GenebankVC 2015

From livestock-fish ilriwikis

Forage and fodder tree selection for future challenges - linking genebanks to forage use 16-20 March 2015 ILRI Info centre, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Accommodation at Beshale Hotel.

Objectives: The workshop objectives are to link the forage and fodder tree genebank managers with users in the Livestock and Fish program (L&F) livestock value chains and forage experts in other Research and Development (R&D) projects to:

  • Identify needs for types of forage for specific trait, environments and niches for future specific climate scenarios
  • Use genebank databases and information tools to identify and match forages with desired traits and adaption to these needs
  • Develop a list of promising specific accessions/cultivars to promote for seed production to meet future demands

Structure: Day 1: Introduction and mapping the demand (Share Fair) Day 2: Mapping supply and identifying opportunities and constraints Day 3: Action planning and rest Day 4: Write shop to develop concept notes for large proposals Day 5: Write shop to develop concept notes for large proposals (continued and close)

See the list of participants

See pictures of the event (All participants can access the full collection of pictures following Valerie's instructions, on Google Drive).

Proposals that emerged from this event

  • Getting forages used via policy, research, gerplasm, platforms etc. (championed by Alan and Ben) - See pre-writeshop presentation and slide. The proposal in development on Google Doc is available [https:docs.google.com/document/d/1UZwboEpzeAwyzG2UtzdS6WeCelYbN4szssbIXVrMSdQ/edituspsharing| here]: span styleline-height: 1.5[[1]]

This proposal also includes a part that was previously suggested as a separate proposal on: Studies on demand and targeting (championed by Teo and Francisco) - later incorporated as one component of proposal idea #1. - See pre-writeshop presentation

A third idea was discussed but not progressed on:

Agenda

Day 1: Introduction and Share Fair

  • 08.30 Registration, expense claims
  • 09.00 Welcome address (Dr. Siboniso Moyo)
  • 09.10 Introduction of the objectives (J. Hanson)
  • 09.15 Introduction of the week's program and participants (facilitators)
  • 09.45 Session 1 - Assessing needs: Forage demands and feed gaps from CRP value chains

Feed needs from: * (a) Dairy and dual purpose value chains (Ben Lukuyu) * (b) small ruminant value chains (Jane Wamatu) * (c) Pig value chains (Danilo Pezo)

  • 10.30 Coffee break
  • 11.00 Feed needs (continued)
  • 12.30 Similarities in feed needs across the value chains
  • 13.00 Lunch break
  • 14.00 Session 2 - Marketplace on forage forage demand and tools for forage assessment and selection

Tools and approaches for assessment: * SoFT (??) this will ran on Smart board, who presents will be updated soon when we get the update from Jean - On smart board * FEAST (Alan / Abera) * TechFit (Ben) * Feedipedia (Valerie Heuze) - on PC * SSA-Feed (Jean) Demand for feeds * FeedSeed (Teklu) * Livestock Master Plan (Barry) * Forage genebank (Project staff)

  • 16.30: Feedback from the stand owners
  • 17.00: Reception / Welcome cocktail (at the Info centre or together with the Dryland Cereals group)

Day 2: Genebank to value chain workshop - 'What is available to address feed gaps?'

  • 09.00 Session 3 - What is available to address feed gaps?

Available forage and fodder tree diversity from the CGIAR forage collection Discussion on matching demand to supply

  • 10.30 Coffee and tea break
  • 11.00 Session 4 - What works where?

Group formation and group work Group work reports

  • 13.00 Lunch break
  • 14.00 Session 5 - Constraints to getting forages used

Group work on identification of issues

  • 15.30 Coffee and tea break
  • 16.00 Group work reports and discussion about common issues and key opportunities/priorities
  • 17.30 Close

Day 3: Genebank to value chain workshop and rest - 'Action planning to address the bottlenecks'

  • 09.00: Recap and group formation
  • 09.15: Session 6 - Action plan to address the priority bottlenecks and address main opportunities

Group work on action planning

  • 10.30 Coffee and tea break and group photo
  • 11.00 Group work reports and discussion
  • 12.30 Session 7 - Next steps and discussion on priorities for writeshop:

Synthesis of the constraints and opportunities and of clear opportunity/action areas Collective prioritization of opportunity/action areas Closing remarks and next steps

  • 13.00 Lunch break

Preparation and group meetings for writeshops.

Day 4: Proposal writing

  • Finalize prioritization of opportunity areas and work in groups

Dinner out

Day 5: Proposal writing Continued and concluded.

Meeting report

Welcome words by Boni Moyo (ILRI DG representative in Ethiopia)

Presentation by Ben Lukuyu on dairy and dual purpose value chains

See presentation:

World cafe discussion on demand for feeds in different livestock value chains

From your first hand experience, what demand gaps have you seen in the following systems?.

A. Pig systems

Pig production is usually in three systems with differing feeding but all face issues of

  • Quality (fibre and energy) + seasonality (quantity)
  • Pastoralism: low quality forages. Dry season feed with lack of proteins

1. Small holders cut and carry systems Pigs, poultry, cattle systems using crossbreed/exotic cut and carry pigs with fewer pigs per household.

  • Cereal grain by products
  • Concentrates include imported
  • Sweet potato vines
  • Kitchen waste
  • Opportunistic harvesting
  • Sugar cane juice

Feeding issues are: Quality gaps in protein Quality and quantity of fibre and energy Matching feeds to need

2. Smallholder local pigs Grazing pigs with the ability to use fibre ad 4-6+ pigs per household

  • Pasture-Communal/own
  • Sweet potato vines
  • Kitchen waste-Protein
  • Cropping season feed
  • Opportunistic harvesting
  • Fish farming waste

Feeding issues are:

  • Quality gaps in protein
  • Cropping season feed

3. High value specialist breed pig systems Specialist pig breed systems with grazing pigs with 100 pigs per household

  • Free grazing with low vegetation in dry environments
  • Acorns

Pig feed commonly used

  • Forages like stylo (Vietnam, China)
  • Cowpea vines/haulms (Indonesia)
  • Water spinach (Ipomoea) (Indonesia)
  • Mulato Brachiaria (Rwanda)
  • Pueraria roots (Vietnam)
  • Forage Arachis (Philippines and South America)
  • Leueana (Vietnam, Nepal)
  • Trichanthera leaves (grown for sheep) (Vietnam/South America)
  • Sweet Potato (Venezuela)
  • Xanthosoma (Venezuela)

Opportunities for new and additional feeds

  • Prosopis meal
  • Forage legumes- high protein fresh feed
  • Fodder trees- Leucaena fresh feed

Competition for feeds

  • High quality protein/digestibility with ruminants
  • Rapidly increasing costs of concentrates

B. Dairy and dual purpose systems

Main concerns on feed for dairy systems include:

  1. Farmer awareness of options is lacking

Extension staff not given opportunity to make their judgments FTcs or institutional “Centers” do not encourage farmer up-take Model farmers equally do not encourage uptake- using a wide array of farmers preferable

  1. Benefits (economic) need to be realized
  2. Smallholder farmers not rewarded (No extra premiums) for higher quality milk
  3. Success stories not highlighted
  4. Conservation methods for forage to buffer periods of feed scarcity not used
  5. Milk collection centers can be used as forage dissemination hubs.
  6. Road-side grazing reserves (need improvement in the management
  7. Strategy to fill seasonal gaps (for example hay and silages, sugar cane, maize to fill feed gaps
  8. Seasonal yield gaps - completes with crops
  9. Incentives for quality
  10. Water
  11. Genotypes that fit different systems and feed resources

C. Small ruminant systems

  • Similarities with dairy systems --> feed shortages --> Seasonality (at the end of the dry season)
  • Use cut & carry system to avoid damage by livestock in intensive systems
  • In grazing systems, use multiple species, as they use different feeds
  • Selective grazing by sheep --> It also depends on specific products (meat, milk, wool) and relates to different breeds.
  • Know which conditions (environment / livestock use / breed) for which some feeds apply to small ruminants
  • Policy many not focus enough on small ruminants
  • Sheep and goats can be destructive (-) and controlling (+) for e.g. marginal systems --> We need to learn much from them?
  • Crop residues can be used (e.g. household organic waste) to preserve environment
  • Explore contributions from Livestock & Fish Ethiopia to understand feed demands
  • In Latin America and the Caribbean, small ruminants don't play such an important role (except in some areas e.g. Nordeste Brasil)
  • Planting materials (seeds/vegetative) are also crucial. In Venezuela,particularly used for goats
  • 'Cultural reasons' drive choices of feeds (related to preferences e.g. disease control / deworming)
  • Big gap between feed quality and end-product quality (we focus on productivity much more now)
  • In Mexico, small ruminants are used to clean orchards (grazing seasonal feeds)
  • There are huge price fluctuations (e.g. demand in South-East Asia). Farmers understand this but we don't translate that in extension packages
  • Big difference between commercial and subsistence farming e.g. ZimCliffs project: farmers who are commercially oriented in forages but don't know which ones to choose (for quality/yield)
  • In Zimbabwe, we need feeds that can be conserved (or retain leaves) to not disturb feed supply throughout the year
  • The gaps relate to forage breeding? Or to using existing information? ==> We need to grow best bets together
  • The problem is that farmers and district officials don't use information e.g. SoFT
  • Small ruminants are profitable in Zimbabwe but are not looked at as profitable in Ethiopia --> wild-growing feeds may work
  • But small ruminants are very profitable/important especially for women
  • How to keep the balance between concentrate feeds (which are not always so nutritious anyhow) and plant-based feeds (which are low cost and help with natural resource management)
  • Benefits of concentrates (for fattening) are often felt too late
  • Poultry could fit very well in this discussion
  • Crop residues are not just complementary but they are also beneficial
  • How important are the concentrates in small ruminant systems?
  • Deep grazing (in particular by sheep) to be countered
  • Some shrubs are used to feed goats
  • Milk goats / feeds will likely drive small ruminant feeds
  • There is no dedicated feed for small ruminants --> Big gap
  • The value of feeds is driven even for meat goats by seasonal demands --> target feeds. It's time to make money. And do feed planning (e.g. around Ramadan / Christmas, dry/rainy season).

Summary: In summary: change the system (mindset) taking into consideration: season, use of livestock, breed, environment, seasonality. Also bear in mind the constraints e.g. recognition/importance of small ruminants, policy, extension, insufficient research, planting materials, culture. And looking ahead: look at end product quality, not just productivity, consider crop residues, dairy to drive meat goat feeds

Similarities across value chains:

  • Knowledge gap of what to grow to fill gaps (dairy + pigs)
  • Seasonal feed gaps (dairy + pigs + sheep)
  • Quality of feed (sheep + pigs)

Marketplace

Stands available:

  • Tools and approaches for assessment:

FEAST (Alan / Ben). * Read the FEAST brochure * See a poster on FEAST & Techfit * See an example in practice: [https:cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/33759| Determining feed resources and feeding circumstances: Usefulness and lessons learned applying the Feed Assessment Tool ‘][https:cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/33759| FEAST’ in Tanzania] Feedipedia (Valerie Heuze) --> Go to the website SoFT (Tropical Forages) (championed by Michael Peters) --> Go to the website SSA-Feed (Alan) * Visit the SSAFeed website * See a poster about feed composition database * See a poster about the nutritive values of the most commonly used feeds in Ethiopia TechFit (Alan / Ben) --> Read the TechFit brochure

  • Demand for feeds

FeedSeed (Teklu) --> See a poster Eden Field Agri-seed Enterprise --> seed display Livestock Master Plan (Barry) --> See a poster Forage genebank --> Go to the ILRI forage genebank website

Closing insights from the marketplace stand owners

  • (Alan / Ben --> FEAST / TechFit) Relative importance of data vs. conversations with farmers in the application of these tools: if you plug this in you get so much data but if you have a conversation about the results with people you end up broadening minds. We talked about applying these tools in Zimbabwe and combining the use of quantitative (modelling) data with perspectives from the ground. Some parallels.
  • (Enok -> LMP) People underlined feed resource availability from dryland areas - the amount stated here is very high so the authors may have to consider feed numbers from grazing areas. This covers also crop residues (those from highlands are assumed to be higher). We should look at other sources...
  • (Jean -> Forage genebank) Most comments were from our FeedSeed project. They were busy discussing benefits of forages. We had an interesting comment from Zimbabwe about wanting a forage with the same yield as lablab variety Rongai but an early flowering one. This almost fits, but not quite. If we want to work on lablab we need to work on more breeding for more selections.
  • (Bruce -> SoFT) There is an issue with maps and we need to either update them or do away with them. We will have better photos but there will be a photo registry of all accessions in the CIAT genebank. Maps were a last minute addition and they may have more problems. Maps are not 'smart' enough to represent reality.
  • (Valerie -> Feedipedia) I was asked where you can find Feedipedia (it's easy enough to find). Thanks to Google you will find it in the first page. What kind of products? All kinds of feeds (cereal by-products, oil by-products, insect products, animal by-products etc.). How can you find a species/product in Feedipedia? You can find all feeds on the home page and you get a screen asking to input the name etc. How many visitors --> 1 mio+ since 2012 up to last week. 4 Mio. pages seen. We've written the data sheet since 2009 and we thought we'd be finished by 2013 but have done only half. Lots of ideas going forward: each time we get new ideas e.g. the information that is in SoFT (the way to select forages etc.). Great to add some functionalities and to make this an interesting bridge between the 2 databases. Feedipedia is not dynamic, it relies on an Access database. Once we have finished calculations we can add tables in the correct format in Feedipedia but once we change we need to update the tables so it's a heavy process. We want to make this dynamic to compare feeding values of the feeds. We could compare the general composition, nutritional value etc. We would like to develop mobile apps..
  • (Teklu ->FeedSeed project) NGOs have been using seeds thanks to the free distribution so we need to think carefully before removing free seeds but giving free seeds is a killer as you give it to people who may not need it. In Zimbabwe we decided not to worry about quality but just get about quality and then the 2nd step was to get an order in the system. In Thailand we had subsidized production and distribution to start with and once we reached critical mass the private companies stepped in. What price is too expensive for farmers? For Lablab we charge USD 20. I imported for 11 USD from Australia and selling it USD 5. The private sector said 'we can sell it at a dollar'. Our costing per kg of seeds gave us 0.8 USD/kg. We need to calculate the real price vs. cost of production... 52 ETB / kg (2.5 USD). For the supplier to sell, the problem in Ethiopia, is that NGOs buy at whatever (high) price and they are pulling the prices up. Perhaps we can ask the government to withdraw from the production of legumes etc.The price varies from place to place. Some accessions are unaffordable for farmers.
  • (Gebru- Eden Field Agri-seed Enterprise) Some people asked about which agroecological zone we are producing seeds in/for.


Day 2

Presentation by Danilo Pezo on the pig system

See the presentation.

  • Q: What are characteristics of crop residues?
  • A: There are opportunities for forages and crop legumes. I'm not sure about trees but it's an area of research that is interesting.
  • Q: You stress the importance of quality and you mention Napier Grass etc. but why don't you include higher quality forages?
  • A: We can include them but we need to be clear on what animals and systems we are working with. For breeding, there's no problem to include these. In case of fattening there are limitations. Mortality rates among smallholder farms are high. We've been working with lablab etc. People working on pig nutrition in the development world have not paid much attention to forages.
  • Comment: There is an option to reduce labour if you intercrop with crops etc. and use another feed resource that is not competing. The issue of quality is not really about quality or not only about it but also about water per pig intake. Forages for monogastrics has to be high quality, but which ones? It depends on quality and on what grows/fits where (and the costs). It's a combination of factors.
  • Q: Use of Arachis (fodder peanut)
  • A: There is mention of that in the literature...
  • Q: In the Philippines there is a high adoption of Arachis and coconuts to feed pigs. That production is being boosted. Maybe there are similar opportunities in Uganda?

Arachis could be there at the start of the program... When that was attempted as intercropping, it resulted in retarding flowering and reducing crop yield of bananas, so not a very good idea.

  • Comment: Looking at LAC, livestock is seen in some countries no longer as negative for the environment but positive. Deforestation needs to be stopped and grazing may be a process. Some countries are moving fast onto e.g. forages to mitigate climate change. Brazil, Colombia and (Costa Rica?) have such strategies in place to reduce livestock production but increase forage production. There would still be quite some emissions but less per emission. If you work with forages you get carbon-positive initiatives which will reduce greenhouse gases.

Feedback on yesterday

What happened yesterday: Pig, dairy and small ruminant systems (roughly related to the Livestock & Fish value chains). On demand, in terms of feed gaps:

  • Pigs are using cut & carry and cross-bred, high value grazing. Danilo mentioned scavenging (grazing). Scavenging could be used. For pigs we also discussed the variety of feed resources...
  • Small ruminants: multi-species, grazing (sheep / goats consume different strata of the pastures). Damage caused by livestock. Very selective grazing of sheep could be an issue. We need to do much more about quality and relation of feed with market opportunities.
  • Dairy: Most work has concentrated on increasing productivity.

We had a marketplace in the afternoon and we had some interesting tools presented which all tackled maintenance, quality assurance etc. We had some discussions with the Genebank and Feedseed project of ILRI and what seeds are included + how the Ethiopian seed sector connects to this. We also discussed the benefits and constraints of having receipts from ILRI that make it a preferred supplier.


Presentation by Daniel Debouck (CIAT) on the available diversity of forage and fodder tree from the CGIAR forage collection

  • Q: How are requests made by farmers to access the germplasm? Do they go to the website and ask for accession xyz? Do they write to you to suggest a forage for a given situation etc.
  • A: A person linked to a research station and asking for an agronomic evaluation, could access 40-50 accessions. The system so far is free of charge to recipients. The 2nd situation is when people ask something and we start a back-and-forth process where we consult SoFT etc. to look at the potential of the recipient. We have people that are competent but also people that need to assess the agro-ecology, potential use etc. and then it's taking a couple of weeks to get back to the person.
  • Q: Do you follow farmers that get those seeds? What's your rate of success?
  • A: We use SurveyMonkey to ask about the quality of what they received from us (germination), the quality of information provided, of the service offered etc. and so we keep asking about this every year in February-March and use that insight to improve the situation.
  • Q: There is an increased interest in private sector - is the team discussing this? E.g. they want access to pre-breeding material, access to the genebank etc. to contribute. Any thought about that? They are commercially oriented and they want new breeding information.
  • A: The agreement we have in place with the governing body states that we should give perpetual access to that diversity for food and agriculture. This has implications on e.g. the distribution (we can distribute for purpose of food and agronomy eg. plant breeding, training, many aspects of research, conservation etc.). If we have one person asking for a set of accessions and they look for this to have access to genetic material, we cannot distribute. There are grey areas. Both public breeding institutions and private companies can have access to it but not for the sake of breeding new genera. Funding-wise, we'd have to explore how the Crop Diversity Trust funding needs to be reconsidered.
  • Q: About the problem of distribution: how often is a certain accession distributed?
  • A: Over 3 years we have several distribution schemes for e.g. Brachiaria etc. but there's quite some diversity.
  • Q: How sustainable is it to respond to the requests of farmers?
  • A: We have a timeline of 30 years after which we wouldn't be sustainable. But we hope that we will be able to regenerate our accessions. Half of our accessions have never been requested. But we also keep track of the stock and the need to replenish our stocks. For high-request accessions we have more seeds. In some cases requests are also beyond our capacity (e.g. emergency situations in the Caribbean).

Especially now that you're distributing to farmers, you need to pay attention to the demand (e.g. in South East Asia some have been in demand). Some accessions you should not distribute regardless of the request because your stocks are too much at risk.

  • Q: You have raised the importance of legumes (not just with the issue of fertilizers being expensive - and their contribution to global warming). What about Rhizobia? We should complement our supply with information.
  • A: We tried, years ago, to have something in place with FAO about this issue. We had a similar agreement as for the seed accession. We wanted to make this a public good that could be distributed more widely. Right now the centres are doing their best to keep those but it's not at the level it should be for the distribution of Rhizobia.
  • Q: You don't distribute seed from Feedipedia. We get a lot of requests about seeds and we could perhaps route them to the genebanks?
  • A: There is a good conclusion from this meeting to make sure we connect SoFT, Feedipedia, the 4 genebanks etc. We have to address the issues around common forages. People asking for forages should land automatically on the Genebanks to answer these requests.


Looking at what works where

Working groups addressed the issue of promising species with the potential to be used as forages in different agro-ecologies and developed lists of potential species for future focus - See list of promising species.


Constraints to getting forages used

Participants discussed constraints to approved use of forages in livestock value chains and for each constraint determined its importance to improved use of forages and our capacity to address it. The resulting matrix indicated that we have the opportunity to address and alleviate many of the constraints through research and knowledge sharing - See matrix of constraints.

Action plan to address the priority bottlenecks and address main opportunities

Looking at key challenges

The participants assessed the key challenges and proposed some actions needed to get forages into use in livestock value chains:

  • Reduced grazing land and competition for cropping indicates a need to focus on inter-cropping and better use of urban land
  • Increasing land degradation and global warming threatens livestock feed supply - forages will increase in importance
  • Forages need to be exploited with more intensive use of forages and forages that produce high biomass
  • Make more intensive use of forages on reduced land areas
  • Make more use of indigenous forages and develop forages for grazing
  • Make better use of specialist forages for livestock production systems
  • Make better use of feeding strategies for different livestock and production stages
  • Make better use of feed mixtures, including forages and concentrates
  • Niches for forages that are scale-neutral (plastic) and highly productive
  • Need mechanisms to meet increasing demand for forages and bridge the feed gap
  • Pay attention to untapped opportunities for income generation from forages
  • Genebanks will need to maintain even greater biodiversity to meet demand for 'super' forages with increased biomass
  • Existing gene bank collections may become outdated, relative to future needs
  • More forage specialists needed to help farmers understand the benefits of forages
  • Specialists and knowledge are needed at the local level
  • Good information systems will improve decision making and selection of options
  • Make information more widely available, especially to reach farmers
  • Change the mindset of farmers about forage management and help them know about options and mode of utilization
  • More use of molecular tools to identify traits for stress tolerance
  • Forage breeding should be enhanced
  • Broader breeding objectives than just yield will be needed
  • Increased price of forages and forage seeds
  • More awareness of the sustainability issues in smallholder systems
  • Poor understanding of soil-plant-animal interactions
  • Improved use of forages for natural resource management as biofertilizer
  • Systems are complex - makes it difficult to select appropriate forages and there is need to match specific forages with specific demand
  • Mechanization will effect the type of feed- small scale mechanization will shift feeding objectives away from feeding draught animals to feeding animals for meat/milk
  • Shift in attention from productivity of livestock to wider biodiversity concerns


Day 3 On this third day we decided to proceed with the writeshop preparations through four exercises:

  1. Developing or firming up the list of proposal ideas to work with via a 1-2-4-all exercise with double the time + some discussion on the ideas presented
  2. Agreeing on the proposal 'blocks' (e.g. timeline, scale, scope etc.) + the assessment criteria (e.g. comparative advantage, feasibility etc.)
  3. Developing the proposal ideas further in small groups
  4. Presenting back the proposal ideas - assessing some and agreeing on the way forward with the group formation for each proposal to be developed in the writeshop').

All exercises given in the workshop are presented here.

Proposals developed in the writeshop:

Group participants: Alan Duncan, Ben, Godfrey, Jane, Thanos, Teklu, Samy, Theo, Francisco

  • SoFT 2 + Feedipedia (championed by Bruce Cook) - See Soft Budget

Group participants: Bruce Pengelly, Bruce Cook, Rainer, Valerie, Danilo, Daniel, Michael, Jean

Group participants: Alan Robertson, Rainer, Samy

Two other groups worked on ideas but agreed to incorporate into the three above concept notes.

These three proposals were further worked upon during the writeshop.












Organizers

Retrieved from "http://livestock-fish.ilriwikis.org/index.php?title=GenebankVC_2015&oldid=804"