The farming systems approach - Trial methods (direct measurements)(cont.)

9.6 Approaches to livestock trials

Animals are complex biological systems involving many elements such as health, nutrition, genetics, reproduction, and behaviour. The multiple uses of animals and the multiple ways they interact with other components of the farming system all make trial work with animals very complicated compared with crop research. Table 9.2 shows some of the differences between crops and livestock that have important implications for research related to livestock. Some of the implications for handling these are given in Table 9.3 together with suggested strategies and techniques for handling them in on-farm testing.

TABLE 9.2: COMPARISON OF CHARACTERISTICS OF CROPS AND ANIMALS

CHARACTERISTICS	CROPS	ANIMALS
Mobility	Stationary	Mobile
Live cycle duration	Generally less than six months	Generally more than one year
Life cycle synchronization	All units synchronized	Units seldom synchronized
Multiple outputs	Only grain/tuber and residue	Many: meat, hides, milk, manure, power
Non-market inputs/outputs	Fewer	More
Experimental unit size	Small, divisible	Large, indivisible
Producer attitudes	Impersonal	Personal, taboos
Management variability	Less over shorter period	Greater over longer period
Observation unit numbers	Many	Few
Variability of observations	Lower	Higher

Source: Amir and Knipscheer [1989: p. 13].

Obviously, in designing and testing research work involving livestock, these characteristics and issues need carefuI consideration. In general, on-farm trial work with livestock has been much more difficult to implement and less successful than that involving crops. Therefore, it is inevitable that greater emphasis tends to be placed on RMRI type trials -- often on experiment stations -- than should be the case in crop research. There is also another important reason for this tendency. These trials involve more of a risk for the farmer than do crop trials, because they affect the limited number of livestock owned by the farming family and such trials generally take place over a longer period of time. To minimize farmer risk, it is most important that basic research affecting a trial be completed on-station before the trial is moved to the farm.

TABLE 9.3: SOME CHARACTERISTICS OF LIVESTOCK AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR ON-FARM TESTING

CHARACTERISTICS	IMPLICATIONS	STRATEGIES AND TECHNIQUES
Mobility	Difficult to measure and control non-experimental	Subjective evaluation (eye balling) by farmer, researcher, trader, or buyer.
		Interviewing persons keeping, owning, or
		monitoring animals.
	Variables	Ear tagging or using some other means of identification.
		Moving feed to animals.
Life cycle duration	Increases costs and likelihood of	Recall surveys among farmers.
		Simulation modelling.
	Losing experimental units	Combination of cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis.
Life cycle synchronization	Difficult to find	Total live weight per farm.
	Comparable units	Production indices (kilograms weight produced/kilogram weight maintained).
		Internal indices (parturition interval, lactation period).
		Adjusting milk production to account for calving date variability.
Multiple outputs	Difficult to measure and value treatment effect	List outputs and alternative trade- offs.
		Determine value by: level of management, market, or farmers, own assessment based on interviews.
Non-market input/outputs	Difficult to value input/output	Labour: opportunity costs.
		Survey of labourers', measuring skills.
		Measuring forage intake with two measurements: before and after.
		Surveying farmers for determination of value.
		Valuing manure as an example:
		· NPK value (chemical fertilizers used);
		· (Market) value of tethering animals;
		· Fuel equivalent value;
		· Measurement of crop yield increment due to manure
Experiment unit size	Increases cost, risk to cooperator	Work with groups of farmers rather than individual farmers.
		Introduce risk insurance provision.
		Use proxy measurements, such as heart girth, instead of weighing.
Producer attitudes	Difficult to cull, castrate, ear mark	Need to be identified initially but difficult to quantify.
Management variability	Difficult to isolate treatment effect	Comparing two treatments on same farm (difficult because of lack of enough animals and cumbersome for farmer).
		Comparing before/after treatment by same farmer.
		Compare two or more farmers (requires several farms and is more costly).
Observation units	Large statistical variability	See strategies under management variability.
		Quantify normal death loss when developing test.
		Experimental design must allow for loss of experimental unit.
Ownership determinaion	Joint management	Outputs: see above strategy on multiple outputs.
		Determine decision making process. Inputs: commercial land/pasture.

Sorce: Caldwell and Walecka [1987: pp. 257 - 259].

In recent years, there has been increasing concern with evaluating the appropriate roles for station-based and farm-based research with respect to livestock, For example, participants at one conference concluded that [FSSP, 1986: pp. 5-71:

"On-station research should focus on testing higher yielding variants of old enterprises (e.g., from other areas) or testing new enterprises as suggested by ex ante analysis, and by on-farm research. Because this kind of research (introducing new enterprises or improving old ones) has to be more controlled than on-farm research, it should be done on-station before on-farm research, unless the technology is well established and unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that on-station research can be omitted."

The participants also identified five roles for on-farm research with respect to livestock [FSSP, 1986: p. 5]:

To give an ex ante description of the production systems and to identify relevant problems for on-station research.
To verify on-station results,
To provide a continuing flow of information to on-station programmes.
To test new technologies under farmers' conditions.
To demonstrate improved technologies to farmers and extension personnel.

Experience supports the greater role of on-station research in the livestock area. Some reasons include:

Compared to crop trials, more frequent monitoring is required for livestock trials, which increases travel costs for on-farm research.
Because animals do not care for themselves and do not stay in one place like plants, the results are likely to be less accurate on-farm, compared to the more controlled environment of the station,
In working with livestock, laboratory facilities may be more important than in working with plants. This is because fewer animals are involved, and the loss of an animal is a major event,
Laboratory facilities, which are used to conduct research on blood samples and in diagnoses of diseases, are superior at a station, and there are generally fewer problems in transporting specimens to the laboratory from an on-station trial.

The other side of the coin is that, unless extreme care has been taken in the diagnostic phase -especially in areas like animal health, biased data may be used to determine priorities. What is actually a big problem at the village level may never be reported to central research stations, because the farmers don't know its a problem, don't recognize it as a problem, or think it is something else all together, For example, farmers may understand that heart-water kills stock, but don't know it by that name or recognize that ticks transmit it. Thus, it is important, where possible, that professionals in the disease area have some involvement in the diagnostic phase.

Farmer-managed livestock experiments should take place in the farmer-managed setting, with farmer-provided livestock. However, when farmers have very limited livestock resources and each animal is valuable, it may be necessary to reduce the amount of farmer risk in order to encourage participation. If there is any risk to the animals' health, even if it is only minimal, it may be necessary to provide a guarantee of replacement if the animal is incapacitated or dies [Shaner et al, 1982: p. 121].

In addition, if the researchers are going to conduct research either by providing animals to farmers (e.g., a new breed) or through researcher implemented animal trials, it is important to be certain that the farmer or research field staff is capable of handling the animals, They also must be willing to take on the day-to-day responsibility of animal care, particularly in a confined or semi-confined trial situation. In the case of research staff, they must be made aware that animal care is a daily responsibility -- particularly with confined animals -- and that someone must perform the daily chores whether it is a public holiday or not. This may necessitate special administrative arrangements to pay overtime or otherwise compensate staff for the extra time.

9.7 Testing within crop-livestock systems

In low income countries, the vast majority of farmers who keep livestock also grow crops. Therefore, any proposed changes in technologies relating to livestock have to be evaluated in terms of their potential impact on the whole farming system. Thus, testing on-farm can be a very important exercise. Testing of technology alternatives, within the crop-livestock system, may be carried out on a single management component component technology research -- or on a combination of technologies that may involve both crop and animal production techniques. Thus, the objectives of the testing phase include:

Measuring the performance of alternative technologies in the farm environment.
Comparing alternative component technologies and production systems with those currently used by farmers in terms of biological productivity, farm resource use efficiencies, and farmers' preference.
Identifying labour, cash, and agricultural input requirements of alternative technologies.
Identifying resource conflicts at the farm or community level that may be caused by the alternative technologies.

If a number of major changes are being introduced in an alternative crop-livestock system, the situation is even more complicated. One approach that can be taken in this situation and has been used in the past, is to use a unit farm, where a suitable farmer is selected to 'allow, his/her farm to be modified at the researcher's cost, and the test is run within the farm environment. Because the test is researcher-managed and -implemented, it may and, in tact, generally does, lose its 'farmer character' [Zandstra, 1985: p. 176].

Therefore, as with crops, it is important for farmers to be involved as much as possible in trials involving livestock. Some ways that farmers can be involved in livestock trials are:

As an observer, where the researcher designs and executes an RMRI trial on the research station or on the farmer's land sometimes with her/his animals, These test animals often are used through a rental agreement, However, as has been argued earlier with respect to crop research (see Section 9,2), there is considerable merit in exposing farmers to such work and eliciting their opinions on the proposed treatments and the results.
As implementor of a test with the farmer conducting all operations (RMFI) using his/her resources and animals, often augmented by production inputs or implements and with supervision from the researcher, However, experience has indicated that RMFI trials with respect to livestock are generally not very successful, meaning relatively greater emphasis on RMRI type trials, This is because ceteris paribus conditions tend to be much more difficult to maintain with on-farm livestock trials than with those relating to crops (Box 9.9).
Through the farmer testing the technology at the FMFI level with or without a support system providing the requisites for the technology to be implemented.

BOX 9.9: LIVESTOCK MOBILITY MAKES RMFI TRIALS DIFFICULT

In Botswana, recommendations exist for mineral supplementation of cattle and small ruminants. However, RMFI trials that one FSD team was involved in with respect to mineral supplementation failed to demonstrate convincing results. One of the reasons was undoubtedly the fact that livestock in the harsh environment of Botswana tend to be very mobile and, as a result, do a substantial amount of browsing, which provides a variety of minerals. Browsing was not considered an option when testing the benefits of mineral supplementation in experimentation in on-station RMRI trials.

Therefore perhaps, given the current livestock practices in Botswana, mineral supplementation is not a relevant recommendation, However, the experience also highlights the need to take current farming practices into account when designing proposed improved technologies.

Contents - Previous - Next