23
FA1 meeting 06 October 2014, Cali
FA1 meeting
06 October 2014, Cali
Objectives
1. To agree on the efficiency matrix exercise version 1
2. To agree on next steps for pilot’s selection and testing EM
3. To re-define focus according to the new Agenda’s approach
The Agenda – In shorthand
o Multi-stakeholder partnership committed to sustainable livestock sector development
o Continuous improvement
o Integrates three BIGchallenges of our time• Climate and Resources• Equity and Growth• Health and Nutrition
o Addresses unprecedented challenges
o Unites the forces of all sector actors
o Focuses on themes with a high potential for change
o Informs, guides and catalyzes practice change
o Supports innovation and investment in viable sector solutions
Program to develop
1. FA1 background information (activities)
2. Efficiency matrix (EM) exercise – V1
3. Coffee break
4. FA1 Pilots
5. Sustainable cattle ranching in Colombia (CIPAV)
6. FA1 at the MSP meeting
09:30 – 09:40
09:40 – 10:15
10:15 – 10:30
10:30 – 11:30
11:30 – 12:00
12:00 – 12:30
1. FA1 background information
o Rome (04-2012)
o Nairobi (01-2013).
o Braunschsveig (04-2013).
o Rome (09-2013).
o Ottawa (10-2013)
o Paris (03-2014)
o Call conference (09-2014)
Defining NRUE
Enlarging the scope to other areas
Exploring approaches, databases for EM
Draft version of the EM and new evaluation areas
New EM approach and new evaluation areas approved
Business plan, EM WGs and pilots proposals
EM version 1 and criteria lists for pilot selection
2. Efficiency matrix exercise
FORAGE AND GRAIN PRODUCTION
ANIMAL HEALTH
PRODUCTION PERFORMANCE
MANUREMANAGEMENT SYSTEM
EFFICIENCY AREAS
EVALUATION AREAS
Economic Animal welfare Social impact Environmental
NATURAL RESOURCES USED
Land Water Nutrients
Indicators
Indicators
Indicators
Indicators
Indicators
Indicators
Indicators
Indicators
Indicators
Indicators
Indicators
Indicators“Ver
tica
l A
sses
smen
t”
“Horizontal Assessment”
2. Efficiency matrix exercise – WG1
FORAGE AND GRAIN PRODUCTION AND
CONSERVATION
Production, conservationand marketed
Composition and nutritive value
Pastures and forages
Grain
Forage biomass yield(ton/ha/year)
Ratio: Total forage productionsold/used (%)
Proportion of forageproduction to conservationand used in the farm (%)
Proportion of forageproduction to conservationand sold (%)
Proportion of conserved forageconsumed (%)
Grain yield(ton/ha/year)
Ratio: total grainproduction sold/used(%)
Proportion of conservedgrain consumed (%)
Proportion of conservedgrain and sold (%)
Dry matter content (%) Protein content (%) Energy content (Kcal., Mcal.,
Kj., and Mj. of dry matter) Crude energy Digestible energy Metabolize energy
Feed digestibility (Organicmatter, OMD - % )
Pastures and forages
Grain
Dry matter content (%) Protein content (%) Energy content (Kcal., Mcal.,
Kj., and Mj. of dry matter) Crude energy Digestible energy Metabolize energy
Feed digestibility (Organicmatter, OMD - % )
2. Efficiency matrix exercise – WG1
FEEDS AND NUTRITION
Nature and ratios of feedstuffs used
Feed ingredients, rationcomposition and intake
Home grown produced feed (%) Purchased feed (%) Ratio: home grown
produced/purchased feed (%) Conventional feed and
ingredients use (grass, forages, silages, cereals; farm produced orimported - %)
Unconventional feed and ingredients used (local, “indigenous” e.g. crop residues, agroindustrial by-products)
Feed conversion ratio
Conventional(grass, forages, silages, cereals)
Feed and ingredient type
Inclusion in the ration (%)
Intake Fresh basis (Kg/LU/day) Dry matter basis (kg/DM/LU/day)
Protein content (%)
Energy content (Crude energy) CE; of row material If monogastrics: Digestible energy If ruminants: Metabolizanle
energy
Fiber content Crude fiber Neutral detergent fiber Acid detergent fiber
Energy feeds Protein feeds Dry forages Sialges and haylages Pastures and ranges plants Vitamin suplements Mineral suplements
Unconventional(local, “indigenous”, e.g. crop residuals, agroindistrial by-products)
EM – WG1 – Under revision
o Genetic Modified (GM) crops are not included in the EM.
o The inclusion of manure legislation on the EM.
o Using Eutrophication (emissions from nitrates and phosphorus) as an indicator
o Proper indicators explaining the different energy types might be also included.
o The usefulness of classifying some feedstuff into conventional and non-conventional, home grown produced and purchased feed.
o To be more consistent between the WGs in areas such as feed conversion efficiency, and including more nutrients to evaluate.
o The feed and nutrition diagram seems bias toward ruminants.
o Make a differentiation between feed supplied from commercial feed mills, regional feed mills and farm mixing.
o There is a need to consider adding Feed Quality indicators giving its importance on resource utilization.
o In addition to vitamin and mineral supplementation, is important to capture if diet includes synthetic amino acids since this technology has a huge impact sparing grains.
EM – WG1 – Under revision
o Genetic Modified (GM) crops are not included in the EM.
o The inclusion of manure legislation on the EM.
o Using Eutrophication (emissions from nitrates and phosphorus) as an indicator
o Proper indicators explaining the different energy types might be also included.
o The usefulness of classifying some feedstuff into conventional and non-conventional, home grown produced and purchased feed.
o To be more consistent between the WGs in areas such as feed conversion efficiency, and including more nutrients to evaluate.
o The feed and nutrition diagram seems bias toward ruminants.
o Make a differentiation between feed supplied from commercial feed mills, regional feed mills and farm mixing.
o There is a need to consider adding Feed Quality indicators giving its importance on resource utilization.
o In addition to vitamin and mineral supplementation, is important to capture if diet includes synthetic amino acids since this technology has a huge impact sparing grains.
It was a general agreement that due to the complexity of these points, it is necessary to circulate documents, briefing notes and mails, regarding those issues.
2. Efficiency matrix exercise – WG2
ANIMAL HEALTH
Cattle and small ruminants % Still birth % Mortality 1st year Overall % off-take due to disease (death
or culling) Prevalence of OIE notifiable diseases in
countryPigs % stillbirth/farrowing Ratio No. of pigjets weaned:born
alive/litter Prevalence of OIE notifiable diseases in
countryPoultry % off-take due to disease (death or
culling) Prevalence of OIE notifiable disease in
country
2. Efficiency matrix exercise – WG2
PRODUCTION PERFORMANCE
REPRODUCTIVE Cattle
Age at 1st calving Calving interval (days)
Small ruminants Age at 1st parturition Parturition interval No. of offsprings born/dam
Pigs Age at 1st farrowing Parturition interval No. of piglets born/farrowing
YIELD/FARM Cattle
Milk/cow/day (year), No. of calves sold/slaughtered/year/cow (%)
Weight slaughtered/cow/year Small ruminants
Milk per ewe-goat/day (year) % survived offspring at weaning No. of off-spring sold or slaughtered/ewe Kg weaned offspring/dam/year
Pigs No. of piglets weaned/sow/year
YIELD/PERIOD Aquaculture & Poultry
No. of production cycles/year No. Eggs/hen/jperiod Chicken for slaughter/period
MANUREMANAGEMENT SYSTEM
MANURE APPLIED Manure storage capacity (% of months
available/months needed Ratio: manure used on farm/exported Manure applied in accordance with with crop
requirements (right time/right quantity)
MANURE STORAGED % of the original amount of nitrogen still in
the manure after manure storage/spreding Manure storage capacity (% months
available/months needed) Storage and treatment systems
Biodigester, lagoons, composting, etc.
2. Efficiency matrix exercise – WG2 – under revision
PRODUCTION PERFORMANCE
REPRODUCTIVE Cattle
Age at 1st calving Calving interval (days) Replacement rate Number of weaned calves per
cow and year Small ruminants
Age at 1st parturition Parturition interval No. of offsprings born/dam
Pigs Age at 1st farrowing Parturition interval No. of piglets
born/farrowing/weaned
YIELD/FARM Dairy cows
Stocking rate Milk/cow/day (year) No. of calves sold/slaughtered/year/cow (%) Weight slaughtered/cow/year
Suckler cows Stocking rate Total live weight produced/cow/year
Fattening/finishing cattle Daily weight gain / net gain Age and weight at start and end
Small ruminants Stocking rate Milk per ewe-goat/day (year) % survived offspring at weaning No. of off-spring sold or slaughtered/ewe Kg weaned offspring/dam/year
Sows kg weaned piglets /sow/year
Fattening/finishing pigs (Stocking rate) Daily weight gain / net gain Age and weight at start and end
YIELD/PERIOD Aquaculture & Poultry
No. of production cycles/year No. Eggs/hen/jperiod Chicken for slaughter/period
Consistency among areas and animal species
2. Efficiency matrix exercise – WG3
Economic evaluation
Indicators
level Whole-farm level
enterprise level all enterprises
per animal, kg live
weight or carcass
weight per enterprise per farm
per ha per ha per ha
Returns / Receipts (quantity * price)
- Total returns x x x
- Market returns x x x
- Government payments (subsidies)
- Social returns (where possible) x x x
Costs (where possible quantity * price)
- Total costs, breakdown into up to 50 items x x x
- Feed costs (incl. purchase feed, fertilizer costs) x x x
- Other costs x x x
- Social prices and costs (where possible) x x x
Profitability
- Margin over feed costs x x
- Margin over cash costs x x x
- Medium-term profitability 1) x x x
- Long-term profitability 2)
- Social profitability (where possible) x x x
1) total returns less cash costs less depreciation
2) medium-term profitability less opportunity costs
cow-calf, beef finishing, sheep
Enterprise level
Economic indicators
reference units
Including social returns, costs and profit
2. Efficiency matrix exercise – WG3
ANIMAL WELFARE
Resources measures Outcome measures
Housing quality including shelter from
environmental extremes e.g. cold / wet /heat
Light/dark schedule relevant to species’ needs
Resources to facilitate comfort e.g. foraging
substrates, bedding substrates
Access to and quality of feed and water
Space and facilities to exercise, move, rest and
perform important behaviours
Handling facilities and practices
Provision for sick and injured animals
Provision for humane transport and slaughter
Body condition
Presence/ absence of disease in an individual animal (or
flock incidence)
Presence/absence of injury and / or routine mutilations
Mortality and morbidity
Presence/absence of parasites
Ability to move normally / walk normally / measures of
lameness
Associated measures of health including longevity,
fertility, replacement rate
Absence of negative behavior (e.g. reflecting fear/
aggression / sickness / stereotypy / other abnormal
behaviour)
Ability to perform behaviours important to the species
(and species subtype e.g. mothers or offspring), using
appropriate resources
Absence of behavioural restriction
Ability to rest/sleep adequately
Presence of behaviours reflecting positive welfare (e.g.
play behavior, rest, foraging)
2. Efficiency matrix exercise
o We have a contextual document ready to launch
o As it is an open exercise, further amendments can be added on later stages
o A testing phase is needed for adjustments and refinement• Consistency between areas• Animal species• Indicators to measure
o Social impact and environmental evaluation are areas tobe developed• ILRI• LEAP (structure of the evaluation)
3. FA1 pilots
o Pilots have been classified according to the interaction with the Focus Area
o A criteria list has been developed
o A set of proposals have been presented
o We need to select pilots and define level of interaction in terms of:• Information Exchange
• Interventions required
• Resources required
3. FA1 pilots - Classification
I
Currently running projects
• NRUE monitoring and evaluation
• Testing and input for the EM
• Practical lessons gained from improving NRUE
II
New FA1 projects
• New projects designed and funded through FA1
• To test NRUE improvement in areas with particularly high potential for social, economic and environmental gains
III
Complementary projects
• Specific methodological exchange for improving the EM
• Opening new fields of monitoring and evaluation activities
IV
Pre-feasibility projects
• which can use the FA1 platform for funding and implementation
• Targeted inputs and support to the development of new pilots and projects.
3. FA1 pilots
CRITERIA LIST
The project is mainly addressing NRUE issues
The project has clear possibilities to a FA1
intervention in terms of win-win relationship,
elements to complement, availability of results
and information exchange
Project coverage in terms of production systems
and regions
Stakeholders involved and stakeholders
benefited
Possibilities of scaling up the process
Availability of resources (e.g. funding and
services)
Complementary synergies with other FAs of the
Agenda
Pro ject
1
Pro ject
2
Pro ject
3
Pro ject
4
Pro ject
5
Pro ject
6
1. Focalization
2. Possibility of
intervention
3. Regional and livestock
biodiversity
4. Capacity building
5. Impact
6. Implementacion
capacity
7. Synergies
3. FA1 pilots
INFORMATION REQUIRED
1. Name
2. FA1 classification
3. Main features
4. Benefits for the pilot
5. NRUE focus
6. Interaction with the FA1
7. Result's availability
8. Stakeholders
9. FA's synergies
10. Scaling up
Project's name
Define the type of FA1 pilot classification (1 to 4)
Describe the main characteristics of the projects (objectives,
length, regional coverage, milestones)
Describe the main benefits will the project derive from being
selected as a pilot.(e.g. complementing, scaling up)
Illustrate how this project is clearly linked to NRUE. Define the
main efficiency issues addressed by the project
Describe the key activities does the project is planning to
implement in relation to FA1 (e.g. testing Efficiency Matrix)
Determine if project's results are available and can be used for
measuring and testing FA1s’ metrics components
Clearly define the key stakeholders involve in the project
Illustrate possible links to other Focus Areas of the Agenda
Define regional possibilities of scaling up the process.
Applicability, possible additional coverage, additional
institutional requirements
3. FA1 pilots
Enhancing efficiency of the beef value chain improving rangeland management in
Botswana
Reducing efficiency gap in the sheep value chain through a sustainable fattening
system and smart marketing in Ethiopia
Novus 300 eggs club in Uganda
NOVUS C.O.W.S Cows-Oxidative balance-Well being-Sustainability. Comprehensive On-
Farm Assessment for Improved Milk Production
Narrowing efficiency gaps in the natural resources use of West Africa farming systems: the
case of Burkina Faso
P-BLEX Roadmap for the environmental sustainability of the English Pig Industry
AgroHyd World food consumption and water resources: an agro-hydrological
perspective
Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Sustainable Cattle ranching
NOVUS
I-Currently running projects
I-Currently running projects
I-Currently running projects
I I-Complementary projects
I I-Complementary projects
I-Currently running projects
3. FA1 pilots
ILRI - Efficiency of the beef value chain improving rangeland - Botswana
ILRI - Efficiency gap in the sheep value chain - Ethiopia
NOVUS - 300 eggs club in Uganda
NOVUS C.O.W.S On-Farm Assessment for dairy Production
INRA - Efficiency gaps in the natural resources use - Burkina Faso
P-BLEX Roadmap for the environmental sustainability of the English Pig Industry
ATB - AgroHyd World food consumption and water resources
FEDEGAN-CIPAV - Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Sustainable Cattle ranching
Value chain approach – grassland and animal effic. -Farm data available at household level – Need on environm. Eval. Value chain
Value chain approach – Feed utilization efficiency - Smart marketing – capacity building – scaling up
Cow management and comfort eval. Nutrititon – on farm assessment – farm benchmarking – data available
Improving farm productivity – feeding efficiency – capacity building – social impact
Multi-dimensional approach – environmental eval. Value chain – scaling up – capacity building - LCA eval. – data availability
NRUE focused – local feed stuff eval. – feeding and nutrition component. – diversified agric. Prod. Systems – synergies with FAs
Comprehensive assessment on water management – agric. Management options to increase water productivity – developing indicators
thank you!
