Impact Assessment of Livestock Feed Supplementation

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ContentsSummary1. Introduction2. Methods2.1 Study design2.2 Study area2.3 Data collection2.4 Sampling method and sample sizes2.5 Data analysis3. Results3.1 Rainfall patterns preceding and during the drought in 2007/83.2 Pastoralist’s internal response to the drought3.3 The SC US supplementary feeding intervention for cattle3.4 Impact of drought on the cattle population3.5 Impact of supplementary feeding on cattle mortality3.6 Impact of supplementary feeding on cattle body condition3.7 Impact of supplementary feeding on milk yield and calf survival3.8 Benefit-cost analysis of SC US supplementary feeding3.9 Future refinement of the supplementary feeding arrangements4. Discussioni11112333357891010111314AcknowledgementsThis impact assessment was funded by the United State Agency for International Development(USAID) through a grant to the Feinstein International Center, Tufts University under thePastoralist Livelihoods Initiative (PLI) program. The livestock feed supplementation programassessed was implemented by Save the Children US, also using funds from USAID under the PLIprogram, plus additional funds from the Humanitarian Response Fund under the United NationsOffice for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Ethiopia. The authors acknowledge theintellectual contributions of pastoralists in Bulbul and Web/Dhas, and the support of SC USexperts Oboo Did Waqo, Dr. Kinde Waqweya, and Dr. Tarekegn Tola.
SummarySince the drought in some pastoralist areasof Ethiopia in 2005 to 2006, there has beenincreasing interest in the use ofsupplementary feeding for livestock as partof an integrated drought response. Overtime, and with more attention to the needfor early response, NGOs are working tointervene more rapidly and improve modesof implementation. In terms of thelivelihoods-based approaches promoted bythe USAID Pastoralist LivelihoodsInitiative, the livelihoods objectives oflivestock supplementary feeding are toprotect the key assets of pastoralists andpromote post-drought recovery. However,livestock supplementary feeding is notuniversally accepted as an appropriatedrought response intervention. For thoseactors following a conventionalhumanitarian approach of saving humanlives, feed for livestock might be regarded asa distraction from the core business of foodaid for people. Livestock feedsupplementation also involves considerablecosts, with some workers suggesting thatthese costs are somehow excessive orinappropriate.During the recent drought in Borena andGuji zones in southern Ethiopia, Save theChildren US used funds from USAID andthe UNOCHA Humanitarian ResponseFund to implement an emergency livestocksupplementary feed program. As cattle wereparticularly affected by the drought, theprogram focused on the establishment ofcattle feeding centers where in consultationwith communities, an agreed number ofadult cows received concentrate feed androughage. Ten feeding centers wereestablished in the two zones, and a total of6,750 cattle were fed in the two zones.The impact assessment described in thisreport was conducted in mid to late May2008, approximately six weeks after theonset of rains. The assessment was initiallydesigned to measure mortality in ‘fed’ and‘unfed’ cattle and thereby assess the impactof supplementary feeding in terms of cattlelosses. Although the assessment didmeasure mortality trends, further benefitsrelated to production, calf survival and milksupply were also measured. The assessmentlooked in detail at two feeding centers viz.Bulbul and Web. In Bulbul 1,000 cows werefed for 22 days whereas in Web 800 cowswere fed for 67 days.The findings of the impact assessment wereas follows:• Prior to the onset of the feedingprogram, 49% of pastoralistsinterviewed were buying livestock feedfrom private suppliers. While thisindicated a strong local demand for feed,the capacity of people to buy feed washindered by a credit system for cattlesales which delayed the physical receiptof cash by herders, and as the droughtcontinued, increasing livestock feedprices. Consequently, an insufficientquality and quantity of privatelyacquiredfeed was fed to cattle.• Mortality – in both feeding centersmortality was significantly lower in cowsin the feeding centers relative to unfedcattle (p
Page 1: PASTORALIST LIVELIHOODS INITIATIVEL
Page 5 and 6: 1. IntroductionThis impact assessme
Page 7 and 8: season rains, and then usingproport
Page 9: Arero/Web cattle feeding siteEvent
Page 14 and 15: Table 10Statistical analysis of mor
Page 16 and 17: Notes for Table 111From Table 9, th
Page 18 and 19: Table 14 (continued)The feeding cen
Page 20: conversion of watershed-based dryse

Impact Assessment of Livestock Feed Supplementation

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?