Recent Comments
- ILRI Virtual Meetings » No travel required » Registration: How do I sign up? on Registration
- jenspeter on S2 – Q4 – Scenario 2, Question 4 (Livestock and Fish with a Global Animal Science Agenda – Theory of Change)
- Mblummel on S1 – Q1 – Scenario 1, Question 1 (Livestock and Fish like now – Key Research Areas)
- Mblummel on S1 – Q1 – Scenario 1, Question 1 (Livestock and Fish like now – Key Research Areas)
- Mblummel on S1 – Q1 – Scenario 1, Question 1 (Livestock and Fish like now – Key Research Areas)
L&F Yammer Group
Emerging diseases hasn't really been mentioned in the discussion so far, but with a more global focus, it should be included. Two key areas: SASI to model drivers for emergence (climate change, vector distribution, etc), AH flagship to strengthen early detection (mobile technologies, syndromic surveillance)
excellent point; the ability to look at issues such as these that transcend borders is very important.
Would add trade as well.
I have four research questions that relate to how innovation and technology get into use. This is the research into delivery that we need to do
- How are innovations/technologies adapted by users to make them fit for purpose?
- How do innovations/technologies become enthusiastically "owned" by users?
- In what way do innovations and technologies spread to achieve significant scale?
- What determines the sustainability and persistence of innovations and technologies that have spread at scale?
hasn't much of this research been done? I suspect there is a lot of literature out there on this.
1) Continue to develop a communication and infrastructure platform that a) collects data at the farm level for e.g. genetic improvement, health moniroting etc. b) disseminates knowledge from the CRP to the stakeholders c) enables evalaution of different interventions in real-time.
2) Identify how the animal factors, which we can 'manipulate' through selective breeding, feeding and management interventions, contribute to environment (+/-), nutritional quality, local ASF availability, and increase in wealth. Different definitions of efficiency will give very different outcomes. System approaches are import here but need to be tailored to something that we can adress/measure at the farm level as well as the individual animal level.
Yes to both - is see this in both scenarios 1 and 2. In particular, consideration of the issue at what level to assess efficiency is critical to work out what level makes the most sense (individual, field/pond/ farm, region.
IF this will be the way forward, we should focus more on:
- environmental impact by the sector
- climate change mitigation/adaptaion related the sector
- transboundry animal diseases
- trade issues
…...over all this will be longterm research with less clear cut delivery and impact.
1. More contribution to fish production (fish value chains) in sub saharan African countries.
2. Expand the animal health to cover all the CRP countries in the same time. This will lead to better understand and sharing of information across the value chains sites.
Expand the geographical reach and impact of L&F technology flagship (genetics, health, feeds) research through stronger collaboration with development partners and the system CRPs.
1. How about animal source food systems rather than animal science?
2. How about expanding the value chain agenda to include South America?
From Addis - from yesterday's discussion we need to be careful not to regard livestock as purely factories for ASF- Livestock have many other functions and L&F needs to get involved in research around these issues since this is not being adequately dealt with by the Systems CRP's.
No idea where this fits. But the notion in yesterday's conversations that we could be adding a new tagline for much of the world's animal agriculture
'putting animals out to grass'
not sure what the equivalent is for fish though
Again not sure where this fits
Second thought comes from the L&F Vietnam SIP meeting we had last year. We concluded with a sort of slogan for the VC in Vietnam:
HP3: Healthy Pigs, Healthy People, High Productivity (additionally, in Vietnamese: Hạnh phúc - which means something like happiness, or happy people!)
.. which could maybe be paraphrased for the program as a whole or for other VCs. This type of agenda is bigger than just 'more' ASFs, but also 'better' ones (no forgetting the welfare agenda...).
I am a little unclear if this scenario/option proposes that we take on board the entire research agenda of the systems CRPs? Can someone clarify please?
Irrespective of this I would say that we need to focus more on technology and service delivery and uptake, researching the institutional (social, economic, cultural, organizational) barriers and challenges to effective delivery of interventions and innovations and their wider uptake. We also need to understand (research) better the capacity development needs required for improved service delivery and uptake and how these needs can most effectively be met and sustained. This will be critical to outcomes and impact, i.e. success.
I think this underlines the need for effective partners and business model assessments. For intensification mode in particular each element in the value chain has to deliver benefit (profit) to the players involved.
i agree totally - effective partners are a must to move research into the field to deliver impact.
From Addis: agree. Whether it sits in L&F or Systems CRP's this needs to be covered.
I think the idea would be that under Scenario 2, L&F would try to develop better its focus on business models/innovation systems approaches specific to animal source food systems/value chains to address food security through more productive, market-oriented (inclusive + sustainable) production systems, and for the resilience/livelihoods aspects, we would provide the animal inputs into the systems CRPs, contributing to their focus on how to deliver and support such strategies that are much more part of an integrated system that goes well beyond our narrow animal focus. So, we consolidate the animal research parts --esp that related to technology development -- that are currently spread out and given fairly little attention in the systems CRP, but create a more effective interface to tap into their better understanding of how it fits into the variable and dynamic agricultural systems at community level. Something like that.
Agree with Tom here also. On Systems CRPs think there is a crucial need to increase systems research on livestock (on fish do not know what is happening in AAS). This could be crop-livestock-tree systems (which are being - not fully adequate - addressed in the Systems CRPs) and Livestock focused systems (which may even less be addressed in the Systems CRPs at the moment) .
Agree Tom, but isn't this already mostly what the current scenario is (supposed to be) about? And value chains are also included in some of the systems CRPs work.
The value chain part, yes; the resilience/livelihoods part, no, that would be new.
My two ideas here:
- include tackling beyond 'sustainable intensification' to an agenda that encompasses transitions in more vulnerable systems, where issues such as adaptive capacity and ecosystem services may be more appropriate. This should not preclude retaining a focus in the key value chains for the 'sustainable intensification agenda', and both ends of such a spectrum should also consider that producers, value chain actors etc may leave the sector too
- should we consider an agenda that also tackles the conservation of livestock and fish resources?
Good point on animal genetic resource conservation. I think we would need to avoid playing a museum or stewardship role, but have some activity fully focused on demonstrating how those resources can be effectively translated into use -- can we demonstrate that they can provide benefits even in the shorter term?
In the first 3-5 yr phase of a Scenario 2 L&F, I could see possibly devoting a Flagship-level effort to foresight. We need to get a better handle on what are the transitions and directions that livestock systems can be expected to follow. That means a focused effort on scenario development with climate change, economic transitions, consumer demand -- but not just our usual rising demand projections, but going back to the Livestock Revolution analysis and updating the likely sources of supply, i.e. how has the structure of production been evolving and where is it going, and importantly, how diets are evolving and how the role of ASF will evolve? Also, pressures/trade-offs on resources (land, water) for production animal and feed production.
That would give us the basis for better framing the relative importance of the resilience/livelihoods to intensification spectrum, and the types of transitions occurring or expected to occur across that spectrum, guiding better prioritization of our technology work.
Agree that we need to give more attention to foresight,
The other thinking emerging is on global food system. Where we could see to focus on Animal Food Systems including Fish and Livestock
I'm not entirely clear on how the 2 scenarios are very different, likely as its a new conversation for me/us at KIT. In any case, of course, the social relations and gender dimensions of animal science and decision-making on research priorities are key from our perspective.
I must admit that i am not sure that i have fully grasped to what extend the scenario 2 is really different. On a more global perspective, i would look into pathways of livestock systems, both in vulnerable and high potential area, and look beyond the smallholders, into commercialization even industrialization where appropriate. Environmental and social impact of new systems should be investigated.
Under scenario 1, we are fully focused on systems that can intensify, ramp up production and flood the market with animal-source food. That leaves out wild-catch fisheries, keeping animals for insurance purposes, low-input backyard systems, many pastoralist situations, using large ruminants for draft power and dung (but with low off-take), etc. Under scenario 2, we would address all of those, too.