Farming Systems

Research Group

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

The Farming Systems Research Group at Michigan State University is drawn from
the departments of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural Engineering, Animal
Science, Crop and Soil Science, Food Science and Human Nutrition, Sociology,
Veterinary Medicine, and supported by the International Agriculture Institute of
M.S.U. and the U.S. Agency for International Development through a matching
strengthening grant under the Title XII program.

Farming Systems Research Group
Michigan State University

The Farming Systems Research Group at Michigan State University, supported
by Title XII Strengthening Grant Funds from the U.S. Agency for International
Development, and administered by the Institute of International Agriculture,
has included Dr. Jay Artis, Department of Sociology; Dr. Robert J. Deans,
Department of Animal Science; Dr. Merle Esmay (and Dr. Robert Wilkinson),
Department of Agricultural Engineering; Dr. Eric Crawford, Department of
Agricultural Economics; Dr. Russell Freed, Department of Crop and Soil
Sciences (also representing Horticulture); Dr. Al Pearson, Department of
Food Science and Human Nutrition; Dr. Tjaart Schillhorn van Veen, Department
of Veterinary Medicine; with Dr. George Axinn, International Studies
and Programs and Agricultural Economics, Chair, and Ms. Beverly Fleisher,
graduate research assistant.

FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH AS IT RELATES
TO THE ANIMAL SCIENCES

by Robert J. Deans

Working Paper No. 5

July, 1981

THE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH GROUP

WORKING PAPER SERIES

Paper No.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

Title

Farming Systems Research and Agricul-
tural Economics

Farming Systems Position Paper

Livestock Systems and Animal Health

Issues in Farming Systems Research --
an Agronomist's Perspective

Farming Systems Research As It Relates
To The Animal Sciences

Farming Systems Research Position Paper

The Farming Systems Research Approach in
the Agricultural Engineering Field

Issues in Farming Systems Research --
a Multidisciplinary Behavioral Science
Perspective

Farming Systems Research and
Agricultural Engineering

An M.S.U. Approach to Farming Systems
Research

The M.S.U. Farming Systems Research
Group Perspective

A Working Bibliography on Farming
Systems Research August, 1981

Social Impact, Economic Change, and
Development -- with illustrations
from Nepal

Author

Eric Crawford

Al Pearson

Tjaart Schillhorn van Veen

Russell Freed

Robert J. Deans

Jay Artis

Merle L. Esmay

George H. Axinn

Robert H. Wilkinson

Beverly Fleisher and
George H. Axinn

George H. Axinn and
Nancy W. Axinn

Farming Systems Research As It Relates
To the Animal Sciences

by
Robert J. Deans

Department of Animal Science, M.S.U.

This paper is written using the five subject topic guidelines as set by

a group involved in reviewing Farming Systems Research.

1. What is Farming Systems Research (FSR)?

An accurate description of the relatively new acronym, FSR, is necessary

if we are to define its scope of activity and appropriateness for the agricul-

tural sector.

This paper treats "Farming Systems Research" as an approach to developing

more appropriate knowledge of the field, or of the farm sector, than occurred

with previous research. It treats the farm as a system and utilizes a multi-

disciplinary approach to setting research needs. By focusing on the agricultural

system as understood by the farmer, FSR would reverse the source and flow of

idea generation and change traditional approaches towards forming innovations

for the farm system.

"Research", in the FSR sense, might most appropriately refer to the study

of areas in which there are information gaps and unexplored linkages between the

disciplines, rather than the study of an approach to studying farming systems.

Furthermore, farming systems research should be distinguished from "extension" and

diffusion of the generated research results into the broader agricultural sector.

Gaps exist in our knowledge of the field sector. These gaps exist in the

information base available in the conventional disciplines as well as in an

understanding of the linkages or interrelationships between discipline-based

knowledge sets about farming systems. We must research the linkages between

-2-

plant, animal, soil and human components of farming systems if we are to create

a workable interdisciplinary framework.

It seems doubtful that FSR will result in the creation of a new field of

expertise or "labeled" academic discipline, or that any existing discipline will

dominate. The specific characteristics of the sector or site itself will determine

which discipline should carry a heavier role in guiding any research activity.

We can expect that as scientists work in FSR they will develop a sense, feel

or ability to do farming systems research as well as becoming more knowledgeable

about the other disciplines involved.

The scope of farming systems research must encompass the broad range of

types and sizes of farming systems which exist. In addition to developing

expertise in "small" farm units, FSR must be capable of responding to the

challenge of larger, more organizationally complex systems. This is necessitated

by the fact that farms are components of a larger agricultural sector and that

there is interaction of varying degrees between farms of different sizes and

types. Interaction between large farms and much smaller subsistence-type units

also take place in the market and through a joint labor pool. Of even more

importance may be the avoidance of polarization which can occur when attention

is directed toward just one component of the rural sector. The extension agent

usually has to communicate more broadly.

A more specific analysis of FSR as it relates to the animal sciences

raises the point of how to most accurately and effectively organize it. The

following approach is suggested as being relevant to the animal sciences if

they are to be effective in FSR.

Animal production systems can be grouped into three broad types:

A. The small farm system where the animal is a scavenger and is there

because it can utilize the local plant residue and homestead wastes.

B. The pastoralist system where the old-world-type range lands constitute

-3-

the substrate and where the animal's existence is the major support of the

human population. Land, ecology, seasonality, and animal group input/output

functions are so different that those found in the small farm setting that

they constitute a completely different technical, economic and socio-political system.

C. The specialized group-type animal production systems, such as dairy

schemes, ranches, or swine production systems, in which mono-cropping is the

supportive nutritional base.

In the subsequent discussion of this paper, reference will be made to each

of these grouping systems.

2. FSR Its Relation to Problem Solving in the Animal Sciences.

It is quite apparent that the creation of a thing called farming systems

research, as applied to Group A (small farm) systems, would involve the animal

sciences where they have feared, or not cared, to tread.

FSR can provide the stimulus needed to research low level animal performance

parameters, of which we know little. There is a great need for investigation of

the maintenance nutrient requirements of the indigenous animal and its relative

response to nutrition and management inputs.

We need to know the "partitioning" efficiency of the indigenous or small-

farm animals as it determines the requirements for the reproducing animal in

comparison to the progeny, or output.

As we move into smaller farming systems in animal production we move away

from mono-cropping to a much wider array of plant sources which animals must

utilize as their nutritional base. Because we know little about the plant sources

found in many eco-systems, there is a need to examine and establish the feeding

and toxic values of these more unusual feedstuffs. Obviously most of the research

on feeding animals has centered upon the value of more conventional mono-crops.

The Group C larger scale specialized farming systems with animals have

different problems and bring a need for somewhat different information, in the

-4-

systems sense. The use of agricultural chemicals becomes more involved, bringing

about the need for technical guidance on the animal and human health hazard

potentials.

Animal performance is markedly affected by the environment. Agricultural

engineering input on effective large group housing design becomes much more

critical in the more specialized production system. This has been demonstrated by

a livestock feeds project in Belize where agricultural engineering collaboration

on environmental measurement and unit design has resulted in improved housing

design for poultry units.

Research in design and function of small scale animal slaughter, storage and

processing systems becomes an important component for systems of moderate scale

animal output. The food science/livestock marketing expertise then becomes an

important component of the regional or area development concern for conservation

and distribution of the flow of animals from farm gate level into the consuming

sector in a wholesome manner. The development of the excessively large scale,

highly automated animal processing plants in the Sub-Sahelian sector of West Africa.

bears out the need to develop processing networks of appropriate design which

are in balance with the system they are to serve.

The Group B pastoralist systems require study of seasonality effects, water,

turnover-rate characteristics of animals, and species substitution to provide

animals that can exist on browse and low water requirements. The need for informa-

tion on reproductive cycling as it relates to low levels of nutrient supply or

extremes in feed availability is important in such Group B systems.

It seems, in summary, that Farming Systems Research can stimulate work to

be directed in the animal sciences toward more appropriate, previously under-

emphasized areas.
3. The State of FSR in the Animal Sciences.

Information on the characteristics of small farmer animal systems has been

-5-

and continues to be gathered and analyzed in the Caribbean sector by Osuji

(1979). This is being complemented by similar programs with cropping systems.

The goal is the creation of various models which can then guide programs of more

appropriate interventions.

Malyniez (1972) has characterized the small farmer system in New Guinea

which utilizes the indigenous pig, and describes the various constraints the

farmer has in utilizing local feedstuffs. This work points to the need for

research on the requirements and responses of indigenous animals to higher feeding

and management inputs.

Shillingford (1971) researched the cash limitation patterns existing in the

small farms of Dominica and represented cash outlay patterns as an endpoint in

research programs for small farmers who would use local copra meal as a feeding

source for pigs. This has resulted in an extensive island-wide swine development

project involving local farmer "committees".

Squire (1964) reviewed a series of development schemes in Surinam, Jamaica

and Trinidad in which small model farms were established utilizing the dairy

animal as a primary earning source. The economics of grassland production, its

utilization by the dairy animal under varying human skill conditions, and the

role of the farmer, his attitudes, and financial position were contrasted.

Odend'hal (1972) has published information on Indian cattle including

demographic data, feed input, energy output factors, and energy values of dung

in rural West Bengal. This work focuses on "low energy" human cultures, and,

while lacking in completeness of animal output information, does provide

estimates of caloric flows for animal power and animal dung yield which is important

information for understanding the rural system in that region.

A more conceptual analysis of the role of livestock in programs of small

farmers in Asia and the Far East has been written by Dhital of FAO. This stresses

the importance that the integration of animals with the crop production sector

has in raising the income level and broadening the production base. "Compart-

mentalizing activities in livestock and crops cannot help increase productivity"

and, according to this work, the various components of the production system must

by integrated into farm production units. Dhital refers to studies in Karnal,

India where crop-livestock integration at the small farm level is being studied.

The need for (A) appropriate research on developing breeding animals suitable for

local farm ruminants, (B) "barefoot," veterinarians, (C) developing feeding

programs which utilize unusual feedstuffs, (D) researching management systems

which fit a local systems capability to sustain and (E) consideration of the

motivational system are all described. This does suggest certain lines of approach.

Systems analysis and reviews of pastorialist-type schemes have involved

ranching association or group concepts with Fulani, (Gooch: 1979) and Masai,

(Deans et al.: 1969). In each case actual group or association formation had

occurred and the pastoralist system was considered to include animal, plant,

land and socio-economic factors. The Masai project is an example of the inclusion

of a social scientist in a team of technically oriented specialists.

A number of analyses of the pastoralist in social-ecological contests

exist (Barry et al.: 1977, and Brandstrom et al.: 1979). Simulation models

(Manetsch et al.: 1971) have been developed which point to needs for information

critical to more complete understanding of this pastoralist system. Such factors

as livestock death rate and points of reproduction failure or animals on low

planes of nutrition have evolved as requiring research.

4. Basic Principles, Concepts, Generalizations in the Animal Sciences

About FSR.

"Systems" is now a buzz word in the animal sciences, but for the most part

it has involved the tracking of energy flows and cost linkages. The involvement

of the animal sciences in systems research with the very small farm has not

frequently occurred, probably because the animal is often viewed by the animal

scientist as a "fifth wheel" in these types of agricultural units. The animal

in these type of systems scavenges and is maintained on residues from various

small plot croppings or on household wastes. Even though the animal plays a

very important role in these types of farms, what animal scientist wants to be

identified with a thing like that?

As our awareness grows of the role of the animal as a competitor for humans

in the food chain, and as the cost factor of fossil fuel requirements for various

types of animal systems becomes more critical, animal scientists, and in fact the

animal production and marketing sector itself, is becoming concerned about looking

to alternative, low energy ways to manage and maintain animals. The animal produc-

tion sector is broadening its concept of "What it always wanted to know about

animals and their production systems but was afraid to ask."

Another factor which is changing the scope of thought and research in the

animal industries is the concept of considering the animal as a means of utilizing

wastes, both as a means of alleviating a disposal problem and in increasing food

production. The feeding of sewage, wood pulp waste, waste paper (the ultimate

in rewards for a document like this), and the recycling of animal manures all are

forcing the animal scientist to be aware of the technical linkages which must

be formed with other disciplines in such research/development schemes. This is

definitely moving the animal scientists into a more creative posture or attitude

towards more unconventional roles for animals, both on farm and off.

As funds nowflow into various institutions for "development" purposes, we

now see writings about such relevant subjects as: (A) genetic capabilities of

the indigenous animal, (B) requirements of energy and other input/output flows

for animal power, (C) the goat as a utilizer of browse plants for meat and milk,

(D) the capybara as a protein source, etc.

-8-

It seems unfortunate in one sense that these weren't seen earlier in their

own right as being important by the animal scientist. The fact that such a

broadening of interest now exists will stimulate the interest in farming systems

research in the animal sciences.

In "C" type animal production schemes, farming systems research is being

catalyzed by farm activity inventory systems such as Tel Farm and Tel Plan.

However, the involvement of the animal production specialist is usually limited

to providing inputs in the animal production component itself. The structure of

such farm management schemes favors a farming systems research approach, but it

will likely continue to be a multidisciplinary approach with little forming of

real systems study by the disciplines---at least the way it is now structured

and administered.

In group "B", pastoralist systems, the human element subsists largely on the

animal. Thus the animal plays a central role in this system. It is in this type

of system that farming systems research really means something to the animal

scientist, as the environmental, human, and animal components are all so

closely linked.

It is in Group "A" type animal schemes that farming research is least

developed, and in which it may be most challenging to work. The single animal

existing on a wide base of nutrient sources functioning as a scavenger or bank

presents a technical challenge. This has attracted interest in finding ways to

measure all the inputs involved to change its rate of growth or reproduction.

Doing this requires setting up groups under controlled conditions, which create

atypical small farm situations.

Evaluation endpoints may have a strong influence on farming systems research

programs in the animal sciences. If we target endpoints which involve a rather

wide array of components, such as human food protein production per $1000 cash

outlay, we involve the family system itself. There are many other examples

of the effect evaluation endpoints have on stimulating the FSR approach.

5. Needs for Other Disciplines for Analysis and Program Formulating.

What is needed in a very broad sense is an ability to communicate on lines

of mutually agreed upon importance. The specific need may be a function of the

particular system involved but it may not always be a need for information about

animals which the animal specialist alone can perceive.

An experience on a team of technically oriented people to which a social

scientist was added, illustrated how cross-fertilization of ideas in the identi-

fication of needs could occur. The orientation of this social scientist in working

with pastoralists provided a challenge to the technical expert to prioritize his

technical recommendations and to be willing to see recommendations which did not

mandate a complete variable control.

In this case the awareness of the target group itself, (the Masai), of a

broad array of technologies was evident, even though they were couched in different

terms or means of expression. Concepts of water-turnover-rate became critical

in any basic discussion of this system, and both the pastoralist and technical

people knew it. It became necessary for each member of this team to point out

areas of concern to the other and, in fact, to challenge the technical recommenda-

tion of that particular expert.

It is obvious that the animal production discipline needs access to the social

scientist for knowledge of methods of describing and evaluating human systems,

to the economist for methods and measures of financial and economic flows, and

to other technologies in which soil/plant nutrient relationships are involved.

Above all will be the experience with farming and the ability to relate to

the farmer or rancher himself.

Bibliography

Barry, L., Campbell, D., Emlar, I.
1977 "Trends in Man-Land Interaction." Chapter 9 in D. Dalby,
R.J. Harrison-Church and F. Bezzaz, Eds., Drought in
Africa II, African Environment Special Report No. 6,
International African Institute, London.

Brandstrom, P.,
1979

Deans,R.J., Teag
1969

Dhital, B.P.

Gooch, T.
1979

Malyniez, G.
1974

Manetsch, T.J.,
D.R., Chong,
1971

Odend'hal, S.
1972

Osuji, P.
1980

Shillingford, J.
1971

Squire, H.A.
1964

Hultin, J., Lindstrom, J.
"Aspects of Agro-Pastoralism in East Africa." Scandinavian
Institute of African Studies Research Report No. 51.
Upsalla.

ue, C.M., Signell, L.G., Jahn, B.M., and Nickerbacker, M.E.
"A Range Management Plan for Masailand." Tanzania Inter-
national Agricultural Development Service, USDA.

Livestock Programmes for Small Farmers and Agricultural
Laborers." Policy and Priority Issues. Mimeo FAO.

"An Experiment With Group Ranches in Upper Volta." Pastoral
Network Paper 9B, Overseas Development Institute, London.

"Research for the Small Holder Pig Farmer in Papua, New
Guinea A Basis for Development." Proceedings III World
Conference on Animal Production.

Hayenga, M.L., Halter, A.N., Carroll, T.W., Abkin, M.H., Byerlee,
K.Y., Page, G., Kellogg, E. and Johnson, G.L.
A Generalized Simulation Approach to Agricultural Sector
Analysis with Special Reference to Nigeria. Final Report
to the U.S. Agency for International Development. East
Lansing, Michigan, Department of Agricultural Economics,
Michigan State Univeristy.

"Eneroetics of Indian Cattle in Their Environment." Human
Ecology, Vol.1, No.1, pp. 3-23.

Personal Communication

,D. "The Economics of Feeding Bananas and Cocunut Meal for Pork
Production in Dominica, West Indies," Tropical Agriculture,
Vol. 48, No.2, April 1971, pp. 103-110.

"The Economics of Grassland Production in the Caribbean
Region." Bulletin #82, Agr. Expt. Sta., Surinam pp. 247-281.