Transforming livestock through forages: Opportunities, barriers, and strategic priorities in sub-Saharan Africa Burkart, Stefan1*; Mwendia, Solomon2; Karimi, Peggy2 1International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Tropical Forages Program, km 17 recta Cali- Palmira, Colombia 2International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Tropical Forages Program, Nairobi, Kenya *Correspondence: s.burkart@cgiar.org Abstract: Sub-Saharan Africa faces a severe and growing ruminant feed deficit, constraining livestock productivity and the development of sustainable, climate-resilient food systems. This article quantifies the deficit and assesses the role of improved cultivated forages in closing it across ten countries: South Sudan, Sudan, Somalia, Malawi, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Mali, Senegal, and Nigeria. The analysis estimates that addressing the forage gap over a 10-year horizon would require more than 1.2 million hectares of cultivated forage, the engagement of over 1.1 million farmers, and up to 100,000 metric tons of seed. This expansion represents a major economic opportunity, with a potential forage seed market value of US$247–424 million and forage crop value of US$3.4–6.2 billion, depending on the adoption scenario. Despite growing policy recognition of feed shortages in the studied countries, systemic barriers – including weak and import-dependent seed systems, limited private-sector investment, land competition, and inadequate extension services – continue to restrict forage adoption. Closing the feed gap will require integrated technical and institutional measures: strengthening local seed production, harmonizing regional seed regulations, incentivizing private-sector engagement, improving farmer training, and embedding forage development into livestock strategies. With coordinated investments, improved forages can significantly increase livestock productivity, rural incomes, and climate resilience across sub-Saharan Africa. Key words: improved forages; seed systems; seed policy; climate resilience; sustainable livestock; feed gap analysis; forage deficit 1. Introduction Across sub-Saharan Africa, livestock, especially ruminants, are central to rural livelihoods and national economies (Thornton, 2010). Smallholders manage cattle, goats, and sheep in diverse pastoral, agropastoral, and mixed crop–livestock systems, often using communal grazing lands (Eeswaran et al., 2022). Ruminants provide food, income, manure, traction, and hold social and financial value (Felis, 2020; FAO, 2018; Bahta & Malope, 2014). The sector contributes 30–80% of agricultural gross domestic product (GDP) in many countries (Erdaw, 2023; Eeswaran et al., 2022; Philipsson et al., 2017). Yet, despite housing 85% of global livestock farmers and 20–25% Acc ep ted M an us cri pt mailto:s.burkart@cgiar.org of ruminants, the region produces only ~2.8% of global meat and milk output, revealing an important productivity gap (Erdaw, 2023). Though historically low, meat and dairy consumption is rising rapidly due to population growth, urbanization, and higher incomes (Latino et al., 2020). Demand may double by 2050, outpacing cereal growth (Plante, 2020; Holechek et al., 2016). Expanding urban markets in Nigeria, Senegal, and Mozambique still rely on imported milk powder and processed meat (Enahoro et al., 2021; van Berkum et al., 2017; Herrero et al., 2014). Without targeted investment, the supply-demand gap will widen, emphasizing the urgency to increase domestic livestock productivity and improve feed systems (Latino et al., 2020). Smallholders, who produce most of the region’s animal products, operate on plots under two hectares (Leonhardt, 2019). Systems range from transhumant pastoralism in drylands to mixed crop–livestock farming in high-potential areas (Azerigyik et al., 2025). However, productivity remains low due to poor genetics, limited veterinary services, and especially feed shortages exacerbated by climate change (Paul et al., 2020; de Oto et al., 2019). Feeding strategies rely on diverse, low-cost mixed feed baskets of crop residues, grasses, and local forages (Eeswaran et al., 2022; Maina et al., 2022; Duguma & Janssens, 2021; Valbuena et al., 2015). Yet, feed availability is highly seasonal, causing dry-season deficits that reduce body condition, milk yield, fertility, and survival (Dawson et al., 2014; Raats, 1999). In Ethiopia, nearly all farmers report dry-season feed scarcity as the main constraint (Duguma & Janssens, 2021). Farmers respond by conserving crop residues, making hay, migrating herds, or buying costly supplements like cottonseed cake or maize bran (Maina et al., 2022). Feed costs can exceed 60% of production expenses (Maina et al., 2022). Seasonal forage variation raises prices, threatening system resilience (Gachuiri et al., 2017; Agbo, 2025). Feed collection is labor-intensive and mainly done by women and children (Duguma & Janssens, 2021). Competing uses for residues, i.e., fuel, mulch, and construction, further reduce feed availability (Njarui et al., 2016; Tangka & Jabbar, 2005). Poor nutrition limits animal productivity and market participation (Dawson et al., 2014). Improved forages – high-yielding tropical grasses and legumes – offer a promising solution (Burkart & Mwendia, 2024). Species such as Urochloa spp., Megathyrsus maximus, Lablab purpureus, Stylosanthes, Gliricidia sepium, and Leucaena leucocephala have been tested successfully across sub-Saharan Africa (Paul et al., 2020; Maass et al., 2015; Muhr et al., 1999). They increase meat and milk yields, weight gain, and labor efficiency, while lowering feed costs (Paul et al., 2020). However, adoption remains limited and often project-driven (Burkart & Mwendia, 2024; Flórez et al., 2024; Fuglie et al., 2021). A major constraint is the weak forage seed system. Most improved grasses and legumes depend on botanical seeds, yet local production is minimal, with imports from Brazil, Mexico, or Southeast Asia dominating markets, driving up prices and reducing reliability (Flórez et al., 2024). Acc ep ted M an us cri pt Strengthening seed systems is vital for climate-resilient livestock (Paul et al., 2020). Cultivated forages improve food security and sustainability (Creemers & Alvarez-Aranguiz, 2019), sequester carbon, reduce methane emissions intensity, and enhance productivity (Dey et al., 2022; Karimi et al., 2022; Maina et al., 2020; Paul et al., 2020). They also increase land-use efficiency, reduce deforestation, and enhance adaptation to droughts and floods (Edwards et al., 2021; Notenbaert et al., 2021). This study aims to generate evidence to inform and strengthen public and private sector engagement in developing resilient forage seed systems for smallholder ruminant production across sub-Saharan Africa. It covers ten countries from East, West, and Southern Africa, namely South Sudan, Sudan, Somalia, Malawi, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Mali, Senegal, and Nigeria. Building on the work of Burkart and Mwendia (2024), which focused on East Africa, this study extends the analysis to additional regions, broadening the geographic and institutional scope. Key research questions include: (i) To what extent do national strategies for livestock development include forage deployment? (ii) What is the current shortfall in cultivated forage dry matter, and what quantity of forage seed would be required to bridge this gap? (iii) What land area and number of farmers would be necessary to scale up forage cultivation to meet this deficit? (iv) What is the estimated economic potential of the forage seed market, and how could expanded forage cultivation generate wider economic gains? (v) What institutional and policy measures are essential to develop a robust, scalable forage seed system? 2. Material and methods This study builds directly on the methodological framework established by Burkart & Mwendia (2024) in their analysis of forage systems in East Africa and further integrates key elements from the approach applied by Dey et al. (2021) in Ethiopia. The adapted methodology is structured into seven distinct stages, outlined below. For a more detailed description of the methodology, please refer to Burkart & Mwendia (2024). Step 1 – Analysis of national livestock strategies: We conducted a comprehensive review of government documents related to livestock development across the target countries. This included Livestock Master Plans, agricultural sector policies, and national investment frameworks. Using qualitative content analysis (Assarroudi et al., 2018), we identified converging policy priorities and institutional gaps concerning forage development and integration in each national context. Step 2 – Estimation of annual cultivated forage deficits: To assess the scale of roughage shortfalls, we compiled national-level data on ruminant populations, specifically cattle, buffalo, goats, and sheep, from sources such as the World Bank (2023) and the World Population Review (2025). These figures were standardized into Tropical Livestock Units (TLUs) following the methodology of Jahnke (1982). Based on a feed intake assumption of 3% of live body weight (CSIRO, 2007), we estimated the total annual dry matter (DM) demand and corresponding deficits. Drawing from Dey et al. (2021), we assumed that 70% of ruminant diets consist of roughages and concentrates (Creemers & Alvarez-Aranguiz, 2019). Further, for sustainable food production, forages are Acc ep ted M an us cri pt estimated to be cultivated at 33% in households (Dey et al., 2021). These formed the basis for calculating the annual cultivated forage deficit (ACFdef) for each country as follows: 𝐴𝐶𝐹def = 𝐴𝐹𝐷 * 𝑅𝑆 * 𝐶𝐹𝑆 (1) where AFD is the total annual feed deficit per country, RS is the share of roughages of the total diet (70%), and CFS is the share of RS accounting for the estimated cultivated forage inclusion (33%) (Burkart & Mwendia, 2024). Step 3 – Selection of target forage species: Four forage species, two grasses and two legumes, were selected for analysis based on their regional relevance, tropical adaptability, and potential for widespread dissemination. The grasses Urochloa hybrids and Megathyrsus maximus, and the legumes Lablab purpureus and Vigna unguiculata, were chosen for their high nutritional quality (notably crude protein and energy content) and existing or prospective availability through regional seed supply networks. Agronomic data, including seed rates, yield performance, and cropping cycles, were compiled from Burkart & Mwendia (2024) and are presented in Table 1. Table 1. Key agronomic parameters of the selected forage species Characteristics Targeted forage species Urochloa hybrid cv. Mulato II Megathyrsus maximus cv. Mombasa Lablab purpureus Vigna unguiculata Share of ACFdef to cover (%) 35 35 15 15 Seed rate (t ha-1) 0.008 0.003 0.02 0.02 Yield (dry matter t ha-1) 17 20 8 8 Growth type Perennial Perennial Annual Annual Days to cutting after sowing 90 75-90 90 70-90 Days to regrowth cutting 30-45 30-45 n.a. n.a. Lifespan (years) 8 8 1 1 Regeneration seed 100% after year 7 100% after year 7 n.a. n.a. Notes: The table presents key agronomic parameters for each selected forage species and does not report the calculated annual cultivated forage deficit. All values are derived from the cited references (Burkart & Mwendia, 2024; Dey et al., 2021). “Days to cutting after sowing” refers to the establishment period for grasses and legumes to reach their first harvestable maturity. Perennial grasses can be cut multiple times over their lifespan, whereas annual legumes generally provide only a single cutting and must be re-sown thereafter. “Days to regrowth cutting” denotes the interval a grass requires to recover after a cutting before it can be harvested again. This period is shorter than the period required after initial establishment (“days to cutting after sowing”), since the stand is already fully established. Step 4 – Estimation of annual forage seed requirements: To determine the annual forage seed requirement (AFSR) for each selected species, we calculated the volume of seed needed to close the identified ACFdef. Allocation assumptions were as follows: the two grass species (Urochloa hybrids and Megathyrsus maximus) each contribute 35% toward addressing the deficit, while the two legumes (Lablab purpureus and Vigna unguiculata) each account for 15%. These estimates were projected over a 10-year evaluation horizon under two adoption scenarios: • Scenario 1 – Full-scale adoption: Assumes immediate, 100% coverage of the ACFdef in Year 1. Legume species are reseeded seasonally, while grasses, being perennial, are regenerated in Years 8 to 10 at full capacity. Acc ep ted M an us cri pt • Scenario 2 – Gradual scale-up: Begins with 10% adoption in Year 1, scaling up by an incremental 10% each year until reaching 100% by Year 10. Legume seeds are replanted seasonally, while perennial grasses are reseeded at full scale from Year 8 onward. The equations for Scenario 1 were estimated as follows: 𝐴𝐹𝑆𝑅 = 𝐴𝐹𝑆𝑅U + 𝐴𝐹𝑆𝑅M + 𝐴𝐹𝑆𝑅L + 𝐴𝐹𝑆𝑅V (2) where 𝐴𝐹𝑆𝑅 is the total annual forage seed requirement of a country (metric tons), 𝐴𝐹𝑆𝑅U, 𝐴𝐹𝑆𝑅M, 𝐴𝐹𝑆𝑅L, and 𝐴𝐹𝑆𝑅V represent the annual forage seed requirements (metric tons) for Urochloa hybrids, Megathyrsus maximus, Lablab purpureus, and Vigna unguiculata, respectively (Burkart & Mwendia, 2024). 𝐴𝐹𝑆𝑅U = 𝐴𝐹𝑆𝑅UG + 𝐴𝐹𝑆𝑅URS = ( (𝐴𝐶𝐹𝐷𝑒𝑓 𝑈area) 𝑈yield 𝑈SR) + ( (𝐴𝐶𝐹𝐷𝑒𝑓 𝑈area) 𝑈yield 𝑈SR 𝑅𝑆 𝐸𝐻 ) (3) 𝐴𝐹𝑆𝑅M = 𝐴𝐹𝑆𝑅MG + 𝐴𝐹𝑆𝑅MRS = ( (𝐴𝐶𝐹𝐷𝑒𝑓 𝑀area) 𝑀yield 𝑀SR) + ( (𝐴𝐶𝐹𝐷𝑒𝑓 𝑀area) 𝑀yield 𝑀SR 𝑅𝑆 𝐸𝐻 ) (4) 𝐴𝐹𝑆𝑅L = ( (𝐴𝐶𝐹𝐷𝑒𝑓 𝐿area) 𝐿yield 𝐿SR)EH (5) 𝐴𝐹𝑆𝑅V = ( (𝐴𝐶𝐹𝐷𝑒𝑓 𝑉area) 𝑉yield 𝑉SR)EH (6) Here, 𝐴𝐹𝑆𝑅UG and 𝐴𝐹𝑆𝑅URS denote the general and regeneration seed requirements (metric tons) for Urochloa hybrids, while 𝐴𝐹𝑆𝑅MG and 𝐴𝐹𝑆𝑅MRS represent the same for Megathyrsus maximus. 𝐴𝐶𝐹Def is the annual cultivated forage deficit per country (metric tons). The parameters 𝑈area, Marea, 𝐿area, and 𝑉area correspond to the shares of forage area allocated to Urochloa hybrids (35%), M. maximus (35%), L. purpureus (15%), and V. unguiculata (15%). Seed rates (SR) and yields (yield) are expressed in metric t ha⁻¹ for each species. RS is the number of years in which regeneration seed is required (3 years), and EH is the evaluation horizon (10 years) (Burkart & Mwendia, 2024). For Scenario 2, the values of 𝐴𝐹𝑆𝑅U and 𝐴𝐹𝑆𝑅M were disaggregated by year. The general seed requirements (𝐴𝐹𝑆𝑅UG and 𝐴𝐹𝑆𝑅MG) were multiplied by 10% annually to reflect the expected adoption trajectory and the perennial nature of the grasses. Regeneration seed requirements for years 8–10 were calculated by dividing 𝐴𝐹𝑆𝑅URS and 𝐴𝐹𝑆𝑅URS by 𝑅𝑆, and the resulting annual amounts were added to 𝐴𝐹𝑆𝑅UG and 𝐴𝐹𝑆𝑅MG for the respective years. For the annual legumes, 𝐴𝐹𝑆𝑅L and 𝐴𝐹𝑆𝑅V were divided by EH and multiplied by the corresponding year, accounting for yearly planting requirements (Burkart & Mwendia, 2024). Step 5 – Estimation of land and farmer requirements for forage adoption: Based on the ASFR and the species-specific seed rates, we calculated the total land area required for forage cultivation (Land Requirement, LR). Additionally, we estimated the number of farmers needed to implement this expansion (Farmer Requirement, FR), using national average farm size data sourced from agricultural censuses, FAO databases, and other regional publications (FAO, 2025a, 2025b; Nchare et al., 2024; Silva et al., 2023; Government of Zimbabwe, 2022; ZIMSTAT, 2019; IPAR, 2007; Acc ep ted M an us cri pt MAFAP SPAAA, n.d.; IFAD, n.d.). These estimates offer insights into the scale of farmer engagement necessary to support sustainable forage adoption across the ten target countries. The following equations were used: following equations: 𝐿𝑅 = 𝐹𝑆𝑅U 𝑈SR + 𝐹𝑆𝑅M 𝑀SR + 𝐹𝑆𝑅L 𝐿SR + 𝐹𝑆𝑅L 𝑉SR (7) 𝐹𝑅 = 𝐿𝑅 𝐴𝐹𝑆 (8) where LR is the required land area for adoption (ha); 𝐹𝑆𝑅U, 𝐹𝑆𝑅M, 𝐹𝑆𝑅L, and 𝐹𝑆𝑅V are the total seed requirements (metric t) for the four forage species; SR values represent their respective seed rates (metric t ha⁻¹); FR is the estimated number of farmers needed; and AFS is the average farm size (ha) per country (Burkart & Mwendia, 2024). Step 6 – Projection of the economic value of the forage seed market: To assess the potential market value of forage seed systems, we estimated the cumulative economic value (EV) over the 10-year horizon. In Scenario 1, current market seed prices were applied. For Scenario 2, a 25% reduction in seed prices was incorporated to reflect potential cost efficiencies arising from localized production and scaled-up supply chains. Pricing data were obtained from national seed suppliers, or, where unavailable, inferred from comparable regional markets (see Table 2). The EV of the forage seed market was estimated as: 𝐸𝑉 = 𝐹𝑆𝑅U PU + 𝐹𝑆𝑅M PM + 𝐹𝑆𝑅L PL + 𝐹𝑆𝑅V PV (9) where EV represents the total economic value of the forage seed market (in 2023 US$), and 𝑃𝑈, 𝑃𝑀, 𝑃𝐿, and 𝑃𝑉 denote the average seed prices (2023 US$) for Urochloa hybrids, Megathyrsus maximus, Lablab purpureus, and Vigna unguiculata, respectively (Burkart & Mwendia, 2024). Table 2. Estimated seed prices for the selected forages in the study countries Country Urochloa hybrid (cv. Mulato II) Megathyrsus maximus (cv. Mombasa) Lablab purpureus Vigna unguiculata Current price (US$ t-1) Reduced price (US$ t-1) Current price (US$ t-1) Reduced price (US$ t-1) Current price (US$ t-1) Reduced price (US$ t-1) Current price (US$ t-1) Reduced price (US$ t-1) Malawi 35,590 26,693 10,910 8,183 1,150 863 2,300 1,725 South Sudan 41,795 31,346 37,540 28,155 1,100 825 3,295 2,471 Sudan 41,795 31,346 37,540 28,155 1,100 825 3,295 2,471 Zambia 36,770 27,578 45,000 33,750 2,000 1,500 3,875 2,906 Zimbabwe 35,000 26,250 45,000 33,750 2,000 1,500 2,145 1,609 Somalia 35,000 26,250 37,540 28,155 1,100 825 2,965 2,224 Mozambique 35,000 26,250 45,000 33,750 2,000 1,500 825 619 Mali 41,795 31,346 37,540 28,155 3,890 2,918 5,000 3,750 Senegal 41,795 31,346 25,000 18,750 5,190 3,893 3,890 2,918 Nigeria 41,795 31,346 37,540 28,155 940 705 750 563 Acc ep ted M an us cri pt Notes: All prices are in 2024 US$. *In cases where country-specific prices were unavailable, regional averages or reference prices from other countries were used, as follows: - South Sudan: For Megathyrsus and Urochloa, reference prices from Kenya were used (US$ 37,540 and US$ 41,795 per ton, respectively) (Burkart & Mwendia, 2024). For Lablab, the reference price from Somalia was used. - Sudan: For Vigna, the reference price from South Sudan was used. For Megathyrsus and Urochloa, reference prices from Kenya were applied (Burkart & Mwendia, 2024). For Lablab, the Somalia reference price was used. - Zambia and Mozambique: For Lablab, the reference price from Zimbabwe was used. - Somalia: For Megathyrsus, the reference price from Kenya was applied (Burkart & Mwendia, 2024). - Mali and Nigeria: For Megathyrsus and Urochloa, reference prices from Kenya were used (Burkart & Mwendia, 2024). - Senegal: For Urochloa, reference prices from Kenya were used (Burkart & Mwendia, 2024). Step 7 – Estimation of the economic value of cultivated forage production: To assess the potential economic contribution of cultivated forages, we estimated the forage crop value (FCV) using the methodology developed by Fuglie et al. (2021). In line with their approach, forage dry matter was valued at 18% of the global maize price – set at an average of US$ 201 per metric ton based on FAO data from 2014–2016 – yielding a baseline valuation of US$ 36 per metric ton of dry matter in 2015 dollars (Fuglie et al., 2021). While this global benchmark provides a standardized basis for cross-country comparison, it is important to acknowledge that market prices for fresh forage in the study region can be substantially higher. Nevertheless, for the sake of consistency, comparability across countries, and alignment with prior economic assessments (such as Burkart et al., 2025; Burkart & Mwendia, 2024), this study applies the conservative valuation provided by Fuglie et al. (2021) as the reference price for forage dry matter. The FCV was estimated using the following equation: 𝐹𝐶𝑉 = ((𝐿𝑅U 𝑈yield) + (𝐿𝑅M 𝑀yield) + (𝐿𝑅L 𝐿yield) + (𝐿𝑅V 𝑉yield) +) p EH (10) where FCV is the cultivated forage crop value (in 2015 US$); 𝐿𝑅𝑈, 𝐿𝑅𝑀, 𝐿𝑅𝐿, and 𝐿𝑅𝑉 are the areas projected to be cultivated with Urochloa hybrids, Megathyrsus maximus, Lablab purpureus, and Vigna unguiculata, respectively (ha); 𝑈𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑, 𝑀𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑, 𝐿𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑, and 𝑉𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑are the corresponding forage dry matter yields for these species (metric t ha⁻¹ y⁻¹); 𝑝is the average forage price per ton of dry matter (in 2015 US$); and EH is the evaluation horizon (years) (Burkart & Mwendia, 2024). 3. Results and discussion 3.1 Governmental plans for the livestock sector and their focus on forage adoption Continental and sub-regional frameworks have strongly influenced livestock strategies across the 10 countries studied. The African Union’s Livestock Development Strategy for Africa (LiDeSA 2015–2035) envisions livestock as a driver of inclusive growth and food security (AU-IBAR, 2015). Although forages are not explicitly mentioned, the strategy’s emphasis on productivity, climate resilience, and sustainable resource management depends on improved feed and pasture systems. Regional bodies such as the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) in East Africa, the Southern African Development Community (SADC) in Southern Africa, and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) in West Africa promote rangeland management, feed security, and climate-smart intensification, indirectly highlighting forages through efforts to ensure year-round feed availability, better grazing practices, and private investment in feed systems. Acc ep ted M an us cri pt National livestock strategies mirror these regional priorities, emphasizing productivity, market access, and climate resilience. Many explicitly or implicitly integrate forage development through fodder programs, feed improvement, or rangeland restoration. For example, Zimbabwe and Zambia promote drought-tolerant forages, fodder banks, and silage, while Mali and Senegal link forages to pastoralist rights frameworks. However, despite growing policy attention, evidence of tangible on-the-ground impacts remains limited, underscoring the need to strengthen forages as a technological solution for livestock development. Experiences from Latin America (Sandoval Yate et al., 2024; Díaz et al., 2024; Moreno Lerma et al., 2022; Arango et al., 2020), East Africa (Burkart & Mwendia, 2024; Flórez et al., 2024), and Southeast Asia (Burkart et al., 2025) show that policy ambition must be matched by coordinated action, investment in resilient seed systems, and farmer training to avoid stagnation at the implementation stage (Burkart & Mwendia, 2024; Flórez et al., 2024; Enciso et al., 2022; Khanh et al., 2020). For a comprehensive summary of national livestock development plans across the ten countries studied, see Table S1. 3.2 Annual cultivated forage deficit Table 3 summarizes the data used to derive the ACFdef for the selected countries, highlighting a total annual dry matter feed demand of almost 354 million tons and an annual feed deficit of 23.4% of this amount, equivalent to 82.7 million tons of dry matter. The ACFdef is over 19 million tons of dry matter. Table 3. Estimated annual cultivated forage deficit in the countries studied Country RP (heads) TLUs DMdef (%) AFdem (dry matter t y-1) AFdef (dry matter t y-1) ACFdef (dry matter t y-1) Malawi 13,437,198 2,519,181 31.00 6,902,525 2,139,783 494,290 South Sudan 36,200,000 10,640,000 33.36 29,161,600 9,700,000 2,247,240 Sudan 105,600,000 24,070,000 24.00 64,989,000 15,597,360 3,602,990 Zambia 9,160,000 3,735,056 29.14 10,234,754 2,982,407.32 688,936 Zimbabwe 10,479,385 6,006,923 24.96 16,464,953 4,109,652.27 949,330 Somalia 56,900,000 18,625,000 15.27 51,060,250 7796900.18 1,801,084 Mozambique 2,400,000 2,390,000 24.89 6,548,600 1,629,946.54 376,518 Mali 61,000,000 23,080,000 19.64 63,339,000 12,445,855 2,874,993 Senegal 11,700,000 3,870,000 24.97 10,603,800 2,647,768.86 611,635 Nigeria 158,200,000 34,600,000 25.00 94,404,000 23,601,000 5,451,831 Notes: RP = Ruminant population; ruminants include cattle, sheep, and goats. TLUs = Tropical Livestock Units; 1 TLU = 250kg. DMdef = Dry matter deficit. AFdem = Annual feed demand; estimated based on a country’s total ruminant population, converted into TLU, and the animals’ nutritional needs for maintenance, growth, production, and reproduction. AFdef = Annual feed deficit; calculated as the gap between AFdem and the total available feed resources. Sources: The World Bank (2025), World Population Review (2025a, 2025b, 2025c). The identified AFdef and ACFdef result from a mix of climatic, environmental, socioeconomic, and institutional challenges. Irregular rainfall, frequent droughts, land degradation, and the seasonality of forage limit pasture productivity (Paul et al., 2020), while dependence on low- nutrient crop residues and the limited cultivation or conservation of fodder increase the problem (Maina et al., 2022). Expanding crop production reduces available grazing land, and underdeveloped feed markets, high costs of concentrates, and weak policy support constrain feed Acc ep ted M an us cri pt access (Flórez et al., 2024; Burkart & Mwendia, 2024). Additionally, poor extension services, limited adoption of improved feeding technologies, and missing knowledge of and resources for ration balancing or hinder productivity (Balehegn et al., 2020; Garg et al., 2013). Climate change further intensifies droughts and heat stress, reducing rangeland and forage yields and increasing the overall scarcity of livestock feed (Notenbaert et al., 2021; Paul et al., 2020). As outlined in the introduction, the feed deficit poses a significant challenge to the studied countries, given the pivotal role of ruminant livestock in advancing food security, poverty alleviation, and rural livelihoods across sub-Saharan Africa (Felis, 2020; FAO, 2018; Bahta & Malope, 2014; Thornton, 2010). This threat is further exacerbated by population growth, demographic changes, and evolving consumer preferences, which are driving a rapid rise in demand for animal-sourced foods across the region. As a result, pressure on already strained feed systems continues to intensify (Latino et al., 2020). In addition, recent disruptions, including global pandemics, supply chain breakdowns, and extreme weather events, have further exposed the fragility of regional and international livestock, feed, and forage systems (Malik et al., 2024; Burkart et al., 2022; Rahimi et al., 2021; Catley, 2020; Burkart et al., 2020). 3.3 Annual forage seed requirement Table 4 presents projections under Scenario 1, which models immediate and complete (100%) adoption of improved forages in the first year. Under this scenario, the regional AFSR reaches 13,697 metric tons, excluding recurring needs such as legume reseeding and perennial grass regeneration. When these are included, the cumulative FSR increases to 100,885 metric tons over 10 years. Nigeria shows the highest demand (3,910 metric tons in year one and 28,799 metric tons over a decade), followed by Sudan (2,584 and 19,031 metric tons), and Mali (2,062 and 15,186 metric tons). While illustrative, this scenario is unrealistic due to structural constraints: inadequate and costly seed supply (Flórez et al., 2024; Burkart & Mwendia, 2024) and fragmented, largely informal seed markets (Flórez et al., 2024; Burkart & Mwendia, 2024; Junca Paredes et al., 2023; Kaske Kalsa & Dey, 2022; Maina et al., 2022; Dey et al., 2021; Mekonnen et al., 2022; Balehegn et al., 2020; Chakoma & Chummun, 2019; Chakoma et al., 2016; Gonfa, 2015). These gaps highlight the need for coordinated investment in formal seed production, quality assurance, and distribution infrastructure. Table 4. Estimated annual forage seed requirement in the countries studied Country Forages Scenario 1: 100% adoption rate Scenario 2: 10% adoption rate, AFSR for 10 years (t) AFSR (t/y1) FSR (t/10y) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 FSR (t/10y) Malawi Megathyrsus maximus 26 26 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 26 Urochloa hybrid 81 81 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 81 Vigna unguiculata 124 1,236 12 25 37 49 62 74 87 99 111 124 680 Lablab purpureus 124 1,236 12 25 37 49 62 74 87 99 111 124 680 Reg. seed M. maximus 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 8 Reg. seed Urochloa hybrid 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 8 24 Total 355 2,612 35 60 85 110 134 159 184 219 244 269 1,499 South Sudan Megathyrsus maximus 118 118 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 118 Acc ep ted M an us cri pt Urochloa hybrid 370 370 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 370 Vigna unguiculata 562 5,618 56 112 169 225 281 337 393 449 506 562 3,090 Lablab purpureus 562 5,618 56 112 169 225 281 337 393 449 506 562 3,090 Reg. seed M. maximus 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 12 12 35 Reg. seed Urochloa hybrid 0 111 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 37 37 111 Total 1,612 11,871 161 274 386 498 611 723 835 997 1,109 1,221 6,814 Sudan Megathyrsus maximus 189 189 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 189 Urochloa hybrid 593 593 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 593 Vigna unguiculata 901 9,007 90 180 270 360 450 540 630 721 811 901 4,954 Lablab purpureus 901 9,007 90 180 270 360 450 540 630 721 811 901 4,954 Reg. seed M. maximus 0 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 19 19 57 Reg. seed Urochloa hybrid 0 178 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 59 59 178 Total 2,584 19,031 258 439 619 799 979 1,159 1,339 1,598 1,778 1,958 10,925 Zambia Megathyrsus maximus 36 36 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 36 Urochloa hybrid 114 114 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 114 Vigna unguiculata 172 1,722 17 34 52 69 86 103 121 138 155 172 947 Lablab purpureus 172 1,722 17 34 52 69 86 103 121 138 155 172 947 Reg. seed M. maximus 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 11 Reg. seed Urochloa hybrid 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 11 11 34 Total 494 3,639 49 84 118 153 187 222 256 305 340 374 2,089 Zimbabwe Megathyrsus maximus 50 50 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 50 Urochloa hybrid 156 156 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 156 Vigna unguiculata 237 2,373 24 47 71 95 119 142 166 190 214 237 1,305 Lablab purpureus 237 2,373 24 47 71 95 119 142 166 190 214 237 1,305 Reg. seed M. maximus 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 15 Reg. seed Urochloa hybrid 0 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 16 16 47 Total 681 5,014 68 116 163 210 258 305 353 421 468 516 2,878 Somalia Megathyrsus maximus 95 95 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 95 Urochloa hybrid 297 297 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 297 Vigna unguiculata 450 4,503 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360 405 450 2,477 Lablab purpureus 450 4,503 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360 405 450 2,477 Reg. seed M. maximus 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 9 28 Reg. seed Urochloa hybrid 0 89 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 30 30 89 Total 1,292 9,515 129 219 309 399 489 579 670 799 889 979 5,462 Mozambique Megathyrsus maximus 20 20 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 20 Urochloa hybrid 62 62 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 62 Vigna unguiculata 94 941 9 19 28 38 47 56 66 75 85 94 518 Lablab purpureus 94 941 9 19 28 38 47 56 66 75 85 94 518 Reg. seed M. maximus 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 6 Reg. seed Urochloa hybrid 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 6 19 Total 270 1,988 27 46 65 83 102 121 140 167 186 205 1,141 Mali Megathyrsus maximus 151 151 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 151 Urochloa hybrid 474 474 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 474 Vigna unguiculata 719 7,187 72 144 216 287 359 431 503 575 647 719 3,953 Lablab purpureus 719 7,187 72 144 216 287 359 431 503 575 647 719 3,953 Reg. seed M. maximus 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 15 15 45 Reg. seed Urochloa hybrid 0 142 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 47 47 142 Total 2,062 15,186 206 350 494 637 781 925 1,069 1,275 1,419 1,562 8,717 Senegal Megathyrsus maximus 32 32 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 32 Urochloa hybrid 101 101 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 101 Vigna unguiculata 153 1,529 15 31 46 61 76 92 107 122 138 153 841 Lablab purpureus 153 1,529 15 31 46 61 76 92 107 122 138 153 841 Reg. seed M. maximus 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 10 Reg. seed Urochloa hybrid 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 10 30 Total 439 3,231 44 74 105 136 166 197 227 271 302 332 1,855 Nigeria Megathyrsus maximus 286 286 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 286 Urochloa hybrid 898 898 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 898 Vigna unguiculata 1,363 13,630 136 273 409 545 682 818 954 1,090 1,227 1,363 7,497 Lablab purpureus 1,363 13,630 136 273 409 545 682 818 954 1,090 1,227 1,363 7,497 Reg. seed M. maximus 0 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 29 29 86 Reg. seed Urochloa hybrid 0 269 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 90 90 269 Total 3,910 28,799 391 664 936 1,209 1,481 1,754 2,027 2,418 2,690 2,963 16,532 Notes: AFSR = Annual forage seed requirement; FSR = Total forage seed requirement Scenario 2 models a gradual 10% adoption of improved forages over 10 years, offering a more realistic pathway aligned with current seed production and distribution capacities. Under this Acc ep ted M an us cri pt scenario, the cumulative regional FSR is projected at 57,913 metric tons. Nigeria accounts for the largest share (16,532 metric tons), followed by Sudan (10,925), and Mali (8,717). The initial-year regional AFSR is estimated at 1,370 metric tons – far below the 13,697 metric tons projected under full adoption. This phased approach provides a pragmatic balance between ambition and the existing limitations of seed systems and infrastructure across the region. 3.4 Land and farmers required for the adoption process As shown in Table 5, fully addressing the cultivated forage deficit across the selected countries would require over 1.2 million hectares of land. The largest shares of this requirement are in Nigeria (343,938 ha), Sudan (227,312 ha), and Mali (181,358 ha). Even with a phased 10% adoption scenario, the annual land demand would exceed 120,000 hectares, highlighting the considerable spatial needs for bridging the feed gap. This scale highlights the importance of integrating forage development into national and regional land-use planning frameworks. Empirical evidence illustrates the difficulty of expanding improved forage systems beyond localized interventions. Fuglie et al. (2021) estimate only 3.3 million hectares of forage crops in sub-Saharan Africa, nearly half in South Africa. While progress has been achieved – such as 36,000 hectares of Stylosanthes in West Africa (Elbasha et al., 1999; Tarawali et al., 1999) and 186,000 hectares of Calliandra in East Africa (Place et al., 2009) – these remain isolated successes. Despite clear evidence of agronomic, economic, and environmental(Notenbaert et al., 2021; Paul et al., 2020; Schiek et al., 2018), adoption remains limited. Burkart (2025) reports only 33,000 hectares of Urochloa hybrids planted across sub-Saharan Africa between 2004 and 2024, with just 1,000 hectares across the ten study countries. This gap between proven potential and limited uptake reflects enduring systemic barriers to scaling forage innovations in the region (Burkart & Mwendia, 2024; Flórez et al., 2024). Table 5. Land requirements to close the cultivated forage deficit in the studied countries (in hectares) Forage Malawi South Sudan Sudan Zambia Zimbabwe Somalia Mozambique Mali Senegal Nigeria Total Megathyrsus maximus 8,650 39,333 63,067 12,067 16,600 31,533 6,600 50,300 10,700 95,400 334,250 Urochloa hybrid 10,176 46,263 74,175 14,188 19,550 37,075 7,750 59,188 12,588 112,238 393,189 Vigna unguiculata 6,180 28,090 45,035 8,610 11,865 22,515 4,705 35,935 7,645 68,150 238,730 Lablab purpureus 6,180 28,090 45,035 8,610 11,865 22,515 4,705 35,935 7,645 68,150 238,730 Total 31,186 141,776 227,312 43,474 59,880 113,638 23,760 181,358 38,578 343,938 1,204,899 Notes: The following seed rates were applied: Megathyrsus maximus 3kg/ha; Urochloa hybrid 8kg/ha; Vigna unguiculata and Lablab purpureus 20kg/ha. Closing the regional forage deficit would require over 1.1 million farmers, based on average farm sizes across the countries analyzed. Nigeria would represent the largest share (~404,000 farmers), followed by Sudan (284,000), and South Sudan (177,000) (Table 6). Even with a phased 10% annual adoption rate, more than 110,000 farmers per year would need to participate, highlighting both the challenge and transformative potential for livestock systems. Table 6. Farmers required to close the cultivated forage deficit in the studied countries Acc ep ted M an us cri pt Country Average farm size (ha) Number of farms (total) Number of farms (annual, 10% adoption rate) Malawi 0.71 43,924 4,392 South Sudan 0.8 177,220 17,722 Sudan* 0.8 284,140 28,414 Zambia 2.2 19,761 1,976 Zimbabwe 1.8 33,267 3,327 Somalia 3.21 35,401 3,540 Mozambique 1.5 15,840 1,584 Mali 2.15 84,352 8,435 Senegal 4.3 8,972 897 Nigeria 0.85 404,632 40,463 Total 1,107,509 110,751 Note: For this analysis, we estimated that each farm is led by a single farmer. *no data for Sudan, we used the average farm size for South Sudan for the estimate. Sources: FAO (2025a; 2025b), Nchare et al., (2024), Silva et al. (2023), Government of Zimbabwe (2022), ZIMSTAT (2019), IPAR (2007), MAFAP SPAAA (n.d.), IFAD (n.d.). Achieving large-scale forage technology adoption in sub-Saharan Africa remains difficult due to agronomic, socio-economic, and institutional barriers (see Section 3.6). Despite nearly two decades of promotion, only about 76,000 farmers—1,300 within the ten target countries—had adopted Urochloa hybrids by 2024 (Burkart, 2025), underscoring persistent challenges to widespread, sustained uptake. 3.5 Estimated seed market EV and FCV in the countries studied The successful development of forage seed systems depends on active private sector engagement, particularly from seed companies, to achieve broad and sustained adoption. As profit-oriented enterprises, such actors require clear economic incentives and a stable, predictable market (Burkart & Mwendia, 2024; Flórez et al., 2024). Table 7 highlights the estimated EV of the forage seed market across the focus countries, with a projected cumulative value of US$329 million over ten years – even under a conservative 10% adoption scenario. Even with a 25% price reduction, the market remains substantial at US$247 million, reinforcing the case for private-sector participation and investment. Table 7. Estimated EV for the studied countries Country Scenario EV of the seed market (million US$, 2025) Megathyrsus maximus* Urochloa hybrid* Vigna unguiculata Lablab purpureus Total A B A B A B A B A B Malawi 1 0.37 0.28 3.77 2.82 2.84 2.13 1.42 1.07 8.40 6.30 2 0.37 0.28 3.77 2.82 1.56 1.17 0.78 0.59 6.48 4.86 South Sudan 1 5.76 4.32 20.11 15.08 18.51 13.88 6.18 4.63 50.56 37.92 2 5.76 4.32 20.11 15.08 10.18 7.64 3.40 2.55 39.45 29.59 Sudan 1 9.23 6.93 32.24 24.18 29.68 22.26 9.91 7.43 81.06 60.80 2 9.23 6.93 32.24 24.18 16.32 12.24 5.45 4.09 63.25 47.44 Zambia 1 2.12 1.59 5.43 4.07 6.67 5.00 3.44 2.58 17.66 13.24 2 2.12 1.59 5.43 4.07 3.67 2.75 1.89 1.42 13.11 9.83 Zimbabwe 1 2.91 2.18 7.12 5.34 5.09 3.82 4.75 3.56 19.87 14.90 2 2.91 2.18 7.12 5.34 2.80 2.10 2.61 1.96 15.44 11.58 Acc ep ted M an us cri pt Somalia 1 4.62 3.46 13.50 10.12 13.35 10.01 4.95 3.71 36.42 27.31 2 4.62 3.46 13.50 10.12 7.34 5.51 2.72 2.04 28.18 21.13 Mozambique 1 1.16 0.87 2.82 2.12 0.78 0.58 1.88 1.41 6.64 4.98 2 1.16 0.87 2.82 2.12 0.43 0.32 1.04 0.78 5.44 4.08 Mali 1 7.36 5.52 25.73 19.30 35.94 26.95 27.96 20.97 96.98 72.74 2 7.36 5.52 25.73 19.30 19.76 14.82 15.38 11.53 68.23 51.17 Senegal 1 1.04 0.78 5.47 4.10 5.95 4.46 7.94 5.95 20.40 15.30 2 1.04 0.78 5.47 4.10 3.27 2.45 4.36 3.27 14.15 10.61 Nigeria 1 13.97 10.48 48.79 36.59 10.22 7.67 12.81 9.61 85.79 64.34 2 13.97 10.48 48.79 36.59 5.62 4.22 7.05 5.29 75.42 56.57 Total 1 48.54 36.41 164.96 123.72 129.03 96.77 81.24 60.93 423.77 317.83 2 48.54 36.41 164.96 123.72 70.97 53.22 44.68 33.51 329.15 246.86 Notes: Scenario 1A: 100% adoption over a 10-year horizon at current seed prices; Scenario 1B: 100% adoption over a 10-year horizon with seed prices reduced by 25%; Scenario 2A: 10% adoption over a 10-year horizon at current seed prices; Scenario 2B: 10% adoption over a 10-year horizon with seed prices reduced by 25%. *All scenarios include seed requirements for regeneration. Table 8 presents projected economic returns from cultivated forages (FCV) over 10 years, totaling US$3.4–6.2 billion, or US$340–620 million annually, depending on adoption rates. Nigeria, Sudan, and Mali contribute the largest shares, reflecting strong livestock sectors and potential for intensification. Notably, the two grass species analyzed generate most FCV, highlighting their central role in driving productivity and scaling forage-based livestock systems across the region. Table 8. Estimated cultivated FCV for the studied countries Country Scenario Estimated cultivated FCV (millions US$, 2015) Megathyrsus maximus* Urochloa hybrid* Vigna unguiculata Lablab purpureus Total Malawi 1 62.28 62.28 17.80 17.80 160.16 2 34.25 34.25 9.79 9.79 88.09 South Sudan 1 283.20 283.13 80.90 80.90 728.12 2 155.76 155.72 44.49 44.49 400.47 Sudan 1 454.08 453.95 129.70 129.70 1,167.43 2 249.74 249.67 71.34 71.34 642.09 Zambia 1 86.88 86.83 24.80 24.80 223.30 2 47.78 47.76 13.64 13.64 122.82 Zimbabwe 1 119.52 119.65 34.17 34.17 307.51 2 65.74 65.81 18.79 18.79 169.13 Somalia 1 227.04 226.90 64.84 64.84 583.63 2 124.87 124.79 35.66 35.66 320.99 Mozambique 1 47.52 47.43 13.55 13.55 122.05 2 26.14 26.09 7.45 7.45 67.13 Mali 1 362.16 362.23 103.49 103.49 931.37 2 199.19 199.23 56.92 56.92 512.26 Senegal 1 77.04 77.04 22.02 22.02 198.11 2 42.37 42.37 12.11 12.11 108.96 Nigeria 1 686.88 686.89 196.27 196.27 1,766.32 2 377.78 377.79 107.95 107.95 971.47 Total 1 2,406.60 2,406.32 687.54 687.54 6,188.00 2 1,323.63 1,323.47 378.15 378.15 3,403.40 Notes: Scenario 1: 100% adoption over a 10-year horizon; Scenario 2: 10% adoption over a 10-year horizon. The projected FCV in the target countries would significantly add to the estimated US$63 billion annual value of cultivated forages in the developing world (Fuglie et al., 2021). Urochloa hybrids Acc ep ted M an us cri pt – part of the most widely adopted tropical forage species – stand out economically, generating US$132–241 million annually, depending on adoption rates. This represents a sizeable share of the US$1.25 billion annual value already attributed to Urochloa hybrids (Burkart, 2025), highlighting their importance for livestock productivity, rural income, and sustainable intensification. 3.6 Forage seed market development and the forage adoption process The forage seed sector across the target countries A comparative analysis of the forage seed sector for the four selected forages across the studied countries shows varying levels of development. Southern Africa, particularly Zambia, has the most mature market, with active private companies and rising demand. In contrast, West Africa’s seed sector is dominated by Vigna unguiculata, a dual-purpose food and forage crop, especially in Nigeria, while other forages remain underdeveloped. Sudan leads in East Africa with a structured fodder seed industry, while South Sudan and Somalia lack formal systems. Public institutions and international initiatives provide the foundation for sector growth through contract farming and public research stations for seed multiplication, while informal farmer-to- farmer trade bridges gaps. Government and donor programs stimulate early demand, though in Zambia and Nigeria, organic private demand is emerging. Persistent challenges include low farmer awareness, technical issues such as Urochloa’s photoperiod sensitivity (Burkart & Mwendia, 2024), weak market coordination, and inconsistent seed quality (Flórez et al., 2024). Yet, growing interest in climate-resilient forages and livestock productivity offers major opportunities. Regional collaboration, i.e., linking Southern Africa’s seed surplus with West Africa’s legume systems, could foster sustainable, integrated forage seed markets adapted to diverse agro-ecologies. Table 9 provides an overview of the forage seed industry in the target countries. Table 9. Overview of the tropical forage seed industry in the countries studied Country Key actors & institutions Main forage species, seed sourcing & market development Challenges & constraints References East Africa Sudan - Arab Sudanese Seed Company (ASSCO) - Foreign investors (GLB Invest) - Smallholders - Ministry of Agriculture - Largest Medicago sativa (alfalfa) seed importer (US$3.3M mid-2020s) and important alfalfa hay producer for the Saudi market - Imports of high-quality seeds from Brazil, Mexico (Urochloa spp., Megathyrsus maximus), and India, Kenya, Pakistan (Lablab purpureus, Vigna unguiculata) - Informality - Variable seed quality - Weak seed processing and classification methods Tolera (2017); Rahhal (2013); WUSATA (2024); Bernardi et al. (2019) South Sudan - Government departments - FAO - NGOs - South Sudan Seed Hub - No commercial production - Relief and development projects dominate - Reliance on natural pastures and seed imports (Vigna unguiculata, Lablab purpureus) from Uganda - Lack of formal sector - Dependency on aid programs - Main target are staple crops Tolera (2017); van Uffelen et al. (2023) Acc ep ted M an us cri pt Somalia - NGOs - FAO - Small agro- dealers - Seed Systems Group - No commercial production - Improved forages are imported at low levels from Kenya and Ethiopia (Vigna unguiculata, Lablab purpureus, rarely grasses) - Reliance on native rangelands and crop residues - Pilot projects of forage seed production - Relief and development projects dominate (Vigna unguiculata, Lablab purpureus) - Informal trade - Conflict - Institutional collapse - Minimal commercial activity - Informality Tolera (2017); Seed Systems Group (2023) Southern Africa Malawi - Chitedze & Bvumbwe Research Stations - Lilongwe University - Ministry of Agriculture - Public and NGO-driven seed provision (Urochloa spp., Megathyrsus maximus, Lablab purpureus, Vigna unguiculata) - Project-based multiplication - Weak private sector - Reliance on vegetative exchange - Limited domestic market Kumwenda & Ngwira (2003); Chiumia et al. (2024) Zambia - Zambia Agricultural Research Institute (ZARI) - Seed Control and Certification Institute (SCCI) - Enhanced Smallholder Livestock Investment Programme (E- SLIP) - Klein Karoo - Agriserve - Hygrotech - Afriseed - Advanta - Emerging regional forage seed producer - Formal public breeder seed production - Formal private sector seed production - Import-distribute models with seed from Brazil and South Africa (Urochloa spp., Megathyrsus maximus, Vigna unguiculata, Lablab purpureus) - Local farmer seed banks - Creation of local demand - High import dependency - Formal export markets still underdeveloped Sikaceya and Mwendia (2023); Burkart & Mwendia (2024); Mwendia et al. (2023); Alliance of Bioversity International & CIAT (2022) Zimbabwe - Matopos Research Station - ZimCLIFS project - Klein Karoo - Easi Seeds - Growing private sector engagement (Lablab purpureus, Vigna unguiculata) with contract-farming - Decentralized farmer-led seed production for local use (Lablab purpureus, Vigna unguiculata) - Import-distribute models with seed from Brazil (Urochloa spp., Megathyrsus maximus) - Seed bottlenecks - Dependence on imports for improved grasses Chakoma et al. (2016); Klein Karoo Seed Marketing Zimbabwe (2025); Easi Seeds (2025) Mozambique - Pannar Seed - Easi Seeds - Import of foundation seed by regional seed companies and contract growing (Vigna unguiculata) - Low demand - Nascent market Easi Seeds (2025); Thijssen et al. (2025) Acc ep ted M an us cri pt - Ministry of Agriculture - Import from neighboring countries or (South Africa, Zambia, Zimbabwe) or global suppliers from Latin America (Urochloa spp., Megathyrsus maximus) West Africa Mali - Institute of Rural Economy (IER) - Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) - Local cooperatives - Local multi-stakeholder and innovation platform-based contract/outgrower seed production models (Urochloa spp., Vigna unguiculata) - Limited commercial production of Lablab purpureus and Megathyrsus maximus - Emerging regional trade - Small scale - Research-driven - Limited private engagement Dione (2025); Kouyate et al. (2021) Senegal - Senegalese Agricultural Research Institute (ISRA) - Ministry of Agriculture - NGOs - Grain-market seed producers - Fodder improvement by ISRA (Vigna unguiculata) - Informal seed saving by farmers (Vigna unguiculata) - Use of grain-market seed from certified suppliers (Vigna unguiculata) - Government programs incentivize use of Urochloa spp. and Megathyrsus maximus through demonstration plots - NGO-/research-supported seed multiplication - Experimentation with Lablab purpureus as green manure and forage - Underdeveloped sector - Lack of private sector engagement - Low awareness of improved forages - Limited trade - Demonstration plots are small scale Beye et al. (2022) Nigeria - Institute for Agricultural Research (IAR) - National Agricultural Seeds Council (NASC) - Maina Seeds - Premier Seed - Value Seeds - Strong private and public certified seed production (Vigna unguiculata) reaching 5,308 tons by 2016 (enough to plant 265,000 ha) - Market-saved seed reliance in remote areas (Vigna unguiculata) - Imports for tropical grasses from Cameroon and other countries (Urochloa spp., Megathyrsus maximus) - Weak forage- specific market - Focus on food seed systems - Low coverage in remote areas -Nkechi (2022); Manda et al. (2019a, 2019b); Clémence- Aggy et al. (2021) Note: The authors do not claim that the information presented in this table is exhaustive. The information reflects what was identified through an extensive desk-based review of documents publicly available online. Regional trade blocs and opportunities for the forage seed industry The studied East African countries are members of regional trade blocs with harmonized seed trade frameworks that enhance the efficiency of forage seed markets. Under the COMESA Seed Trade Harmonization Regulations (COMESA, 2014), forage varieties registered in two member states are automatically accepted across all COMESA states, enabling regional distribution without additional trials. For example, once a Urochloa hybrid is registered in two COMESA states, it can be marketed region-wide (Burkart & Mwendia, 2024). South Sudan, a member of the East African Community (EAC) since 2016, benefits from duty-free trade with neighboring countries such as Uganda, from which it imports most seeds (Longley et al., 2021). While the EAC's seed Acc ep ted M an us cri pt harmonization system is still evolving, its partnership with COMESA accelerates the registration and movement of forage varieties across borders (Burkart & Mwendia, 2024). Additionally, the three countries are part of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), which, though not a free-trade zone, supports regional projects aimed at strengthening forage seed value chains critical to livestock development (Burkart & Mwendia, 2024). The studied Southern African countries participate in the Southern African Development Community (SADC), which operates a Harmonized Seed Regulatory System (HSRS) that simplifies regional seed trade. Under the HSRS, a forage seed variety tested and released in two member states can be marketed across the region without further trials (SADC Seed Centre, 2024). Unified certification standards and regional seed labels under SADC expand market access for seed companies (Makanda & Marshall, 2023). The SADC Seed Centre in Zambia coordinates variety registration and seed policy across Southern Africa, supporting countries in accessing diverse seed types, including forages. Malawi, Zambia, and Zimbabwe also belong to COMESA, creating seamless alingnment between both frameworks. Zambia and Zimbabwe, as major seed exporters, leverage SADC and COMESA systems to reach tariff-free regional markets. The emerging Tripartite Free Trade Area (TFTA), integrating SADC, COMESA, and EAC, will further harmonize regulations once ratified, expanding the regional forage seed market across East and Southern Africa. The studied West African countries are members of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), which, together with the West African Economic and Monetary Union (UEMOA) and the West African Economic and Monetary Union (CILSS), established a regional seed regulatory framework in 2008. This system allows varieties registered in one member country to be marketed across all ECOWAS/UEMOA/CILSS states (Munyi, 2022). Mutual recognition of seed certification promotes cross-border trade, integrating a market of over 300 million people that could benefit the forage seed industry. ECOWAS collaborates with the West African Seed Committee (COASEM) and the West African Catalogue of Plant Varieties (COAFEV), which now includes some forage species (FAO, 2008). A recent development is the Alliance of Sahel States (AES), formed by Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger, which launched the APSA-Sahel initiative in 2025 (Obi, 2025). Aiming for seed sovereignty and climate-resilient varieties, this initiative could strengthen Mali’s forage sector by promoting trade with Niger and Burkina Faso (Obi, 2025). Despite progress in formalizing seed trade, informal cross-border exchange remains vital across regions. The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), effective since 2021, seeks to formalize such routes by reducing tariffs and trade barriers, fostering a more integrated and regulated continental forage seed market. Vegetative propagation as a complementary element in improved forage seed systems Vegetative propagation plays a vital role in scaling forage production across sub-Saharan Africa by addressing seed scarcity and the high costs of quality planting material (Flórez et al., 2024; Burkart & Mwendia, 2024; Mekonnen et al., 2022; Mwendia et al., 2018). It is particularly Acc ep ted M an us cri pt important for species with limited seed production or underdeveloped formal seed systems (Morrison et al., 2023; Maina et al., 2022) and depends strongly on farmer-to-farmer exchange networks (Mwendia et al., 2018; Asudi et al., 2015; Wambugu et al., 2011). Through the use of cuttings, splits, or other vegetative materials, smallholders can efficiently multiply and disseminate improved forages. Although Napier grass (Cenchrus purpureus) is not a primary focus of this study, it exemplifies the value of vegetative propagation in the study region. Owing to low seed viability, Napier grass is propagated almost exclusively through clonal means (Wanjala et al., 2013). Its widespread dissemination via informal farmer networks demonstrates how vegetative propagation sustains adoption and enables rapid response to emerging diseases (Kovacevic, 2021; Kawube et al., 2014). Similarly, Urochloa grasses, despite their capacity for seed reproduction, are often expanded through root splits to mitigate seed shortages and maintain genetic stability in apomictic cultivars (Burkart, 2025; Burkart & Mwendia, 2024; Flórez et al., 2024; Maass et al., 2015). This hybrid approach, involving initial establishment from seed followed by vegetative spread, has accelerated adoption across the region, with the majority of Urochloa hybrids now established clonally (Burkart, 2025; Mwendia et al., 2018). In contrast, forage legumes such as Stylosanthes spp. and Lablab purpureus rely primarily on seed propagation due to their prolific seed production and natural reseeding ability (Chakoma & Chummun, 2019; Chakoma et al., 2016). Vegetative propagation should therefore be viewed as a complementary pathway to seed-based systems, helping to overcome seed constraints, preserve genetic integrity, and accelerate the spread of improved forage cultivars (Burkart & Mwendia, 2024; Mwendia et al., 2018). Despite challenges, such as disease transmission risks, high transport costs, and low multiplication rates, vegetative propagation enhances forage system resilience and should be integrated with formal seed system development to achieve sustainable and widespread scaling (Flórez et al., 2024; Kawube et al., 2014; Orodho, 2006). Improved forage adoption by farmers Establishing functional forage seed systems is essential but insufficient to drive widespread adoption of cultivated forages in sub-Saharan Africa. Uptake remains limited due to context- specific barriers extending far beyond seed availability. In West Africa, land-related challenges are central. Shortages, competition with staple and cash crops, degradation, and insecure tenure reduce incentives for long-term forage investment (Lassina et al., 2024; Tionyele et al., 2022; Kristjanson et al., 2002), as secure land access is key to adoption (Beye et al., 2022). High-quality seed remains scarce and costly, hindered by weak systems for multiplication, storage, and distribution (Lassina et al., 2024; Junca Paredes et al., 2023; Kouyate et al., 2021; Clémence-Aggy et al., 2021). Poor extension services, limited technical knowledge, and inadequate credit access slow innovation diffusion (Beye et al., 2022; Naah et al., 2019; Boys et al., 2007). Structural challenges, i.e., weak markets, lack of tailored recommendations, and Acc ep ted M an us cri pt difficulties integrating forages into mixed systems, compound adoption gaps (Tionyele et al., 2022; Kristjanson et al., 2005). Labor shortages, high production costs (Lassina et al., 2024; Balehegn et al., 2022; Manda et al., 2019; Kristjanson et al., 2002), environmental pressures like droughts and bushfires, and gender barriers excluding women from training and decision-making further constrain uptake (Lassina et al., 2024; Balehegn et al., 2022; Naah et al., 2019). In East Africa, systemic bottlenecks in seed systems remain the most significant constraint. Weak regulatory frameworks and fragile seed markets cause shortages, high seed prices, and inconsistent quality (Flórez et al., 2024; Morrison et al., 2023; Tesfaye & Tessema, 2023; van Uffelen et al., 2023; Dey et al., 2022; Marimo et al., 2021; Maina et al., 2021). Under-resourced extension systems leave farmers unaware of forage options or management practices (Maina et al., 2022; Dey et al., 2022; Ndah et al., 2022; Creemers et al., 2021; Maina et al., 2021; Maina et al., 2020; Megersa, 2020; Tekalign, 2014). Cultural resistance, high establishment costs, limited finance, and risk aversion slow adoption (Tesfaye & Tessema, 2023; Maina et al., 2022; Caulfield & Paul, 2021; Maina et al., 2020; Kebebe, 2019). Gender barriers persist, with women often excluded from capacity-building and decision-making (Balehegn et al., 2022; Marimo et al., 2021; Megersa, 2020). Land tenure insecurity, competition, and shortages further discourage investment (Morrison et al., 2023; Tesfaye & Tessema, 2023; Duguma & Janssens, 2021; Waweru & Paul, 2021; Caulfield & Paul, 2021; Megersa, 2020; Tekalign, 2014). In Southern Africa, weak extension services and technical capacity limit farmers’ ability to select, establish, and manage forages (Mwendia et al., 2023; Chakoma & Chummun, 2019; Toth et al., 2017; Chakoma et al., 2016; Mapiye et al., 2006). Land, labor, and seed shortages, combined with high production costs and poor credit access, intensify challenges (Mwendia et al., 2023; Nhundu et al., 2023; Moyo et al., 2022; Jera & Ajayi, 2008). Weak certification infrastructure, poor distribution, and low private sector engagement constrain seed supply (Chiumia et al., 2024; Sikaceya & Mwendia, 2023). Policy gaps, communal grazing rights, and tenure conflicts deter investment (Mwendia et al., 2023; Kumwenda & Ngwira, 2003), while climate variability and competition with food crops reduce land availability (Chakoma & Chummun, 2019). Gender- based constraints remain significant (Washaya et al., 2024; Nhundu et al., 2023). Collectively, these factors create a climate of caution, slowing adoption even where seed systems exist. Scaling forage innovation demands systems-oriented, country-specific strategies – aligning policies, strengthening extension, closing gender gaps, and offering incentives that reflect farmers’ socio-economic realities, as shown in East Africa (Burkart & Mwendia, 2024; Flórez et al., 2024; Flórez et al., 2023), Latin America (Enciso et al., 2022; Gallo Caro et al., 2021), and Southeast Asia (Burkart et al., 2025). 4. Conclusions and recommendations This study demonstrates that closing the forage gap in sub-Saharan Africa is both an urgent need and a major opportunity. Improved forages – particularly Urochloa hybrids, Megathyrsus Acc ep ted M an us cri pt maximus, Lablab purpureus, and Vigna unguiculata – could transform livestock productivity, enhance rural livelihoods, and build climate resilience across the ten countries analyzed and the broader sub-Saharan context. However, the findings show that forage adoption remains constrained by systemic issues: weak seed systems, limited extension capacity, land tenure insecurity, and insufficient private-sector engagement. Even where national and regional policies recognize the importance of livestock and forages, translating strategy into practice has been slow, resulting in fragmented and highly informal seed systems. The potential is substantial: meeting just a fraction of the identified forage deficit could support millions of smallholder farmers, reduce seasonal feed shortages, and unlock a forage seed market valued in hundreds of millions of dollars. But achieving scale requires moving beyond isolated interventions toward coordinated, systems-oriented approaches that link policy, research, and markets. Without deliberate investment, the gap between forage policy ambition and on-the- ground reality will persist, and so will the lost opportunities for sustainable livestock development. Based on this research, we propose the following recommendations: • Strengthen forage seed systems: Public and private actors should invest in local seed multiplication, quality control, and distribution to reduce dependence on costly imports or make them more affordable through increasing efficiency. Vegetative propagation should complement seed-based adoption, with greater emphasis on formalizing practices to address ongoing quality and consistency challenges. • Integrate forages into policy frameworks: Forage development should more explicitly be integrated in livestock, climate, and agricultural strategies at national and regional levels, with clear targets and measurable indicators. • Build extension and training capacity: Extension systems and should be strengthened and explicitly include forage cultivation in their livestock components. Extension agents, technical assistance providers, and lead farmers should be trained with skills and resources to promote forage establishment, management, and conservation. • Leverage private-sector engagement: Incentives for seed companies and input suppliers to invest in forage seed production and marketing should be provided. • Address land and tenure issues: Policies should be developed or strengthened that secure grazing rights and designate land for forage production to enable farmer investment. • Promote gender-inclusive approaches: Equal access of women to training, planting material, and decision-making in forage initiatives should be ensured to incentivize inclusive scaling of forage technologies. • Support regional collaboration: Sub-regional platforms (e.g., ECOWAS, SADC, IGAD, COMESA) should be further strengthened to harmonize seed regulations and share successful forage innovations among their member states. By aligning these actions with broader livestock and climate strategies, stakeholders can move from pilot projects to transformative impact. Forages are more than a technical solution – they are Acc ep ted M an us cri pt a foundation for resilient food systems, healthier ecosystems, and stronger rural economies. With coordinated commitment from governments, researchers, the private sector, and farming communities, sub-Saharan Africa can turn the forage gap into an opportunity for sustainable growth and long-term prosperity. Supplementary Material: The Supplementary Material provides an overview of national livestock-sector plans across ten countries in East, Southern, and West Africa, highlighting policy priorities related to feed, rangeland management, productivity, and resilience. The table summarizes key strategies, such as pasture improvement, drought-tolerant forages, veterinary and market investments, and pastoralist mobility rights, and shows how governments are aligning livestock development with broader goals in food security, climate adaptation, and economic growth. Author Contributions: SB, SM: Conceptualization. SB, SM: Methodology. SB, SM, PK: Formal analysis. SB, SM, PK: Writing the original draft and review and editing. SB, SM, PK: Resources. SB: Supervision. SB: Funding acquisition. SB: Project administration. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version. The authors confirm that the content of the manuscript has not been published or submitted for publication elsewhere Funding: This work was funded by the CGIAR Science Programs on Sustainable Animal and Aquatic Foods (SAAF), Breeding for Tomorrow (B4T), Multifunctional Landscapes (MFL), and Sustainable Farming (SF). The funders had no role in the design of the study in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results. Data Availability Statement: Data will be made available upon reasonable request. Acknowledgments: This work was carried out as part of the CGIAR Science Programs on Sustainable Animal and Aquatic Foods (SAAF), Breeding for Tomorrow (B4T), Multifunctional Landscapes (MFL), and Sustainable Farming (SF). We thank all donors who globally support our work through their contributions to the CGIAR System. The views expressed in this document may not be taken as the official views of these organizations. CGIAR is a global research partnership for a food-secure future. Its science is carried out by 15 Research Centers in close collaboration with hundreds of partners across the globe. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. References African Centre for Biodiversity. (2018). Status report on the SADC, COMESA and EAC harmonised seed trade regulations: Where does this leave the regions’ smallholder farmers? https://acbio.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Harmonisation_report.pdf Acc ep ted M an us cri pt https://acbio.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Harmonisation_report.pdf Agbo, J. (2025). Fed Govt eyes 398.9 million livestock with feed, fodder policy. The Nation. April 16, 2025. https://thenationonlineng.net/fed-govt-eyes-398-9-million-livestock-with-feed- fodder-policy/ Alfadul, H., Siddig, K., Ahmed, M., Abushama, H., & Kirui, O. (2024). Sustainable livestock development in Sudan: Challenges, opportunities, and policy priorities (Sudan SSP Working Paper 19). International Food Policy Research Institute. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/151697 Alliance of Bioversity International & CIAT (2022). Seeds for needs: unlocking Zambia's potential for forage seed production. Blog posted on June 10, 2022. https://alliancebioversityciat.org/stories/seeds-needs-unlocking-zambias-potential-forage- seed-production Arango, J., Ruden, A., Martinez-Baron, D., Loboguerrero, A. M., Berndt, A., Chacón, M., Torres, C. F., Oyhantcabal, W., Gomez, C. A., Ricci, P., Ku-Vera, J., Burkart, S., Moorby, J. M., & Chirinda, N. (2020). Ambition meets reality: Achieving GHG emission reduction targets in the livestock sector of Latin America. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 4, 65. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.00065 Assarroudi, A., Heshmati Nabavi, F., Armat, M. R., Ebadi, A., & Vaismoradi, M. (2018). Directed qualitative content analysis: The description and elaboration of its underpinning methods and data analysis process. Journal of Research in Nursing, 23(1), 42–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987117741667 Asudi, G. O., van den Berg, J., Midega, C. A. O., Pittchar, J., Pickett, J. A., & Khan, Z. R. (2015). Napier grass stunt disease in East Africa: Farmers' perspectives on disease management. Crop Protection, 71, 116–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2015.02.008 AU-IBAR (African Union Inter-African Bureau for Animal Resources). (2015). Livestock development strategy for Africa (LiDeSA) 2015–2035. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: African Union Commission–Department of Rural Economy and Agriculture. http://repository.au- ibar.org/handle/123456789/540 Azerigyik, R. A., Owusu-Ansah, J., Poku-Boansi, M., & Agyei, F. K. (2025). Contextualising sustainable transhumant pastoralism: A systematic review. Sustainable Development, 33(2), 2888–2901. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd Bahta, S., & Malope, P. (2014). Measurement of competitiveness in smallholder livestock systems and emerging policy advocacy: An application to Botswana. Food Policy, 49(Pt 2), 408–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.10.006 Balehegn, M., Ayantunde, A., Amole, T., Njarui, D., Nkosi, B. D., Müller, F. L., Meeske, R., Tjelele, T. J., Malebana, I. M., ... & others. (2022). Forage conservation in sub-Saharan Africa: Review of experiences, challenges, and opportunities. Agronomy Journal, 114(1), 75–99. https://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.20954 Balehegn, M., Duncan, A. J., Tolera, A., Augustine, A., Salissou, I., Moctar, K., Nouhoun, Z., Kiema, A., Isidore, G., Badmakumar, V., Ermias, K., Jose, D., Kenneth, B., Muluneh, M., Fekede, F., & Adegbola, T. A. (2020). Improving adoption of technologies and interventions for increasing supply of quality livestock feed in low- and middle-income countries. Global Food Security, 26, 100372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100372 Bernardi, A., Ramos, A. R., & da Silva, A. W. L. (2019). Seed size affects productive parameters in Sudan grass. Ciência Rural, 49(4), e20180248. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103- 8478cr20180248 Acc ep ted M an us cri pt https://thenationonlineng.net/fed-govt-eyes-398-9-million-livestock-with-feed-fodder-policy/ https://thenationonlineng.net/fed-govt-eyes-398-9-million-livestock-with-feed-fodder-policy/ https://hdl.handle.net/10568/151697 https://alliancebioversityciat.org/stories/seeds-needs-unlocking-zambias-potential-forage-seed-production https://alliancebioversityciat.org/stories/seeds-needs-unlocking-zambias-potential-forage-seed-production https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.00065 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2015.02.008 http://repository.au-ibar.org/handle/123456789/540 http://repository.au-ibar.org/handle/123456789/540 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.10.006 https://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.20954 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100372 https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-8478cr20180248 https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-8478cr20180248 Beye, A., Diakhate, P. B., Diouf, O., Faye, A., Obour, A. K., Stewart, Z. P., Assefa, Y., Min, D., & Prasad, P. V. V. (2022). Socio-economic constraints of adopting new cowpea varieties in three agro-ecological zones in the Senegalese Peanut Basin. Sustainability, 14(21), 14550. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114550 Boys, K., Faye, M., Fulton, J., & Lowenberg-DeBoer, J. (2007). The economic impact of cowpea research in Senegal: An ex-post analysis with disadoption. Agricultural Economics, 36(3), 363–375. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2007.00213.x Burkart, S. (2025). Global estimated CIAT Urochloa hybrid adoption, 2001–2024 [Presentation, 17 slides]. Presented in June 2025. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/175504 Burkart, S., Díaz, M., Enciso, K., Charry, A., Triana, N., Mena, M., Urrea-Benítez, J. L., Gallo Caro, I., & van der Hoek, R. (2022). The impact of COVID-19 on the sustainable intensification of forage-based beef and dairy value chains in Colombia: A blessing and a curse. Tropical Grasslands–Forrajes Tropicales, 10(3), 237–248. https://doi.org/10.17138/tgft(10)237-248 Burkart, S., Díaz, M. F., Enciso-Valencia, K., Urrea-Benítez, J. L., Charry-Camacho, A., & Triana- Ángel, N. (2020). COVID-19 and the bovine livestock sector in Colombia: Current and potential developments, impacts and mitigation options (36 p.). International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT). https://hdl.handle.net/10568/108354 Burkart, S., Mwendia, S., Karimi, P., Atieno, M., Dao, H. T., & Philp, J. (2025). Seeding solutions: Closing the ruminant feed gap through forage innovation in Southeast Asia. Crop, Forage & Turfgrass Management, 11, e70072. https://doi.org/10.1002/cft2.70072 Byamugisha, F. F. K., & Dubosse, N. (2023). The investment case for land tenure security in Sub- Saharan Africa: A cost–benefit analysis. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 14(S1), 272–300. https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2023.14 Catley, A. (2020). COVID-19, livestock and livelihoods: A discussion paper for the Livestock Emergency Guidelines and Standards. Livestock Emergency Guidelines and Standards. https://www.livestock-emergency.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/LEGS-Discussion-Paper- Impacts-of-COVID-19-on-livestock-keepers.pdf Caulfield, M., & Paul, B. (2021). Ex ante impact and trade-off assessment of improved forage use in western Kenya (CIAT Publication No. 512). Nairobi, Kenya: International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT). https://hdl.handle.net/10568/114630 Chakoma, I., & Chummun, B. Z. (2019). Forage seed value chain analysis in a subhumid region of Zimbabwe: Perspectives of smallholder producers. African Journal of Range & Forage Science, 36(2), 95–104. https://doi.org/10.2989/10220119.2018.1546229 Chakoma, I., Gwiriri, L. C., Manyawu, G., Dube, S., Shumba, M., & Gora, A. (2016). Forage seed production and trade as a pathway out of poverty in the smallholder sector: Lessons from the Zimbabwe Crop Livestock Integration for Food Security (ZimCLIFS) project. African Journal of Range & Forage Science, 33(3), 181–184. https://doi.org/10.2989/10220119.2016.1173097 Chiumia, D., Homann-Kee Tui, S., Mwendia, S., Notenbaert, A., & Gebreyes, M. (2024). Multipurpose forage seed and vegetative material systems in Malawi: Seed business models for forage cultivation and use. Ibadan, Nigeria: IITA. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/151810 Acc ep ted M an us cri pt https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114550 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2007.00213.x https://hdl.handle.net/10568/175504 https://doi.org/10.17138/tgft(10)237-248 https://hdl.handle.net/10568/108354 https://doi.org/10.1002/cft2.70072 https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2023.14 https://www.livestock-emergency.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/LEGS-Discussion-Paper-Impacts-of-COVID-19-on-livestock-keepers.pdf https://www.livestock-emergency.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/LEGS-Discussion-Paper-Impacts-of-COVID-19-on-livestock-keepers.pdf https://hdl.handle.net/10568/114630 https://doi.org/10.2989/10220119.2018.1546229 https://doi.org/10.2989/10220119.2016.1173097 https://hdl.handle.net/10568/151810 Clémence-Aggy, N., Fidèle, N., Raphael, K. J., & et al. (2021). Quality assessment of Urochloa (syn. Brachiaria) seeds produced in Cameroon. Scientific Reports, 11, 15053. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-94246-w COMESA (2014). COMESA Seed Trade Harmonization Regulations, 2014. https://www.fao.org/faolex/results/details/en/c/LEX-FAOC210201/ Creemers, J., & Alvarez-Aranguiz, A. (2019). Regional dairy policy brief. “Dairy the motor for healthy growth”: East Africa’s forage sub-sector—Pathways to intensified sustainable forage production (Report). NEADAP. https://edepot.wur.nl/511474 Creemers, J., Maina, D., Opinya, F., & Maosa, S. (2021). Forage value chain analysis for the counties of Taita Taveta, Kajiado and Narok: Final report of a scan of forage seed suppliers in Kenya (private companies and research institutions). SNV, KALRO. https://cowsoko.com/storage/publications/gisjh5y2l Dawson, I. K., Carsan, S., Franzel, S., Kindt, R., van Breugel, P., Graudal, L., Lillesø, J.-P. B., Orwa, C., & Jamnadass, R. (2014). Agroforestry, livestock, fodder production and climate change adaptation and mitigation in East Africa: Issues and options (ICRAF Working Paper No. 178). World Agroforestry Centre. http://dx.doi.org/10.5716/WP14050.PDF De Oto, L., Vrieling, A., Fava, F., & de Bie, K. (C. A. J. M.). (2019). Exploring improvements to the design of an operational seasonal forage scarcity index from NDVI time series for livestock insurance in East Africa. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 82, 101885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2019.05.018 Dey, B., Notenbaert, A., Makkar, H., Mwendia, S., Sahlu, Y., & Peters, M. (2022). Realizing economic and environmental gains from cultivated forages and feed reserves in Ethiopia. CABI Reviews, 17, 010. https://doi.org/10.1079/cabireviews202217010 Díaz, M. F., Moreno Lerma, L., & Burkart, S. (2024). How do sustainability policies emerge in the Colombian political system? A kaleidoscope model analysis of the policy for sustainable cattle 2022–2050. Cleaner and Circular Bioeconomy, 7, 100075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clcb.2024.100075 Dione, M. M. (2025). Scaling up gender-sensitive livestock innovation packages boosts sustainable animal productivity and livelihoods in Mali. ILRI News. Blog posted on January 27, 2025. https://www.ilri.org/news/scaling-gender-sensitive-livestock-innovation-packages- boosts-sustainable-animal- productivity#:~:text=Scaling%20Brachiaria%20seed%20production Duguma, B., & Janssens, G. P. J. (2021). Assessment of livestock feed resources and coping strategies with dry season feed scarcity in mixed crop–livestock farming systems around the Gilgel Gibe Catchment, Southwest Ethiopia. Sustainability, 13(19), 10713. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910713 Easi Seeds (2025). Pasture Seed. https://easiseeds.com/pastures/ Edwards, F. A., Massam, M. R., Cosset, C. C. P., Cannon, P. G., Haugaasen, T., Gilroy, J. J., & Edwards, D. P. (2021). Sparing land for secondary forest regeneration protects more tropical biodiversity than land sharing in cattle farming landscapes. Current Biology, 31(6), 1284– 1293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2020.12.030 Eeswaran, R., Nejadhashemi, A. P., Faye, A., Min, D., Vara Prasad, P. V., & Ciampitti, I. A. (2022). Current and future challenges and opportunities for livestock farming in West Africa: Acc ep ted M an us cri pt https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-94246-w https://www.fao.org/faolex/results/details/en/c/LEX-FAOC210201/ https://edepot.wur.nl/511474 https://cowsoko.com/storage/publications/gisjh5y2l http://dx.doi.org/10.5716/WP14050.PDF https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2019.05.018 https://doi.org/10.1079/cabireviews202217010 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clcb.2024.100075 https://www.ilri.org/news/scaling-gender-sensitive-livestock-innovation-packages-boosts-sustainable-animal-productivity#:~:text=Scaling%20Brachiaria%20seed%20production https://www.ilri.org/news/scaling-gender-sensitive-livestock-innovation-packages-boosts-sustainable-animal-productivity#:~:text=Scaling%20Brachiaria%20seed%20production https://www.ilri.org/news/scaling-gender-sensitive-livestock-innovation-packages-boosts-sustainable-animal-productivity#:~:text=Scaling%20Brachiaria%20seed%20production https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910713 https://easiseeds.com/pastures/ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2020.12.030 Perspectives from the case of Senegal. Agronomy, 12(8), 1818. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12081818 Elbasha, E., Thornton, P. K., & Tarawali, G. (1999). An ex post economic assessment of planted forages in West Africa (ILRI Impact Assessment Series No. 2, 61 pp.). Nairobi, Kenya: ILRI. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/502 Enahoro, D., Shalander, K., & Rich, K. M. (2021). Market competitiveness and the future of West African cattle and beef value chains (ILRI Research Brief 103). International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI). https://hdl.handle.net/10568/116930 Enciso, K., Triana, N., Díaz, M., & Burkart, S. (2022). On (Dis)connections and transformations: The role of the agricultural innovation system in the adoption of improved forages in Colombia. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 5, 741057. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.741057 Erdaw, M. M. (2023). Contribution, prospects and trends of livestock production in sub-Saharan Africa: A review. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2023.2247776 FAO. (2008). West African catalogue of plant species and varieties. https://www.fao.org/4/i0062e/i0062e.pdf FAO. (2015). Moving forward on Sudan's National Agriculture Investment Plan (NAIP). Published on September 7, 2015. https://www.fao.org/sudan/news/detail-events/en/c/327739/ FAO. (2018). World livestock: Transforming the livestock sector through the Sustainable Development Goals. FAO. https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/ca1201 FAO. (2021). Feed management and utilization guidelines for pastoral and agropastoral areas of South Sudan. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb2394en FAO. (2025a). Family Farming Knowledge Platform: Malawi. Rome: FAO. https://www.fao.org/family-farming/data-sources/dataportrait/country-details/en/?cnt=MWI FAO. (2025b). Family Farming Knowledge Platform: Smallholders dataportrait. Rome: FAO. https://www.fao.org/family-farming/data-sources/dataportrait/country-details/en/?cnt=MWI Felis, A. (2020). The multidimensional role of livestock in Africa. ICE Economic Journal, 914, 79–96. https://doi.org/10.32796/ice.2020.914.7034 Flórez, J. F., Karimi, P., Junca Paredes, J. J., Triana Ángel, N., & Burkart, S. (2023). Challenges and opportunities in the improved forage seeds market in selected East and West African countries (4 p.). CGIAR Initiative on Market Intelligence. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/134867 Flórez, J. F., Karimi, P., Paredes, J. J. J., Ángel, N. T., & Burkart, S. (2024). Developments, bottlenecks, and opportunities in seed markets for improved forages in East Africa: The case of Kenya. Grassland Research, 3(10), 79–96. https://doi.org/10.1002/glr2.12073 Fuglie, K., Peters, M., & Burkart, S. (2021). The extent and economic significance of cultivated forage crops in developing countries. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 5, 712136. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.712136 Gachuiri, A. N., Carsan, S., Karanja, E., Makui, P., & Kuyah, S. (2017). Diversity and importance of local fodder tree and shrub resources in mixed farming systems of central Kenya. Forests, Trees and Livelihoods, 26(3), 143–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/14728028.2017.1316216 Acc ep ted M an us cri pt https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12081818 https://hdl.handle.net/10568/502 https://hdl.handle.net/10568/116930 https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.741057 https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2023.2247776 https://www.fao.org/4/i0062e/i0062e.pdf https://www.fao.org/sudan/news/detail-events/en/c/327739/ https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/ca1201 https://doi.org/10.4060/cb2394en https://www.fao.org/family-farming/data-sources/dataportrait/country-details/en/?cnt=MWI https://www.fao.org/family-farming/data-sources/dataportrait/country-details/en/?cnt=MWI https://doi.org/10.32796/ice.2020.914.7034 https://hdl.handle.net/10568/134867 https://doi.org/10.1002/glr2.12073 https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.712136 https://doi.org/10.1080/14728028.2017.1316216 Gallo-Caro, I., Enciso Valencia, K., Díaz, M. F., & Burkart, S. (2021). The Latin American forage seed market: Developments, trends, and future opportunities (Policy Brief No. 63, 8 p.). International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT). https://hdl.handle.net/10568/116215 Garg, M. R., Sherasia, P. L., Bhanderi, B. M., Phondba, B. T., Shelke, S. K., & Makkar, H. P. S. (2013). Effects of feeding nutritionally balanced rations on animal productivity, feed conversion efficiency, feed nitrogen use efficiency, rumen microbial protein supply, parasitic load, immunity and enteric methane emissions of milking animals under field conditions. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 179(1–4), 24–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2012.11.005 Gonfa, L. (2015). Farmers’ willingness to pay for improved forage seed in LIVES districts of West Shewa Zone, Ethiopia (Master’s thesis, Haramaya University). Haramaya University. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/132685157.pdf Government of Sudan. (2021). The Investment Encouragement Act 2021. https://paris2021.esudan.gov.sd/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/00.-The-Investment- Encouragement-Act-2021.pdf Government of Zimbabwe. (2022). Rural Agri-Industrial Development Centres: Agricultural Mechanisation Programme Investment Proposal (Investment Brief). Harare: Government of Zimbabwe. https://www.fao.org/docs/handinhandlibraries/default-document- library/zimbabwe_mechanizationinvestmentplan_221015.pdf?sfvrsn=ed62b291_1#:~:text= There%20is%20a%20total%20of,farmers%20Currently%2C%20there%20are%20just Gurgel, A., Morris, J., Haigh, M., Robertson, A. D., van der Ploeg, R., & Paltsev, S. (2024). Land- use competition in 1.5°C climate stabilization: Is there enough land for all potential needs? Frontiers in Environmental Science, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2024.1393327 Habiyaremye, N., Ouma, E. A., Mtimet, N., & Obare, G. A. (2021). A review of the evolution of dairy policies and regulations in Rwanda and its implications on inputs and services delivery. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 8, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.611298 Herald. (2022). Presidential tick grease scheme hits 1 million target. Herald. Published on July 27, 2022. https://www.heraldonline.co.zw/presidential-tick-grease-scheme-hits-1-million-target/ Herald. (2024). Agriculture, food systems and rural transformation strategy unpacked. Herald. Published on May 30, 2024. https://www.heraldonline.co.zw/agriculture-food-systems-and- rural-transformation-strategy-unpacked/ Herrero, M., Havlik, P., McIntire, J., Palazzo, A., & Valin, H. (2014). African livestock futures: Realizing the potential of livestock for food security, poverty reduction and the environment in sub-Saharan Africa (p. 12). United Nations System Influenza Coordination (UNSIC). https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/41908 Holechek, J. L., Cibils, A. F., Bengaly, K., & Kinyamario, J. I. (2016). Human population growth, African pastoralism, and rangelands: A perspective. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 70(3), 273–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rama.2016.09.004 IFAD. (2022). Livestock marketing and resilience programme–Sudan. https://www.ifad.org/en/w/projects/1100001732 IFAD. (n.d.). South Sudan: The Context. https://www.ifad.org/en/w/countries/south- sudan#:~:text=The%20average%20farm%20is%20less%20than%202%20acres%20and%20 lacks%20machinery. Acc ep ted M an us cri pt https://hdl.handle.net/10568/116215 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2012.11.005 https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/132685157.pdf https://paris2021.esudan.gov.sd/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/00.-The-Investment-Encouragement-Act-2021.pdf https://paris2021.esudan.gov.sd/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/00.-The-Investment-Encouragement-Act-2021.pdf https://www.fao.org/docs/handinhandlibraries/default-document-library/zimbabwe_mechanizationinvestmentplan_221015.pdf?sfvrsn=ed62b291_1#:~:text=There%20is%20a%20total%20of,farmers%20Currently%2C%20there%20are%20just https://www.fao.org/docs/handinhandlibraries/default-document-library/zimbabwe_mechanizationinvestmentplan_221015.pdf?sfvrsn=ed62b291_1#:~:text=There%20is%20a%20total%20of,farmers%20Currently%2C%20there%20are%20just https://www.fao.org/docs/handinhandlibraries/default-document-library/zimbabwe_mechanizationinvestmentplan_221015.pdf?sfvrsn=ed62b291_1#:~:text=There%20is%20a%20total%20of,farmers%20Currently%2C%20there%20are%20just https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2024.1393327 https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.611298 https://www.heraldonline.co.zw/presidential-tick-grease-scheme-hits-1-million-target/ https://www.heraldonline.co.zw/agriculture-food-systems-and-rural-transformation-strategy-unpacked/ https://www.heraldonline.co.zw/agriculture-food-systems-and-rural-transformation-strategy-unpacked/ https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/41908 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rama.2016.09.004 https://www.ifad.org/en/w/projects/1100001732 https://www.ifad.org/en/w/countries/south-sudan#:~:text=The%20average%20farm%20is%20less%20than%202%20acres%20and%20lacks%20machinery https://www.ifad.org/en/w/countries/south-sudan#:~:text=The%20average%20farm%20is%20less%20than%202%20acres%20and%20lacks%20machinery https://www.ifad.org/en/w/countries/south-sudan#:~:text=The%20average%20farm%20is%20less%20than%202%20acres%20and%20lacks%20machinery IOM (International Organization for Migration). (2023). Pastoral mobility in the context of climate change in Mali. IOM. https://publications.iom.int/system/files/pdf/pub2023-058-l-mobilite- pastorale_en_v06.pdf IPAR. (2007). Dimensions structurelles de la libéralisation pour l’agriculture et le développent rural: Programme RuralStruc – Phase I. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/136931536589003091/pdf/WP-FRENCH-v1- PUBLIC-RURALSTRUC-SENEGAL-Phase1.pdf Isaac, N. (2022). Nigeria is ready to meet strong farmer demand for GMO cowpea seeds. Alliance for Science. Published on June 27, 2022. https://allianceforscience.org/blog/2022/06/nigeria- is-ready-to-meet-strong-farmer-demand-for-gmo-cowpea- seeds/#:~:text=seeds%20allianceforscience,is%20going%20to%20increase Jera, R., & Ajayi, O. C. (2008). Logistic modelling of smallholder livestock farmers’ adoption of tree-based fodder technology in Zimbabwe. Agrekon, 47(3), 379–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/03031853.2008.9523806 Junca Paredes, J. J., Flórez, J. F., Enciso Valencia, K. J., Hernández Mahecha, L. M., Triana Ángel, N., & Burkart, S. (2023). Potential forage hybrid markets for enhancing sustainability and food security in East Africa. Foods, 12(1607). https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12081607 Karimi, P., Ugbede, J., Enciso, K., & Burkart, S. (2022). Cost-benefit analysis for on-farm management options of improved forage varieties in Western Kenya. Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/119258 Kaske Kalsa, K., & Dey, B. (2022). Forage seed system performance of Ethiopia: An overview based on key indicators. CABI Reviews, 2022, 17(055). https://doi.org/10.1079/cabireviews202217055 Kawube, G., Alicai, T., Otim, M., Mukwaya, A., Kabirizi, J., & Talwana, H. (2014). Resistance of Napier grass clones to Napier grass stunt disease. African Crop Science Journal, 22(3), 181– 190. https://www.ajol.info/index.php/acsj/article/view/107186 Kebebe, E. (2019). Bridging technology adoption gaps in livestock sector in Ethiopia: An innovation system perspective. Technology in Society, 57, 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2018.12.002 Khanh, H. L. P., Corfield, J., Lane, P., Ba, N. X., Van, N. H., & Parsons, D. (2020). Intensive forage cultivation reduces labour input and increases cattle production income in smallholder mixed farming communities of South Central Coastal Vietnam. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research, 2, 100067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2020.100067 Klein Karoo Seed Marketing Zimbabwe. (2025). Products. https://k2.co.zw/products/ Kouyate, Z., et al. (2021). Cowpea seed innovation platform: A hope for small seed producers in Mali. In E. Akpo, C. O. Ojiewo, I. Kapran, L. O. Omoigui, A. Diama, & R. K. Varshney (Eds.), Enhancing smallholder farmers' access to seed of improved legume varieties through multi- stakeholder platforms (Chapter 10). Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15- 8014-7_10 Kovacevic, M. (2021). Improving elephant grass: The most widely grown forage in East Africa. CGIAR Livestock Feeds & Forages. Blog posted on August 12, 2021. https://livestock.cgiar.org/news/improving-elephant-grass-most-widely-grown-forage-east- africa.html#:~:text=But%20then%20in%20the%201990s%2C,cuttings%20and%20seeds%2 0are%20stored Acc ep ted M an us cri pt https://publications.iom.int/system/files/pdf/pub2023-058-l-mobilite-pastorale_en_v06.pdf https://publications.iom.int/system/files/pdf/pub2023-058-l-mobilite-pastorale_en_v06.pdf https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/136931536589003091/pdf/WP-FRENCH-v1-PUBLIC-RURALSTRUC-SENEGAL-Phase1.pdf https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/136931536589003091/pdf/WP-FRENCH-v1-PUBLIC-RURALSTRUC-SENEGAL-Phase1.pdf https://allianceforscience.org/blog/2022/06/nigeria-is-ready-to-meet-strong-farmer-demand-for-gmo-cowpea-seeds/#:~:text=seeds%20allianceforscience,is%20going%20to%20increase https://allianceforscience.org/blog/2022/06/nigeria-is-ready-to-meet-strong-farmer-demand-for-gmo-cowpea-seeds/#:~:text=seeds%20allianceforscience,is%20going%20to%20increase https://allianceforscience.org/blog/2022/06/nigeria-is-ready-to-meet-strong-farmer-demand-for-gmo-cowpea-seeds/#:~:text=seeds%20allianceforscience,is%20going%20to%20increase https://doi.org/10.1080/03031853.2008.9523806 https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12081607 https://hdl.handle.net/10568/119258 https://doi.org/10.1079/cabireviews202217055 https://www.ajol.info/index.php/acsj/article/view/107186 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2018.12.002 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2020.100067 https://k2.co.zw/products/ https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8014-7_10 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8014-7_10 https://livestock.cgiar.org/news/improving-elephant-grass-most-widely-grown-forage-east-africa.html#:~:text=But%20then%20in%20the%201990s%2C,cuttings%20and%20seeds%20are%20stored https://livestock.cgiar.org/news/improving-elephant-grass-most-widely-grown-forage-east-africa.html#:~:text=But%20then%20in%20the%201990s%2C,cuttings%20and%20seeds%20are%20stored https://livestock.cgiar.org/news/improving-elephant-grass-most-widely-grown-forage-east-africa.html#:~:text=But%20then%20in%20the%201990s%2C,cuttings%20and%20seeds%20are%20stored Kristjanson, P., Okike, I., Tarawali, S., Singh, B. B., & Manyong, V. M. (2005). Farmers' perceptions of benefits and factors affecting the adoption of improved dual-purpose cowpea in the dry savannas of Nigeria. Agricultural Economics, 32(2), 195–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0169-5150.2005.00338.x Kristjanson, P., Tarawali, S., Okike, I., Singh, B. B., Thornton, P. K., Manyong, V. M., Kruska, R. L., & Hoogenboom, G. (2002). Genetically improved dual-purpose cowpea: Assessment of adoption and impact in the dry savannah of West Africa (Impact Assessment Series No. 9). ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/508 Kumwenda, M., & Ngwira, A. (2003). Forage demand and constraints to adoption of forage technologies by livestock keepers in Malawi. Tropical Grasslands, 37, 274–278. https://www.tropicalgrasslands.info/public/journals/4/Historic/Tropical%20Grasslands%20J ournal%20archive/PDFs/Vol_37_2003/Vol_37_04_03_pp274_278.pdf Lassina, S., Delma, J., Barry, F., Diawara, S., Thiombiano, N., Yamkoulga, M., & Koala, J. (2024). Factors influencing agropastoralists’ adoption of fodder banks in the Central West Region of Burkina Faso, West Africa. Ethnobotany Research and Applications, 29, 1–14. https://ethnobotanyjournal.org/index.php/era/article/view/5934 Latino, L. R., Pica-Ciamarra, U., & Wisser, D. (2020). Africa: The livestock revolution urbanizes. Global Food Security, 26, 100399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100399 Lawry, S., McLain, R., Rugadya, M., Alvarado, G., & Heidenrich, T. (2023). Land tenure reform in Sub-Saharan Africa: Interventions in Benin, Ethiopia, Rwanda, and Zimbabwe (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003365679 Leonhardt, M. (2019). Regional policies and response to manage pastoral movements within the ECOWAS region. International Organization for Migration (IOM). https://publications.iom.int/books/regional-policies-and-response-manage-pastoral- movements-within-ecowas-region Longley, C., Ferris, S., O’Connor, A., Maina, M., Rubyogo, J. C., & Templer, N. (2021). Uganda seed sector profile: A Feed the Future Global Supporting Seed Systems for Development activity (S34D) report (65 p.). Baltimore, USA: Catholic Relief Services. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/119639 Maass, B. L., Midega, C. A. O., Mutimura, M., Rahetlah, V. B., Salgado, P., Kabirizi, J. M., … Rao, I. M. (2015). Homecoming of Brachiaria: Improved hybrid prove useful for African animal agriculture. East African Agricultural and Forestry Journal, 81(1), 71–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/00128325.2015.1041263 MAFAP SPAAA. (n.d.)