Market survey of fodder supporting peri- urban livestock in Mandera

Market survey
of fodder
supporting periurban
livestock
in Mandera
For the Enhanced
Livelihoods in the Mandera
Triangle and Enhanced
Livelihoods in Southern
Ethiopia – (ELMT/ELSE)
Nyangaga, J., T Ounga, T, B Gebremedhin, D Baker, B. Lukuyu, and T. Randolph
December 2009

Abstract
This report is a result of a study exploring the production of fodder, its trade and its use in the Mandera
Triangle, particularly the towns of Mandera (Kenya), Dollow Ado (Ethiopia) and Dollow and Luuq
Somalia. The study describes the importance of fodder for the community and how fodder production
and marketing benefits those involved in its supply and use. Given the scarcity of rain‐fed forage,
attention is given to the adequacy of irrigated fodder supplied as feed and the sustainability of the
system in light of increasing demand and supported input supply that artificially reduces overall costs of
production. Data were collected using key informant interviews with relevant government offices, local
and international NGOs, focus group discussions with various actor groups, and household surveys using
a detailed questionnaire. This information provides better understanding of the fodder market structure
and the relationship between pastoral and peri‐urban livestock systems and riverine agro‐pastoral
farmers. The system involves about 2000 agro‐pastoralists (farmers) living along the banks of the rivers
in the central area of the ELMT/ ELSE. Fodder is increasingly being produced and used by the agropastoralists
themselves with deliberate and incidental surpluses sold to resident and transiting urban
and peri‐urban livestock keepers, estimated at 25000 to 30000 households. Various actors share the
economic benefits, as increased incomes from sales of healthier and larger livestock herds or replaced
losses. The study reveals the crucial role of external input supply and the fragility of such a system, and
provides a better understanding among all chain actors of the economic system in which they act, their
roles, potential opportunities and threats to the chain structure and how individuals can best manage
for chain‐wide gain. Recommendations focus on how to best exploit actor‐specific and chain‐wide
circumstances to enhance fodder supply and its role in supporting livestock‐dependent livelihoods.
Keywords: Horn of Africa, fodder, value chain, pastoralists, livelihoods

Abbreviations and acronyms
Abbreviations, acronyms Full titles
ADF
Acid detergent fibre
ADL
Acid detergent lignin
AEZ
Agro‐ecological zone
ALRMP
Arid Lands Resource Management Programme
ArcGIS
A suite of geographic information system (GIS) software products
AEZ
Agro‐ecological zone(s)
CARE Somalia, Kenya, Ethiopia The CARE offices for Somalia, Kenya and Ethiopia
CBO(s)
Community‐based Organization(s)
COOPI
Cooperazione Internazionale
CP
Crude protein
DLPO
District Livestock Production Office or Officer
DM
Dry matter
ELMT
Enhanced Livelihoods in the Mandera Triangle
ELSE
Enhanced Livelihoods in Southern Ethiopia
ESRI
Environmental Systems Research Institute
FAO
Food and Agriculture Organization
FGD
Focus group discussions
Ha, ha
Hectare
HH, HHs, hhs
Household(s)
ILRI
International Livestock Research Institute
KARI
Kenya Agricultural Research Institute
KEPHIS
Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Station
KES
Kenya Shillings
Kg (s)
Kilogram(s)
Km(s)
Kilometre(s)
NGO(s)
Non‐Governmental Organization(s)
NRC
National Research Council
RELPA
Regional Enhanced Livelihoods in Pastoral Areas
SAVE UK, SAVE US
Save the Children UK and US
TLU, TLUs
Tropical livestock unit
USAID
United States Agency of International Development
USD United States Dollars 1
VSF‐Suisse
Vétérinaires Sans Frontières Suisse
w/w
Weight to weight (when calculating percentage content)
1 At the time of the survey (Aug – Sep 2009), 1 USD was equivalent to 6 Ethiopian birr, 75 Kenya and 450 Somalia shillings

Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 6
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 8
2. Survey objectives ......................................................................................................................... 8
3. Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 10
4. The fodder products ................................................................................................................... 11
5. The fodder market actors ........................................................................................................... 13
5.1. Actor profiles ............................................................................................................................... 16
5.1. Fodder market size and chain performance ................................................................................ 20
6. Other players: chain support systems ......................................................................................... 29
7. Environmental and social impacts of the market chain ............................................................... 32
8. Discussion .................................................................................................................................. 34
9. Recommendations and way forward .......................................................................................... 36
9.1. Market structure organization and governance ......................................................................... 36
9.1. The market system development approach ................................................................................ 36
9.2. On policy and effective supporting environment ........................................................................ 36
9.3. Production support ...................................................................................................................... 38
9.4. On utilization ............................................................................................................................... 39
9.5. On fodder market performance .................................................................................................. 40
10. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 42
11. References .............................................................................................................................. 43
12. Appendices ............................................................................................................................. 45
Appendix 1: Questionnaire used ............................................................................................................. 45
Appendix 2: Photographs from fodder production and marketing in the ELMT ..................................... 47
List of figures
Figure 1. Map showing the targeted rivers basins and towns ...................................................................... 9
Figure 2. The fodder market chain in the EMLT area ................................................................................. 15
Figure 3.Distribution of fodder by agro pastoralists overall and during the rainy and dry season ............ 23

List of tables
Table 1. Actor category sample size selection for detailed survey ............................................................. 11
Table 2. Crops grown and traded as fodder crops in the ELMT region ...................................................... 12
Table 3. Frequency respondents’ mention of fodder species in production, use and sale ........................ 13
Table 4. Estimation of fodder market chain actors’ populations (households or farms) ........................... 14
Table 5. Market actor profiles, showing gender, age, education, household size and permanent labour 16
Table 6. Livestock ownership per household by agro‐pastoralists and peri‐urban livestock keepers found
in the MKanedra Triangle ........................................................................................................................... 20
Table 7. Total productivity of fodder per day by the agropastoral farms in the ELMT river basins ........... 21
Table 8. Nutrient composition of the fodder produced and shared out by the agro‐pastoralist .............. 22
Table 9. An annual enterprise budget estimate for livestock and fodder produced by an agro‐pastoralist
farm in the ELMT ......................................................................................................................................... 24
Table 10. Daily purchases, sales and net earnings by fodder transporters during the rainy and dry season
in the ELMT ................................................................................................................................................. 26
Table 11. Daily purchases, sales and net earnings by traders during the rainy and dry season ................ 27
Table 12 An annual enterprise budget estimate for livestock produced by a peri‐urban farm in the ELMT
.................................................................................................................................................................... 28
Table 13. Distribution of fodder seed to agro‐pastoral farmers by some of the organizations ................. 31
List of boxes; case examples
Box 1. SHARE CROPPING IN THE DAUE AND DOLLOW RIVER FARMS OF THE MANDERA TRIANGLE ......... 18
Box 2. BASIN TROUGHS FACILITATE IRRIGATION ....................................................................................... 23
Box 3. OMAR GURE – A FODDER TRANSPORTER ........................................................................................ 25
Box 4. UJEEDO BADAN – A FARMERS COOPERATIVE FOR FODDER ............................................................ 30

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Enhanced Livelihoods in the Mandera Triangle (ELMT/ ELSE), is a project of USAID’s broader
Regional Enhanced Livelihoods in Pastoral Areas (RELPA). The ELMT – through the VSF Suisse office –
commissioned a market survey of fodder for peri‐urban livestock in Mandera region. The broad
objective was to study the fodder market practices in the EMLT operation area covering the three
countries – the fodder production, transportation, trade and use – as an income generating activity in
the target area. Data was collected from urban and peri‐urban areas of Mandera, Dollow Ado and
Dollow and Luuq towns, using key informants, focus groups and household surveys.
The fodder markets are found associated with the urban centers along the rivers Daua (flowing along
the Kenya‐Ethiopia and Ethiopia‐Somalia borders) and Genale in Ethiopia before it joins with Daua
around Dollow town to flow as river Jubba into Somalia. The fodder is grown by the riverine farmers
who, after using some for their own livestock, sell the surplus to other livestock users, either directly or
through transporters and traders in and around the mentioned towns. The significant fodder types
found in the area were maize stover, cowpeas vines, sorghum stalks, Napier and fresh Sudan grass as
well as weeds harvested from farms by labourers and share‐croppers.
The agro‐pastoralists were mainly male‐headed households over thirty years of age owning on average
thirteen hectares of farmland. Some of the fodder is grown actually by labourers or relatives who have
been allowed access to the riverine land by the owners in a share‐cropping arrangement. The fodder is
transported to markets and consuming peri‐urban livestock keepers by transporters (mostly young
males) using donkey carts. The fodder traders were women who sell green fresh fodder bundles to
livestock keepers coming to the open markets. Other significant players in the fodder market were the
Ministry of Livestock Development in Kenya, as the overall coordinator of livestock improvement
programs in the Mandera, and the Kenya‐based Arid Lands Resource Management Programme (ALRMP)
which introduced intensive fodder production in the region during its first 1996 – 2003 phase. Other
actors are local research stations and international NGOs, such as VSF Suisse, COOPI, Save the Children
US, Mandera Polytechnic, the Islamic Relief Foundation and Dollow Farmers Cooperative Society (DFCS).
The agro‐pastoralists farms have the potential to produce an average 2,000 kgs of fresh fodder (255 kgs
DM) per hectare. Using an integrated tropical livestock unit (TLU) weight of 200 kgs, and an estimated
daily DM intake of 3 – 4 % of the animals’ live weight, this has the potential supporting 4,000 TLUs
compared to the current density of 1,000TLUs per ha (CIESIN, 2004).
Fodder production and its use is being driven by the following major factors:
1. The rivers – Daua, Dollow and Jubba, which are the main source of water being used to irrigate the
crops and fodder being produced.
2. Urban and peri‐urban population and associated demand for fodder have created a fodder market
that is steadily growing.
6

3. Extreme seasonal experiences with more frequent droughts becoming less predictable and rainfall
patterns more erratic. The livestock keepers can no longer rely on predictable pastures and are
choosing to settle near the fodder supplies which offer more reliable availability.
4. Improved incomes for livelihoods from fodder production and trade encouraging more farmers who
have access to land and water to go into fodder production.
5. Extension education and increased awareness of the production potential offer greater appreciation
of benefits possible from fodder production and trading. Participants interviewed expressed their
interest in shifting from pastoral lifestyles to farming practices relying on fodder production.
The study makes the following recommendations:
1. Train all actors on the structure of this system, the value of their roles and demonstrate how they
can work together to strengthen the chain to increase individual net gains. A more organized
structure can develop a more effective link between the fodder production and these consumers.
Collective actions, such as working in groups, may help minimize production and operational costs
and increase net margins.
2. There is a case for the introduction or improvement of current fodder types (species and varieties)
to those that can be produced in larger amounts using the current irrigation system. This requires
plant multiplication and agronomic coaching to introduce suitable forage types, while safeguarding
the environment’s diversity.
3. It is possible to more effectively irrigate the land for food and fodder production through better
provision or support of irrigation equipment and services through cost‐sharing with affordable costrecovery
programs. The second aspect is to have reliable source of seeds that are available from
commercial sources in ways that will encourage local entrepreneurship.
4. A specific policy recommendation is for support by the seed regulation agent in Kenya Plant Health
Inspectorate Station (KEPHIS) to consider a regulatory environment that would support communitybased
seed production and distribution.
5. The fodder market will deliver the fodder for which the demand coming or will come from farther
inland nomadic pastoralists would be better supported by road networks that enable such delivery
of the feed at low cost.
The fodder market, as demonstrated, is a vibrant activity in the area. It is likely to continue given the
factors favouring its existence. The agents operating in the area are asked to consider ways they can
support the system in favour of the communities that rely on it for its livelihood.
7

1. Introduction
The Enhanced Livelihoods project in the Mandera Triangle (ELMT/ ELSE) is part of USAID’s broader
Regional Enhanced Livelihoods in Pastoral Areas (RELPA) Program that aims to support a more effective
move from emergency‐relief dependency to resiliency and sustainable actions promoting long‐term
economic development in pastoral areas (ELMT RELPA website, 2009). ELMT/ ELSE is being implemented
by a consortium of humanitarian and development organizations working to increase the self‐reliance
and resiliency of drought prone pastoral communities in the region through improved livelihoods in the
Horn of Africa.
The consortium consists of six lead‐partners: CARE Somalia, CARE Kenya, CARE Ethiopia, VSF‐Suisse,
SAVE US and SAVE UK as well as more than a dozen local partners. At the time of the study the program
worked with about 550,000 beneficiaries in the southern Ethiopia, parts of Somalia and north/northeastern
Kenya and has strategic objectives that include reducing the requirements for emergency
assistance of populations living in pastoral areas in the event of a livelihood crisis, increasing household
incomes and economic resiliency of populations living in pastoral areas; and strengthening conditions
for pastoralists to participate in broader social and economic development processes.
In July 2009, the ELMT – through the VSF Suisse office – commissioned a market survey of fodder for
peri‐urban livestock in Mandera, which ILRI responded to.
This is a report on the study findings whose objectives are detailed below.
2. Survey objectives
The broad objective was to study the fodder market practices in the EMLT operation area covering the
three countries (Figure 1) – the fodder production, transportation, trade and use – as an economic
livelihood in the target area.
The target area is shown in Figure 1
8

Figure 1. Map showing the targeted rivers basins and towns
ETHIOPIA
River Genale
Dollow town
River Daue
Mandera town
River Juba
Luuq town
KENYA
SOMALI
Source of map: Encarta World Atlas (http://encarta.msn.com)
9

The specific objectives of the study guide the framework of this report and are listed as follows:
1. To describe the fodder market chain
a. The fodder products
b. The market actors: producers, intermediaries and consumers.
i. Their profiles and roles in the chain. The market chain link to peri‐urban livestock keepers.
ii. Their performance and fodder needs, especially the adequacy to peri‐urban livestock systems.
iii. The roles of the other players. Chain support structures.
2. To estimate the numbers of livestock the chain can support: fodder and livestock potential.
3. To report on the environmental and social impacts of the market chain.
4. To make recommendations that will enhance overall chain performance and value accrued to
individual actors.
3. Methodology
1.1 Area covered
Data was collected from urban and peri‐urban areas of Mandera, Dollow Ado and Dollow and Luuq
towns, using key informants, focus groups and household surveys.
1.2 Farm and market
The fodder farms and market points were visited to identify the fodder products, the method of
transport and exchange transactions and value made.
1.3 Key informant interviews
These were held with the following agents in the three towns of the following offices:
1. The District Livestock Production Officer, Mandera Kenya
2. VSF Suisse staff
3. Arid Lands Resource Management Project (ALRMP), Mandera Kenya
4. COOPI, Mandera Kenya
5. Save the Children US, Ethiopia
6. Dollow Agricultural Research Station, Ethiopia
1.4 Focus group discussions
These were held with the following fodder chain actor‐groups in the three towns
1. Agro‐pastoralists producing fodder
10

2. Fodder traders
3. Fodder transporters
4. Peri‐urban livestock keepers
1.5 Detailed surveys
A detailed survey was done using a questionnaire (Appendix 1) conducted on representatives of the four
actor groups. The sampling was purposive targeting geographical locations where the fodder was grown
and there were active links from the farms to the trading and consumption centres. This was followed
by a detailed survey on randomly selected representatives sampled of the chain actor categories. The
following numbers of respondents interviewed are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Actor category sample size selection for detailed survey
Market chain actor
Sample survey for survey
Agro-pastoralists 44
Fodder traders 32
Peri-urban livestock keepers 28
Fodder transporters 17
Total 121
1.6 Fodder analysis – Estimating food production and use
Samples of the forages were collected at the market points for laboratory analysis. The fresh samples
were weighed (fresh, as‐fed status) to determine Dry Matter content and nutritional value contribution
to the livestock system. Bundles of the fodder sold were bought and weighed to establish average
bundle weights and respective prices.
1.7 Value chain performance
To determine the amounts of products and the values flowing through the system it was necessary to
develop a common measure that could be related to all the actors. The fodder products are many and
diverse (Table 2). Since the actors used fodder bundles we used an estimation of the total weight (in
kilograms, kgs) exchanged at each point. The prices for each bundle also varied and the figures used are
an aggregation from focus group discussion and survey data to derive buying and purchase prices at
various points. It was not possible to work out detailed revenues and expenses of the agro‐pastoralists
and livestock keepers, so the value distribution for these two points is given as net nutritional value
potentially available.
4. The fodder products
The agro‐pastoralists in the area studied grow various food crops, some of which residues are used after
harvest as livestock fodder while selling the rest to other farmers. Depending on the drought situation,
11

some (e.g. the maize crop) are harvested well before maturing into human food and converted into
fodder. Crops grown and traded as fodder crops by the agro‐pastoralists are shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Crops grown and traded as fodder crops in the ELMT region
Fodders crops produced in
the system
Maize
Zea mays
Cowpea
Vigna unguiculata
Sorghum
Sorghum bicolour
Hybrid sorghum grass
Weed bundles
Sudan grass
Sorghum valgare var, sudanese
Boma Rhodes grass
Chloris gayana
Columbus grass
Sorghum almum
Napier grass
Pennisetum purpureum
Sweet potatoes
Ipomoea batatas
Bananas
Musa spp.
Velvet beans (Mucuna
pruriens), Leucaena (Leucaena
spp) and Lucerne (Medicago
spp)
Use as fodder
• Maize stover is the most common fodder and is delivered or sold in tied bundles.
• The maize was originally grown for human food but now there is shift of use as green fresh
fodder; in one FGD it was said that up to 85% of the maize is now primarily grown for fodder.
This will also use include of the stover residues after thinning and after harvesting the cobs.
• Cowpea vines are the second most popular fodder and are delivered or sold in tied bundles.
• The wild cowpea is grown intercropped with maize specifically for use as green fresh fodder.
• There were very few references of its use as a human food.
• Being a legume, its nitrogen-fixing quality is an added advantage to the maize crop, and
compensated the absence of commercial fertilizers.
• Sorghum stover is delivered or sold in tied bundles; it is the common variety but grown
primarily for fodder.
• High demand but most of it produced for home livestock consumption.
• This is a special variety of sorghum that has been bred to grow well in water stressed
environments, producing a fleshy soft (possibly more palatable) stem and leafy foliage.
• In a number of instances, some of the farmers have tried to make hay from it.
• None was found on sale; all production for home livestock consumption, sometimes conserved
as hay.
• These are small bundles of mixed plants types consisting of natural grass types and herbs and
were found in all fodder markets (third in popularity after maize and cowpea).
• They are harvested by farm labourers as sole or part of payment for clearing the farm lands.
• These bundles are also used by labourers as fodder for their livestock and/or sold.
• These are recent introductions by organizations to improve on the production of fodder from
appropriate plant varieties.
• They are harvested and used fresh or dried and stored and used as conserved hay.
• Reports of increasing production of Sudan and Boma Rhodes grass as hay, especially after
successful sales of large amounts in recent droughts, and reported to provide best nutritional
value (production response) as hay compared to other plants.
• At the time of the survey Napier grass was found grown only in a few farms and no sales were
observed in the markets. However, during the household interviews, it was mentioned as a
popular fodder by all the actors.
• Sweet potatoes are grown for food and the vines used as fodder.
• There were no sales involved; what was available was only for home livestock consumption.
• There was very limited presence and use. The stems and leaves used as fodder by agropastoralist
homesteads growing the crops.
• There were no sales involved; what was available was only for home livestock consumption.
These are recent introductions by VSF S to some of the farms in the year 2008.
12

Despite the long range of products grown, traded and used as fodder, this study focuses on the most
common species produced and exchanged in the market each day. Going by the number of
transactions, they made up 80 ‐ 90% of all exchanges mentioned during the survey (Table 3). These are
bundles of maize stover, cowpeas vines, sorghum stover, Napier stover, fresh Sudan grass and weeds
harvested by labourers (or share‐croppers) working in the crop farms.
Table 3. Frequency respondents’ mention of fodder species in production, use and sale
Frequency of species’ mention...
Fodder species .. on-farm
production
... on-farm use ... in direct retail
transactions
... in wholesale sale to
transporters and traders
n = 290 n = 223 n = 91 n = 143
Maize stover 30 34 47 45
Cowpeas 24 23 25 27
Sorghum stover 9 9 2 10
Napier stover 8 5 5 6
Sudan grass 8 8 11 3
Weed bundles 4 4 1 2
Not all feed offered to the livestock is fodder; a substantial part of the animals’ feed is rangeland pasture
and shrubs that the fodder supplements. The animals, especially sheep and goats, are taken out to graze
on whatever pasture is available (which is very little during the dry seasons), and the pastoralists make
efforts to acquire fodder for the animals to supplement the little grass animals can access. Some
pastoralists bring their herds from the rangelands during drought to come and graze on arable land left
idle in the riverine farms. This is a commercial arrangement with the amount of money paid for hiring
this type of land depending on size of area and type of crop fodder or crop residue left for grazing.
5. The fodder market actors
The fodder markets are found associated with the urban centers served by the rivers Daua (flowing
along the Kenya‐Ethiopia and Ethiopia‐Somalia borders) and Genale in Ethiopia before it joins with Daua
around Dollow town to flow as river Jubba into Somalia. The fodder is grown by the riverine farmers
who, after using some for their own livestock, sell a deliberately produced surplus to other livestock
users, either directly or through transporters and traders in and around the mentioned towns. Focus
group discussions and interviews with key informants identified the direct market chain actors (actually
producing and selling fodder product) and estimated their populations as shown in Table 4.
13

Table 4. Estimation of fodder market chain actors’ populations (households or farms)
Location
Agropastoralists
Fodder
transporters
Estimated total populations
Fodder traders
Along river Daua 600 50 150 in Mandera town 55,000
Along river Genale 575 Less than 20 30 in Dollow Ado town 26,000+
Along river Jubba 800 Less than 20 Less than 20 in Luuq town 62,700
Total urban and pastoral
households in target area
(UNDP, 2005)
Total populations 1,975 c 100 c 200 c150,000
Source: Estimations from focus group discussions and key informant interviews
The relationships among the various actors of the fodder market are shown in Figure 2.
14

Figure 2. The fodder market chain in the EMLT area
RIVERINE AGRO‐
PASTORALISTS
FODDER TRADERS
PERI‐URBAN
LIVESTOCK
FARMERS
‐ Produce fodder
‐ Feed own animals
‐ Sell surplus through
transporter or trader
‐ Earn from fodder and
livestock off‐takes
FODDER
TRANSPORTERS
‐ Hired to transport
fodder
‐ Earns from transport
service
‐ Buy fodder from
Agro‐pastoralists to
sell to peri‐urban
livestock keepers
‐ Earn from fodder
sales to urban
livestock farmers
‐ Buy fodder from
fodder traders and
agro pastoralists
‐ Earn from livestock
off‐takes
Population in chain:
1,975 along the river
basins
Population: About 70;
most operating in
Mandera town
Population: 200; 75%
operating in Mandera
town
Populations: 25,000 –
30,000 households
‐ Provide planting material,
education, water pumps, fuel
‐ Famine relief supplies
enable purchases
Local and International
Government
International Support
NGOs
(Ministry Livestock,
(For example World Food
(VSF S, COOPI, Islamic Relief
ALRMP, Dollow Ado
Program)
Fndn, SAVE US, UK)
Research)
15

5.1. Actor profiles
Details on the actor profiles involved in the fodder market were obtained from the survey and
corroborated by information gathered during interactions with key informants before and during the
survey. The profiles of the agro‐pastoralists, transporters, traders and peri‐urban livestock keepers are
shown in Table 5. Information used to characterise them was gender, age, education, household size
and number of family members involved in the business activities, as well as numbers of employed
labourers.
Table 5. Market actor profiles, showing gender, age, education, household size and permanent labour
Profile parameters
Agropastoralists
Fodder
transporters
Fodder
traders
Peri-urban
livestock keepers
Number in sample (n) 44 17 32 28
Gender distribution (%)
Male 75 76 28 17
Female 25 26 72 73
Age distribution (%)
< 20 years 0 6 3.13 0
20 – 30 years 18 35 40.63 14
30 – 40 years 27 35 34.38 36
40 – 50 years 27 18 6.25 32
>50 years 27 6 15.63 18
Education levels (% distribution of maximum level achieved)
Illiterate 7 41 16 7
Illiterate + Religious 45 24 66 68
Adult education only 9 6 6 11
Adult educ + Religious 7 6 0 4
Primary + Religious 14 6 13 11
Secondary + Religious 18 0 0 0
Household sizes (numbers, std. dev.)
Total 10 (4.5) 8 (3.9) 8 (3.9) 8 (3.9)
Males 6 (3.5) 4 (2.9) 4 (2.7) 4 (2.2)
Females 5 (2.4) 3 (1.5) 35 (1.5) 4 (1.9)
Members in business (mean, std. dev.)
Total 3 (2.2) 2 (0.9) 2 (0.7) 3 (0.3)
Males 2 (2.1) 1 (0.9) 0.5 (0) 2 (0.5)
Females 1 (0.7) 0.5 (0.5) 1 (0) 0.3 (0.5)
Permanent laborers on farm or in business (numbers, mean and std. dev.)
Total 8 (7.7) 2 (0.5) 3 (1.0) 2 (0.4)
Males 7 (6.9) 2 (0.5) 3 (1.3) 1 (0.5)
Females 1 (2.4) 0 0.3 (0.4) 0.2 (0)
Group (agriculture-related organizations) membership (%) 14 12 3 11
16

Fodder producers – the agro‐pastoralists
Agro‐pastoralists own land along the banks of the main rivers using the water to irrigate crops and
fodder. Most of the agro‐pastoralists household heads (75%) are male, confirming group discussions’
revelations that farm land traditionally belongs to men; the participants said women have no land
ownership rights. Most agro‐pastoralists (more than 80%) were over 30 years, with 54% over 40 years.
Agro‐pastoralists in Kenya and Somalia own on average 13 hectares per household (12 and 13 hectares
in Somalia and Kenya, respectively; there were no figures from Ethiopia). The farm sizes ranged from 1.2
to 48.6 hectares (n = 32, std dev = 15.2). Some of the fodder is grown actually by labourers or relatives
who have been allowed access to the riverine land by the owners in a share‐cropping arrangement. In
essence most of the fodder is grown by sharecroppers, who – after the original landowners take their
share – sell the rest to livestock keepers. Some of land owners lease idle plots or land left fallow to
roaming livestock keepers for their animals to graze on the crop residues. The other group of fodder
producers are casual labourers who have been allowed to carry weeds collected from the farm they
work in. These are the weed bundles found in the fodder markets. These mixed grass‐weed bundles are
cheaper than the fresh maize stover and cow pea bundles.
The agro‐pastoralists’ profile in Table 5 shows that most agro‐pastoralists (38%) have not gone through
the formal education system (primary and secondary schooling) but have received religious education.
Those exposed to primary, secondary and post secondary education are only about 22%.
The agro‐pastoralists household size is relatively large at 10 members per household, with equal
representation of males and females. On average only 2 – 3 of these are involved in farm activities
supported by an average 8 permanent labourers. Such a large number of labourers was pointed out to
be due to the share‐cropping arrangement (Box 1) common in Somalia where the number of such
labourers was 12 (compared to 4 in Kenya and 3 in Ethiopia). It has been pointed out that the sharecropping
is frequent in Somalia where there are limited cash payment arrangements for labour.
Membership in agriculture‐related groups was low; only 14% of the agro‐pastoralists belonged to
organizations mostly to get access to inputs and facilities (84% of benefits mentioned) and information
(38%). The inputs were mainly access to water pumps or in the distributor network of irrigated water.
Fodder transporters
The fodder is transported from the farms to the town markets by donkey carts, usually commissioned by
the fodder producers for the deliveries to the market. Independent donkey cart transporters in Mandera
collect money for fodder sales from the traders and deduct their fees before handing over the day’s
collection to the agro‐pastoralist farmer. In Dollow and Luuq towns of Ethiopia and Somalia, respectively
the presence of independent transporters and traders is not as strong as in Mandera in the Kenyan side;
the fodder producers (the agro‐pastoralists) deliver their fodder themselves to the allocated market
sites.
17

Box 1. SHARE CROPPING IN THE DAUE AND DOLLOW RIVER FARMS OF THE MANDERA TRIANGLE
Sharecropping allows farmer access to land when arrangements are made between the original owner and the
current user to use the land for crop and fodder production. In the Daua and Dollow river farms sharecropping
are a common practice whereby the land owner provides farming space, a water pump and its fuel, as well as
planting material. The tenant (in many cases an entire household) then prepares the land and grows crops
mostly selected by them. After harvests, all inputs costs are deducted and the net income is shared equally
between the landowner and the tenant.
This is a common cultural practice among the Somali owning farms along the region’s river banks. Sometimes
the tenant acquires a very important role dictating what is to be grown on the farm, gets to live in the
compound with their families who assist in the farming. The landowner only visits the farm occasionally.
Fodder transportation is becoming a viable livelihood activity, and the number of these transporters is
steadily increasing. Allocation of this task to the youth is believed to be due to their ability to handle the
donkeys and the carts better than older men and women. The transporters acquire carts (inheriting or
buying them) and use them as a source of livelihood transporting other cargo.
Table 5 shows that the transporters are mostly males (76%) aged between 20 and 40 years (70%).
Almost all of them (96%) had no formal schooling (primary or secondary schooling). The average
household size is 7 – 8 members with 4 males and 3 females. They do not use any permanent labourer;
and only 2 members (apart from children) are involved in the transport business. In a focus group
discussion some participants stated that they occasionally hire causal labourers to drive and feed the
donkeys. Only 12% transporters belonged to a group in order to obtain inputs, facilities and technical
support.
Fodder traders
The fodder traders in both Mandera Kenya and Dollow Ethiopia have been in business since 1991 shortly
after the collapse of the Somalia government, which forced community members to find ways of
earning a livelihood. In Mandera, Kenya, the number of traders has steadily increased to about 150
currently operating from four sites in the town. In Dollow Ethiopia, fodder trading has intensified the
last five years due to increasing severity and frequency of drought with pastoralists seeking traded
fodder as the main source of feed for their livestock. There is a slow shift of lifestyle from pastoral
nomadic to a more sedentary lifestyle which require forage to be brought to the animals. Almost all the
fodder traders in the Mandera town are women and some are wives to the men who have sharecropping
arrangements in the riverine farms. The women sell green fresh fodder bundles, which they
buy at wholesale prices from the agro‐pastoralists farmers (directly or through the transporters) and sell
to livestock keepers coming in the open markets. The traders in market centres also include the casual
labourers selling weed bundles harvested from the farms where they work.
The traders’ profile in Table 5 shows that the traders are mostly women (72%) aged between 20 and 40
years (75%). There a few (15%) over 50 years, who – on observation – were widowed grandmothers
18

strong enough to operate in the markets. Education levels were mostly religious and primary (78%). The
household sizes stood at 7 – 8 members and only the women were involved in the business. No
permanent labour was used. Only ten of the fodder traders said they belonged to a group.
Fodder consumers
The agro‐pastoralists use the fodder they grow to feed their own livestock. They then sell the rest to
peri‐urban livestock keepers in and around Mandera, Dollow Ado and Luuq towns as well as pastoral
communities living further away from the rivers, with little access to the river bank farms.
Over time, the population of urban dwellers – as consumers of milk and meat and as livestock keepers –
has been increasing, generating greater demand for the fodder from the agro‐pastoral farms. The
nomadic pastoralists have increasingly used fodder to feed their cattle as the rangeland pasture is
declining. These communities are the ones who are exerting a demand on fodder supply which is
targeted by the fodder producers, the transporters and the traders found at the market.
The data in Table 5 is indicating that the peri‐urban household heads are mostly women (72%) and may
have referred to the respondents found at the time of the survey, or the women were in charge of the
households since most of the men had moved with animals in search of pasture at the time of the
survey. This contrasts with the agro‐pastoralists household heads who were mainly males (75%). The
urban livestock keeping women were between 30 and 50 years old (68%) with little or no exposure to
formal schooling. Only 7% had formal primary school level education. The households were larger at 8 –
9 members, with equal representation of males and females, with two males working in livestock
rearing supported by about one permanent labourer per household. This is again dramatically different
from the 8 members per households employed by the agro‐pastoralists. The per‐urban livestock keepers
had permanent labourers, mainly herd attendants taking animals out to graze during the day.
Animals kept include cattle, donkeys, sheep and goats. The most prominent livestock species were
sheep and goats, counted together as ‘shoats’. At the time of the survey only four agro‐pastoralists in
the urban zones had camels, with one having up to 80 head. No peri‐urban livestock keepers had any
camel. The mean number of shoats per household (21) as shown in Table 6 varied across the three
regions – 27 and 58 in Kenya and Somalia, respectively; there were no figures for Ethiopia), The mean
for peri‐urban livestock keepers was 2 for Ethiopia and 24 for Kenya; there were no figures for Somalia.
In general the agro‐pastoralists keep more animals than the peri‐urban farmers – three times the TLU
weight (Table 6) since they have the land and are able to use the fodder they produce to support the
numbers. The low number of animals in the peri‐urban homes could be due to the herds that had been
moved in nomadic search for pasture.
Animals from both categories of livestock keepers (agro‐pastoral and urban) are still taken out to
rangeland pasture and fed on fodder in the afternoons. In addition, and especially during the dry
19

seasons, a large number of cattle from remote areas are moved into the system, increasing the demand
for the fodder. Livestock traders at the markets are also part of the consuming market. They buy fodder
– both fresh and dry hay – to feed their animals at the market.
Table 6. Livestock ownership per household by agro-pastoralists and peri-urban livestock keepers found in the Mandera
Triangle
Livestock species
Agro-pastoralists
(with farms along the rivers)
(n = 44)
Mean number of livestock per HH
Peri-urban livestock keepers
(with farms in and around the towns)
(n =28)
Numbers TLUs Numbers TLUs
Cattle Bulls 7 9 1 1
Oxen, steers 8 9 2 2
Cows 9 9 1 1
Heifers 4 3 2 1
Calves 7 2 4 1
Total head 35 10
Donkeys Donkeys 3 2 2 1
Sheep and goats Shoats 38 4 21 2
Total TLU 38 11
5.1. Fodder market size and chain performance
In this section we describe the fodder market size and product volumes as they flow from production to
consumption through the various chain actors. The actors’ performance is based on the margins they
earned which are affected by costs lowered by their innovative strategies. The market is supported by
actors who supply regularly the buyers. The system provides high earning returns to producers as well as
other chain actors. Since this was only a one‐time cross‐sectional survey (appraisal), we used one
reference point – for the year 2008 and the effect of the dry and rainy seasons during that year (net
value accrued). In calculating the value earned in sales and transportation, we use the fodder product
units (numbers of bundles that can be exchanged) – since the prices are based on these means of
assessment, rather than the Dry Matter content. To assess the value accrued to production,
transportation and trade, we work out the amounts of fodder material using a related “standard unit”,
such as the fodder product’s weight (in kilograms) – to compare the across‐chain performance.
Fodder production potential and adequacy
20

All fodder comes from the riverine where agro‐pastoralists own on average 13 hectares per household
(n = 32). Using survey data the total land placed under fodder along the river basins is estimated to be
about 3,000 and 25,000 hectares during the dry and rainy seasons, respectively, as shown in Table 7.
Using an average 500 meters either side of the three rivers being used for irrigation the resulting land is
a total of 218 square kilometres (or about 22,000 hectares). This has been estimated using ArcGIS 9.3
(ESRI). The land under the different crops has been estimated using basin troughs as units of planting
land. In some cases, the units are not exclusively separate: cowpeas basins may be found interspersed
with maize basins. Weed bundles are harvested by the labourers when preparing or weeding the land
for the main crops.
Table 7. Total productivity of fodder per day by the agropastoral farms in the ELMT river basins
Current productivity
(kgs per hectare per day,
based on HH data)
Potential production from
the river basins
(Tonnes per day from c.
22,000 ha.)
Fresh DM Fresh DM*
Aggregate (total) 2,000 432 8,000 2,000
Per Species
Cowpeas bundles 1,943 302
Maize stover bundles 1,686 302 6,710 1,458
Napier stover bundles 1,657 281 6,611 1,319
Sorghum stover bundles 2,257 562 9,020 2,611
Sudan grass bales 2,657 972
Sudan grass bundles 2,886 626
Total during
Rain season 2,114 462 8,520 2,083
Dry season 1,857 410 7,417 1,912
*Estimated using DM yields of the fodder crops in the AEZ as quoted by Muyekho, et al., 1999
The agro‐pastoralists farms have the potential to produce an average 2,000 kgs of fresh fodder (255 kgs
DM), translating to about 432 tonnes of fodder dry matter per day per hectare. The number of animals
that this amount of forage can support in the system will depend on several factors. Some of these
include the digestibility of the fodder, the levels and digestible availability of the forages’ nutrients
(energy and protein), and the species of animals (cattle, sheep and goats) and their feed‐dependent
physiological status (growing, pregnant, lactating) (NRC, 2007). Using an integrated tropical livestock
unit (TLU) weight of 200 kgs, and an estimated daily DM intake of 3 – 4 % of their live weight, the 2,000
tonnes of DM the region could produce, there is a possibility of the fodder supporting 4,000 TLUs per
hectare. The current livestock population density in the area under study (0.5 kilometres either side of
the rivers; 218.2 square kilometres) is estimated at 1,091 TLUs 1 per sq km (CIESIN, 2004). Table 8 has use
and nutrient information on the common feed products.
1 Combining cattle, goats and sheep
21

Table 8. Nutrient composition of the fodder produced and shared out by the agro-pastoralist
Mean bundle
weight (Kgs)
Feeding dry
matter %
Ash NDF ADF ADL CP
See definitions below
As w/w DM %
Cowpeas vines 4.6 17 13 48 39 11 20
Maize stover 5.2 31 11 65 40 4 7
Napier stover 5.5 22 15 59 40 6 6
Sorghum stover 9.0 43 7 67 38 6 11
Sudan grass stover 6.5 32 8 67 41 5 6
Weeds 1.3 24 16 66 41 8 13
Ash = this is the non-organic fraction of a feed; used as a rough indicator of the feed’s mineral content.
NDF = Neutral detergent fibre. A measure of most of the structural components in a feed’s plant cells (i.e. lignin, hemicelluloses
and cellulose). The NDF level influences the intake of dry matter as well as how long the feed will take to ruminate (ferment in
the rumen), hence a rough indicator of the feed’s energy supply
ADF = Acid detergent fibre.
ADL = Acid detergent lignin
ADF and ADL represent the fraction of indigestible material in forage, usually the lignin-coated cellulose. There is a general
assumption that the digestibility of a feed is inversely proportional to this fibre content.
CP = Crude protein. It is a measure of the total protein content in a feed which is essential for the growth of animals.
Agro‐pastoralists’ benefit
The agro‐pastoralists give out or sell 75% of all the fodder they produce and the amounts shared out will
depend on the weather (Figure 3). They therefore enjoy double benefits from fodder production: they
use some of the fodder for their own livestock, earning income from livestock off‐take and products
such as milk, and the sale of the fodder to other chain actors. So they either produce a large surplus of
fodder for sale or sell what they can after satisfying their own (livestock) needs, i.e. selling fodder may
not be a primary objective for some. On‐farm use of fodder enables them to keep more cattle or enjoy
higher off‐take values (types and number of animals kept, milk production, and weights at which the
animals are disposed) than the peri‐urban and plain pastoralists.
While land is accessed through ownership, mostly by inheritance or through sharecropping, the next
most important capital is a water pump. Up to 80 % of the agro‐pastoralists own or have access to
pumps. The pumps are single‐ or double‐piston diesel engines obtained from Nairobi (Kenya) or
Mogadishu (Somalia) for USD i 800 to 1,200. Some NGOs (for example COOPI and the Islamic Relief
Foundation) have provided pumps to these agro‐pastoral farmers and groups on a cost‐sharing basis
and so the farmers either own or borrow pumps from those who have them.
22

Figure 3.Distribution of fodder by agro pastoralists overall and during the rainy and dry season
Total kgs of fresh fodder
300 per day
200
Overall
RAIN Season
DRY Season
100
0
Retained for home
use
Given out as gift
Sold direct (farm‐gate
retail)
Sold through
transporters
Sold through traders
Box 2. BASIN TROUGHS FACILITATE IRRIGATION
All crops along the riverine farms are grown in shallow troughs or basins into which water is irrigated. The key purpose of
the basin is to allow water to flow into a trough and stay long enough to allow seepage and absorption by the crop.
The bounds of the basins (hence the size) is determined by a number of (human) steps; it is usually known and can be used
to determine the area under the crop in a farm. On average the basins vary from 2 x 3m to 3 x 4 m. In Dollow Agric
Research Stations some basins were found to be as large as 10 x 10 m. But the size of the basin may vary depending on :
• The amount of water that can be pumped into all the basins in a plot at a given time, i.e. the power of the pump
• The water-holding capacity of the soil
• The perceived rate of loss through evaporation which may also be a factor of the sun’s heat intensity.
Since the payments for labour sometimes are based on the number of basins prepared, weeded for and harvested, there are
occasions when workers may dig small basins to increase payments due to them.
The ago‐pastoralists acquire maize and cowpea planting seed on their own (buying from stockists and
sharing self‐generated seed from previous crops). However, most Sudan and Columbus seed has, so far,
been distributed free to the farmers by NGOs (see Section 7: Other players; chain support systems). In
Ethiopia, fodder production has increased with help from Dollow Agricultural Research Institute, COOPI
and Save the Children US, through provision of seeds and irrigation facilities. To encourage selfproduction
of seed, some NGOs are asking farmers to give back 20% of their harvested seeds for redistribution
to others and this is contributing to the increase in fodder production in the area (FGDs). In
Mandera, there are opportunities for local seed production and distribution but this cannot be done as a
commercial undertaking outside the quality regulations required by the Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate
Station (KEPHIS), which indicate that commercially sold seed must be certified seed. However, the
interest in fodder production is now growing to the extent that the farmers have started multiplying
their own seed for use the subsequent planting seasons. During the survey, several such plots were
observed.
23

The agro‐pastoralists do not use commercial fertilizers but rely on manure collected from the animals’
overnight sheds. Some farmers have been trained on how to prepare compost manure but this was not
common across the region. They acknowledge that the soil is alkaline and would rather use manure than
industrial fertilizer. Table 9 shows a budget enterprise of the agro‐pastoralists.
Table 9. An annual enterprise budget estimate for livestock and fodder produced by an agro-pastoralist farm in the
ELMT
USD
Livestock off-take 1,2
Cattle (total from bulls, cows, heifers, oxen and steers, calves) 7
Camels 14
Donkeys (14)
Shoats 90
Total from livestock 395
Fodder sales 3
Cowpeas bundles 497
Maize stover bundles 376
Napier stover bundles 146
Sorghum stover bundles 73
Sudan grass bales 24
Sudan grass bundles 97
Total from fodder sales 1,213
TOTAL REVENUE 1,608
Operating costs
Herd/flock attendant labour 96
Water pump costs (services, hiring, fuel) 160
Concentrates and minerals 32
Veterinary services 80
Total operating costs 368
Returns above operating costs 1,240
Fixed costs, mostly hired permanent labour 4 240
TOTAL COSTS (OPERATING + FIXED) 1,608
Net returns above costs 5 1,240
1 Net value earned during the year = Total value added to farm (i.e. livestock brought forward from previous year, born,
purchased, received as gift, revenue from sales and slaughters) LESS value lost (i.e. deaths, given out as gift) and value carried
forward to following year.
2 Milk sales were not mentioned as being produced in substantial amounts
3 Total of sales excluding own use and given out as gift
4 Fixed costs do not include land use (rent, lease, etc.), depreciation, interests and taxes.
5 Excluding other input costs, mainly consisting of the transporters’ lab our.
24

Fodder transporters’ benefit
From the fodder production activity, the second value earning point in the fodder market structure is
what transporters earn by ferrying fodder from an agro‐pastoralist to a trader or livestock keeper.
Fodder transporters mostly use donkey carts, although there are some who carry the fodder on their
shoulders or backs. The basic capital required is one or two donkeys and a cart and readiness to pay tax
charged by the respective town councils. In Dollow Ethiopia, traders said they occasionally employ an
attendant for the donkeys. Motor vehicles are only used during severe drought when fodder has to be
obtained from far beyond the district and in sufficiently large amounts, which was rare, according to the
focus group participants. The transporter operational costs are mainly the maintenance of the donkey
and cart and taxes charged by the town council (local government) for every load entering the market.
The Mandera town council charges USD 0.27 per donkey cart per day getting into the town. The charge
is twice for fodder loads coming from Somalia. In Mandera the total transport monthly expense for the
transporter, covering feeding, disease control for the donkey and cart maintenance, was said to be
about USD 27 per month. A transporter case example is described in Box 3.
According to farmers in Dollow Ethiopia, a donkey cart can carry between 40 and 50 bundles of fresh
maize stover or cowpea vine bundles in one trip. The value coming to the transporter is thus the net
from revenues earned by bringing the fodder to the traders less the amount spent on managing the cart
and maintaining the donkeys. During the rainy season when there is an abundant supply of fodder the
transporters only earned from delivering fodder to traders at the market point. According to group
discussion participants a donkey cart can carry between 40 and 50 bundles of fresh maize stover or
cowpea vine bundles and either the agro‐pastoralists or traders pay the transporters USD 0.27 per
bundle. In the dry seasons, when fodder is scarce, the transporters become enterprising by buying
fodder from the farmers and participating in selling these directly to livestock keepers. The net earnings
then depend on the combinations of fodder types that the traders and transporters handle. Table 10
shows the average volumes of fodder the actors deal with the resulting net earnings.
Box 3. OMAR GURE – A FODDER TRANSPORTER
OMAR GURE has been transporting fodder for the last ten years starting in the year 2000. He transports fodder
from farms along the Daua river to the markets in Mandera town and earns on average USD 4 per day. Out of the
day’s earnings he uses USD 2 to buy fodder for the donkeys. Most times his family (children) use more than he
saves, so he feels he is not making much money. However since he started his business service, he has built himself
a house, rented a farm and bought some goats and an extra donkey. The extra donkey enabled him to rest his other
donkeys when he shared them on different days or tasks.
Unfortunately he lost two of the donkeys during last year’s drought. The biggest challenges faced: the income is
never enough to cover all his household expenses.
25

Table 10. Daily purchases, sales and net earnings by fodder transporters during the rainy and dry season in the ELMT
Rain season
Dry season
Sales
Weight
(Kgs)
Total sales
(USD)
Weight
(Kgs)
Total sales
(USD)
Cowpeas bundles 214 11 263 29
Maize stover bundles 436 23 426 38
Napier stover bundles 301 301 14
Sorghum stover bundles 450 29 500 46
Total (aggregated) revenue 63 127
Costs of fodder purchase
Cowpeas bundles 235 15 289 25
Maize stover bundles 446 16 470 33
Napier stover bundles 390 8 329 10
Sorghum stover bundles 450 17 600 27
Total (aggregated) purchase costs 57 97
Total fixed costs
(tax, donkey feed and health, cart repairs)
2 2
Total costs 59 99
Net returns to purchases and fixed costs 1 4 28
Fodder traders’ benefit
Like the transporters, the trader’s margin is coming from the sale of the fodder. The traders buy and sell
during both the rainy and dry seasons, and their net values are determined by any variations in related
costs and prices. Operational costs are negligible since they do not pay for use of the market points and
there is no charge for a market tax like for the transporters. To get into the trading business, one only
needs a starting capital to buy initial fresh fodder stock. There are times when this initial capital is
covered by acquiring the fodder on credit from a fodder supplier (FGDs). The traders rarely store any
fodder; they order and dispose all that they can during the same day and they use the prevailing
demand to earn gross sales that cover their daily expenses. In the rare times when they seek storage for
left‐over fodder, they keep it in some of the market stalls for a small fee (USD 0.27 per trader).
1 Excluding other input costs, mainly consisting of the transporters’ labour
26

Table 11. Daily purchases, sales and net earnings by traders during the rainy and dry season
Rain season
Dry season
Sales of fodder
Weight
(Kgs)
Total sales
(USD)
Weight
(Kgs)
Total sales
(USD)
Cowpeas bundles 141 25 160 24
Maize stover bundles 148 16 220 24
Napier stover bundles 95 6 77 6
Sorghum stover bundles 188 13
Sudan grass bundles 408 40
Weeds bundles 14 1
Total (aggregate revenue) 47 108
Costs of fodder purchase
Cowpeas bundles 140 8 175 11
Maize stover bundles 145 9 220 14
Napier stover bundles 97 8 91 3
Sorghum stover bundles 190 4
Sudan grass bundles 408 25
Weeds bundles 19 1
Total purchase costs 25 58
Total fixed costs
(tax, fodder storage)
1 1
Total costs 26 59
Net returns to purchases and fixed costs 1 21 49
Livestock keepers’ benefit
The final accrual value point in the fodder market is what the livestock keeper brings into the farm and
the net determined by of the resulting livestock off‐take. As with agro‐producers revenues will be
influenced by how well they feed their animals and maintain them over the year, keeping them free
from disease, feeding them well to maintain weights and body conditions that attract high market
prices. Table 12 below shows a livestock production enterprise budget for peri‐urban livestock keepers
in the ELMT.
1 Excluding other input costs, mainly consisting of the traders’ labour
27

Table 12 An annual enterprise budget estimate for livestock produced by a peri-urban farm in the ELMT
USD
Livestock off-take 1,2
Cattle (total from bulls, cows, heifers, oxen and steers, calves) 246
Camels -
Donkeys 28
Shoats 109
Total from livestock 383
TOTAL REVENUE 383
Operating costs
Herd/flock attendant labour 160
Concentrates and minerals 48
Veterinary services 80
Total operating costs 288
Returns above operating costs 95
Fixed costs 3 -
TOTAL COSTS (OPERATING + FIXED) 95
Net returns above costs 4 95
The potential earnings are affected by the nutrient contributed by the fodder purchased and given to
the livestock, which in turn affects the farms’ livestock off‐takes. The fodder purchased is used to feed
the animals, and the resulting livestock off‐take represented by reproduction, growth and body
maintenance, milk production and sale of live animals. Consider that the fodder was supplementing the
available rangeland grazing and a more profound analysis would be necessary to the proportion and
value contribution of the two different forage sources.
During the time of the survey there was very little marketing (and household income) coming from sales
of milk from Mandera peri‐urban livestock farms. Only two farms in Mandera Kenya were able to
produce large enough amounts and bring surpluses for sale in the town. Most of the milk consumed was
from neighbouring Somalia, as powdered or very small quantities of liquid milk. Where is occurred, fresh
low milk sold for USD 67 cents a litre or for USD 40 cents for a more popular measure of a 500‐mls cup.
Steers were sold at 2.5 – 3 years @ USD 133 to 200. In Luuq Somalia, there were definite sales of milk
from livestock keepers with prices varying between USD 0.5 to 1 per litre, depending on demand and
scarcity.
1 Net value earned during the year = Total value added to farm (i.e. livestock brought forward from previous year,
born, purchased, received as gift, revenue from sales and slaughters) LESS value lost (i.e. deaths, given out as gift)
and value carried forward to following year.
2 Milk sales were not mentioned as being produced in substantial amounts
3 Fixed costs do not include land use (rent, lease, etc.), depreciation, interests and taxes.
4 Excluding other input costs, mainly consisting of the transporters’ labour.
28

6. Other players: chain support systems
The Ministry of Livestock Development in Kenya
The Ministry in Kenya (through the DLPO’s office) is acknowledged as the overall coordinator of all
fodder and livestock improvement programs in the Mandera, ensuring that there is harmonization of
activities by the various supporting organizations. Organizations wishing to provide any support to the
agro‐pastoral communities must register their intention with this Government office so that gaps are
identified or areas assisted are known. The Ministry also continues to provide extension education as
part of its official mandate. During the first phase of the ALARMP, the DLPO played a big role in
educating the communities about the advantages of the forages that were being brought in, how they
were to established, and then followed up with advisory visits.
Arid Lands Resource Management Programme (ALRMP)
The first phase of this Kenya Government program was funded by FAO which started in 1996 and played
a big role in introducing fodder in Mandera before coming to an ending 2003. The activities entailed
adoption of improved fodder types and intense extension educational campaigns. The second phase of
that program (ALRMP Phase 2, covering 2003 ‐ 2009) was funded by the World Bank, and has a
component in Natural Resources management, which is continuation of the fodder objectives through
provision of seeds and training. As mentioned earlier, in 2002 when the drought was quite severe
ALRMP purchased substantial amounts of hay from the riverine agro‐pastoralists and delivered them to
pastoral herds in remote rangelands to reduce livestock losses.
Dollow Ado Agricultural Research Station, Ethiopia
The research station has intensified the production of Sudan and Panicum grasses in Dollow Ethiopia
through a program using Community Based Seed multiplication process and using farmer research
groups. As mentioned earlier the Dollow Ado Agricultural Research centre (DoPARC), working with the
local agricultural extension offices select farmers and allocate each 0.25 hectares, some seed and
fertilizer. The farmers also receive irrigation support (in the form of fuel). The Station has been buying all
the harvested fodder seed and re‐distributing to other farmers. The Research Station has a program to
introduce the Sudan and Panicum grasses on a large scale through Community Based Seed
multiplication process and using farmer research groups. The Ujeene Daban Cooperative is one such
group (See Box 4). The Research Station supports a group by providing access to plots on its agricultural
station where the farmers can access water (pump and fuel), provides free seed then buys harvested
seed for re‐distribution to other farmers. The research station has also taken some of the farmers
through a Trainers‐of‐Trainers program to help disseminate better production and seed multiplication
processes among other farmers.
29

Local and international NGOs
These include VSF Suisse, COOPI (Cooperazione Internazionale), Save the Children US, Mandera
Polytechnic, the Islamic Relief Foundation and Dollow Farmers Cooperative Society (DFCS). The NGOs
are mainly humanitarian organizations working to alleviate injustice, poverty and general disaster
recovery to the pastoral and agro‐pastoral communities living in the area. The UN’s World Food Program
supports food and medical supplies.
Dollow Farmers Cooperative Society (DFS) is a cooperative and a CBO that coordinates fodder
production and trade around Somalia. DFCS started from a group of farmers coming together to manage
the production and marketing of food crops. TROCAIRE introduced to the group coordinated fodder
marketing. Due to the recognition it has gained. DFCS enables members to cross over to Ethiopia to sell
or buy fodder, something that was a challenge earlier.
Moonlight Development Agency (MODA) is a local NGO operating in Dollow. The NGO supports activities
on fodder production through training and seed distribution.
Box 4. UJEEDO BADAN – A FARMERS COOPERATIVE FOR FODDER
Ujeedo Badanis a multi-purpose farmers’ cooperative involved in food and fodder production and marketing . It was
formed 14 years ago and it currently has 21 individual members, including four women. There is no other similar
group in the area. If anyone is interested in joining them there are no religious restrictions (belonging to any one as a
condition), they should read and be satisfied with the group’s constitution and pay for their contribution for the
coming season. Any group earnings are shared among members based on the fraction of share contribution. Initially
group members only benefited from having access to seed, but introduction of faster and more commercial fodder
types (Sudan, Panicum and Sorghum) by Dollow Agricultural Research Station has resulted in their revenue base
increasing due to sale of fodder.
‐ Member advantages:
‐ Initially, growing of maize and use of the stover for fodder; the fodder is sold to earn the members revenue.
‐ Since membership registration indicates individual shares members earn net revenue (after deduction of
input costs) from fodder sales as a proportion of their investment.
‐ Members also get fodder for their livestock and a share of the seed. At the time of the study the group had
harvested and prepared 300 kgs of Sudan grass seed ready for distribution to members.
In the last season, Save the Childers US in Dollow Ado bought 19,200 bales of Sudan and Panicum hay bales from
the group.
These organizations serve the chain by providing input and helping to reduce costs. Table 13 gives an
indication of some of the support provided so far.
30

Table 13. Distribution of fodder seed to agro-pastoral farmers by some of the organizations
Organization Fodder crop seed Seeds distributed to agro-pastoral farmers over time (kg)
2007 2008 2009
VSF Suisse Sudan grass - 447.5 177.5
Hybrid sorghum - - 187.5
Lucaena - 5.2 -
Mukuna (Velvet beans) - 13.3 9
Napier cuttings (pieces) - 1,814 1 -
Calliandra seedlings - - 3,794 2
COOPI Boma Rhodes - 200 -
Sudan grass - - 1500
Pumps - 1 -
Islamic Relief Foundation Boma Rhodes - 800
Sudan grass - 800 600
Cowpeas 180 1960 480
Dollow Ado Agric
Research Station, Ethiopia
Source: Respective organizations’ reports
The station has distributed up to 100 kgs of various fodder species to agro-pastoralists
for the last two years
1 Number of cuttings
2 Number of seedlings
31

7. Environmental and social impacts of the market chain
6. The rivers – Daua, Dollow and Jubba
As the main source of water being used to irrigate the crops and fodder being produced for the system,
rivers are a powerful and central feature. According to participants in the group discussions the river
water has been used from time immemorial for crop production that has supported the communities’
sustenance and its importance in irrigating land for fodder production cannot be downplayed.
The agro‐pastoralists expressed concerned about dropping water levels signalling a looming water
shortage. The drop in levels has not affected production much so far, but there was apprehension about
dropping levels of flow from the Ethiopian highlands and the length of the season Daua River in Kenya.
Farmers from Luuq Somalia said some parts of the river could no longer be used and deeper trenches
would have to be dug to get to the water If the trend continues; not only will the production periods get
shorter, but the maximum possible fodder harvests are likely to drop, affecting a whole range of other
important dependent factors such as the number of farmers likely to benefit from farm production, the
traders relying on deliveries to the markets and the very large number of livestock farmers and their
herds increasingly relying on this environmental feature for their wellbeing.
7. Urban and peri‐urban population and associated demand for fodder
The urban and peri‐urban populations of Mandera, Dollow Ado and other smaller neighbouring towns
(Suftu) and their livestock are increasing creating a fodder market that is steadily growing. Some of
these are nomadic pastoral communities who are finding the extensive rangelands inadequate to their
pasture seeking practices. These rangelands – originally open and allowing free roaming – have become
drier. Restricted movement due to emerging ownership demarcation by resident communities may be
contributing to over‐grazing.
Demand for fodder is observed to be increasing, given the pressure coming from agro‐pastoralists for
planting material supplies. Some of the farmers have even shown interest in acquiring seed from
commercial stockists, although the presence of free supplies from NGOs and the government programs
keeps undermining this shift. The supply of seeds by NGOs is not guaranteed, and some have even
indicated they may not fund this in future programs. The more practical and applicable alternative of
community‐based seed production requires approval and support by the Kenya Government seed
regulation agency ‐ KEPHIS. The fodder purchase has yet to stimulate the development and sustainable
production of high volumes of seed sales among the farmers.
8. Extreme seasonal experiences and more frequent droughts
The seasons are becoming less predictable and rainfall patterns more erratic. As a result roaming
nomadic pastoral communities who can no longer rely on predictable pastures and are choosing to
settle near the town where fodder supplies are showing more available reliability. On the other hand,
the rivers’ water is no longer available for irrigation for sufficiently long enough periods to support
32

extended and increased production as would be desired by the farmers. Some have reported that water
levels in river Jubba have dropped to levels that do not allow easy access to the water for irrigation.
9. Incomes and improved livelihoods from fodder production and trade enterprises
Better incomes from fodder sales are triggering use of fodder as an enterprise. There may not be
conscious net return analysis, but it is possible for agro‐pastoral farms to demonstrate that they are
getting more from fodder production than traditional food crops. This is encouraging more farmers who
can access land and water to go into fodder production.
Women traders selling fodder are demonstrating the viability of their enterprises as source of income,
and encouraging others to join them, creating greater demand for the producers. Maize is grown mainly
for fodder and the maize stover will sell for prices high enough to allow producers to buy the maize as
food for their own consumption.
10. The continued support provided by development organizations
A large number of emergency and development organizations in the area continue to provide free
inputs, particularly seeds and water pumps, enhancing positive net returns in the production and trade
of fodder, and attracting greater interest and continued production by many agro‐pastoral farmers.
11. Extension education and increased awareness of production potential.
Some support organizations have introduced the pastoralists to production systems with potential for
greater land productivity. There is greater appreciation on benefits possible from fodder production and
trading and participants interviewed expressed interest and shift from pastoral nomadism to more
sedentary farming practices that rely on fodder for livestock production.
During extended dry or drought periods increased use of farm land for fodder production could
potentially have a negative impact on the area’s food security. VSF Suisse has recently embarked on
training pastoralists on rangeland rehabilitation using grasses like Boma Rhodes and Cenchrus ciliaris.
Access to rangeland pastures may decrease the pressure to use farm land for fodder crops, but this
remains to be seen.
33

8. Discussion
Agro‐pastoral farmers along the three rivers have traditionally used irrigated water to grow food crops
such as maize, sorghum, cowpeas, tomatoes, onions and fruit crops. The use of some food crops for
fodder, particularly maize and sorghum stover, cowpea vines, Napier and natural grass as fodder has
been an integral part of farming activities in the region. According to the DLPO of Mandera district in
Kenya, extension advice passed to agro‐pastoralists has encouraged them to use a portion of their farms
for fodder production.
The timing of famine relief supplies is a contributing factor. From discussions with various actors, it was
observed that in some instances relief food for human consumption arrives late – a problem associated
with logistics delay between early warning famine signals and the time it takes to mobilize and supply
relief resources to the communities. The growing crops in the farm are then diverted to livestock
feeding. In addition the diversion of relief food to local stores depresses the market price of grains,
discouraging farmers from producing for the market.
Following the 2002 drought, in which the pastoralists lost 30% of their cattle, sheep and goat and 19% of
the camel populations, the value of fodder crops rose with the introduction of other crop species such
as Sudan, Columbus and velvet beans (ref: Mr Noor of Arid Lands). In Kenya, the efforts were led by the
FAO‐funded Arid Lands Resources Management Project (ALRMP), working with VSF Suisse (the
Emergency Pastoral Recovery Program) and the Ministry of Livestock Development. The activities
entailed mobilizing farmers to adopt better production and conservation methods, the provision of free
seeds and extension education on the advantages of strategic use of fodder to sustain livestock during
dry periods. Working with 60 pilot farmers in Mandera Kenya, the ALRMP was actually able to
demonstrate higher returns and other benefits possible from fodder production and trade compared to
using the land for food crops (ALARMP Phase I Report). In the Gedo area of Somalia, intensive fodder
production and use was introduced by TROCAIRE to the Moonlight Development Agency (MODA; a local
farmers’ association) in 1999. In 2002, MODA received similar support from VSF Suisse and CARE
Somalia.
Dollow Farmers Cooperative Society (DFCS) was formed in 1999 to unite farmers in Dollow Somalia area
to support resource mobilization, farm production and marketing. The cooperative started with eleven
members, but has grown to a membership of 370 farmers. In July 2009 alone, they received nine new
group members. In 2004, DFCS decided to increase their fodder production due to frequent and harsh
droughts in the area and with advice from VSF Suisse and TROCAIRE. DFCS as a cooperative has 135
pumps, 60 of which have been donated by TROCAIRE, AZEP and CARE Somalia, while the rest have been
individual private purchases. They also received Sudan and Columbus grass from Godey Research
Station, but they have been buying maize seeds from stockists in Dollow town. Luuq district in Somalia’s
Gedo region has the largest portion of agro‐pastoral farmers in the region because River Jubba winds
through its longest course as it grows through the district (Figure 1). Focus group discussions with
34

epresentatives from this region say there are about 800 agro‐pastoral farms along the river taking
fodder to Bulla Hawa town next to Mandera town in Kenya.
Some of the development support favouring the production of fodder is the provision of planting
material and water pumps that enable the agro‐pastoral communities to experience higher returns than
in the absence of subsidized inputs. Since 2002, more aid and development programs have continued to
include fodder production in their community programs, providing free seed and seedlings, reducing
input costs, and hence making the fodder trade more viable (Table 11). Indirectly supporting this
development is increased food relief, making it possible for farmers to release more farmland for fodder
production. This is supported by the agro‐pastoralists who point out that waiting for the maize harvests
has the double jeopardy of losing the crop, due to the very short rains, and their animals dying of
starvation before pastures re‐generate. So the farms are increasingly being used to grow fast‐growing
maize stover and cowpea vines. In Mandera, relief maize grain, most of it coming from Somalia, finds its
way to the local shops, depressing grain prices and making it un‐lucrative for farmers to wait to harvest
their own maize for sale later.
The use of the region’s rivers to irrigate crops is not new; some of the agro‐pastoral farmers have used
this approach to produce food crops for most of their lives. What is new is the greater emphasis and
definite focus on fodder crops due to several factors described in this study.
All of the fodder exchange transactions are on‐the‐spot cash payments; no contractual arrangements
were reported. Some cash payments are given only a 24‐hour credit window – a trader collects fodder
from a fodder producer or transporter in the morning and pays in the evening or the next day after
selling the fodder. Such credit arrangements are only observed at farm level – between the producer
and the transporter or trader – and not with the final livestock keeper. There are no long‐term credit
arrangements.
Fodder quality or exact price parameters are sensitive to and determined by the crop species, the
bundle weights, proportions of leaf and its general colour (taken to indicate the fodder’s palatability),
and the extent of wilting after harvest. Apart from the isolated cases of hay baling – mostly in farms
strongly supported by projects – there were no conservation practices of any surplus forage as silage,
despite the potential opportunity following copious growth of various forages during the rains.
Better use of fodder and other livestock inputs is where these chain actors could benefit. As it is, there is
minimum direct commercial benefit from the use of purchased fodder, e.g. such high production that
could be reflected in sale of higher value, faster return products, e.g. income earners like milk. Fodder
buying, even at the time of the study which was a period of relative abundance, seemed to be aimed at
basic maintenance of the existing herds and flocks; and not in high enough quantities to translate into
faster growth rates, more rapid reproduction or higher milk production. As a result, Mandera town is a
net importer of milk coming from neighbouring Somalia.
35

9. Recommendations and way forward
Production and distribution of a deliberate surplus of fodder for marketing through the teams of
transporters and traders in various towns to livestock keepers and migrating pastoralists, constitute a
supply or value chain, albeit without clearly coordinated governance. The system supports a relatively
large population if one considers number of actors, their employees and dependents. It is a source of
livelihood – in both direct cash earnings as well as incomes derived from benefitting livestock off‐take.
This is a system that requires support and interventions targeting points in the market structure to
further improve the livelihood benefits it can provide, as suggested in the next section.
9.1. Market structure organization and governance
The fodder market exists based on the apparent availability of a natural resource (the rivers), their
exploitation for food and fodder production, entrepreneurial activities to supply the fodder where
demand is – the peri‐urban and nomadic pastoralists. The structure is informal without any distinct
governance patterns like those described by Gereffi et al (2005). The multiplicity of producers,
intermediaries and consumers, reduces opportunities for power‐control relationships exerted at any
given point in the system. There are no clear power relationships but there is recognition of roles. A key
recommendation would be education of all actors on the structure of this system, the value of their
roles and how best they can work together to strengthen the chain and increase individual net gains. A
key driver that can be exploited by the entire system is the increasing demand for fodder by peri‐urban
farms as well as the needs of nomadic pastoralists. A more organized chain can develop a more effective
link between the fodder production and these consumers. In some cases this may entail lobbying or
making a case with governments of external support for more infrastructural support for irrigation and
movement of the fodder to the consumption points – public or private.
Collective action (actors working in groups) has potential value in minimizing production and operational
costs for actors involved in related market structures, reducing transaction costs and increasing their
individual net margins (KIT, et al 2006).
9.1. The market system development approach
The development of this market structure should be from within, ensuring the actors cultural values and
concerns are taken on board. The market form as it is now has a strong cultural foundation and – in
some instances – strong religious influence that must not be ignored. The process should be educative
and participatory, moving at a pace at which the communities are able to appreciate the structure and
intentions and then be invited to incorporate what works best for them.
9.2. On policy and effective supporting environment
The recommendation here will be in line with the first recommendation on creating awareness and
developing a market system that exploits existing opportunities (fodder available through irrigation and
36

demand from peri‐urban farms and nomadic pastoralists) and working for all actors. Some of the areas
where policies could be developed to support the system explained below. KEPHIS should consider its
regulatory requirements that would support community‐based production and distribution of seed for
such a system.
1. Infrastructure – irrigation and road network
Given the economic value irrigated fodder is bringing into livelihoods in the dependent communities,
there is a case for allocation of adequate (public) resources for more effective mobilization of the river
water to points where it can be better distributed or made more accessible to farms for irrigation and
other domestic use by both humans and livestock. In addition to the individual farm irrigation
structures, this will include installation and maintenance of ‘complex’ plumbing and bulk storage
facilities possibly by local or national government services. This undertaking would ensure more
reliable and possibly more affordable supplies of water to the agro‐pastoralists and other users. It would
also ensure the water is channelled in ways that ensure the riverine environment is safeguarded for the
whole system. It is possible to increase irrigated land margins on either side of the rivers from 0.5 to 1.0
kms, resulting in the possibility of increasing irrigated land from the current 25,000 to a total of 40,000
hectares (439.3 sq km) as long as this massive undertaking can be sustained
At the other end of the fodder market, delivery of the fodder to increasing demand from farther inland
nomadic pastoralists would be better supported by road networks that enable such delivery of the feed
at low cost. At the moment the entire area has inadequately maintained roads that cannot support
extensive transportation of the fodder. Improvement in road conditions may even attract fodder
transportation as an entrepreneurial activity benefiting even more people.
2. Introduction and use of appropriate forage species
There is a case for resource allocation by government or other such body for the introduction of or
improvement of current fodder types (species and breeds) to those that can be produced in large but
sustainable amounts the area using the current irrigation system. This requires plant breeding and
agronomic research to introduce better forage types, while safeguarding the environment’s diversity, as
well as crop husbandry practices that maximise the fodder production. The objectives and activities of
the Dollow Ado Agriculture Research Station in support of irrigated fodder production Ethiopia should
be scaled up and out in the entire region.
The result from such support could be more affordable planting material, management techniques and
higher yields that will translate to better direct and indirect earnings by the agro‐pastoralists and
livestock keepers, respectively.
3. Coordination of input from various agencies
There are several agencies supporting the pastoral and agro‐pastoral communities in the area. While the
intentions are noble and welcome in such a fragile system, an open and more effective coordination of
37

the inputs supplied by these agencies will lower total costs to the system while ensuring there is a fair
allocation of support for all communities (or households) across the region.
Examples are harmonized input acquisition, and clearer distribution programs that could save on
logistical costs. The Mandera DLPO’s office in Kenya has taken charge of this coordination but there is
still room for improvement, especially for movements across the countries’ borders. The harmonized
coordination by governments (or similarly mandated public institutions) in the three countries will
support more households’ participation the fodder market while the savings are ultimately transferred
to the market actors’ net benefits.
4. Supportive cross border marketing systems
In addition to the harmonized coordination of inputs, there is need to support cross border trading and
movement of the fodder. Cross border financial transactions are currently not a problem; all the
communities in the area transact in any of the three countries’ currencies, as well as the US dollar and
there are no punitive fluctuations in exchange rates. However the border restrictions on movement
complicate extensive fodder marketing and are a constraint to the exploitation of the region’s full
market potential. The primary obstacle in insecurity from Somalia that has not only resulted in restricted
movement into and out that country but easily creates tension at any of the other border points.
There is need for the respective country to work towards alleviating the security situation in the region.
This will be a big boost to the region’s trade, including the fodder industry.
For all these policy support recommendations, the starting point would be the generation of data and
information to make the case for such policy support. This is extensive research and development effort
that requires the allocation of adequate technical and financial support.
9.3. Production support
1. Land under irrigation
The amount produced by the agro‐pastoralists could be increased to fully supply the agro‐pastoralist
and peri‐urban livestock as well as for pastoralists further inland. Almost all the land under irrigation in
the river valleys has been being used but has not been fully exploited. It is possible to increase or more
effectively irrigate more land for food and fodder production through better provision or support of
irrigation equipment and services. Various agencies already support this through schemes that range
from free supplies to organized groups, through cost‐sharing or affordable cost‐recovery programs. This
should be supported and scaled out.
2. Fertilizer and seed supply
The agro‐pastoralists reported that they did not use fertilizer and the seeds they use are not
continuously available to facilitate continuous coordinated production.
38

An increase in the use of inorganic fertilizers or well prepared compost manure could enhance the land’s
productivity. Some of the agro‐pastoralists reported that they had been trained on how to compost
manure but the skill was not widespread. The use of cut‐and‐carry fodder is usually accompanied by
large amounts of waste that are used in more intensive systems to prepare farm manure, supporting
nutrient circulation and increasing productivity (Lekasi, et al, 2000; Utiger et al, 2000). The collection and
preparation of fodder waste for use in the riverine farms implies the creation of a relationship between
the livestock keepers and agro‐pastoralists that increases supplies of the inorganic compost manure.
The second aspect is a continuously reliable source of planting material that that allows the free supplies
but works with commercial sources in ways that will support shortfalls and encourage local
entrepreneurship. The latter development could be the foundation of more reliable and sustainable
supply of seed inputs into the system. For some of the forages that can be propagated using vegetative
parts, bulking the seed individually or in collective action points where farmers can access them free or
at lower cost will be a great public support.
3. Number of fodder cuttings for sale
The agro‐pastoralists mentioned the number of times that the forage crops can be harvested to
maximise production throughout the year. However, this knowledge or skill was not widespread and
there is still room to train farmers and farmer groups to maximise production (number of cuttings per
period) from their farms. This has a bearing on the types of fodder species that can best be managed to
maximise production through increased harvests, and some fodder or grass crops lend themselves to
frequent cuttings better than others. For example in high potential areas, Boma Rhodes grass can be
harvested three to four times per year, depending on moisture supply (rainfall or irrigation). Fodder
species and types better suited to prevalent saline soils could be explored. This means creating a more
effective link with local research institutions such as KARI in Kenya and Dollow Ado Agricultural Research
Station in Ethiopia.
9.4. On utilization
1. Conservation
The next gap that requires addressing is the farmers’ and livestock keepers’ abilities to preserve their
fodder crops for longer and later use. It was pointed out that prices vary mostly in relationship to
season‐based supply. Fresh fodder is bulky and highly perishable and there are times when fodder is
produced in such high quantities that prices drop to levels where it is not lucrative to carry out trade.
There was limited indication of fodder conservation. Hay baling had just been introduced and was being
used for the Sudan and Sorghum grass and may be used for the Boma Rhodes grasses. A
recommendation would thus be production of pasture forages that can be stored as hay and using these
to develop strategic hay reserves that can serve the communities and the greater demands beyond. This
means identifying actors that can provide this support – public or private enterprise. Beyond this is the
39

development of forage products that enable easy transportation to consumer demands far from the
riverine areas, for example the ability to transport large amounts of hay to distant nomadic herds.
However a majority of the fodder crops are bulky succulents that do not lend themselves well to dry
baling and are better conserved in other ways in such hot and humid conditions. In addition, the alcohol
aspect of silage has made this approach un‐acceptable to this strongly Muslim community and – if the
silage process is not appreciated at all – other methods, such as haylage‐making, may have to be
explored and implemented.
2. Livestock genetics
The pastoralists keep indigenous livestock best suited to survive in dry places where forage availability is
a challenge. It is possible to explore the genetic potential available that could best use the available
forage quantities but this must be done cautiously while considering the very many other advantages of
the current indigenous breeds – disease resistance, hardiness and the ability to survive on scanty
pasture. Where a secure supply of forage can be produced in large quantities, especially in the agropastoralists
farms, there is potential to keep more productive dairy cattle and goat breeds.
9.5. On fodder market performance
1. Individual actor returns
The agro‐pastoralists who grow fodder enjoy high returns because they benefit both from sales of their
own livestock off‐takes as well as revenue from fodder sales. Higher returns to the fodder growers will
be influenced by how well they feed their animals and maintain them over the full year developing
heavier weights and healthier conditions that attract high market prices. The agro‐pastoralists also
experience better margins overall due to artificially reduced input costs. It was not possible to get an
exact estimate of the total and individual costs borne by external support but the free provision (or cost
sharing) of seeds and pumps by service organizations has the effect of reducing overall costs to
producers. Some of the NGOs already intend to cut down on seed provision and encourage farmers to
buy them from stockists in town.
The transporters play a crucial link between the traders in the markets and the agro‐pastoralists
farmers, given the cultural separation of roles. In many cases, they act like delivery services for a farmer
wishing to get access to the market and they (the transporters) have little control on the fodder flows
and pricing. This may be in line with cultural role separation but competitive market forces could alter
this. Buying the fodder from the producers and selling it to the traders or directly to the livestock
keepers could give transporters greater control that can be used to use to leverage for better margins.
Changes are already evident, given that they have been steadily increasing in number from twenty to
thirty within the preceding five years. The transporters are also free to use the carts for ferrying other
loads, even possibly at lower costs, given their costs may have been covered by the main task of ferrying
fodder.
40

The traders play a key role in making fodder available to the peri‐urban farmers. There do not
experience extensive costs for storage and transportation and the margins they earn are based on
location and demand. Given that they sell the fodder fresh as soon as it is received, they provide
proximity value addition.
At the time of the survey it was not clear what other roles traders can play in the supply chain to
enhance their contribution. The fodder products they deal with are bulky and they did not participate in
more direct collections and deliveries. Conservation to enable them store larger amounts could be an
option but that would require space and infrastructural systems with implications on investment and
maintenance costs. Knowledge of how to better use combinations of the fodder types could be passed
along with the sales to improve their offers but this is information likely to already be with the buyers
and the advantage easily eroded.
Returns to the peri‐urban livestock keepers are not as high as those experienced by the agro‐pastoralist
farms. The margins are still positive, providing a source of income and possibly food afforded by any
surplus and disposable income. The fodder made available through the system availability enables them
to keep animals with reduced constraint given that there is little other feed supply options. In the focus
group discussions participants indicated the greatest challenge as being poor knowledge of husbandry
practices that can enable them lower production inputs and increase outputs and related incomes. Their
margins could be increased through choice of animals that can best survive of the feed types, quantities
and qualities available as is already demonstrated by the relatively larger number of sheep and goats
rather than cattle – compared to the agro‐pastoralists. More strategic feeding regimes could further
enable them rear their animals more efficiently. This will require a demonstration of the relationship
and potential opportunities with the service providers.
41

10. Conclusion
The study demonstrates that fodder as an economic activity is vibrant in the region supporting between
25,000 and 30,000 households. The system has developed from and depends on the region’s rivers
whose waters riverine agro‐pastoralists use to irrigate their food and fodder crop. The production has
evolved with support from Government programs and offices, the most notable being the role Arid
Lands Program and Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development in Kenya. The ALRMP intensified
the practice through introduction of more productive fodder types, while the ministry’s extension
agency continues to build local knowledge and capacity in production and use of these feeds.
The production is of substantial enough quantities to support sales of deliberately surpluses to periurban
livestock farmers in close by town centres, but also serve an increasing demand from migrating
pastoralists in the region’s remote rangelands. These factors have raised the profile of fodder trade as a
business generating interest and increasing participation.
However, the capacity of the environment to support the system and increasing demand is rather
fragile, given the reliance on the rivers’ water with the volumes increasingly becoming un‐reliable.
The actors in the fodder market do not have a clearly coordinated supply chain system. Though not
directly demonstrable, cultural systems have played a role in allocating production, transportation and
retail functions to various categories of the community. The actors enjoy varying margins from their
participation, with the agro‐pastoralists taking a substantial proportion of the net benefits. External
actors such NGOs have played key roles in input supply (seeds, irrigation facilities, etc.), lowering overall
production costs and enabling the realization of positive returns by the agro‐pastoralists. The external
contribution implies a threat to the sustainability of this advantage in the system that requires to be
addressed.
The study recommends a further development of the fodder market system in order to make it more
productive and to its actors. This should be through educating the members of their relationships and
exploring with them how to best explore the opportunities offered by increasing demand, while
safeguarding the environment. External actors such as the Governments, Research Stations and NGOs
are and will continue to be crucial in supporting low cost but high production of the fodder and its
delivery to consumers.
The study also recommends more detailed investigation of the system to get better quantification of the
fodder products and benefit distribution among the actors to better advice any arising governance or
relationship system for mutual and possibly equitable benefit of all members.
42

11. References
ALRMP (Arid Lands Resource Management Programme) Phase I Report.
CARE website, 2009. Project details: Enhanced Livelihoods in the Mandera Triangle (ELMT).
http://www.care.org/careswork/projects/SOM090.asp. Accessed 7 Sep 2009.
CIESIN (Centre for International Earth Science Information Network), Columbia University; International
Food Policy Research Institute (IPFRI); the World Bank; and Centro Internacional de Agricultural Tropical
(CIAT); 2004. Global Rural‐Urban Mapping Project (GRUMP): Urban/Rural Population grids Palisades, NY:
CIESIN, Columbia University. Available at http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/gpw/
ELMT RELPA website, 2009. Enhanced Livelihoods in the Mandera Triangle (ELMT). http://www.elmtrelpa.org/aesito/elmt.
Accessed 7 Sep 2009.
FAO Gridded Livestock of the World database (April 2007).
Gereffi, G., Humphrey, J., Sturgeon, T. (2005), “The governance of global value chains,” Review of
International Political Economy, 12 (1): 78‐104. United Kingdom: Routledge.
Kerven, Carol. 1992. Customary commerce: Historical reassessment of pastoral livestock marketing in
Africa. Agricultural Occasional Paper, Overseas Development Institute, London
KIT, Faida MaLi and IIRR. Chain empowerment: supporting African farmers to develop markets. Royal
Tropical Institute, Amsterdam; Faida market Link, Arusha; and International Institute of Rural
Reconstruction, Nairobi. 2006.
Lekasi J., Tanner, J., Kimani, S.K. and Harris, P. 2000. Effect of cattle manure quality on maize
productivity under field conditions in a central Kenya highland nitisol. Paper for presentation at
the 7 th KARI Biennial Scientific Conference, 13‐17 November, 2000, KARI Headquarters, Nairobi,
Kenya.
McPeak, J G. And P D Little. 2006. Pastoral livestock marketing in eastern Africa: Research and policy
changes. Practical Action, Rugby, UK.
Muyekho F.N., Mwendia C.W. and Lusweti F. (1999). An advisory booklet for extension workers. Support
to dairy cattle nutrition in Kenya KARI/DFID NARP II. National Agricultural Research Centre Kitale. pp 34
43

NRC (National Research Council (U.S.), 2007. Committee on Nutrient Requirements of Small Ruminants.
Nutrient requirements of small ruminants: sheep, goats, cervids, and New World camelids. Published by
NRC 2007. ISBN 0309102138, 9780309102131.
Saarnak, Nina Larsen. Flood recession agriculture in the Senegal River Valley. Danish Journal of
Geography 103(1): 99‐113, 2003.
UNDP 2005. National trends in populations, resources, environment and development: country profiles.
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/publications.htm. Accessed December 2009.
Utiger, C., Romney, D., Njoroge, L., Staal, S., Lukuyu, B. and Chege, L. Nutrient flows and balances in
intensive crop‐dairy production systems in the Kenya highlands. Paper presented at the 3 rd All Africa
Conference on Animal Agriculture and 11 th Conference of the Egyptian Society of Animal Production, 6‐9
November, 2000, Alexandria, Egypt.
44

12. Appendices
Appendix 1: Questionnaire used
Name of Enumerator:_____________________ Interview Date ___________ and Time ____________
COUNTRY: ___________________________
1A Location (area, urban setting)
Location base (state or describe)
Nearest town centre, Area of operation (state or describe)
1B Identity of RESPONDENT (Household head)
Primary occupation of the household head (Use codes): [1] Agro-pastoralist; [2] Fodder trader; [3 ] Fodder transporter [4] Periurban
livestock keeper; [5]Non-agriculture
Name (Optional)
Age (tick age bracket)
Education (Use codes): [0] Illiterate [1] Religious Education [2] Adult / Basic Education [3] Primary education [4] Secondary
education [5] Above secondary
Gender (M/F)
Household size (numbers): Male, Female and Total
Family members working on the farm (numbers): Male, Female and Total
Permanently hired labourer(s) working for the household (Numbers hired at for more than one production season)
1C Membership in any farmer or trader association and/or group; indicate name, fee and benefits
Name of the organization and Membership fees
Membership benefits (Use codes): 1= High prices/ lower costs; 2 = Access to inputs and facilities; 3 = Access to finances; 4=
Technical support; 5 = Better access to information; 6 = Other (specify) ____________
2A Farmland and other assets (during January 2008 – December 2008)
Land type and size: Currently Farmed (Own, Rented, Shared In, Shared Out, Rented Out, Fallow Land, Pasture Land)
Do you use communal land for grazing Y=Yes; N=No
Do you own the following and what is approximate value (Water Pump, Plough Set, Other farm equipments
(panga, hoe, jembe, etc.), Water well, Donkey Cart(s), Baler (wooden or metallic box for baling hay), Others, ...
2B Livestock inventory and off‐take data for the year during the year 2008
Animal type:
Number and value at beginning of year – Jan’08
Number and value of incoming during the year: Born, purchased, gifts
45

Number and value of outgoing during the year: Sold, slaughtered, given out, and lost.
Number and value at end of year, Dec., 08
3A and B Costs of fodder production during RAIN and DRY SEASONS
Type of fodder crop grown (Maize, Napier, Sorghum, Cow peas, Sudan grass, Columbus grass, Hybrid sorghum,
Boma Rhodes, Lucaena, Lucerne, Sweet potato (vines), Velvet beans, Natural grass + weeds, ).
For each crop and during the RAIN and DRY seasons: Number of basins used PER CROP, Size of basin (m x m),
costs of renting or leasing, costs of labour for (Land preparation, Planting, Weeding and watering, Harvesting and
selling, Ox ploughs, Pump fuel and service, Fertilizer and herbicide used, Donkey carting, Other, ....)
4A and B Fodder production and use PER DAY during RAIN SEASONS
For each crop and during the RAIN and DRY seasons: (Using (number of bundles or bales) – Total production,
amounts used at home, given as gifts, retailed at farm gate, sold wholesale to transporters and/or traders.
4C Costs of fodder PURCHASE by TRANSPORTERS, TRADERS AND LIVESTOCK KEEPER
For each crop and during the RAIN and DRY seasons: (Using (number of bundles or bales PER DAY) – Total number
bought used at, costs charged per bale or bundle, other costs spent on purchasing.
4D Revenue from fodder SALES by TRANSPORTERS, TRADERS AND LIVESTOCK KEEPER
For each crop and during the RAIN and DRY seasons: (Using (number of bundles or bales PER DAY) – Total number
sold, prices charged per bale or bundle, other revenues earned from selling activities.
5A and B Pasture and fodder crops use at home for LIVESTOCK KEEPERS
For each animal type (cows, bulls, heifers, oxen, steers, calves, donkeys, camels, shoats) and during the RAIN and
DRY seasons: (Using (number of bundles or bales PER DAY) – Number of hours spent grazing, fodder styles
provided and number of bundles or bales given and consumed.
6 Pasture and fodder crops use at home for LIVESTOCK KEEP
For each animal type (cows, bulls, heifers, oxen, steers, calves, donkeys, camels, shoats) and during the RAIN and
DRY seasons: Do they use any concentrates, what concentrates and for what animals, total costs of concentrates
per day, what veterinary costs for which animals and total veterinary costs.
Thank you!!
***************************
46

Appendix 2: Photographs from fodder production and marketing in the ELMT
River Daua along the Ethiopia-Kenya border
The pumps used to irrigate water into the farms
Water being pumped into the troughs for distribution into the crops
Crop basins into which the water is pumped and crops planted
47

A crop of cowpea just before harvesting the vines
A transporter waits his turn to unload his cargo
Fodder traders inspect fodder before selling
Fodder traders and buyers
Fodder buyers carry away their purchases
48