes) but there are a range of interventions that could be added to the current intervention list.

4. Key question: Would my animals eat more feed, if available? No Yes No, my animals usually get enough feed year round, but their productivity is low. • Consequently, the priority is on increasing the overall quality of the diet and SMART feeding Yes, my animals would eat more of the existing feed, if given the chance. • Consequently, the emphasis of interventions is on increasing the quantity of feed provided before improving quality. The feed problem exists mainly in the dry or cold season The feed problem exists mainly in the growing season The feed problem exists all year • Intervention options (emphasis on increasing quality): • Feed animals higher quality fodder such as green, young leaves of grasses, fresh crop thinnings, and legumes. • Supplement dried crop residues with fresh, green forage / fodder crops. • Process crop residues (mechanical chopping or milling, physical and chemical treatments) to increase feed intake. • etc. Intervention options (emphasis on quantity): • Increase grazing time or increase amount of fodder cut from communal and farm areas. • Collective action to improve communal grazing area. • etc. • Intervention options (emphasis on quantity): • Increase grazing time or increase amount of forage cut from communal and farm areas. • Store crop residues for growing season feeding. • etc. • Intervention options (emphasis on quantity): • Reduce the number of animal so that there is more feed available for each animal. • All of the options in column 1 and 2. • etc. Can be seasonalbut most likely related to the production cycle. The suitability of specific interventions will vary according to their core values, animal species, animal production systems and farming systems.

5. How does this relate to TechFit? • TechFit is well on the way to being useful! • A couple of ideas for improvements: • Is it worthwhile to add feeding strategies such as ad lib feeding and Smart feeding principles to TechFit? • Maybe as principles supplied with the list of interventions that TechFit generates? • Are there other guidelines which we should add to TechFit outputs? • Different seasonal feed constraints (e.g. dry season vs. crop growing period) require different interventions. • Would it be worthwhile to differentiate between different type of seasonal constraints?

6. Some issues for discussion • Scoring: considerable differences between scorers • likely related to different interpretation of column headings. We need to agree and provide clear definitions / intent for each of the column headings to ensure consistent scoring. For example: Quantity = to what extent will the intervention provide biomass and hence deal with overall feed scarcity? • Column structure: needs some discussion and agreement on possible improvements • How are we going to handle this? • List of interventions: needs some consolidation + additions • How are we going to do this?

8. Column: Already in Use or unusable • Is it needed? • It seems to me that existing interventions should turn up in our scoring otherwise we need to reconsider the situation – basically a good check. Also, new suggestions need to fit with existing interventions. • We need to remember that the list of possible interventions is simply a list of possibilities, not a prescription.

9. Column range “Potential to mitigate constraint”: Seasonality, quantity and quality. • Seasonality is too broad; technologies differ for dry season vs. growing season. Suggest to replace seasonality with: • Dry and/or cool season • Crop growing season • All year

10. Column range: “Applicability to commodity”Beef, dairy, sheep/goats, pigs/poultry TechFit • Beef • Dairy • Sheep/goats • Pigs/poultry (monogastrics) Alternative • Cattle and buffalo • Draught • Breeding herd (cow/calf production) • Cattle fattening (or finishing prior to sale) • Dairy 2. Sheep and goats • Breeding herds • Fattening 3. Pigs • Breeding (sow/piglet production) • Fattening (pork production)

11. Column range “Applicability to farming systems”: Pastoral (extensive system), agro-pastoral (mixed extensive systems), mixed crop-livestock systems, commercial grasslands. • The idea was to score ‘suitability to mitigate the constraint, not likelihood of adoption’. • We could make this stronger by scoring ‘Potential impact of the technology in the different farming systems’ which integrates mitigation and the effect of mitigation. • This would eliminate the need for a column scoring potential impact of the technology (which is difficult to score generically)

12. Farming systems TechFit • Pastoral (extensive) • Agro-pastoral (mixed extensive) • Mixed crop-livestock (intensive) • Commercial grassland Sere & Steinfeld, 1996 • Grassland-based • Temp. zones & tropical highlands • Humid & sub-humid tropics & Sub-tropics • Arid & semi-arid tropics and sub-tropics • Mixed rainfed (3 zones) • Mixed irrigated (3 zones) • Landless • Monogastric Production • Ruminant Production

13. Column range “Core attributes”:Requirement for Land, Labour, Cash/Credit, Input delivery, and Knowledge • Are we scoring these on requirements in absolute terms Or on a per unit feed or additional animal productivity basis? • For example, dual purpose legumes like lablab produce relatively low amounts of quality feed per unit land compared to grasses. How do we take account of this? Land per unit feed produced? • Similar issue with cash requirement. For example, lysine supplementation of piglets requires cash (+input supply) since lysine is expensive but only relatively small amounts of lysine are needed for big gains in growth. • Suggest scoring core attributes on unit feed or unit productivity improvement.

14. Labour requirements • Some interventions are replacing a current feeding practice resulting in a net gain rather than cost for some interventions. • For example, planted forages can reduce the need for grazing which, if it requires labour inputs, may result in a net gain in terms of labour. This has been a major driver of adoption of fodder production in SE Asia. • How do we handle this?