|
| |
| |
| Dynamics of Livestock Development |
| |
A doctoral study on the dynamics of livestock development adopted by BAIF, submitted by Dr. B.R. Patil, to the University of Wageningen, the Netherlands, identified the criteria and methodologies for selection of appropriate livestock technologies at the farm level, using a farming systems research approach. Total livestock population, comprising of defined and undefined breeds, increased annually by more than 1% in the last four decades, with buffalo and goat populations increasing faster than cattle. Analysis and modelling indicated limited genetic potential of local breeds and shortage of feed resources, both quantitatively and qualitatively, as major constraints to livestock development. Crossbreeding for breed improvement and use of improved local feed resources were identified as suitable technologies to alleviate these constraints. Ex-post performance monitoring of some BAIF crossbreeding programmes show that crossbred cattle fitted well in the smallholder mixed farming systems of both tribal and non-tribal farmers in all three selected agro-ecological zones taken for the study. Milk production of crossbreds was substantially higher, as was livestock gross margin and household income. Although quality of the roughages is a major factor, farmers owning crossbreds tried to adjust to the needs of the cows by feeding concentrates. There was no difference in the workload and division of labour between households with and without crossbreds. Crossbreeding thus proved to be a techno-economically and socially viable livelihood option for both mixed and landless farming systems.
Various modelling approaches were used to examine the suitability of feeding technologies such as urea supplementation, use of local and commercial concentrates, urea-treated straw with concentrates and leuceana tree leaves for crop-livestock systems. Major conclusions were that concentrate feeding is beneficial to farmers with market access and crossbred cows; crossbreeding is more remunerative for landless and tribal farmers than for non-tribal farmers while feeding interventions are more effective for crossbreds than for local cows; highest farm income is achieved at medium level of milk yields per animal because high milk yields require the use of quality feed, which renders straw losing its value as feed; this would result in the cropping pattern shifting from grain crops to cotton. Over a span of three decades, three phases in on-field testing can be distinguished in BAIF's livestock programme: the initial period of pre-dominantly top-down approaches, the second phase with emphasis on participatory identification and testing of technologies, and the third phase with work at community and watershed level. The study showed that adoption of technologies is facilitated when it involves local feed resources that are readily available and requires only small changes in farm practices. The dynamics in approaches involves the comparison of top-down, objectivist and reductionist approaches on the one hand and bottom-up, constructivist, holistic and self-organised approaches on the other. A number of cross-cutting issues such as the notion of real versus perceived problems, hierarchy and grid, phases in development and aspects of holism versus reductionism have to be analysed in understanding the processes. In conclusion, development is a continuous process in which goals change over time and space. If development is indeed a dynamic process, it implies that choice of methodology and technology should go along with changes occurring in that process. Agricultural research and development behaves as a complex adaptive system with its own dynamics and associated paradigm shifts. Being a complex adaptive system, development organisations such as BAIF have to show a dynamic behaviour to deal with continuously changing situations. |
|
|
|
| |
|
