Report of task force on Livestock in mixed farming systems


Material Information

Report of task force on Livestock in mixed farming systems
Physical Description:
44 leaves : ill. ; 28 cm.
Farming Systems Support Project
University of Florida, Management Entity Farming Systems Support Project
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla
Publication Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Livestock -- Research -- Africa   ( lcsh )
Agricultural systems -- Research -- Africa   ( lcsh )
Farms, Small -- Research -- Africa   ( lcsh )
Agriculture -- Research -- Africa   ( lcsh )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
conference publication   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )


Includes bibliographical references (leaves 37-44).
Statement of Responsibility:
prepared for: University of Florida, Management Entity Farming Systems Support Project.
General Note:
"January 1984."
General Note:
Typescript (photocopy)

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
oclc - 665132121
System ID:

This item is only available as the following downloads:

Full Text

Penultimate Copy

'(Not for reproduction
or distribution)




Prepared for:

University of Florida, Management Entity

Farming Systems Support Project

January, 1984


~'~ UI




The Livestock Task Force (TF) on Mixed Farming Systems was charged

with developing recommendations for the Farming Systems Support F~r~-ject

(FSSP). In preparing these., the TF considered appropriate strategies,

research methodologies, communication network development, and training

needs relative to the livestock component of farming systems. The TF

saw the livestock dimension of Farming Systems Research and Extension

(FSR&E) as being extremely important because most farming systems include

an animal component. Also, this area has received less attention than

crops and has, in general, been neglected in relation to its potential

contribution to the family livestock enterprise. Moreover, the TF recog-

nized the need for a larger cadre of experienced and trained practitioners

who can deal with the complexities of crop/animal relationships and the

multiple objectives of livestock producers.

The Task Force defined its scope of work to include a definition of

livestock; their roles or importance in integrated farming systems; the

role of disciplines,.training, and orientation Af specialists in FSR&E;

methodologies relating to approaches, project management, extension, insti-

tutionalization, policy, models, and case studies; training needs; and

recommendations to FSSP management for future action. Additionally, the

report contains a bibliography of farming systems studies dealing with

livestock and related topics and the identification of collaborating

institutions and program associates within the'FSSP network. The TF

limited its scope.of reference to livestock in crop/animal systems and

did not address completely the pastoral systems per se, though reference

is made to the agro-pastoral interface which characterizes some systems,

especially in Africa.
The TF held its first meeting with interested personnel from the

Agency for International Development in Washington, D.C. on June 29, 1983.
Over thirty individuals participated in a day-long discussion, which re-

sulted in identifying the -issues and needs relative to livestock in farming

systems, clarifying the definition of livestock as far as this project is
concerned, and suggesting .strategies and approaches for dealing with the

interrelationships of crop/animal systems. Subsequently, the TF conferred

with several members of the American Society of Animal Science during its

annual meeting in late July at Washington State University, where a portion
of the program dealt with livestock development in the Third World. In

early August, some members of the TF capitalized on the opportunity to
interact with animal and social scientists attending a conference at the

University of Florida on "Overcoming Constraints to Livestock Production in

Sub-Saharan Africa." Representatives from a number of universities, the
International Livestock Center for Africa (ILCA), FSSP, Winrock International,

and AID participated in discussions with the TF.

Following the conference at KSU on "The Role of Animals in the Farming.

System?~ Production,'Prodyets, Process," the TF completed the first draft
of its report. -A second and final draft was submitted to the University
of Florida on

1. List of Participants

Task Force:

James W. Oxley, Chairman Colorado State University
Robert E. McDowell Cornell University
John D. Wheat Kansas State University
James B. Henson & Washington State University
A. John DeBoer Winrock International

Other participants during various meetings: of the TF:

Larry Abel AID,* Washington
Wendell Morse AID,* Washington
Carol Stengel AID,* Washington
Hank Fitzhugh Winrock International
Howard 01son Southern Illinois University
John Trail .ILCA/Nairobi
Trevor Wilson ILCA/Mali
John Simpson University of Florida
Peter Hildebrand. FSSP/Florida
Chris Andrew FSSP/Florida
Don Ferguson USDA/OICD

2. Definition of Livestock

For this report, the term livestock includes both ruminants and non-

ruminants, including poultry, water fowl, and fish. The definition

implies the use of animals for food as well as for non-food purposes, such

as traction, transport, fuel, and fertilizer.


Livestock have been incorporated into production systems dominated by

crops and in those systems in which animals play an equal or more important

role than crops. The ability of livestock to utilize resources, such as

crop residues, forage, and browse that are not otherwise directly utilizable

by humans into usable products, can be an asset toward improving the

efficiency of crop/li:vestock systems on low resource farms. They are also

used to avert risk and tojbe a hedge against inflation.

*Acknowledgement is accorded a number of other AID employees who parti-
cipated in the general session of the initial meeting of the Task Force
in Washington, D.C.

-~ r-~4

1. Food

The world population of ruminant species irf animals, such as buffaloes,

camels, cattle, goats, sheep, alpacas, deer, and antelopes, that make some

contributions of food and non-food uses to humans is near 3 billion. In

addition, .62 billion pigs and 5.7 billion poultry are kept for food pro-

duction. Species lesser in number, like the horse, kangaroo, rabbit,

capybara, guinea fowl, pigeon, and duck, each contribute more than .5 million

kg of animal protein per year. These sources are exclusive of fish and other
marine life.

Although more attention has been given to meeting the world's food

needs through cereal grains than animal products, the contributions from

animals have increased steadily at a rate of 1.2 to 1.8% per annum. As

incomes increase slightly in developing countries, there is a dispropor-

tionately larger increase in demands for meat and other livestock products

compared to food grains and other less nutritious foods. Presently, animal

products contribute over 56 million MT of edible protein and over one
billion Mcal of energy per annum to world food. Milk and milk products

are the largest sources of both protein and energy, followed by beef and

fish. The total protein from animal products globally is nearly equivalent

to that from corn and wheat and more than half that from all cereals. The

energy value is nearly equal to that from wheat and exceeds that from paddy

By western standards;' the consumption of livestock products in develop-

ing countries is low (milk less than .3 1 per day and meat 10-20 kg per year).

Nevertheless, these sources of protein are vital to human survival. For

example, consumption of .3 1 of milk, 25 g of meat or one egg per day

enables people to consume .7 to 1.4 kg of cereals or tubers. When plant

protein such as cowpeas is used, the intake of cereals or tubers must be

reduced 30-40% to maintain adequate protein consumption. Thus, the avail-

ability of animal products permits cropping for highest production from

land variable in fertility and rainfall.

2. Non-Food Contributions

Throughout the developing countries animals perform a number of social,

ritual, and economic functions (Table 1.).

Table 1

Classifications of Contributions of Livestock to Human Welfare

Classification ..-Some Contributions

Food milk, meat, eggs, prepared products

Fiber wool, hair

Traction agriculture, cartage, packing, herding, power
irrigation pumps, threshing grains, passenger

Waste fertilizer, fuel, methane gas, construction,
feed, (recycled)

Storage ~capital, grains

Conservation grazing, seed distribution

Pest Control fallow between crops, plants in waterways

Cultural exhibition, fighting, hunting, racing, status
symbol, religious, barter, ceremonial

Inedible Products horns, hooves, bones for processing into feed
.- supplements and other products

Income ready source of cash for daily needs and
production inputs

Source: McDowell, 1980 (with modification)

The relative importance of these functions varies according to ethnic

group, country, and ecological conditions. In Africa, for'example, the

estimated annual value of production from livestock is $10 billion, with

50 percent attributed to offtake such as meat, milk, fiber, and skins, and

the other half from services or other benefits such as manure, traction,

transport, and barter.

Animals play an increasingly important part of the labor pool in

land preparation and related endeavors. Approximately 200 million animals

generate 100 million horsepower of energy from animal traction per day.

India uses 70 million bullocks, 8 million buffaloes, one million camels,

and one million horses for land preparation, cartage, packing, threshing

of grains, and power for irrigation. Nearly 70% of the farms in Thailand

and the philippines use animals in preparation of lands for crops. Sub-

Saharan Africa presently has nearly 15 million draft animals with members

expanding rapidly. Overall, the use of draft animals for traction is on

the increase in almost all developing countries and is contributing sig-

nificantly to expanding agriculture production and reducing the drudgery of

hand labor, especially as costs of other sources of power have substantially

increased in recent years~creating an excess burden on government foreign

exchange revenues.

The majority of the agriculturalists in developing countries depend

on manure to improve soil fertility. On small farms where cultivation is

by hand, farmers prefer manlure to chemical fertilizers because it improves

soil structure. Crop farmers frequently depend on pastoral herders to

herd their livestock~at night on land they anticipate cropping.

More than 200 million MT of manure are used per year as fuel.

Currently India is the largest user with over 80 million MT of buffalo and

cattle manure. In several countries, the sale of dung cakes to urban

centers provides more than half the total cash' income per family.

Manure serves other useful purposes, suchlas feed for fish ponds,

plastering walls or floors of houses, an adhesive for building blocks, the

making of poultices for wound healing, and the production of methane gas.

The latter has wide potential, but has met with limited application thus far.

The value of animals for food or even traction may be secondary to

their role in recreation,.religion, and social custom. Cock fighting

and fighting between male buffaloes or rams is popular. Livestock,

especially goats, poultry and sheep, are widely used for celebrations of

births, marriages, or religious occasions.

Horns, hooves, skins, and hair are employed in cottage industries and

fat trimmed from carcasses may be used as cooking fuel or in making


As compared to land, livestock are relatively easy to obtain and can

be converted into cash. The conversion of animals to cash is reversible,

whereas the loss of land through sale is apt to be irreversible. Animals

increase in value through time. This means they have the equivalent of an

interest/earning capability which makes them a substitute for savings.

Animals also provide opportunities for landless families to secure both

employment and income.

3. Linkages of Crops and Animals

The production systems which involve crops and animals are numerous.

In some instances, crops are the dominant feature and means of income and/or

generation of subsistence requirements, while in other systems livestock

dominate with the cropping components, playing a minor role.

Ten major small holder crop/livestock systems have been identified in

each of Africa and Asia and four in Latin America (McDowell and Hildebrand,'-

1980). Most of these systems are designed for intensive use of scarce

resources. For these 24 systems, 40-95% of the feed for livestock comes

from crop residues, spoiled fruits, tubers or vegetables, and brans from

the preparation of grains for human consumption. In many of these systems

there is a strong tie between crops selected and the suitability of their

residues for use by animals. A major reason for low acceptance of improved

varieties of cereal grains by low resource farmers has been due to lowering

of quantity of crop residues and a rather marked reduction in nutritional
value for livestock due to plant lignification. In some instances the

dominant crop and its residues are a major factor in the selection of

animal species for the system. An example is the higher density of swine

and buffalo in paddy rice-areas, buffalo being the best for utilizing rice

straw, and swine for the use of rice bran. In essence, the Mutrient flow

through crop/livestock systems is critical to the operation of limited

resource agriculture; hence,crop/animal relationships 'are critical to its


In Figure 1 is portrayed the close integration of crop/TIivestock on

small farms in the highlands of Ethiopia. The crops provide food, some

construction materials, cash income and feed for livestock. The livestock

provide traction for land preparation; transport from field to household

and to villages; manure for dung cakes to serve as household fuel, direct

Off Farm:

_ __


Crop/livestock farm in highlands of Ethiopia, permanent cropping, high-level integration
of crops and livestock (Dash lines crops or animals- to market shows high reliance on home
use crops and livestock). Adapted from McDowell and Hildebrand -1980.

Figure 1.


application to crops or adding to residual crop materials for composting;
food in the form of milk or meat; income from sales of animals or products,

and wool for family needs of production of goods.

In low rainfall areas, food security is extremely important, hence a

high dependence on animals (95%) as illustrated from Mali in Table 2. As
rainfall increases (Agropastoral Systems), dependence on animals as a food

source may decline, but contribution of other services, such as traction and-

soil fertility, may rise. In these systems there is a high level of linkage

between pastoralists and a'griculturalists. There is a barter system of milk

from pastoral herds for grains. Agropastoralists make their crop residues

available to herders~in exchange for manure.

4. Importance of Livestock to Food Production
In Africa changes in livestock numbers and in cereal output indicate a

significant correlation between the two. Production figures show that each
extra animal in the cattle population is associated with an additional .25 ha

of cropland and approximately 200 kg of incremental grain output per year

as well as about 30 kg of meat and 38 1 of milk per year. These observations

for Africa are evident elsewhere. In India's northwest states where very

significant increases in wheat and rice have occurred, there have been
corresponding increases in milk output. The reason for the association of

livestock production and food grain output are related to several factors.

One of~ these is capital. On low resource farms cash flow is poor, leaving

little or no money to invest in fertilizer, better seed, pesticides, or

irrigation. In the absence or resistance to the use of credit, increases
in food grain production can come about only by finding money to purchase

inputs for crop production. More frequently this is achieved through
increased income from the sale of livestock products.

Table 2. Major characteristics of livestock production systems in Mali.
System Pastoral Agropastoral
Flood plain Raidfed Irrigated Rainfed cost/
Subsystem Dryland grazing & millet rice subsistence
Pure cropping cropping cropping cropping ..cropping

Contribution of
livestock (% gross

400-800 500 (irrigation)


200 (floodplain)


Rainfall (mm)




can be quite

cultivates or
arranges to .
produce crops

high/very high -


Importance of

Linkage with

Current carrying

nil to

very weak

very low


c'Sultivates own crops-: work oxen important
and consumes crop residues

some cultivation,
manure exchanged
for.stubble grazing












sale animals

60% 60%
(sells rice) (cash crops)

sale animals/grain

high wet season
fixed base

40% barter,

high with
no fixed base

sale milklanimals

Market production

low, short distances during cropping
season, permanent base

high with
fixed base


*Total livestock units

Source: Adopted from Wilson, 1982.

Another reason for a positive relationship between livestock and crop

production is the role of~animals in providing traction. Recent evidence

from Africa shows a marked increase in the crop area cultivated per family

as bullock numbers increase. Considerable research has now been initiated

to try to improve efficiency in the utilization of animals for traction.

This includes better nutrition, better equipment, and more efficient

harnesses for the animals.

If one accepts the fact that there is an important associatipop between

increased food grain and livestock production, the time has come to con-

sider the technical alternatives. This will require efforts to structure

technology that will'be useful as a part of existing systems or can be

used as effective changes'for modifications. Even so, for us to capitalize

on this association will require a much closer integration among disciplines

directing attention to farming systems.


1. Disciplines

The emphasis on a FSR/E approach in no way diminishes the need for

well trained scientists working under the traditional disciplines in

animal science, veterinary medicine, crop sciences, and social sciences.

The use of FSR/E for crop-animal system research does jmply, however, that

a) these scientists need to respond to the findings of the FSR/E descrip-

tive and diagnostic stages in the formulation of their research programs

and b) their scientific results must be passed on to the subject matter

specialists within the context of how this research is of relevance to

the specific farming system in question. Thus, both the inputs into, and

the outputs from, the traditional disciplinary research program must be

modified. Diagram 1 represents this:

Diagram 1

Traditional or
classic approach

Current trends of---- Disciplinary Reporting of scientific
fads within discipline Research t-- papers to professional.
Specialists peers

FSR/E approach------ Animal, plant, --- Reporting of applied N
Priority problems veterinary, and results to subject\
identified at social sciences matter specialists
farm level for direct applications
to FSR/E tear"

2. Training

The training and retraining needs are most acute for the members of

the FSR team and the subject matter specialists. The needs for disciplinary

specialists and problem solving specialists are more in the area of orienta-

tion rather than in retraining. Another area on which the TF recommends

that high priority be placed is on the role and function of communication

specialists within the overall program.

Effective research on crop/1ivestock systems requires a very high

degree of communication, cooperation, and coordination between plant, animal,

and social scientists; between disciplines; between researchers and farmers;

between farmers, subject matter specialists and researchers; and between

subject matter specialists and problem solving specialists. Scientists tend

not to be particularly skilled at working out these communication needs;

and the role of experienced, skilled communication specialists would be

crucial in both the design and implementation of the FSR/E approach to

mixed crop/1ivestock~systems.

3. Orientation

This is high priority for disciplinary specialists and problem-solving

specialists. This is best done by specific courses showing the steps

involved in FSR/E approach, use of case studies to show flows of information,

and the role of specific disciplines.


Documentation which sets out the conceptual, methodological, and

disciplinary aspects of a FSR project applied to animals that deli~eates the

entire research and on-farm testing process is very limited. Most reports

referring to methodological and conceptual issues are not put in the context

of an actual research project and do not grapple with actual problems of

survey design, data processing, research planning and interpretation of

research results. Furthermore, much of our documentation dealing with

research projects fails to provide the background leading to the initiation

of research.

This section is concerned with some of the approaches being employed

in livestock/crop oriented .FSR projects and discussions of methods of

incorporating contributions of livestock into farming systems studies.

Bernsten, et. al. (1983) enumerates and discusses the typology of livestock

systems and lists current farming systems activities with major livestock

components underway by various organizations.

1. _Apprloaches

Even though a livestock component has been included in a number of

FSR programs (Bernsten et. al. 1983), those with the most definitive

projects will be used to illustrate the approaches employed: The

International Livestock Centre for Africa (ILCA) with headquarters in

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; Winrock International, Morrilton, Arkansas; and

the Centro Tropical de Investicacion y Ensenan'aza (CATIE), headquartered

at Turrialba, Costa Rica.

Following some preliminary experimentation, all three organizations

have adopted the approach' recommended for FSR by Norman (1982) in that

investigations are conducted in four successive stages; 1) descriptive

(diagnostic), 2) design, (3) testing, and 4) extension. Multidisciplinary

teams are usually employed with the basic team consisting of an economist,

a sociologist or anthropol'igist, an animal scientist, and agronomist. On

occasion other disciplinesimay be included, such as a range management

specialist, a veterinarian, or a human nutritionist. Insofar as possible,

the teams remain intact throughout the four stages in order to validate

results as fully as possible. The objectives set for each stage is

illustrated in Table 3.

Table 3

Stages of Farming Systems Research Employed by ILCA
in Pastoral Systems Research

1. Descriptive and diagnostic

2. Design
research managed and

3. Testing
research managed,
producer executed;
producer managed,
producer executed

4. Extension -

Natural, livestock and human resources;
production systems constraints, in
order of priority; research require-
ments; assessment of chances of
overcoming constraints

Component research; design of improve-
ments through-on-station experimenta-
tion or from existing knowledge

Researcher and producer management
of improvements; producer acceptance
of improvements

Evaluation of technical and socio-
economic impact' of improvements

Source: ILCA 1983

The objective of the descriptive stage is to identify constraints to

achieving farmer goals and objectives. The process commences with an

understanding of the total farming system, including crops and trees as

well as assessment of the role and performance of the animal. Constraints

to animal production are defined as opportunities for potential change--

albeit at the region, family, farm, or enterprise level--which could

substantially improve its productivity as defined by farmers. This stage `

of FSR is accomplished by applying in a sequential manner rapid appraisal

methods, single-visit surveys, monitoring typical farms with farm records

and case studies.

The design stage involves a systematic process of identifying,

evaluating (on paper) and-fitting technologies to the existing system that

results in a conceptual model of proposed alternatives. A careful blend of

inputs and ideas for this task are derived from the current technology and

suggestions of farmers and the conduct of component research on an institu-
tional controlled area and on farms. Usually a high priority by 'armers

is more and better quality feed for animals which readily involves evaluation

of the cropping programs.

Testing of alternatives is carried out by introducing changes within

the farmer's system in two phases: 1) researcher managed, producer

executed trials; and 2) producer managed, producer executed trials. Between

phase 1 and 2, the farmer's management, reactions, and degree of satis-
faction usually results in refinements of the original design. Due to

the biological nature and socio-economic aspects of animal systems, the

testing stage has major implications for the number of replications, the

type of changes to be considered, the time frame required for the system
to make the transition and for observing some impact, particularly for

cattle systems..

The extension stage is to accomplish two major functions: 1) influence

administrators or policy makers of domestic institutions and to train

extension agents and others concerned with program implementation; and

2) to participate in area-specific development programs using previously

demonstrated alternatives. ..The three institutions are participating

effectively in 1), but their policies on phase 2) are unclear. Neither

CATIE nor ILCA have a mandate for direct technology transfer to farmers.

The same generally holds for Winrock's projects to this time. Since the

programs of the three organizations are still working principally in stages

1-3 and phase 1 of stage 41 the extent of involvement or policy on partici-

pation in extension has not become a major issue.

Experience will no doubt lead to adjustments in methodology for FSR by

ILCA, CATIE, Winrock, and others; but it is gratifying that largely through

independent actions the three organizations have arrived at similar objectives

and methodologies. Since the projects place heavy emphasis on cropping,

closer study of the methodology and the results from CATIE, Winrock, and

ILCA may be one solution to the current dilemma of the incorporation of

livestock into FSR programs.

The present program of the Animal Production Department of CATIE
focuses on cattle, swine, and goat production systems. Winrock has dealt

almost exclusively with sheep and goats. ILCA is concerned with camels,

cattle, goats, and sheep in both pastoral and agro-pas'toral systems.

Experiences to date at CATIE, including some description of methodology,

are reported by Avila (1984), Avila et. al. (1982), and CATIE (1978).

A report by Bernsten (1982) gave a framework for approaches to FSR by
Winrock International. The recent paper by DeBoer et. al. (1983) on a

dual-purpose goat research project in western Kenya is reasonably complete,

^~_~_~_I___ I~____ _~~(_I _

but thie work has not yet progressed to the stage where specific methodologies
have been worked out for the various components to the point that a definite

process for technology transfer is defined. In addition to Winrock's
involvement with documentation of mixed farming systems (Winrock, 1982) in

general and for sheep andlgoats (Winrock 1983a), it has been involved in
several studies of the potential for livestock: improvement under mixed farm

systems employing further testing of methodology (DeBoer 1983a, Soedjana
et. al. 1983, Winrock 1980).

These studies have revealed the importance of research teams to

systematically sort through the multiple roles served by animals and the
Intricate relationship between crops and livestock and focus their research

on a limited number of topics which show good promise of having the greatest

impact on farmers' welfare. Winrock's approach to an effective FSR program
stresses the need to adopt suitable methodology and networks to help in

identifying "on the shelf" items of technology appropriate for each

ILCA, too, has a number of reports: a) characterizing the systems
approach, e.g. Stewart (1983); b) with emphasis on findings from stage 1
(Table 3), e.g. Nicholson*(1983), ILCA (1978), ILCA (1981), Von Kaufmann
(1983), and several reports dealing with stages 2 and 3,-e.g. Wilson
(1982 and 1983), de Leeuw and Peacock (1982), Konandreas et. al. (1983).

Among the more advanced studies on FSR with animal emphasis is ILCA
Bulletin No. 16 (1983). It describes recommended methodology for stages

1, 2, and 3 and gives results based on experience in five countries

(Ethiopia, Kenya, Mali, Niger, and Nigeria). In this report the use of
low-flying aircraft surveillance in FSR is described.
ILCA has conducted several workshops on FSR and conducts training
courses annually for Africa Nationals..

The prospects for emphasis on a livestock component in FSR are rising.
Several U.S. universities,. as well as institutions in Europe, are moving in

this direction. The Task Force feels that the.FSSP program could serve an

important role by monitor ng approaches employed in order that more effective
evaluation analyses can be made.

2. Project Management

Effective project management in the field is one of the essential

ingredients to insure integration of livestock-into cropping systems. In
this context, management covers a spectrum of activities and qualities

including, among others, an~ effective team leader with both administrative

and programmatic skills who also has an appreciation of FSR/E; organization

of project activities to promote continual interaction by all disciplines
in the team; and orientation and training of team members, both host-country

and U.S., who do not have a background in FSR/E.

Both U.S. and host-country scientists must have a general background

and understanding of FSR/E and be willing to address a research and

development approach that involves such a systems orientation. Failure to

incorporate scientists with such a background and interest will insure lack

of wholehearted support and ultimately impact negatively on the success of

the project. If the group does not have an FSR/E background, then orienta-
tion activities need to be carried out. Even if the team has a background

in FSR/E, it will be-necessary to come to an agreement on the specific

approach to be taken, which will require adaptation of FSR/E theory to the
existing environment. Project leadership must insure that these matters

are addressed. (See the Section on the role of disciplines, training, and


In order to address the multiplicity of issues associated with both

crop and livestock production in the systems approach, there should be at

least one social scientist, plant scientist, and animal scientist on each

team. As an example, when conducting a diagnostic survey, these three

general disciplinary areas should be represented in order to have a holistic

view incorporated into the survey. There must also be mechanisms for these

individuals to continue to interact, along with the other members of the

team, in addressing issues relevant to the program/project.- In this regard,

there should be a formal mechanism through which the scientists representing

all of the disciplines cantinteract, discuss, review, monitor, and evaluate

the ongoing efforts by the team. Proposed activities should be discussed

by the group as a whole to insure that all aspects are properly addressed

and to allow true interdisciplinary input. Periodic reports should be

given to the group by the individual scientist or groups of scientists in

order to keep everyone up-to-date on the progress and to insure input from

all the disciplines. Seminars, research progress reports, etc. are some of

these mechanisms. The management of the team must insure that the necessary

environment and mechanisms are in place to foster these interactions.

In order for the above to occur in the most effective way, the project

must have good leadership that has an understanding and an interest in

incorporating the FSR/E approach involving both crops and livestock. It is

sometimes difficult to have project leadership that ha's a background in

both crops and livestock, but the individual in charge must have an apprecia-

tion of both in order for them to be appropriately addressed in all aspects

of the project undertaking. The Team Leader must have an understanding

of team building, must have the respect of the team members, based upon

both administrative and programmatic skills and must~provide the impetus and

support for the host country as well as U.S. staff in order to.create an

optimal climate for the conduct of the activities. Project management must
also provide the team with the necessary infrastructural and other support

requirements in order for the team to be able to carry out their activities.

Especially important is the provision of transportation and fuel and the
maintenance of vehicles, buildings, and equipment.

In terms of project management relating to the existing administrative

and support structures in the host country, it is the usual case that crop

activities and livestock activities are based in separate divisions of the

Ministry of Agriculture. Therefore, the team should make an effort to

incorporate individuals from the relevant existing institutional organiza-

tions in such a way that they feel "ownership" of the project and will

participate in both the short- and long-term activities.

The project, especially an FSR/E project, must be continually monitored

and must change based upon evolving information and ideas that are de-

veloped over time. The experiences gained should provide guidance to

change the project to make it more effective. -Project management is para-
mount in insuring that such occurs.

3. Extension

For livestock to be successfully incorporated into FSR/E, it is

imperative that there be a linkage among the institutions responsible for

crops research, livestock research, and the institute responsible for

extension programs. .This likely will not be easily accomplished since

within existing organizations, livestock, range, crop, and extension leaders

generally are in different ~ministries and frequently do not interact.
Therefore, efforts must be made to bring these different components

together and minimize their differences.
Once the linkage exists, extension personnel will likely serve in

three major roles. First, in cooperation with the research specialist, he

or she would convey research findings and needs from local cooperating
farmers to the research station for testing under a wider variety of

conditions. The second major role would be relaying experiment station
results to the local farmers; and the third should be taking results of

on-farm and experiment station research to other farmers in the region.
Extension responsibilities to farmers can be carried out through

personal visits, seminars, short courses, or field days, such as those
held by ILCA in demonstrating the technology of using wooden plows, harness

and yoke modified for a single ox used for crop production (Gryseels and
Anderson, 1983).
Unless there is-'active and early extension involvement in FSR/E, the

project will fail.

4. Institutionalization

The effective incorporation of livestock into mixed farming systems

will depend upon the institutionalization of the FSR/E approach within the
existing host country organizations. This is frequently difficult due to
the fact that there is a lack of understanding and appreciation of the

concept and implementation~ of FSR/E. As already mentioned, livestock and

crop activities are generally administered through different divisions of
the Ministry of Agriculture or even different ministries. This separation

frequently establishes an environment of competition for limited resources,
rather than support for the activities, which results in the livestock and

crop-oriented scientists and organizations actually working against each
other rather than being mutually supportive. Because of this separation,
the career structure for host-country scientists is usually oriented along

discipline or commodity lines. Recognition and advancement in rank by the
host country scientists is usually determined by a peer system which is

commodity or discipline oriented. This results in a lack of understanding

of FSR/E activities and a lack of a reward system for individuals who are

directing their efforts into integrated crop-livestock production. Because

of this, it is important that the activities of the individual host-country

scientist be such that they.carry out FSR/E activities, but also realize

publications and other means of recognition in their own discipline.

Ultimately, it is hoped that the existing organizations and peer scientists--

will recognize FSR/E as scientific thrust for which rewards are justified

and given. Failure to address these problems will result in the host-
country scientists who will! not wholeheartedly support the FSR/E' approach.

As indicated above, most research institutions in developing countries,

as well as in the U.S. are oriented to disciplines and commodity thrusts.

This means that a farming systems approach is unusual, is frequently new,

and will not be accepted immediately by the host country institutions and

scientists. It is frequently the case that a specific FSR/E project will

have more resources at its disposal over the short term as compared to

other projects financed by the host country. This may result in an

atmosphere of antagonism or defensiveness among host-country scientists.

In order to overcome this'and other problems, an approach to institutional-

izing FSR/E must be based upon interaction, mutual understanding of the
activities and involvement of FSR team scientists with those oriented to

discipline and commodity activities. One approach is 'to utilize farming

systems as an on-the-ground testing area for feedback to the discipline
or commodity groups. Another approach is for the FSR/E group to serve as

an on-the-ground implementor for the findings of the discipline or commodity

group--in short, to define and implement mutual benefits from FSR/E,
commodity,and discipline-related activities as they are mutually supportive.

This requires leadership and understanding, especially on the part of the

FSR/E scientists, of the necessity and sensitivity of defining and

implementing bridging mechanisms that will benefit not only the systems
activities, but the commodity and discipline ones as well. (See section

on the role of disciplines, training, and orientation.)

5. Policy Recommendations

Two sets of policy recommendations can be distinguished: a) public
policy toward agriculture in general and b) specific policies toward the
bureaucratic structures under which farming systems research and 'dievelopment
programs are carried out..

a. Public Policies Toward Agriculture. It is commonly recognized
that economic policies in developing countries discriminate against the

agricultural sector, particularly the smallholder sector. Therefore, FSR/E

programs must operate under conditions where the client group faces
difficult economic conditions. The perceived risk of trying a largely

unproven practice generated through the FSR/E program is often too great
or the complementary inputs needed to obtain full benefit from the tech-

nology cannot be afforded. : This is particularly true for livestock,
since the animals) may represent the largest single non-land asset
controlled by the farmer. Where draft power is important, the loss of the
use of an animal for even a few weeks may be disastrous.

Another facet which is seldom recognized is that the major economic

policies which influence the economic status of the smallholder sector are

not even formulated or implemented by the Ministry of Agriculture or
Ministry of Livestock. General economic policies such as exchange rates,

money supply (setting interest rates), taxation, tariff rates, import

quotas, export quotas, export taxes, and rationing of foreign exchange
are under the control of Ministries of Finance, Economic Planning, or
Foreign Trade plus Central Banks. The influence of smallholders is felt

even less at these agencies than at Ministries dealing with agriculture

and livestock. The economic planners and decision makers must be made

more aware of the national consequences of continuing neglect of the

smallholder sector and the agricultural sector in general.

b. Specific Policies Toward Bureaucratic Structures. The pervasive
problem is separation of research functions by crops or by livestock and,

furthermore, by commodity lines. While this is necessary for most types

of effective research, strict adherence to these lines of authority when
a program is trying to improve the flow of technology to farms creates

problems. The FSR/E approach constantly labors under bureaucratically

imposed constraints.. There are short-run and long-run recommendations
related to these problems:

(1) Short-run: The approach here is to try to create effective

programs that will illustrate the benefits of the FSR/E approach
and will ultimately bring about long-term changes in the bureau-

cracy. Short-term programs can proceed on the basis of informal

groups of scientists, usually requiring donor support, but with
a common interest in applying their disciplinary knowledge to

small farm problems within the framework of the FSR/E approach.

Other short-term programs have been carried out in conjunction

with the International Agricultural Research Centers (IARCs) and

by universities. The latter often operate under "a less restrictive
structure than the re-search agencies of Ministries.

(2) Long-run: The challenge is to bring about effective reorgani-
zation of research, extension, and development groups within

Ministries to effectively blend their overlapping functions into

FSR/E programs. This requires one group to assume overall control
of these efforts and sufficient budgetary flexibility to form groups

to work on specific farming systems with clearly stated objectives.

There also need to be linkages to local government agencies to

insure support at the implementation levels. (See section on


6. Case Studies and Model~s

Case studies can be important to the FSR concept in several ways,

such as:

1. identifying key elements needed for success in a FSR project

ii. documenting lessons learned from FSR projects

iii. developing and testing materials for the training of practitioners

iv. developing guidelines for the conduct of research on farms

v. developing ways for using evaluation analyses and supporting
data to communicate to administrators results and perspectives
for FSR

vi. broadening the outlook for those lacking experience in FSR with
an animal component; studies from livestock/crop farm FSR can
be an especially useful tool in the FSSP.

a. Case Studies. Although case studies can have wide application in

FSR, the Livestock Task Force proposes that the initial focus be to develop
better means of communication with key personnel in order to have greater

impact from research in farming systems.
Administrators need to know what the farming systems approach is and

where it fits into the profile of agriculture for their country; finally,

they w~ill need information on what administrative arrangements are required

to implement the approach. We must assume that these administrators will
take a national or at least a regional perspective and that they will weigh

the advantages and disadvantages of investment and organization focused on

smallholders in comparison to other forms of agriculture. In the past, the

claims of smallholders have generally been ignored in favor of commercial

and export agriculture; but on the assumption that the situation is

changing, a case must be made in terms that administrators understand, and
the case must not be overstated.

Practitioners refer to the relatively few research workers in govern-

ment ministries, experiment.stations, and in the colleges of agriculture,

along with extension workers, who need to be able to view smallholder

systems in a holistic fashion and to understand their dynamics with a view --

to implementing specific innovations. Their efforts will be influenced from
decisions made by senior administrators. If these decisions are favorable,

the practitioners must be trained to apply the approach in a true multi-
disciplinary manner.-

Administrators and practitioners are central to farming systems for

several reasons. Integrated farming systems research will simply not

move unless they support it. Second, even if they are favorable, they

must integrate FSR into their programs and policies. A third, and probably

the most important, is that case studies can be used on groups representing
various disciplines as a "neutral focus" for discussions on how they might

develop closer collaboration. Normally when either administrators or

scientists gather representing various disciplines, there is a tendency to

promote the importance of individual disciplines leading to competitiveness
rather than objective discussions. Assuming this is a general problem, we
must find modes of communication that will stimulate active participation

in discussions and lead to multiple linkages among policy groups.
To best serve the above-mentioned audiences, the utilization of case

studies will be required at all levels. It is proposed that the FSSP give

priority to the selection of one or more institutions to take the lead in
preparation of several case studies.

An example of a case study of FSR/E approach applied to livestock

improvement has been recently documented. This particular .research/extension

program was carried out as a collaborative effort between the Small Rumi nant

Collaborative Research Support Program (SR-CRSP), the Research Institute for

Animal Production, and the Directorate General of Livestock Services in

West Java, Indonesia. The objective was to establish reasons for the low

productivity of intensive small ruminant production systems and to derive

specific packages of technology that were feasible under the constraints

of these mixed farming systems. Following the initial agro-ecosystem

characterization, the group focused on three of the predominant systems

found--upland cropping systems with sheep, lowland cropping systems with

sheep and goats, and plantation-based systems, also with both species.

Because of the seasonal factors involved and the long production cycles

involved, the diagnostic stage extended over 18 months. ~Full -time field

assistants were placed in the village to collect information on animal

performance, forage production and quality, and socioeconomic factors.

Much of this work was linked to the central lab in Bogor.

Gradually, a pattern began to emerge. First, the lambing/kidding

interval was excessively long. Litter sizes and lamb/kid survivability

were good. Growth rates of individuals were highly variable, even within

pens. The composition of feed offered varied a great deal between seasons,

but overall quantities and quality of feed offered did' not show large

variation between farm and between season. Small ruminants were basically

a means of converting excess from labor into a salable product. Finally,

animals were generally held as a form of savings and not sold at the

optimum economic age.

The research team initially did not consider animal health as a

serious constraint under the full confinement system under which the

animals were kept most of~the year. The high variability of weight gains

indicated that parasite load should be considered. Thus, a fourth institu-

tion, the Research Institute for Animal Health., was asked to assist. Their

research confirmed that routine parasite control would be needed as part

of an improvement program.

The packages that are being developed focus on three very specific

areas: reduction of lambing/kidding interval, improvement of the protein ,'

proportion of the diet on a year-round basis, and a routine animal health

treatment focusing on internal parasites. These are being discussed with

farmers at a series of monthly meetings, where discussions are lead by a

scientist from a specific discipline.l -Feedback from the farmers about

specific problems that may arise has been excellent. Problems such as a

shortage of good quality rams/bucks and lack of farmer access to these

animals have been discussed as well as farmer problems in detecting heat

in the ewes/does. High protein trees and shrubs are being planted and

evaluated by the farmers.- Control groups for the parasite treatment

program are being set up. All this work is being closely monitored by
the farmers in conjunction with the village-based staff of the research


A series of 30 working papers describing all aspects of this program

are available.

b. Models. Further justification for attention 'to communication is

that by now researchers in different organizations have identified sets

of variables which go beyond the usual farm management models of the

previous decade. Often several of the variables are incidental to the

focus of the research. This is especially true where there is a strong

focus on animal science technology. The technology may be sound, but

usually it has undergone only limited testing on farms; hence a high

dependence on inputs of other disciplines, particularly economists, is

warranted to assist in the projection of the economic feasibility of the

proposed innovation (Gutierrez, 1983). This would entail development of

models for either analysis of data or for the projection of the application

of technology to small fatm.situations. Models for projected application

could become a part of a case study or could be used as another means for

communication on the projected contribution of livestock to various farming


Where the experiment 'station has several disciplines that ,are working

together in a general way, !small computers could be a very effective means

of developing desirable interactions among staff. For example, if after

the preliminary analysis df the data, individual scientists were to gather

around a computer, projections on the influence of variables could be

tested promptly. This would enable the group to interact in a much more

precise fashion than in the general discussions. Experience in the past

has shown that technicians representing various disciplines will discuss

mutual problems andthe.possibilities of closer linkages, but unfortunately

this does not get much beyond the dialogue stage. Objective use of

computers would enable much sharper focus on the potential contributions

of the various disciplines to a projected change.

Numerous field locations overseas are acquiring small computers.

Programs to assist in evaluating data gathered by multidisciplinary teams

is a high priority need. *Another worthy role for the FSSP is to catalog

computer programs which can be useful in processing FSR data. ILCA, for

example, views programs for small computers as an urgent need to bring

national organizations ofAfrica into active FSR.



1. U.S. Nationals

Training received by U.S. personnel should include an integrated,

holistic view of livestock- production as well as information relating to

farming systems. This training must reflect an appreciation and hopefully

experience in a systems approach to research. The leaders must recognize

that problems facing livestock-crop interactions are multi-dimensional, and

this must be taken into account if educational-institutions are t-o~provide

relevant training.

Case studies and models for projected applications of FSR/E can be

used separately or jointly as means of training those interested in the

contribution of livestock to various farming systems.

Short courses, seminars, symposiums and other special meetings can be

held at U.S. universities through strengthening grants allowing an

exchange of knowledge and experiences. Slide-tape modules are other

valuable aids to training in FSR/E.

These training modules: should include at least the following subjects

and types of information and have equal application to U.S. as well as

host country nationals:

a. Introduction--8ackground to animal agriculture. Source: Winrock
International--Role of Ruminants in Support. of Man.

b. Roles and functions of animals. Several sources: McDowell (1978)
and Winrock.(1982) and others.

c. Mixed farming systems. Sources: McDowell and Hildebrand (1980),
Winrock (1982), various publications by Hart, Bernsten, and
others (including .ILCA) .

d. Conceptualization of research problems dealing with mixed farming
systems. Sources: Some of those cited in (b) above. Work at
ILCA is also relevant here.

e. Conduct of research. Sources: the Kenya dual purpose goat paper
(DeBoer et. al., 1983) and Bernsten's (1982) illustrations of the

parallels between crops and livestock. The ILCA work also
represents a fairly complete package that could be~worked into
a module.

f. Research methodologies, especially regarding field testing.
Source: several case studies of ILCA, Winrock, and CATIE.

g. Extension programs. A module to develop extension procedures
to deal specifically with livestock in mixed farm systems.

b. Maintenance of adequate nutrition for livestock, including a
year-round feed supply, effective use of crop residues, etc.

i. Basic livestock management.

j. Improved animal health, .including internal and external parasitess.

k. Animal traction, including animal care, harness, appropriate
implements, and selection and breeding for stronger animals.

1. Selecting for increased meat, milk, and/or fiber production.

m. Marketing of livestock and crops.

2. Host Country Nationals

The training received by developing country scientists in the U.S.,

and in the western world generally, is a mirror image of the western

educational system and orientation, with limited emphasis on systems. In

the case of the crop and livestock disciplines, the integration of the two

within the subject matter presented at universities is generally limited or

lacking. Therefore, both the host-country as well as U.S. individuals who

are being trained, generally have had an education that has lacked incor-

poration of a systems approach. Instead, the training~ has tended to be

quite specialized, focusing on small areas of research, especially for the


Because of the above, .individuals who will be participating in, or

have an interest in, a systems approach to the incorporation of livestock

in mixed farming systems should be provided access to courses, seminars,

workshops, and other training endeavors that will allow these individuals

to gain a background in farming systems. Selected U.S. universities and
International Agricultural Research Centers are important and relevant
resources for such training. Included should be sufficient on-the-ground

experience in conducting surveys, in defining domains, etc., so that the
individuals have an understanding of not only the theoretical, but the

application of the theory to on-the-ground circumstances. In addition, the
research carried out by these individuals should be such that it is

relevant to the host country environment and develops information that can
contribute needed information for the host country, but also should emphasize

the incorporation of both crops and livestock in the systems approach.
Whenever possible, research should be conducted in the home country

of the person being trained. Special courses more relevant to developing
country environments and situations should be utilized. An opportunity for
the trainee to interact with a functional FSR/E group that incorporates

both crops and livestock should be worthwhile. (See previous section for

suggested training modules.)
In addition to formal degree and non-degree training in the developed
countries, in-country (and regional) workshops, seminars, and conferences
on FSR/E are extremely beneficial for project staff, both scientific and

support. Such activities can also serve as important mechanisms to inform
host-country commodity and discipline-oriented scientists and organizations
about FSR/E and the potential benefits from the integration of crops and
livestock in a systems approach. The FSSP can make significant contri-

butions to many of the above-listed types of training on a need and
demand basis.


Communication is essential and should be aimed at acquainting all

people involved with the potential opportunities and responsibilities of

including livestock in FSR/E. Those included in the in-country communica-

tion network are government leaders, inc'luding~those in the different

ministries, research personnel, extension specialists, and the cooperating

farmer or farm family. A network of institutions such as USAID, univer-

sities, ministries, private foundations, and IARCs, should be est~a~jlished

to encourage a closer link among the people interested in and working

with livestock in FSR/E projects.

In a broad sense, all activities included in extension as well as the

other aspects of this task force report pertain to communication. Conse-

quently, the importance of proper and thorough communication must be at

the forefront in all planning and implementation stages of FSR/E. The

FSSP has a special role it can play in the communication dimension of

farming system research and development.


The Livestock Task Force strongly draws attention to the fact that

animals form an integral and essential part of low resource farm systems

in most of the developing countries and that efforts should be made by

FSSP to create awarehess ,of the importance of their integration among

training institutions, the IARCs, and government agencies. To that end

several recommendations are proposed.

1.That FSSP encourage FSR projects to encompass a livestock
component where it is evident that animals play a role in the
farming system.

2. That the FSR/E design and implementation teams be composed of
at least a plant, animal, and social scientist.

3. That case studies be considered as a means of training and as
a means of improving communications and developing policy guide-

4. That case studies be developed from those projects that are
successful in institutional izing the FSR/E approach within the -
existing host country organizations.

5. That FSSP entertain proposals from one or more universities or
institutions to develop ggjdelines for the preparation of case
studies to serve the needs ofthe program.

6. That short courses and special training and orientation meetings
be held at local research stations and village centers in
developing countries where thje FSR/E program is to be conducted.
Slide-tape modules developed by FSSP should be used by leaders
with FSR/E experience during these training sessions.
7 T a n A r c r se r h a d o x e s on p r o n l b r i e
in their own working area or sent to ILCA, IITA, or other IARCs
to participate in short courses or internship programs.

'8. That individuals qualified to become degree candidates be
brought to U.S. universities for schooling. These would become
the long-term directors of the projects.

9.That individuals who are not degree candidates be brought to
the U.S. for brief visits to observe and study some systems-
type, crop-livestock operations in the U.S. or sent to appropriate
IARCs or other institutions or agencies.

10. That FSSP entertain proposals from one or more universities or
institutions, preferably within the FSSP network to develop a
series of training moduls as suggested in the section on
training. Mo~u es with slides, tapes, or movies should be
produced or at least narrated by AV personnel-with expertise in
this area.

11. That the FSSP entertain proposals from one or more universities
or institutions, preferably within the FSSP network to develop
a handbook or set of 5ijFrsaidlneso the concep-tual, methodolo i~cal,
and dis~c-riip_linar aspet~s ofER/E i nvol v~ing Tivestoc';r te ri a s
aned information from case studies training modules and other
sources can serve as basis for the handbook for use among
trainers, planners, evaluators, administrators, and practitioners.

12. That the extension component be incorporated at the design stage
of FSR/E projects.

13. That FSSP encourage universities involved in development projects
to offer at least one FSR/E course and that the course make
reference to livestock in mixed farming systems.

14. That FSSP sponsor a workshop on research methodologies related
to livestock in mixed farming systems.
15. That one of.the objectives of the FSSP network be to monitor
approaches in FSR and circulate at Teast annually a bibliography
on methodologies employed with the objective of more effective
evaluation analyses.





AID. 1980. The workshop on pastoralism and Airican livestock development.
US/AID Program Evaluation Report No. 4. Washington, D.C.

Anderson, F. M., and J. C; Trail. 1978. Mathematical modeling of livestock
production systems: Application of Texas A&M University beef cattle
production model to Botswana. ILCA Systems Study No. 1, ILCA,
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Anonymous. 1982. Proceedings of third international conference on goat
production and disease. Dairy Goat Publishing Co., Scottsdale,
Arizona. ,

Avila, M. 1984. CATIE's experiences in farming systems research with
emphasis on livestock (in press)

Avila. M., D. W. Deaton, R. Ruiz, R.*Solano, H. Vargas, Y. L. Villegas.
1982. Desarrallo, prueba y transferencia de prototipos de proyduccion
bovina en el. CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Rica.

Bernsten, R., H. Fitzhugh, and H. Knipscheer. 1983. Livestock in farming
systems research. Proc. Third Annual Farming Systems Symp., Kansas
State University, Manhattan.

Bernsten, R. H. 1982. Analytical approaches to farming systems research
with emphasis on animal production. In Fine, Jeffrey E. and Ralph
G. Latimore (Eds.). Livestock in Asia: Issues and Policies.
Ottawa, Ont., IDRC, pp. 180-185.

Bernsten, R. H., A. Rochim; H. Malian, and I. Baza. 1980. A methodology
for constructing and agroeconomic profile of a cropping systems site.
Bogor, Indonesia. Central Research Institute for Food Crops, 5 p.,
appendices 65.

Brumby, P. J. 1979. The dairy situation in India. Indian Dairyman 357-364.

CATIE. 1978. Sistemas de production de leche y carne para pequenos
productores usando presiduos de cosecha. Informe de progress. CATIE,
Turrialba, Costa Rica.

CIAT. 1~975. Potential to' increase beef production in tropical America.
Series CE-No. 10. Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical,
Cali, Colombia.

Cossins, N. J. 1981. A new approach to the Ethiopian rangelands develop-
ment project. Annual Report to Project. ILCA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Cossins, N. J. and B. Yemerou. 1974. Still sleep the highlands: A study
of farm and livestock systems in the central highlands of Ethiopia. LMB,
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

DeBoer, A. J. (Ed.). 1983a. Ruminant livestock in intensive agricultural
areas of Sichnan Province, China: Current status and development
prospects. Report of Joint Study Team od Livestock Development
Prospects in Sichnan Province, China. Winrock International,
Morrilton, Arkansas.

DeBoer, A. John. 1983b Design of alternative crop-livestock systems for
Asian farmers. .PapeP presented to Workshop on Crop-Livestock Research,
Asian Cropping Systemn Network meeting, IRRI, Los Banos, Philippines,
April 25-28, 1983.

DeBoer, A. J., H. A. Fitzhugh, R. D. Hart, M. W. Sands, and M. 0. Job.
1983. Production of meat and milk from goats in mixed farming systems
in the high potential tropics. Paper presented to Conference on
Overcoming Constraints to Livestock Development in sub-Sahara~n
Africa. University of Florida, G~ainesville, August 3-6, 1983.

DeBoer, A. John. 1982. Livestock development: The Asian experience.
In Fine, Jeffrey C. and Ralph G. Latimore (Eds.). Livestock in Asia:
Issues and Policies. .Ottawa, Ont., IDRC, pp. 13-26.

de Leeuw, and C. P. Peacock. 1982. The productivity of small ruminants
in the Maasai pastorb1 system Kajiado District, Kenya. ILCA,
Kenya Working Document. ILCA, Nairobi, Kenya.

Delgado, C. L. and J. McIntire. 1982. Constraints on oxen cultivation
in the Sahel. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 64:188.

Delgado, C. L. 1979. Livestock versus foodgrain production in southeast
Upper Volta: A resource allocation analysis. CRED, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Delgado, C. L. 1977. Economic interactions between peasants and herders
in the West African Savannah: A case study from Tenkodogo, Upper
Volta. CRED, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

de Montgolfier-Koueric, C: and A. Vlauonou. 1981. Trends and prospects
for livestock and crop production in tropical Africa. ILCA, Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia.

Doppler, W. 1980. The economics of pasture improvement and beef production
in semi-humid West Africa. GTZ, Eschborn.

Doran, M. W., A. R. C. Low, and R. L. Kemp. 1979. Cattle as a store of
wealth in Swaziland:** Implications for livestock development and
over-grazing in Eastern and Southern Africa. Am. J. Agri. Econ.

Edwards, D. 1961. An economic study of small farms in Jamaica. Robert
MacLelore and Co., Ltd., Glasgow.

Eicher, C. K. and D. C. Baker. 1982. Research on agricultural development
in sub-Saharan Africa: A critical survey. MSU Int'1 Dev. Paper
No. 1, Michigan State Univ., East Lansing.

Falvey, L. 1977. Ruminants in the highlands of Northern Thailand: An
agrosociological study. Australian Dev. Assistance Bur., Canberra.

Ferguson, D. S. 1983. An appropriate agricultural research and development
system for complex environments--The case.of CORICOM. USDA/OICD/ITA.
Washington, D.C.

Ferguson, D. S. and T. T. Poleman. 1974. Modernizing African animal
production: The Uganda Tick Control Project. Cornell Int'1 Agri.
Mimeo No. 42. Cornell- University, Ithaca, New York.

Fine, J.-C..and R. G. Latimore. 1982. Livestock in Asia: Issues and
policies. Int'1 Dev. Res. Centre, Ottawa, Canada.

Fitzhugh, H. A. 1982. On-farm research involving animal components farming systems. Pape presented at the Reunion de Groupos de27Jnay
Trabajo en Sistemas deProduccion Animal. Pucallpa, Peru.27anry
Morrilton, Arkansas, U.S.A, Winrock International Livestock Research
and Training Center, P. 16.

Fitzhugh, H. A. and G. E. Bradford. 1982. Hair sheep of Western Africa
and the Americas: A genetic resource of the tropics. Westview Press,
Boulder, Colorado.

Fitzhugh, H. A., R. D. Hart, R. A. Moreno, P. 0. Osuji, M. E. Ruiz, and
L. Singh (Eds.). 1982. Proceedings of a workshop: Research on
crop-animal systems. CATIE, CARDI, and Winrock International
participating institutions. Workshop held at CATIE, Turrialba,
Costa Rica, April 4-7, 1982. Winrock International Livestock
Research and Training Center, Morrilton, Arkansas.

Fitzhugh, H. A., H. J. Hodgson, 0. J. Scoville, T. D. Nguyen, and T. C.
Byerly. 1978. The role of ruminants in support of man. Winrock
International Livestock Research and Training Center, Morrilton,

Goe, M, R. and R. E. McDowell. 1980. Animal traction: Guidelines for
utilization. Cornell Int'1 Agri. Mimeo No. 81, Cornell University,
Ithaca, New York.

Gryseels, G. and F. Anderson. 1983. Farming systems research in ILCA's
Highlands Programme. ILCA, Mimeo. Report, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Gutierrez, A. N. F. 1983. Sheep and goat production systems in Sertao
Region of Northeast Brazil: A characterization and linear programming
analysis. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. Purdue University.

Haaland, R. 1979. Man's role in the changing habitat of Mema under the
old kingdom of Ghana. ILCA Working Document No. 2, ILCA, Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia.

Hall, H. T. B. 1977. Diseases and parasites of livestock in the tropics.
Longman, New York.

Hart,-Robert D. 1983. Using the concept of agroecosystem determinants
to link technology transfer and technology generation-to form a
farming system research and extension process. Presented at a
seminar on: The Role of Crops and Animals in Farming S~ystems.
University of Missouri. Colombia, Missouri. May 19-20, 1983.

Hart, R. D., H. A. Fitzhugh, and N. F. Guttierrez. 1982. Crop-animal
production system research at Winrock International. In: H. A.
Fitzhugh, R. D. Hart', R. A. Moreno, P. 0. Osuji, M. E. Ruiz, and
L. Singh (Eds.) Proceedings of a workshop: Research on Crop-
Animal Systems. CATIE, CARDI, and Winrock International, participating
institutions. Workshop held at CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Rica, April 4-7.,
1982. Winrock International Research and Training Center, Morrilton, -

Haywood, M. 1980. Changes in land use and vegetation in the ILC /Mali
Sudano-Sahelian project zone. ILCA Working Document No. 3, ILCA,
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.-

Herman, L. 1983. The livestock and meat marketing system in Upper Volta:
An evaluation of economic efficiency. CRED monograph No. 4,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

ILCA. 1983. Pastoral research systems research. ILCA Bul..No. 16,
Int'1 Livestock Centre for Africa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

ILCA, 1983. ILCA Annual Report 1982: A year in the service of African
livestock improvement. ILCA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

ILCA. 1983. Tcheffa Valley study: When the grass is greener, bringing
the answers closer to home. JEPSS.Res. Report No. 1. ILCA, Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia.

ILCA. 1982. A report on family sizes, domestic economics, livestock
composite and progeny histories of the Afar production unit network.
JEPSS Discussion Paper No. 1. ILCA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

ILCA. 1981. Animal traction in sub-Saharan Africa. ILCA Bul. No. 14.
ILCA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

ILCA. 1981. Systems research in the arid zones of Mali: Initial results.
Systems Study No. 5, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

ILCA. 1979. Trypanetolerant livestock in West and Central Africa: Vol. 2,
Country Studies. ILEA monograph No. 2, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

ILCA. 1979. Trypanotolerant livestock in West and Central Africa: Vol. 1,
General Study. ILCA monograph No. 2. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

ILCA. 1979. Small ruminant production in the tropics. Int'1. Liv. Centre
for Africa Systems Study No. 3, ILCA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

ILCA. 1978. Animal production systems in the high potential highlands
of tropical Africa. ILCA/HL/116. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

ILCA. 1977. Evaluation and comparisons of productivities of indigenous
cattle in Africa. ILCA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

ILCA. 1977. East Africanl pastoralism: Anthropological perspectives and
development needs. Conf. Proc., ILCA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

IRRI. 1983.. Crop-livestock workshop summary report. Asian farming
systems network. The International Rice Research Institute, Los
Bans, pp. 4.

Jahnke, H. E. 1982. Livestock production systems and livestock development
in tropical Africa. Kieler Wissenschaftsverlag Vauk, Kiel, Federal
Republic of Germany.

King, J. M., A. R. Sayers, C. P. Peacock, and E. Kontrohr. 1982.
Maasai herd and flock structure in relation to household live'htock
wealth and group ranc'h development. ILCA Working Document No. 27,
ILCA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Konandreas, P. A., F. M. Anderson, and J. C. M. Trail. 1983. Economic
trade-offs between milk and meat production under various supplementa-
tion levels in Botswana. ILCA Research Report No. 10. Addis Ababa,

Konandreas, P. A. and F. M. Anderson. 1982. Cattle herd dynamics: An
integer and stochastic model for evaluating production alternatives.
ILCA Res. Report No. 2, ILCA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

McCammon-Feldman, 8., P. J. Van Soest, P. Horvath, and R. E. McDowell.
1981. Feeding strategy of the goat. Cornell Int'1 Agri. Mimeo.
No. 88, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.

McDowell, R. E. 1983. Strategy for improving beef and dairy cattle in
the tropics. Cornell Int'1. Agri. Mimeo No. 100. Cornell University,
Ithaca, New York.

McDowell, R. E. 1983. The need to know about animals. In: A series of
papers on world food issues. Ed. M. Drosdoft. Center for Analysis
of World Food Issues, Program in Int'1 Agri., Cornell University,
Ithaca, New York.

McDowell, R. E. 1981. Limitations for dairy production in developing
countries. J. Dairy Sci. 64:2463-75.

McDowell, R. E. 1980. The role of animals in developing countries. In:
Animals, feed, food, and people. R. L. Baldwin ed., AAAS Selected
Symp. No. 42, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.

McDowell, R. E. 1977. Ruminant products: More than meat and milk.
Winrock Report, Wintock Int'1., Morrilton, Arkansas.

McDowell, R. E., and L. Bove. 1977. The goat as a producer of meat.
Cornell Int'1 Agri. Mimeo. No. 56, Cornell University, Ithaca, New


McDowell, R. E. and P. E. Hildebrand. 1980. Integrated crop and animal
production: Making the most of resources available on small farms in
developing countries. Working Paper, Rock. Found., New York, New York.

McDowell, R. E., 0. G. Sister, E. C. Schermerhorn, J. D. Reed, and R. P. Bauer.
1983. Game or cattle for meat production'on Kenya rangelands? Cornell
Int'1 Agri. Mimeo No. 101. Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.

Milligan, K. 1983. An aerial reconnaissance of livestock and human
populations in relation to land use and ecological conditions in the
SORDU project area of Southern Ethiopia. JEPSS Res. Report No. 5,
ILCA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Nat'1 Dairy Dev. Board. 1980. Breeding and feeding for milk production
in Operation Flood II. National Dairy Dev. Board, Anand, India.

Nicholson, M. 1983. Calf Growth, milk offtake, and estimated lactation
yields of Borana cattle in the southern rangelands of Ethiopia.
JEPSS Res. Report No. 46. ILCA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Norman, D. 1982. Institutionalizing the farming systems approach to
research. Paper presented at the African Review of Agricultural and
Rural Development Officers' Workshop, Ibadan, Nigeria. US/AID,

Oxby, C. 1981. Group ranches in Africa. Overseas Development Institute,
London, United Kingdom.

Pratt, D. and M. D. Gwynne. 1977. Rangeland management and ecology in
East Africa. Hodder & Stoughton, London.

Primov, G. 1983. Alpaca meat production and exchange in southern Peru.
Small Ruminant Collaborative Research Support Prog., Technical Series
No. 31, University of Missouri, Columbia.

Rouse, J. E. 1977. The Criollo: Spanish cattle in the Americas.
University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Ruthenberg, H. 1980. Farming systems in the tropics. 3rd. ed. Clarendon
Press, Oxford.

Sanford, S. 1983. Management of pastoral development in the Third World.
Overseas Dev. Inst., London.

Sands, M. and R. E. McDowell. 1978. The potential of the goat for milk
production in the tropics. Cornell Int'1 Agri. Mimeo. No. 60.
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.

Shaner, W. W., P. F..Philipp, and W. R. Schmeh1. 1982. Farming systems
research and development. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.

Soedjana, T. D., A. J. DeBoer, and H. C. Knipscheer. 1983. Potential
uses of commercial technologies for sheep and goat smallholders in
Indonesia. Small Ruminant Collaborative Res. Support Program Technical
Rpt. Series, Winrock International, Morrilton, Arkansas.


Stewart, R. 1983. Livestock systems research at ILCA. Expert consultation
Rpt., ILCA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Swift, J. 1979. West African pastoral production systems. CRED Working
Paper, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.,

Trail, J. C., and K. E. Gregory. 1981. Sahiwal cattle: An evaluation of
their potential. contribution to milk and beef production in Africa.
ILCA Monograph No. 3, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Von Kaufmann, R. 1983. Design and testing procedures in livestock systems
research: An agro-pastoral example. Workshop: Production Systems
Research for Range Livestock Development, ILCA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia,
March, 1983.

Williamson, G. and W. J. A. Payne. 1978. An introduction to animal:
husbandry in the tropics. 3rd ed. Longman, New York.

Wilson, R. T. 1983. Goats and sheep in the traditional livestock pro-
duction systems in semii-arid Northern Africa: Their importance,
productivity, and constraints on production. Workshop: Overcoming
constraints to livestock development in sub-Saharan Africa. University
of Florida, Gainesville, August 3-6.

Wilson, R. T. 1982. Livestock production in Central Mali. ILCA Bul. No. 15.
ILCA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Wilson, R. T. and P. N. de Leeuw. 1983. Recherches sur Res systems des
zones arides du Mali: Resultats preliminaries. CIPEA (ILCA) Rapport
de recherche No. t, ILCA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Winrock International. 1983a. Assessment of the current status and
potential role of sheep and goats in developing countries. Paper
prepared for Agricultural and Rural Development Department, World
Bank. Winrock International, Morrilton, Arkansas.

Winrock International. 1983b. Bibliography of international literature
on goats. Winrock International, Morrilton, Arkansas.

Winrock International. 1982. Draft position paper on livestock program
priorities and strategy. Paper prepared for U.S. Agency for Inter-
national Development. Winrock International, Mor~rilton, Arkansas.

Winrock International. 1980. Potential for on-farm feed production and
utilization by the Egylptian small farm sector. A consultant report
on the project improved utilization of feed resources for the
Egyptian Livestock Sector: Report prepared for Catholic Relief
Services, Cairo, Egypt,and United States Agency for International
Development, Cairo, Egypt. Winrock International, Morrilton, Arkansas.

Winrock International. 1977. Potential of the world's forages for
ruminant animal production. Winrock International, Morrilton, Arkansas.


Winrock International. 1977. The role of sheep and goats in agricultural
development: A state of the arts study. Winrock International,
Morrilton, Arkansas.

World Bank. 1981. Accelerated development in sub-Saharan Africa: An
agenda for action. The World Bank, Washington, D.C.




.+ ** nr L Appendix I

SYSTEMS) AS OF 11/23/83:

Geographical Areas
(With Years
Therein In Parenthsis)

Asia (3+); Africa (10+)

Asia (3); Africa (2+);
Latin America (?)

Asia (.1); Near East (.1)



Africa (2)

Asia (.25)

Africa (?); Asia (?);
Latin America (?); total
of 6 years

Asia (?)




Latin America (6); Africa (?


Latin America (?)

Africa (4); Asia (2)




Near East (?)

M0A .
:ntity Area Of Expertise

ISU Vet Microb & Preven-
tive Med

WI Ag Economics

ISU Animal Sci

WI Range Sci/Agro-

UMN Animal Sci/Vet Med

MSU Vet Med

UMN Animal Sci/Vet Med

MSU Animal Sci


Program Associate

1. Beran, George

2. Bernsten, Richard

3. Brackelsberg, Paul 0.

4. Byington, Evert

Cornelius, Steve

Coy, Charles

Crabo, Bo

Deans, Robert


9. De Boer, Alvin J.

10. Fitzhugh, Henry A.

11. Goodman, Bill

12. Hansen, Jorgen

13. Hart, Robert D.

14. Johnson, Harold

15. King, Thomas B.

16. Koch, Berl A.

17. Kornegay, E. T.

18. Marsh, Will

19. McCarthy, F.

20. Mitchell, George

WI Ag Economics

WI Animal Breeding

SIU Animal Industries/

VPI Vet Med

WI Agronomy/Crop Ecology

UMC Animal Systems

PSU Animal Sci/Admini-,

KSU Animal Nutrition

VPI Animal Sci

UMN Animal Health Econ-

VPI Animal Sci

U0K Animal Sci/Nutrition







UMN Vet. Med./Epidemiology


Africa, Asia, Latin America
Near East


Near East (2)


Africa (8)
Africa ^r

Africa (2)

Africa (2



Asia, Near East

Africa (2+) Latin America (.2
Asia (.2)

Latin Ameiica, Asia (total
3 years)

Latin America (6)

Latin America, Asia

21. Morris, Roger

22. Olson, Howard

23. Oxley, James William

24. Perry, Brian

25. Schillhorn Van Vern,

26. Sollod, Albert

27. Sutherland, Thomas

28. Thawley, D.G.

29. Vandepopuliere, Joe

30. Vogt, Dale

31. Ward, Gerald M.

32. Wheat, John D.

33. Wilson, Kim J.












Animal Industries

Animal Sc./Admin.

Vet. Medicine

Vet. Medicine


Animal Breeding

Animal Systems

Animal Systems

Animal Systems

Animal Science

Animal Breeding/Genetics

MSU Animal Science (Dairy)

34. Wilson, Terry PSU Vet. Mec

35. Yazman, James WI Animal ~

* Total years in parenthesis.

M0A Entities

1. DAI = Development Alternatives, Inc.
2. IADS = Int'1 Agricultural Development 5
3. RTI = Research Traingle Institute
4. WI = Winrock International

1. CSU = Colorado State University
2. ISU = Iowa State University .
3. KSU = Kansas State University
4. MSU = Michigan State University
5. PSU = Penn. State University

d./Vet. Pathology


6. SIU = Southern Illinois University
7. U0K = University of Kentucky
8. UMN = University of Minnesota
9. UMC = University of Missouri
10. VPI = Virginia Polytechnic Institute

Colorado State University
College of Agricultural Sciences Fort Collins, Colorado
Office of the Dean802

December 30, 1983

Dr. Chris Andrew
Di rector
Farming Systems Support Project
3028 McCarty Hall
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611

Dear Chris:

I am sending you a copy of the next-to-1ast version of the Livestock
Task Force report for your use in budget preparation and planning for
1984. Since my committee has not seen this copy in its entirety, I
hesitate to release it, but I know you will use it judiciously. I
don't foresee any drastic changes. Most of the recommendations will
stand, so I feel comfortable in sharing it with you.

You may want to budget for the recommendation on case studies, module
development, and a workshop on research methodologies as these can
be undertaken in 1984. The suggestion of the development of a hand-
book might well come next year after we have put together the informa-
tion on case studies and training materials.

I'll try to get you our final report by the last week of January.

You will be interested to know that I participated in the writing of
a project paper on farming systems with a livestock component in
Pakistan during November-December. I worked with a team from ICARDA,
which has a strong FS group. This may be the first project in Asia
with a strong FS design including livestock. If funded, CSU and
ICARDA will jointly implement the Title XII project, another first
for a U.S. university to collaborate with an International Center
using a farming systems project as the major thrust. I shall keep
you posted and will be glad to share my experience if and when desired.
This experience confirms what we suggest in our report. It was truly
a multidisciplinary team effort during the design stage of a FS project.

The best to you in the New Year.


Y. W. Oxley
Chairman, Livestock Task Force

A~n cutud'

Clle e otf Ag cultural Sciences Coltorad nae Univdersity

TO: Dr. R. E. McDowell DATE: 12/30/83
Dr. J. D. Wheat
Dr. A. J. DeBoer
Or. J. Henson

FROM: J. W. Oxley, Chairman vt3
Livestock Task Force {,9 ,

SUBJECT: Task Force Report

Please find enclosed the penultimate copy (I hope) of our Task Force
report. I am pleased the way it hangs together, better than anticipated.
It certainly is written in a more positive tone than was our earlier
version, thanks to each of you. It has been edited; and I have made
some additions, few if any deletions, but did some reorganizing. As
you review it, please note the organization of the report, the use of
the case study example of the SRCRSP in Indonesia (Should it be
included as an example?) and the recommendations.

Please note I am sharing this version with Don Ferguson and Chr's
Andrew. I am asking Chris not to distribute this version, but use it
for informational and budgetary purposes. I hope you don't mind.

My schedule takes me out of the country until January 22, so I would
appreciate your responses by that time. Hopefully, we can finalize the
report that week, and I: can get the final ver-sion to Chris for dis-
tribution no later than the last week of January.

Thanks for your cooperation and great assistance.

Happy New Year.


cc: Dr. Donald Ferguson
Dr. Chris Andrew v


College of Agricultural Sciences Colorado State University
Office of the Dean Fort Collins, Colorado
303/491-6272 80523

TO: Dr. R. E. McDowell DATE: 12/30/83
Dr. J. D. Wheat
Dr. A. J. DeBoer
Dr. J. Henson

FROM: J. W. Oxley, Chairman Qt30
Livestock Task Force .- ,

SUBJECT: Task. Force Report

Please find enclosed their penultimate copy (I hope) of our Task Force
report. I am pleased the way it hangs together, better than anticipated.
It certainly is written in a more positive tone than was our earlier
version, thanks to each of you. It has been edited; and I have made
some additions, few if any deletions, but did some reorganizing. As
you review it, please note the organization of the report, the use of
the case study example of the SRCRSP in Indonesia (Should it be
included as an example?) and the recommendations.

Please note I am sharing this version with Don Ferguson and Chris
Andrew. I am asking Chris not to distribute this version, but use it
for informational and budgetary purposes. I hope you don't mind.

My schedule takes me out of the country until January 22, so I would
appreciate your responses by that time. Hopefully, we can finalize the
report that week, and I: can get the final version to Chris for dis-
tribution no later than the last week of January.
Thanks for your cooperation and great assistance.

Happy New Year.


cc: Dr. Donald Ferguson/
Dr. Chris Andrew /