Back to the Future Revisiting Mixed Crop-Livestock Systems Corporate Report 2009–2010 International Livestock Research Institute Back to the Future Revisiting Mixed Crop-Livestock Systems Corporate Report 2009–2010 International Livestock Research Institute ILRI P.O. Box 30709, Nairobi 00100, Kenya P.O. Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia www.ilri.org Text by Susan MacMillan and Carlos Seré based on figures and original report by Mario Herrero and the Systemwide Livestock Programme. Design and layout by Eric Ouma and Muthoni Njiru. Production and image editing by Eric Ouma. Images by Stevie Mann. Image selection by Susan MacMillan. ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute). 2010. ILRI Corporate Report 2009–2010. Back to the Future: Revisiting Mixed Crop-Livestock Systems. ILRI, Nairobi, Kenya. ISBN 92-9146-259-4 © International Livestock Research Institute (Nairobi, Kenya) 2010. ILRI encourages use of information and materials herein, with appropriate credit. Printed on paper produced through sustainable afforestation. Contents Foreword 5 by board chair and director general Introduction 7 Closing the yield gaps on the ‘extensive frontier’ Essay 11 Back to the future: Mixed farming comes of age Table 1: Researchers who participated in this study 12 Table 2: Demand for livestock products to 2050 13 Figure 1: Additional cereal grains needed to 2050 14 Figure 2: Main Interactions in mixed crop-livestock systems in the developing world 14 Figure 3: Human populations and mixed systems 14 Box: Why livestock matter to the world’s one billion small-scale farmers 15 Figure 4: Smallholder mixed systems and world cereal production in 2000 16 Figure 5: Mixed systems in the developing world produce the food of the poor in 2000 17 Figure 6: Mixed systems produce significant amounts of milk and meat in 2000 18 Figure 7: Growth of milk and ruminant meat, poultry meat and pig meat in developing countries 19 Figure 8: Projected cereal growth in mixed systems to 2030 20 Figure 9: Projected availability of cereal stover to 2030 22 Figure 10: Feed availability per tropical livestock unit in India in 2000 24 Appendices Selected references 30 Financial highlights 2009 32 Board of trustees 2009 35 Selected staff 2009 37 About ILRI and the CGIAR 40 Picture captions, inside back cover FOREWORD 5 Foreword mistaken to continue looking to high-potential lands and single-commodity farming systems as the answer to world hunger. As the study shows, many highly intensive agricultural systems are A hitherto disregarded vast group of farmers—those reaching their peak capacity to produce food mixing crops with livestock on ‘in between’ lands— and should now focus on sustaining rather than neither high-potential farmlands nor low-potential increasing yields. rangelands—are heavyweights in global food security. The authors of this multi-institutional and multi- This year’s corporate report by the International disciplinary study, most belonging to centres Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) looks ‘back of the Consultative Group on International to the future’—to the thousand million farmers Agricultural Research (CGIAR), agree with many practicing small-scale mixed crop-and-livestock other experts that we need to bring our focus agriculture in poor countries—the kind of back to small-scale farms. But this report goes seemingly old-fashioned family farming systems further, distinguishing one particular kind of that have become so fashionable in recent years small-scale farmer that should be our focus: this among those wanting to reform the industrial food is the mixed farmer growing crops and raising systems of rich countries. animals in the world’s more extensive agricultural systems, which are described in detail on the Scientists at ILRI and seven other leading next page. international agricultural research organizations around the world recently looked at the future These ‘mixed extensive’ farms make up the of this form of farming and determined that it is biggest, poorest and most environmentally ‘mixed farms’—not breadbaskets or ricebowls— sustainable agricultural system in the world. It is that will feed most people over the next two time we invested heavily in this particular kind of decades. farming system. Here is where there remain the biggest yield gaps. Here is where we can make Their report shows that it is not big efficient farms the biggest difference. on high potential lands but rather one billion small ‘mixed’ family farmers tending rice paddies or The billions of dollars promised by the cultivating maize and beans while raising a few international donor community to fund small- chickens and pigs, a herd of goats or a cow or two scale farming in developing countries are likely on relatively extensive rainfed lands who feed most to fail unless policies are reoriented towards of the world’s poor people today. This same group, this particular, most ubiquitous, and till now the report indicates, is likely to play the biggest most neglected, form of agriculture. What this role in global food security over the next several ‘extensive frontier’ needs are the most basic decades, as world population grows and peaks forms of infrastructure and services. With these (at 9 billion or so) with the addition of another 3 at hand, the world’s extensive mixed farmers billion people. will be in good position to scale up their food production to meet future needs. Remarkably, this is the first study ever to investigate the state of the world’s most prevalent We recommend that interested readers read the kind of farmers—those who keep animals as well full research report by the CGIAR Systemwide as grow crops. A major implication of the new Livestock Programme, which you will find here: report is that governments and researchers are http://mahider.ilri.org/handle/10568/3020 Knut Hove Carlos Seré Chairman of the Board of Trustees Director General 2009–2010 CORPORATE REPORT INTRODUCTION 7 Closing the yield gaps on the ‘extensive frontier’ Important productivity gains could be made as well as support. The extensive mixed in the extensive mixed crop-livestock areas farmlands are the forgotten farmlands in much of developing countries. If we visualize the of the developing world. Many of the resources agricultural landscape as a dartboard, with the currently invested in intensively farmed ‘bull’s- bull’s-eye representing the most productive, eyes’ could be shifted to these lands further intensively farmed, systems—those with the out. With better roads, markets, health facilities largest concentrations of mixed crop-livestock and other infrastructure and services for these farms today—and the outermost rings representing extensively farmed lands, rural-to-urban migration pastoral areas that are the least productive and rates could be slowed, and a new generation of populated, and most marginal and sizable, of food producers nurtured. agricultural lands, we would view the rings in between these two extremes as the extensive CONCLUSIONS mixed farming systems. While imperfect—these Making hard trade offs: We are in transition ‘in-between’ lands typically lack the soil quality from an ‘empty world’ of unused resources to and infrastructure, for example, of the intensively a world where water, energy, land and other farmed regions—this is where the biggest growth natural resources are increasingly scarce and in agriculture is likely to occur over the next efficiency gains are key to meeting increasing several decades; these lands have considerable as food demands. The trade-offs in this modern yet untapped production potential. ‘full world’ are becoming increasingly hard and difficult to manage. Mixed agricultural Significant contributions to future food security systems allow us to intensify food production could be made in the medium term by focusing in sustainable ways. As resources get scarcer on these extensive mixed crop-livestock systems while food demands grow, decision-makers will of developing countries, where pressure on the increasingly rely on agricultural sciences to make land is less than in intensive areas and the gap more equitable as well as judicious trade offs. between potential and current crop yields is large. It is estimated, for example, that with the Addressing biomass scarcity: In addition to right management and inputs, yields of sorghum, increasing scarcity of land and water, biomass millet, groundnut, cowpea and other dryland itself will be in increasingly short supply. The crops could easily be increased by a factor of challenge to find sufficient biomass to feed the three. What these extensive mixed systems need increasing numbers of farm animals as well as are policies and investments to create incentives, poor people is an issue not yet on the world’s reduce transaction costs and better manage risks. radar. Boosting production on this ‘extensive frontier’ Enhancing resilience: Mixed agricultural will require a considerable shift in mindset systems are particularly enabling in terms of 2009–2010 CORPORATE REPORT 8 INTRODUCTION helping communities rebound from the seasonal Taking systems approaches: This synthesis makes disturbances (droughts, floods) and external the case for mixed crop-livestock production shocks (market failures, civil unrest) that systems as being at the heart of global food disproportionately affect the developing world’s security—now and in the future. As such, agricultural communities. these mixed systems need to be addressed by researchers as whole systems. Such systems Paying for ecosystem services: In key agro- approaches to the development of small-scale ecosystems, we shall have to protect the products agriculture worldwide are those most likely to and services of functioning ecosystems by lead to efficiencies not only in food production providing payments to communities providing but also in such related fundamental areas as stewardship over these. recycling nutrients and managing biomass. In addition, policymakers will increasingly require Coping with climate change: Climate change analyses transcending the traditional agricultural will be a further inexorable driver of change in sector and incorporating issues of food security smallholder agriculture worldwide, demanding and systems, human health and employment, on-going options for both adapting to these migrations and political stability, and global trade changes and mitigating the greenhouse gases that and energy. cause climate change. Exploiting the extensive frontier: While we continue to invest in the short term in high- potential intensive farming systems, an opportunity exists over the medium term to make greater investments in the extensive frontier so as to exploit large yield gaps that still exist there. INTERNATIONAL LIVESTOCK RESEARCH INSTITUTE 9 ESSAY11 Back to the future: Revisiting mixed crop-livestock systems This chapter synthesizes results of a study, ‘Drivers of change in crop-livestock systems and their potential impacts on agro-ecosystem services and human well-being to 2030,’ being published in book form in 2011. The study was a collaborative endeavour conducted by a group of scientists in centres belonging to the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). The study was funded and coordinated by the CGIAR’s Systemwide Livestock Programme and led by Mario Herrero, a livestock systems analyst at the International Livestock Research Institute. Perhaps no global challenge facing us today is global food systems that conserve rather than as daunting as the need to produce much more deplete our land, water, forests, biodiversity and food, and do so in ways that are environmentally, other natural resources. socially and economically sustainable, for our fast-growing human population, which is Those are all, individually as well as together, tall predicted to rise from nearly 6.9 billion today orders. To meet these food challenges, we shall to more than 9 billion in the next four decades, have to gain much more solid, refined and local after which the world population is expected understandings of the various agricultural systems to stabilize and in some regions decline. (The we are relying on and the different pressures these global population growth rate has been declining systems are facing in different parts of the world. since the 1960s.) Almost all population growth is Such pressures include rapidly rising demand occurring in the developing world, predominantly for animal products and a fierce competition for in Africa and Asia. Africa’s population alone is on resources—chiefly land, water and biomass. track to double in the first three decades of this century. What follows is a summary of a study funded by the Systemwide Livestock Programme We need to find ways to feed the growing of the Consultative Group on International numbers of people until world population Agriculture Research (CGIAR) and led by ILRI. stabilizes. We need to help the ‘bottom’ billions It was conducted by a group of CGIAR centres of poor people, including the estimated two and partner institutions expert in widely varied billion people today who are living on less than commodities and representing widely varied US$2 a day, to lift themselves out of poverty scientific disciplines (Table 1). These researchers through agriculture and other means. We need came together in this project to determine the to invent agricultural systems that both mitigate forces most likely to drive change and shape our global warming and help small-scale farmers food production over the next two decades. adapt to climate change. And we need to develop 2009–2010 CORPORATE REPORT 12 ESSAY Mario Herrero International Livestock Research Institute (lead coordinating author) (ILRI) Deborah Bossio International Water Management Institute (IWMI) John Dixon International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) Ade Freeman World Bank Bruno Gerard CGIAR System Livestock Programme (SLP) Russ Kruska International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) John Lynam Independent agricultural consultant Siwa Msangi International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) An Notenbaert International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) Michael Peters International Center from Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) P Parthasarathy Rao International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) Philip Thornton International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) Jeannette van de Steeg International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) Stanley Wood International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) Table 1. Researchers who participated in this study conducted by the Systemwide Livestock Programme on the of pressures on agro-ecosystems. Different kinds drivers of change in crop-livestock systems to 2030. of drivers, such as land-use changes, resource and input use and competition for biomass for food, feed or energy, impact different kinds of Framework for the study services provided by agro-ecosystems, with The framework for the study was based on consequences that can hurt fundamental human that developed for the Millennium Ecosystem well-being in terms of income, health, food Assessment: Ecosystems, Economic Choices and security, vulnerability and so on. To address such Human Well-Being (2005) and subsequently problems, we can either regulate the drivers so used for other major assessments, such as as to minimize the pressures they generate or we the Global Environment Outlook 4 (United can develop ways to adapt our agro-ecosystems Nations Environment Programme 2007) and services to the changes they are undergoing. the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology The authors of this study coupled an IMPACT- for Development (IAASTD 2008). This Water model (Rosegrant et al. 2009) with a framework shares features with others for the farming systems classification and a range of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change spatial disaggregation methods for looking at Fourth Assessment Report (2007) and the alternative scenarios of change in mixed crop- Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management livestock systems to 2030. The scientists built in Agriculture (2007). upon the results of the IAASTD (2009) and used a reference scenario that was designed The framework is based on the idea that a set to mimic ‘business-as-usual’ conditions of of drivers, both direct and indirect, changes a growth in agriculture, incomes, population and system over time. The local development context other relevant factors. The research group also determines which direct and indirect drivers play investigated the probable consequences of an important roles in a given system and location. increased demand for biofuels and an increased Different drivers of change exert different kinds expansion of irrigation to produce more food and feed. INTERNATIONAL LIVESTOCK RESEARCH INSTITUTE ESSAY13 Consumption Annual per capita Total Rationale for the study year Meat (kg) Milk (kg) Meat (Mt) Milk (Mt) Developing-country demand is increasing for Developing 2002 28 44 137 222 meat, milk and eggs, especially as incomes rise 2050 44 78 326 585 in many formerly very poor countries and people Developed 2002 78 208 102 265 become newly able to afford more nourishing 2050 94 216 126 295 foods (Table 2). Demand in these countries is Table 2. Demand for livestock products to 2050 is expected also increasing for better quality meat, milk to rise. Source: Rosegrant et al. 2009. and eggs, particularly among urban consumers who purchase their perishable foods from supermarkets. The environmental consequences of these two trends could be enormous, given that Other factors determining the viability of these increases in animal-source foods will need developing-country agricultural systems in the to be made from basically the same land and coming years are the level of development in a water resources we have today. particular region, how much water and energy resources are available for farming there, and It appears that the increasing demand for meat how much competition exists for non-agricultural will be met mostly by increased monogastric uses of land. The impacts on farming of any given (chicken and pig) production, which has large driver of change depend on the type and size of consequences for cereal production, which will farming system and its location—whether, for also have to increase to feed these monogastrics. example, the system comprises heavily irrigated It is predicted that by 2050, people and animals plots in South Asia, rain-fed fields in sub-Saharan will be consuming roughly the same amount of Africa or large-scale ranches in South America. grains (Figure 1). Populations of cattle, sheep, goats and other animals are likely also to increase Where, and what, are the breadbaskets substantially. of the world today and tomorrow? In the developing world, which is the epicentre of both rising populations and rising food demands, the predominant form of farming is Figure 1. Additional cereal grains needed to 2050 and share of the projected contributions of different staples The world will require 1 billion tonnes of additional cereal grains to 2050 to meet (human) food and (animal) feed demands (IAASTD 2009). Grains: 1,048 additional  million tonnes  Rice needed to 2050 Other coarse grains 8% 21% Wheat 26% Livestock Human 430 million MT consumption Monogastrics  458 million MT mostly Biofuels 160 million MT Maize 45% 2009–2010 CORPORATE REPORT 14 ESSAY Drivers of change Population growth Urbanization Climate change Global Consumption patterns Incomes changes Regional Landscape Farming system Biomass Competition and Rangelands interact on with other sectors Ecosystem Crops Manure Livestock Regulation/Policies services Markets Forests Trade Production Draft Livestock inputs power products Food Income Employment GHG emissions Figure 2. Main interactions in mixed crop-livestock systems in the developing world Source: Herrero et al. 2010 (Science 327: 822–825). a traditional kind that combines crop growing animal traction helps to plough the lands and and livestock keeping. Such farming is generally the animal manure to fertilize them (Figure 2). known as ‘mixed crop-and-livestock’, or just In addition, regular sales of milk, meat and eggs ‘mixed’, production systems. The farms in these as well as surplus animal stock help to smooth systems are small in size—typically less than household incomes and consumption and to a few hectares—with millet, maize, rice and sustain the poorest family farms through lean dry other staple food crops cultivated along with the seasons or to manage the risk of droughts, floods, raising of a mix of cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, crop failures and other disasters. pigs, poultry or other kinds of domestic livestock. The synergies of crop and animal components These mixed crop-and-livestock agricultural of these mixed production systems are as old systems remain the bedrock of developing-world as agriculture itself: the stover and other wastes agriculture—and developing-world agriculture, from the crops help to feed the animals while the this study argues, is itself the bedrock of global food security. Fully two-thirds of the people in Figure 3. Human populations and mixed systems the world live in regions where these mixed Globally, most people are (and will be) living in regions farming systems supply most of the food available where mixed crop-livestock systems predominate. Source: Herrero et al. 2009. Population (million) Area (million km2)  Agro-pastoral Other 295 480  Other  Agro-pastoral 17 35  Mixed  extensive 1099 Mixed  intensive 10   Mixed  intensive   Mixed  2674 extensive  14 INTERNATIONAL LIVESTOCK RESEARCH INSTITUTE BOX15 Why livestock matter to the world’s one billion small-scale farmers Farms that simultaneously grow crops and raise occasional sales of surplus stock, helps protect livestock are found everywhere in the developing households against crop failure and other shocks world because they offer small farmers optimal and helps families get through the annual ‘hungry ways to integrate different production enterprises season’ that arrives in the weeks leading up to and to diversify livelihood strategies, thus harvest-time, when the stocks of the last harvest reducing their risks. Regular income generated are depleted and the new harvest has not yet been by sales of milk, meat and eggs, for example, or brought it. 16 ESSAY (Figure 3). It is these mixed smallholdings in controlled environments. Such industrial systems poor countries—not, as many people believe, account for the largest share of the volume of pig the breadbaskets of rich countries—that most of and poultry production (Bruinsma 2003). the world’s 2 billion poor rely on for their food today. Even greater numbers of marginalized Despite the ubiquity of mixed farms throughout people will rely on these smallholdings in future. the developing world, research and development We need to make greater investments in these efforts to increase food security typically still mixed smallholder food systems of the developing focus on just one component of these systems, world, which we are so greatly relying on for such as a crop (e.g., maize or rice) or a form global food security. of livestock production (e.g., poultry keeping or cattle herding), in isolation. Most food and What are ‘mixed’ systems? agricultural experts thus fail to address crop-and- There are two main kinds of mixed crop-livestock livestock farming, the most predominant form of systems. Extensive mixed crop-livestock farming agriculture today, as the complex, interwoven tends to be rainfed, to occur in regions with production system that it is. medium population densities, and to have moderate agro-ecological potential and weak Another fact often overlooked by development links to markets. Farmers in these extensive workers is that smallholders keep and use systems make little use of chemical fertilizers livestock for many purposes other than income. and other purchased inputs. Intensive mixed crop-livestock farming is characterized by  Agropastoral 4% irrigation, high population densities, high agro- Mixed  extensive ecological potential and good links to markets. 14% Farmers in these intensive systems make intensive  Developed  countr es  use of purchased inputs. The other two main 45% agricultural systems that incorporate livestock are (1) agro-pastoral and pastoral systems, which are characterized by low population  Mixed  densities, low agro-ecological potential and ntensive 35% weak links to markets; crop production in these Other 2% areas is marginal and people rely mostly on Figure 4. Smallholder mixed systems and world cereal livestock production for their livelihoods; and production in 2000 (2) industrial systems, which occur mostly in Mixed systems produce almost 50 per cent of the cereals peri-urban areas and are characterized by large of the world today and this share will increase to over 60 per cent by 2030. Most production currently comes from ‘vertically integrated’ production units that make intensive systems but in the future the greatest potential to use of feed, genetic and health inputs in highly increase yields is likely to be in the more extensive areas. Source: Herrero et al. 2009. INTERNATIONAL LIVESTOCK RESEARCH INSTITUTE ESSAY17 What these farmers need, therefore, are livestock Maize production Millet production practices that will best allow them to meet 3%  1%  6%  13%  their multiple objectives, typically including 26% food, income, insurance, savings, manure and 19%  traction. Researchers in livestock for development thus need to look carefully at the trade-offs 54%  28% and efficiencies inherent in various livestock practices, tools and policies to help determine which of these are appropriate interventions 2%  in which circumstances and—because these 48%  circumstances are continuously changing—to Rice production Sorghum production determine when interventions are appropriate 6%  3% 3% and when they need to be modified. With such 5%  20%  31%  approaches, the synergies generated by producing both crops and animals should offer researchers, 44%  development experts and farmers alike many new opportunities for raising farm productivity and human well-being while better protecting the 2%  environment. 66%  20%  The poor feed the poor The Systemwide Livestock Programme study Figure 5. Mixed systems in the developing Agro pastoral makes it clear that mixed crop-livestock farming world produce the food of the poor in 2000 Source: Herrero et al. 2009. in the world’s developing countries is key to Mixed extensive future global food security. Mixed intensive There are four main reasons for this. Other (1) First, the study reveals that smallholder crop and livestock farmers already produce 50 per cent Developed countries of the world’s cereals (Figure 4). Mixed farmers also produce most of the staples consumed by the world’s poor: 41 per cent of maize, 86 per cent of rice, 66 per cent of sorghum and 74 per cent of millet production (Figure 5). 2009–2010 CORPORATE REPORT 18 ESSAY Beef Milk Lamb 7%  9%  13%  28%  28%  15%  50%  59%  17% 5%  19% 18%  4%  21% 7%  Figure 6. Mixed systems produce significant amounts of Agro pastoral milk and meat in 2000 Although developed countries today dominate global Mixed extensive milk production and have significant exports, mixed systems produce 65 per cent of the beef, 75 per cent of the milk and 55 per cent of the lamb in the developing Mixed intensive world. Source: Herrero et al. 2009. Other Developed countries Mixed farms also produce the bulk of livestock (4) Fourth, the study data indicate that by products in the developing world—75 per cent of 2030 the mixed crop-livestock systems of the the milk and 60 per cent of the meat (Figures 6 developing world will surpass farms in the and 7). developed world in their production of cereals and some livestock products as their production (2) The second reason mixed farming is key to growth rates are significantly higher than growth food security is that mixed farms employ many rates in the developed world (Figure 8). hundreds of millions of people along the whole chain of activities needed to produce, harvest, But even these substantial increases in production store, transport, sell and consume foods. of cereals and livestock products will be insufficient to stay abreast of population growth. (3) Third, only 5–10 per cent of even the most If these mixed farms are to provide enough heavily traded livestock commodities are ever food to feed the swelling numbers of people traded internationally; the rest is produced and in the developing world, and do so largely in consumed locally. Surpluses produced in rich sustainable ways, agricultural policy must be countries provide at the most no more than 10 reoriented, first to embrace the centrality of mixed per cent of milk, meat and eggs to the world. crop-livestock systems to food security, second to Local food systems, then, are where most of the resolve major problems affecting these systems in action is in global food security—and must be particular, and third to find ways to further refine given much greater attention and support. the integration of crop and livestock production so that each can better sustain the other. INTERNATIONAL LIVESTOCK RESEARCH INSTITUTE ESSAY 19 Figure 7. Growth of milk and ruminant meat, poultry meat and pig meat in developing countries The percentages of these livestock foods now produced by developing countries are all projected to increase significantly over the next two decades. Source: Herrero et al. 2009.  Milk  Developing  Develop ng countries countr es 41% 51%  Developed   2000  2030 countries 49%  Developed  countr es 59%  Ruminant meat  Developing  Develop ng countries countries 64%  Developed  53% countries  2000  2030 36%  Developed  countr es 47% Poultry meat  Developing  Develop ng  Developed  countries countr es countries 52% 65% 35%  2000  2030  Developed  countries 48% Pig meat  Develop ng  Developing countr es countries  Developed  57% 66% countries 34%  2000  2030  Developed  countr es 43% 2009–2010 CORPORATE REPORT 20 ESSAY Note that cereal growth rates  6 in the mixed intensive systems  Note that cereal production in  in developing countries, like  sub-Saharan Africa is growing at  the growth rates of cereals in  a faster rate than that in most of  developed countries, are  5 the rest of the world. sluggish, at about 1.5%. Agro pastoral 4 Mixed extensive 3 Mixed  ntensive Other 2 Developed countr es 1 CSA: Central and South Amer ca EA: East Asia  SA: South Asia  SEA: Southeast Asia SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa  0 WANA: West Asia and North Africa CSA  EA  SA  SEA  SSA  WANA  Total Projected annual growth in cereal production 2000–2030 Figure 8. Projected cereal growth in mixed systems to 2030 Projected rates of growth of cereal production in mixed systems of developing countries are higher than those in developed countries. Source: Herrero et al. 2009. Many mixed intensive systems constraint in the rice and wheat belts of South are already at or nearing peak capacity Asia at a time when livestock numbers are In many regions of the developing world, expected to increase significantly there over the farmlands long viewed as having the highest next two decades. The numbers of cattle and potential for production—the intensively buffalo are projected to rise from 150 to 200 cultivated areas where farmers concentrate both million and the number of pigs and poultry by 40 crops and livestock—are either already maxed out per cent or more by 2030. This will push up the or are nearing their peak capacity (IAASTD 2009 water requirements of livestock farmers wanting and MA 2005). to grow fodder for their animals several fold and place livestock farmers in direct competition with Essentially, the resource pressures faced by these crop farmers wanting to irrigate their lands. intensively farmed lands are retarding, and in some cases ending, the substantial food growth Similar limits on the availability of natural rates of recent decades. The pressures are larger resources can be found in the East African in some systems than in others, but all are caused highlands and other high-potential agricultural by the increasing demands of fast-growing human areas of Africa. Already, many farming regions in populations, with their rising incomes and Africa are weakened by infertile soils, degraded urbanization. lands, depleted water sources, carbon losses, shrinking farm sizes and decreasing farm Water, for example, is becoming a severe productivity. Recent research suggests that some INTERNATIONAL LIVESTOCK RESEARCH INSTITUTE Percentage ESSAY 21 of these areas will not respond to traditional produced in larger volumes by relatively modest ways of increasing productivity, such as applying modifications made to increase the quality of the more fertilizer to restore soil health, but will diets of the animals. And an increased supply of need a closer integration of livestock and crop small ruminant products from pastoral and mixed production to improve overall food security systems is expected to slow price increases for (Tittonel et al. 2009). goats and sheep relative to pigs and chickens. Prices will rise sharply for food and feed crops Yet prices will continue to rise for livestock and (less so) for livestock products products, even if not at the pace of crops. Higher In sub-Saharan Africa, a rise in hunger in children costs for animal products will make it harder for and other vulnerable groups is anticipated in the poor people to meet their dietary requirements for mixed intensive regions because such regions are protein through meat and milk. likely to attract more people than their available resources can support. Competing demands for The livestock revolution will sharply increase land, fuel and natural resources could, if today’s production of all types of farm animals trends continue, also drive up the prices of The demand for livestock products is rising crops dramatically. The largest price increases globally and will increase significantly in the are projected to occur in cereals, some oil crops coming decades in developing countries because and tubers such as sweet potato, which are, in of income shifts, population growth, urbanization addition to food, used for animal feed and to and changes in dietary preferences in these produce biofuels. The prices of maize, wheat, countries. This increased demand will vary across sorghum, sweet potato and oil grains are all likely regions. to more than double by 2030. Animal numbers The price of animal products is also expected Marked differences, for example, occur in to increase, though less so, because meat, milk the projected growth of cattle populations in and eggs, which are consumed in quantity by the different regions. The head of cattle in East Asia more affluent members of developing-country is predicted roughly to double by 2030 due to societies, are already priced relatively high sharply rising demand from increasing numbers there. The rate of livestock price increases could of people there that are no longer poor. Large be slowed by the adoption of intensification increases in cattle numbers are also expected in practices that make livestock production more Latin America. efficient. Efficiency gains are especially likely for poultry, pigs and milk—all of which can be 2009–2010 CORPORATE REPORT 22 ESSAY Animal products Milk and beef: Projected growth rates in milk and beef production outpace the projected growth rates in animal numbers, indicating that technical efficiencies will need to be made in dairy and beef systems. Nevertheless, most production increases are still mainly due to an increase in overall animal numbers. Intensive crop-livestock systems stand out because milk production on these types of farms, given current conditions, could rise by 64 per cent by 2030 and more than double if irrigation is expanded. Sharp increases in milk and beef production are projected across Asia, with less dramatic increases in Latin America and the West Asia and North Africa region. Pork: Pig numbers are highest in the most intensive systems and in East Asia. The efficiency with which pigs convert feed to meat can be improved through better feeding, which reduces the number of animals and amounts of grain needed per kilo of output, to satisfy the increasing global demand for pork. For cultural and dietary sustain a scale-up of livestock operations. In the reasons, some regions will not experience large mixed crop and livestock farms of the developing growth in pig numbers and production, while in world, for example, cattle, goats, sheep and others, such as Southeast Asia, pig production other ruminant livestock get more than half of will more than double. their feed from crop residues—the crop material that remains after the grain has been harvested, Feeding more farm animals such as maize stover or cowpea leaves and will challenge agricultural systems other green matter. The viability of this type of If farmers in the developing world are to satisfy livestock production is thus directly linked to the (and benefit from) rising demand for animal viability of crop production. In many regions, the products, new strategies and policies will need to projected increases in ruminant numbers outpace be developed to ensure there is enough feed to projected rates of growth in available stover per INTERNATIONAL LIVESTOCK RESEARCH INSTITUTE 23 Figure 9. Projected availability of cereal stover Feed from cereal stover: The percentage change of metabolizable energy per livestock unit between 2000 and 2030. Source: Herrero et al. 2009. > 20% decrease < 10% change 50–100% increase 10–20% decrease 10–50% increase > 100% increase animal. The result will be feed deficits. To feed the will decrease in other areas, such as much of greater number of ruminant animals, crop yields East Asia, with high growth rates in ruminant will have to increase and crop stover be further production. amended for greater livestock intake. Where animals can no longer be maintained on Changes in stover production are expected to vary leftover crop materials available on the farm, widely from region to region over the next two farmers will have to purchase feed. While in some decades (Figure 9). In Africa, predicted increases areas animal feed can be obtained relatively in maize, sorghum and millet production due easily and locally, there is reason to be alarmed to an expansion of croplands can be expected about how this feed shortage will play out in parts to increase the amount of stover available for of Asia, where animal and human needs for feed animals. But the availability of stover per animal and food appear to be on a collision course, with 2009–2010 CORPORATE REPORT 24 ESSAY Figure 10. Feed availability in India in 2000 (megajoules of metabolizable energy per tropical livestock unit) Moving megajoules: Local fodder markets are likely to expand in areas of feed deficits as demand for milk and meat increases. ILRI animal nutritionist Michael Blümmel reports that in parts of India stovers are now being transported more than 400 km to be sold and Megajoules of that the price per kilogramme of sorghum stover has metabolizable doubled in 5 years and now equals up to two-thirds energy per tropical of the value of sorghum grain. Source: Herrero et al. livestock unit 2009. < = 5,000 5,000–10,000 10,000–20,000 > 20,000 both competing for a limited amount of water and of feed for animals is to increase trade in animal land. fodders and stovers. Stovers already are being traded in India over vast distances and are Grains can also be used for ruminant animal being priced according to quality. With the right feed, but they drive up the costs of both ruminant incentives and reductions in transaction costs, as products and grains, making both unaffordable fodder prices increase, areas of surplus can trade for the poor. If farmers are forced to use grain to with areas of deficits (Figure 10). maintain their ruminant as well as monogastic animals, the poor could lose out on dietary Expansion of biofuels could reduce food benefits of the livestock revolution, or at least the consumption in poor households benefits of consuming products derived from both Under mounting pressure to improve national ruminants and monogastrics. energy security and combat global climate change, countries are now turning to ethanol Fodder available for ruminants can be increased and biodiesel to meet rising transportation fuel in several ways, such as by breeding better demands. The main biofuel feedstocks are maize, grasses and crops, sourcing forages from adjacent wheat, sugarcane, cassava and sweet sorghum areas and making better use of farm by-products. for bioethanol and rapeseed, oil palm, soybean Another way to deal with an anticipated shortage and sunflower seed for biodiesel. Cassava and INTERNATIONAL LIVESTOCK RESEARCH INSTITUTE BOX 25 Smallholder farm plots will get smaller still Although there will be an increasing percentage of people living in cities in the future (already, about half the world’s population inhabits urban areas), there will still be a huge increase in the coming decades in the numbers of people living in the rural areas. We should thus not expect to have more land per capita for developing-country farmers in the future. Farm plots are bound to get smaller in most regions, not larger. 26 ESSAY sweet potato are other key biofuel crops and will environmental and trade regulations to manage experience large increases in area and production, the environmental costs often attending high mostly in sub-Saharan Africa. The expansion concentrations of animals, such as polluted of biofuels will likely reduce household food drinking water and disease outbreaks among both consumption in the developing world, particularly livestock and people. For example, while growth among poor urban households and the many rural in the monogastric sector has reduced global households that are net buyers of food. poultry and pork prices significantly, a by-product has been an increase in cereal prices and greater Growing demand for food crops as biofuel feedstock is already pushing up the price of livestock feed. Developing technology that will allow other plant materials to serve as feedstock for biofuels is often touted as a solution to the conflict between food and fuel production. But that solution could make the problem worse, with biofuel production also competing with livestock for pasture lands, stover and fodder. Improving the efficiency of intensive mixed farms of the developing world In the near future, many of the breadbaskets and ricebowls of the developing world will require significant efficiency gains to produce more food without using more land, water and other inputs. When it comes to producing more meat and milk, there are considerable opportunities to increase efficiencies and yields. Over the last 30 years, for example, researchers have doubled the efficiency with which chickens and pigs convert grain into meat, thereby reducing the amount of grain needed to produce a unit of poultry and pig meat. In some regions, making more efficient use of existing resources will require farmers to change the breeds or even species they keep. Switching from cattle to chickens and other such species shifts are already occurring in South Asia’s intensive mixed crop-livestock systems. Areas that adopt intensive industrial livestock production to satisfy food demands will require INTERNATIONAL LIVESTOCK RESEARCH INSTITUTE ESSAY 27 deforestation in the neo-tropics. New policies, or to reduce their production levels to remain technologies and practices are needed to address viable. Regulatory frameworks for sustainable these problems. food production should define the limits of agricultural intensification. A set of agreed-upon While it’s possible to get more production out intensification thresholds is needed to avoid of some intensive systems, others, particularly causing irreparable environmental harm that, in parts of Asia, have reached or exceeded among other things, can lead to a crash in food their limits. These need either to stop growing production. 2009–2010 CORPORATE REPORT Appendices 30 Selected references Baltenweck I, Staal S, Ibrahim MNM, Herrero M, Holmann F, Jabbar M, Manyong V, Patil BR, Thornton PK, Williams T, Waithaka M and de Wolf T. 2003. Crop-Livestock Intensification and Interaction across Three Continents. Main Report. Addis Ababa: Systemwide Livestock Programme of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research and the International Livestock Research Institute. 124 p. Online at: http://mahider.ilri.org/ handle/10568/876 Blümmel M, Hanson J, Herrero M, Fernandez-Rivera S, Hansen H and Bezkorowajnyj P. 2006. ILRI Strategy on Feed Resources. Nairobi: International Livestock Research Institute, 20 p. BP Statistical Review of World Energy. Online at: http://mahider.ilri.org/handle/10568/3034 Bruinsma JP 2003. World Agriculture: Towards 2030/2050. An FAO Perspective. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, and London: Earthscane. Online at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/a0607e/ a0607e00.HTM Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture. 2007. Water for Food, Water for Life: A Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture. London: Earthscan, and Colombo: International Water Management Institute. Online at: http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/assessment Delgado C, Rosegrant M, Steinfeld H, Ehui S, Courbois C, 1999. Livestock to 2020: The Next Food Revolution. Food, Agriculture and the Environment Discussion Paper 28. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute/ Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations/International Livestock Research Institute. Online at: http:// www.ifpri.org/publication/livestock-2020 Dixon J, Li X, Msangi S, Dimaranan B, Amede T, Bossio D, Ceballos H, Ospina B, Howeler R, Reddy BVS, Abaidoo R, Timsina J, Crissman C, Mares V, Quiroz R, Leon-Velarde C, Herrero M, Peters M, White D and Szonyi J. 2009. Feed, Food and Fuel: Competition and Potential Impacts in Small Crop-Livestock-Energy Farming Systems. Study commissioned by the Systemwide Livestock Programme of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research. Kenya: International Livestock Research Institute. Online at: http://mahider.ilri.org/handle/10568/3018 Fan S and Hazell P. 2001. Returns to public investments in the less-favoured areas of India and China. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83, 1217–1222. Online at: http://ajae.oxfordjournals.org/content/83/5/1217.full.pdf+html Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2008. State of Food and Agriculture 2007: Paying Farmers for Environmental Services. Italy: Agricultural Development Economics Division of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Online at: http://www.fao.org/publications/sofa/sofa2007/en Global Environment Outlook 4. 2007. Global Environment Outlook: Environment for Development. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme. Online at: http://www.unep.org/GEO/geo4 Herrero M, Thornton PK, Notenbaert A, Wood S, Msangi S, Kruska RL, Dixon J, Bossio D, van de Steeg JA, Freeman HA, Li X, Rao PP and Gerard B 2009. Drivers of change in crop-livestock systems and their potential impacts on agro- ecosystems services and human well-being to 2030. Study commissioned by the Systemwide Livestock Programme of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research. Nairobi: International Livestock Research Institute. Online at: http://mahider.ilri.org/handle/10568/3020 INTERNATIONAL LIVESTOCK RESEARCH INSTITUTE 31 Herrero M, Thornton PK, Notenbaert AM, Wood S, Msangi S, Freeman HA, Bossio D, Dixon J, Peters M, van de Steeg J, Lynam J, Parthasarathy Rao P, MacMillan S, Gerard B, McDermott J, Seré C and Rosegrant M. 2010. Smart investments in sustainable food production: Revisiting mixed crop-livestock systems. Science 327, 822 (2010). Online at: http:// dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1183725 Herrero M, Thornton P, Reid R and Kruska R. 2008. Systems dynamics and the spatial distribution of methane emissions from African domestic ruminants to 2030. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 126: 122–137. Online at: http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2008.01.017 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. The Physical Science Basis: Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Online at: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development. 2009. International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development Global Report. Washington, DC: Island Press. Online at: http:// www.agassessment.org Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report Working Group I Report: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Summary for policymakers. Online at: http:// www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-spm.pdf Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being. Volume 2: Scenarios. Findings of the Scenarios Working Group. Washington, DC: Island Press. Online at: http://www.maweb.org/en/Scenarios.aspx Rosegrant M, Ringler C, Sinha A, Huang J, Ahammad H. 2009. Exploring alternative futures for agricultural knowledge, science and technology (AKST). Canberra: Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research. Online at: http:// www.aciar.gov.au/publication/FR2009-34 Thornton PK, Jones PG, Owiyo TM, Kruska RL, Herrero M, Kristjanson P, Notenbaert A, Bekele N and Omolo A, with contributions from Orindi V, Otiende B, Ochieng A, Bhadwal S, Anantram K, Nair S, Kumar V and Kulkar U. 2006. Mapping Climate Vulnerability and Poverty in Africa. Report to the Department for International Development. Kenya: International Livestock Research Institute. Online at: http://books.google.com/books?id=B1m9kBLM9mMC Tittonel P, van Wijk M, Herrero M, Rutino MC, de Ridder N, Giller RE. 2009. Beyond resource constraints: Exploring the biophysical feasibility of options for the intensification of smallholder livestock systems in Vihiga District, Kenya. Agricultural Systems 101: 1–19. Online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2009.02.003 United Nations Population Fund. 2008. State of World Population 2007: Unleashing the Potential of Urban Growth. United Nations Population Fund. Online at: http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2007/english/introduction.html World Bank. 2008. The World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development. Washington, DC: World Bank. Online at: http://go.worldbank.org/LBJZD6HWZ0 2009–2010 CORPORATE REPORT 32 Financial highlights 2009 ILRI expenditure by object Depreciation 24% Personnel nILivRerIs fiuesn ding by type of donor 34% Europe North America 28% Operational 48% Travel 6% Utionnivsersities %& Institutions 0.3% Supplies Collaborators & Services & Partnerships 25% 11% Foundations 3% Challenge International & Regional Programs Organizations 0.4% Asia Pacific Rim 19% 0.6% Developing Countries 0.8% ILRI’s revenue in 2009 amounted to USD57.7 million, PROGRAM GRANTS an increase of 32% over revenue in 2008. Expenditure Program restricted for the year was USD56.5 million, an increase of Canada 35% over expenditure in 2008. The increase in both European Community (EC)/International Fund for income and expenditure is greatly attributable to the Agricultural Development (IFAD) finalization of construction of BecA facilities. India Unrestricted grant revenue made up 27% of ILRI’s Ireland total revenue in 2009. The share of restricted revenue Italy (including funds restricted to Challenge Programs) Norway increased to 66% of total revenue in 2009. Centre Portugal income declined from 10% of total revenue in Switzerland 2008 to 7% of total revenue in 2009. Programmatic United States Agency for International Development expenditure represented 77% of all expenses in 2009. (USAID) The institute’s net assets amounted to USD26.39 million World Bank as of 31 December 2009, with liquidity and long-term stability indicators above CGIAR recommended ranges. Project restricted Financial indicators show the institute’s financial health African Development Bank (ADB) continues to be sound. For the full financial report, go African Wildlife Foundation (AWF) to http://mahider.ilri.org/handle/10568/2087 Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) Armenia Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research UNRESTRICTED GRANTS in Eastern and Central Africa (ASARECA) Australian Centre for International Agricultural Australia Korea Research (ACIAR) Belgium Netherlands Austria Canada Norway Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), USA China Portugal Bioversity International (IPGRI) Denmark South Africa Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) Finland Sweden China France Switzerland Comart Foundation (CMF) Germany United Kingdom Consultative Group on International Agricultural India Research (CGIAR) United States of America Ireland Department for International Development (DFID), World Bank UK Italy INTERNATIONAL LIVESTOCK RESEARCH INSTITUTE 33 60.0 Total 55.0 50.0 Empresa Brasileiria de Pesquisa Agropecuária 45.0 (EMBRAPA), Brazil 40.0 European Development Fund (EDF) Restricted 35.0 (project) funding Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) 30.0 French Agricultural Research Centre for International 25.0 Development (CIRAD) 20.0 German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) Unrestricted 15.0 funding Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), Germany 10.0 Global Alliance for Livestock Veterinary Medicines 5.0 (GALVmed), UK Centre income Global Crop Diversity Trust 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Global Environment Facility (GEF) Year ILRI funding trends Heifer International, USA Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) Purdue University, USA Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique du Rockefeller Foundation, USA Niger (INRAN) Sir Ratan Tata Trust (SRTT), India Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnologia Sweden Agraria y Alimentaria (INIA), Spain Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Swiss College of Agriculture International Centre for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH)- Swiss Centre for International Agriculture (ZIL) International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE) Syngenta Foundation International Crops Research Institute for the Semi- Terra Nuova, Italy Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) Texas A & M University (TAMU), USA International Development Research Centre (IDRC), Canada University of Guelph, Canada International Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC) International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) Training restricted International Fund for Agricultural Development Makerere University, Uganda (IFAD) United States Agency for International Development International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) (USAID) International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) United States Civilian Research & Development Foundation (CRDF) International Water Management Institute (IWMI) United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Japan United States National Science Foundation (NSF) Kenya University of Copenhagen, Denmark Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) University of Edinburgh, UK Korea University of Florida, USA Land O’Lakes, Inc, USA University of Glasgow, UK Meridian Institute, USA University of Nairobi, Kenya Michigan State University, USA University of Syracuse, USA National Agricultural Innovation Project (NAIP), India Vétérinaires sans Frontières (VSF) National Veterinary Institute (SVA), Sweden Wellcome Trust, UK Natural Resource International Limited (NR International), UK World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) Netherlands Foundation for the Advancement of World Bank Tropical Research (WOTRO) OPEC Fund for International Development (OFID) Challenge Program restricted Pfizer Global Research and Development (GRD), USA International Water Management Institute (IWMI)-led Challenge Program on Water and Food (CPWF) 2009–2010 CORPORATE REPORT Millions USD 35 Board of trustees 2009 Prof Knut Hove (Chair) Norway Dr Dieter Schillinger Germany Rector Head of Public Affairs: Europe, Middle East, Africa Norwegian University of Life Sciences Merial SAS N-1432 Aas, Norway Lyon, France knut.hove@umb.no Dieter.Schillinger@merial.com Prof Samir K Barua India Dr Lindiwe Majele Sibanda South Africa Director Chief Executive Officer and Head of Diplomatic Mission Indian Institute of Management Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Vastrapur, Ahmedabad, India Policy Analysis Network (FANRPAN) skbarua@iimahd.ernet.in Pretoria, South Africa lmsibanda@fanrpan.org Prof Nieves Confesor Philippines Team Energy Centre Executive Director Ms Emmy B Simmons USA Asian Institute of Management, Philippines 2475 Virginia Ave NW, Apt 222 nconfesor@aim.edu.ph Washington DC 20037, USA EmmyBsimmons@aol.com Dr James Dargie UK Brunnstubengasse 43 Dr Modibo Tiémoko Traoré Mali 2102 Bisamberg, Austria Assistant Director-General j.dargie@aon.at Agriculture and Consumer Protection Department Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations HE Dr Aberra Deressa Ethiopia Rome, Italy State Minister Modibo.Traore@fao.org Ethiopia Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Dr Carlos Seré (ex officio) Uruguay Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Director General vmoasc@ethionet.et International Livestock Research Institute Nairobi, Kenya Dr Romano Kiome Kenya c.sere@cgiar.org Permanent Secretary Kenya Ministry of Agriculture Nairobi, Kenya rmkiome@kilimo,ge.ke 2009–2010 CORPORATE REPORT Selected staff 2009 37 At the end of 2009, ILRI employed more than 700 from Africa] while 45 staff came from 12 developed staff, of whom about 10 per cent were leading research countries [4 from Australia/New Zealand, 10 from groups; these 68 scientific leaders at ILRI represented North America, 31 from Europe]). A total of 35 per more than 30 scientific disciplines. In total, ILRI had cent (36) of these staff members were women; 65 per 102 professional staff leading both research and cent (66) were men. Unless otherwise stated, all of research support groups at the end of 2009; these staff these staff members were located in Nairobi, Kenya, members are listed below, along with their scientific or Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. For a full list of ILRI’s current disciplines (where relevant) and nationalities. These 102 staff worldwide (excluding some staff managed by ILRI staff members came from a total of 28 countries, most partner organizations in regions outside eastern Africa), of them developing (57 staff came from 16 developing please visit ILRI’s website: www.ilri.org countries [2 from Latin America, 7 from Asia and 48 Directorate Carlos Seré, Uruguay director general John McDermott, Canada deputy director general-research Gabrielle Persley, Australia senior advisor to the director general Leah Ndungu, Kenya research management officer Linda Opati, Kenya legal and intellectual property officer Peter Getugi, Kenya internal audit manager Vivian Awuor, Kenya executive assistant to the director general Regional Representation Abdou Fall, Senegal regional representative in West Africa (based Mali) Iain Wright, UK regional representative in Asia (based India) Siboniso Moyo, Zimbabwe regional representative in southern Africa (based Mozambique) Xianglin Li, China China liaison officer (based China) Biotechnology Theme Vish Nene, Kenya director of biotechnology theme/molecular biologist Rosalynn Murithi, Kenya program management officer Aynalem Haile, Ethiopia animal geneticist/breeder Etienne de Villiers, South Africa molecular biologist/bioinformatician Han Jianlin, China molecular geneticist (based China) Henry Kiara, Kenya veterinary epidemiologist Jan Naessens, Belgium immunologist Joerg Jores, Germany veterinary microbiologist Julie Ojango, Kenya animal geneticist/breeder Karen Marshall, Australia animal geneticist Lucilla Steinaa, Denmark cellular immunologist Mohamed Ibrahim, Sri Lanka animal scientist (based Sri Lanka) Morris Agaba, Uganda molecular biologist Okeyo Mwai, Kenya animal geneticist/breeder Phil Toye, Australia veterinary immunologist Richard Bishop, UK molecular parasitologist Roger Pelle, Cameroon molecular parasitologist Steve Kemp, UK molecular geneticist Tadelle Dessie, Ethiopia animal geneticist/breeder 2009–2010 CORPORATE REPORT 38 Market Opportunities Theme Steve Staal, USA director of market opportunities theme/agricultural economist Nancy Ajima, Kenya program management officer Amos Omore, Kenya veterinary epidemiologist Ayele Gelan, UK agricultural economist Bernard Bett, Kenya veterinary epidemiologist Delia Grace, Ireland veterinary epidemiologist Derek Baker, New Zealand agricultural economist Frank Hansen, Germany theoretical modeler/ecologist Fred Unger, Germany veterinary epidemiologist (based Thailand) Iheanacho Okike, Nigeria agricultural economist (based Nigeria) Isabelle Baltenweck, France agricultural economist Jeffrey Gilbert, Ireland public health and veterinary specialist (based Laos) Jeffrey Mariner, USA veterinary epidemiologist Joseph Karugia, Kenya agricultural economist Lucy Lapar, Philippines agricultural economist (based Viet Nam) Mohamadou Fadiga, Senegal agricultural economist Ranjitha Puskur, India agricultural economist Saskia Hendrickx, Netherlands public health and epidemiology specialist Seife Ayele, UK economist Stella Massawe, Tanzania geographical information systems specialist Tom Randolph, USA agricultural economist People, Livestock and the Environment Theme Shirley Tarawali, UK director of people, livestock & environment theme/agronomist Askale Worku, Ethiopia program management officer Alan Duncan, UK ruminant nutritionist Augustine Ayantunde, Nigeria ruminant nutritionist (based Mali) Elaine Grings, USA ruminant nutritionist (based Nigeria) Jan de Leeuw, Netherlands ecologist Jean Hanson, UK plant geneticist Michael Blümmel, Germany ruminant nutritionist (based India) Mohammed Said, Kenya geographer/remote sensing analyst Tilahun Amede, Ethiopia agronomist Poverty, Gender and Impact Group Patricia Kristjanson, Canada coordinator innovation works/agricultural economist Andrew Mude, Kenya agricultural economist Jemimah Njuki, Kenya sociologist Lokman Zaibet, Tunisia agricultural economist Nancy Johnson, USA agricultural economist Nils Teufel, Germany agricultural economist (based India) Research Methods Group (RMG) Jane Poole, UK head of RMG/research methods specialist INTERNATIONAL LIVESTOCK RESEARCH INSTITUTE 39 Sustainable Livestock Futures Group Mario Herrero, Costa Rica team leader/livestock systems analyst Albert Waudo, Kenya program management officer An Notenbaert, Belgium geographical information systems specialist Jeanette van de Steeg, Netherlands geographer/remote systems analyst Joseph Maitima, Kenya ecologist Philip Thornton, UK agricultural systems analyst (based UK) Biosciences eastern and central Africa (BecA) Hub Segenet Kelemu, Ethiopia director of BecA Hub/molecular plant pathologist Appolinaire Djikeng, Cameroon molecular biologist/genomicist Jagger Harvey, USA plant molecular biologist Robert Skilton, UK molecular parasitologist Improving Productivity and Market Success of Ethiopian Farmers (IPMS) Dirk Hoekstra, Netherlands IPMS project manager/rural development specialist Azage Tegegne, Ethiopia animal scientist Berhanu Gebremedhin, Ethiopia agricultural economist Ermias Sehai, Ethiopia knowledge management specialist CGIAR Systemwide Livestock Program (SLP) Bruno Gerard, Belgium coordinator of CGIAR SLP/systems agronomist Partnerships and Communications Bruce Scott, Canada director of partnerships and communications Ian Moore, UK head of information and communication technology services at both ILRI and the World Agroforestry Centre Liz Ogutu, Kenya resource mobilization officer Paulo Ficarelli, Italy knowledge management specialist (based India) Peter Ballantyne, UK head of knowledge management and information systems Ponniah Anandajayasekeram, Sri Lanka capacity strengthening manager Purvi Mehta-Bhatt, India capacity strengthening officer Susan MacMillan, USA head of public awareness Finance and Operations Joan Sawe, Kenya director of finance and operations Jacob Quaye, Ghana head of operations in Addis Ababa (interim) Joseph Ndirangu, Kenya treasury manager Judy Ngugi, Kenya general accounts manager Negussie Abraham, Ethiopia chief accountant Robert Nzioka, Kenya budget and grants manager Wilfred Gitaari, Kenya head of operations in Nairobi Human Resources Margaret Macdonald-Levy, UK head of human resources Aster Tsige, Ethiopia human resources coordinator Ephy Khaemba, Kenya environment and occupational health and safety officer Lucy Macharia, Kenya compensations and benefits manager 2009–2010 CORPORATE REPORT 40 About ILRI and the CGIAR ILRI works with partners worldwide to enhance donor contributions, while a new Consortium livestock pathways out of poverty. Our products of CGIAR Centers is uniting the centres under help poor people keep their farm animals a legal entity that provides the Fund with a alive and productive, improve their livestock single entry point for contracting centres and and farm productivity, and sell their animal other partners to conduct research. Shifting to products in markets. ILRI has campuses in a more programmatic approach, the CGIAR Kenya (headquarters) and Ethiopia, with other centres will operate within a Strategy and Results offices located in other regions of Africa (Mali, Framework aimed at strengthening collaboration Mozambique, Nigeria) as well as in South Asia for greater efficiency and development impact. (India, Sri Lanka), Southeast Asia (Laos, Thailand, A portfolio of CGIAR Research Programs is being Vietnam) and East Asia (China). For more developed to deliver international public goods information, visit www.ilri.org or sign up for alerts that address major global issues in development. from our News (http://www.ilri.org/ilrinews), An Independent Science and Partnership Council Clippings (http://ilriclippings.wordpress.com) or provides the CGIAR with critical advice and related blogs (http://www.ilri.org/NewsFeeds). expertise. ILRI is one of 15 centres belonging to a For more on the CGIAR, see websites of the: Consortium of International Agricultural Research CGIAR: http://www.cgiar.org Centers (CGIAR), which works to reduce hunger, Change management process: http://cgiar.org/ illness, poverty and environmental degradation in changemanagement/index.html developing countries by generating and sharing Fund Office: http://www.cgiarfund.org/cgiarfund new knowledge, technologies and policies. Consortium: http://cgiarconsortium.cgxchange. The centres are funded by a multi-donor trust org/ fund supported by more than 60 governments, foundations and international and regional or sign up to receive the: organizations. CGIAR quarterly enewsletter: http://www.cgiar. org/enews/november2010 The CGIAR is completing a restructuring website updates: feed://cgiar.org/cgiarweb.xml for greater impacts. In December 2009, it ‘CGIAR in Action’ blog: http://cgiarinaction. adopted a new institutional model consisting wordpress.com of a balanced partnership between donors and researchers established in the course of 2010. The new CGIAR Fund works to improve the quality and quantity of funding by harmonizing INTERNATIONAL LIVESTOCK RESEARCH INSTITUTE Picture captions All pictures by ILRI/Stevie Mann. PAGE 25 Mozambique: (Box: ‘Smallholder farm plots will get FRONT COVER smaller still’): A domestic pig in the compound of a typical India: A farmer and her calf in the foothills of the dryland mixed-farming household. Himalayas in Uttarakhand. PAGE 27 PAGE 2 Mozambique: A woman feeds her household pigs. India: A mixed farmer in West Bengal carries his wooden plough to his fields. PAGE 28 Kenya: A mixed farmer feeds her goat forages she has PAGE 4 gathered. Niger: A woman gathers forages for her sheep in Fakara Village. PAGE 34 Niger: A woman feeds one of two sheep she is fattening to PAGE 6 sell for profit. India: A youth is employed in the small-scale dairy business in Nagaland. PAGE 36 India: A girl in Rajasthan carries cow manure to be used to PAGE 9 replaster her family’s home. India: A chicken and manure drying for household fuel under a traditional farm cart in West Bengal. INSIDE BACK COVER Nigeria: A farmer holding a hoe stands before his cattle in PAGE 10 a mixed farming humid region of Oyo State. Laos: A rice farmer and his grazing buffalo. BACK COVER PAGE 15 Niger: A farmer holding a weeding implement corrals his Kenya: (Box: ‘Why livestock matter to the world’s one cattle on his millet fields overnight to fertilize his soils. billion small-scale farmers’) Goat being fed by hand in Embu. International Livestock Research Institute PO Box 30709 • Nairobi 00100 Kenya www.ilri.org