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
Day 2 Global review: Animal source foods and human nutrition
-
-
Presentation speakers
- Isabelle Baltenweck, Program Leader: Livelihoods, Gender, Impact and Innovation, ILRI
Click to listen to the presentation by Isabelle Baltenweck
- What rings true or not?
- Is there anything missing?
- What do you find particularly important?
Comment at will in the comments section below.
Related Presentations
Thank you Isabelle - I believe you captured the main issues! One question came to mind when listening. We wish to promote Animal Source Foods (ASF) as part(s) of a complete diet - i.e. complementing plant-based diets. To what extent should we seek closer collaboration with our crop research partners to develop and promote a shared food and nutrition security R4D agenda? For now we are looking towards CRP4 Ag. for Nutrition and Health, but what about other, crop-based CRPs?
oh this is a good question. We should try and see what crops we should work with (e.g. dairy + sweet potatoes or beans?), and we really need to get nutritionists input . CIAT is doing interesting social media promotion for iron rich beans (Birthe had sent me the link to the YouTube video but I can't trace it right now). Food for thought
May be referring to this link with Rwanda's pop musicians singing the praises of high-iron beans. http://bit.ly/1wW8CoD. We thought about doing something similar to promote milk consumption in in Tanzania when we have some messages from the planned research to include in the songs.
Yes, we always joke about the potential for a special 'Fish & Chips' program to complement our 'Surf & Turf' agenda, but I don't think it would be easy to link up with individual crop commodities because in the end it is all about improving overall diet diversity and giving consumers the opportunity to achieve a diverse and balanced diet, not just promoting one or some combo of specific foods.
Yes - exactly about improving overall diet diversity and choices, so why not try to do that hand in hand with our crops colleagues? We have a shared, common agenda....
Is anybody aware of comparative studies between improving diets through increased diversity with ASF, "highly nutritious crops" like vegetables, fruits"and biofortified crops, on effect on nutritional status, acceptance, economic feasibility, etc.? For instance, a lot of work is being done on biofortificaton (as mentioned bean, sweet potato, rice), but how effective is this compared to relatively small supplements of ASF?
Isabelle, nice overview and all good points! What I think is missing is more analysis of consumption patterns and trends -- we tend to jump directly to doing our own data collection and evaluating interventions. It would seem to me that we are missing an opportunity to establish a strong evidence base on how ASF consumption varies by region, rural/urban, income class and intra-household. A lot of those data already exist and often the ASF component has largely been ignored and under-exploited. These data could also be used with existing tools to describe the nutrient gaps for specific target groups and the degree to which ASF would be nutritionally and economically strategic in addressing those gaps. Then we would have the basis for doing some scenario analysis of what happens to consumption and nutrient intake under different price/supply trajectories. Best done in-house or should we be finding mechanisms to out-source as student projects?
We recently had some exchange with Wageningen UR about their interest in looking at Patterns of Change in Dairy Production and Consumption in Developing Countries, following on some similar work by ILRI in the past, as as a contribution to L&F. May be that could be expanded to embrace this if not intended already.
Nice point Tom. Demographic Health Surveys (DHS) include a component on nutrition of just born children and their mother. At LSE we have currently a whole team developing codes to extract other components of DHS. Would there be interest in those datasets, then there is already some in-house knowledge (at least in terms of data preparation, not so much into the analysis).
I was thinking more about the Consumption & Expenditure Surveys that nearly all countries do as part of their national statistical monitoring, plus others done in the past by IFPRI and others. It isn't clear to me that DHS go into as much detail on food consumption as they do on nutritional status. Probably good data on diet diversity, though, as an important indicator, so definitely worth checking out.
In setting up the Uganda and Vietnam pig multimarket models for assessing pig sector growth trajectories (with input from Karl Rich), we realized that a lot of the household consumption and production data (with good regional coverage), collected by the National Statistics Bureaus every 2 - 3 years is relatively rich for some countries. We could make use of this info to assess supply and demand trends for ASFs as well as elasticities.
I agree with this. This should also look into how people prepare ASFs, as this may have an effect on the nutrients, as well as how people eat them, i.e. which part of the animal do they eat, as this also effects how much of the nutrients they actually consume.
Isabelle, good capture of this issue at the core of LnF. relevant that you brought up the livestock advocacy issue which is central within the privileged bubble in the North. The need for more ASF for the poor is also a cultural issue that might need to be elaborated on. At the end of the day - for Phase 2 - we should formulate a simple and clear narrative where we put forward the nutritional aspect (presented here) and the income generating aspect of livestock for the poor (pathway out of poverty).
Isabelle, nice overview! I totally agree about your statement ”livestock products are produced by poor farmers but consumed by rich people (in urban areas?). I discussed this with a colleague in Laos for some weeks ago and where many families in some of the regions, especially the children and women, are undernourished. One of the solutions is to train the farmers to farm insects. Not for sale but as a good protein sources for the children. Who love insects by the way!
My view point is slightly different as there are instances where the poor produce for the rich as well as where the rich produce for the poor. For example, in the case of rural chicken produced by the poor sold to the rich (more expensive) vs. mass produced broilers by the rich affordable by the poor. This is also the case with farmed catfish which could be produced by the poor for the urban rich who trawl in cheap frozen sea fish mostly patronized by the poor. So the poor can produce chicken and eat chicken just as they can produce fish and eat fish albeit of different type. But that's a good starting point better to me than farming insects. The question is how do promote the production of such niche products and still have them as exclusive of poor people?
Acho, a valuable comment and perspective!
The 'poor producing for the rich" issue varies by commodity. If we want to increase consumption of ASF we might need to think about focussing on dairy and chickens since the products are produced in small quantities daily and are therefore in the reach of the poor. The rural poor in Ethiopia rarely consume small ruminants although they do keep them. They are either sold or used a few times a year for religious festivals.
Livestock serve many aspects of food and economic security. Some work best when sold to produce income for the poor to buy livestock products they can afford. Other commodities allow for renewable consumption like eggs and milk We need to be sure we accept and promote all of these.
Alan, I agree almost 100% with you on dairy and chickens but would want to add fish! Catfish or tilapia in a backyard pond, no matter.
In Egypt the fish farmers are not small-holders but they employ poor workers and farmed fish is sold by poor informal retailers to poor consumers. So thanks Acho for reminding everyone that fish is in the programme but also let's not forget other poor value chain actors who benefit - it's not just about smallholder farmers - in different value chains there are also processors, retailers, feed suppliers, etc. who are often overlooked.
My current take on this is that we over-simplify many of these relationships. Just as livestock are multi-functional on-farm, their products can end up being split up for different uses and markets. I think we have a real opportunity to characterize these systems better -- just like we have done so well for the multiple uses of livestock -- to describe better 'jointness' of products from animals (e.g. different cuts, skins) and the nature of segmented markets, which mean you can be supplying both the rich and the poor. We need to get away from ASF security being interpreted as what the household feeds itself from its livestock, and consider as much or more what the poor source from the market -- such as the nice A4NH video on a Nairobi consumer who tries to bring home a little bit of pork from the butcher once a week. So yes, milk and eggs can be more steady streams for consumption on farm, but can we increase the availability, affordability, quality of what is sold in local wet markets -- which may be the lower quality cuts and byproducts leftover from the higher value cuts going to the rich?
Agree fully with "We need to get away from ASF security being interpreted as what the household feeds itself from its livestock, and consider as much or more what the poor source from the market". Poor urban consumers may have a much higher need to enhance ASF in their diets.
Hi Isabelle - WorldFish commissioned a nutrition/consumption study on fish vs. red meat and poultry last year. The report was released on the WorldFish website yesterday! http://www.worldfishcenter.org/content/role-farmed-fish-diets-resource-poor-egypt
Isabelle thanks for this. Do you see substantial "Contraction" in consumption of ASF in developed countries as a real possibility, and if so what, would it mean for ASF production by the poor?
Nice overview. It seems in terms of the 'promotion' of ASF we need to lobby with the big funders who may be over sensitive to the perceived cost and environmental impact of ASF and less by its potential to provide high value proteins. Not sure if there is a research taks in there for ASF though. Maybe the program needs to emphasize the role of lievstock and fish to generate both income AND access to high quality protein.
Thanks for this really presentation, which cover a topic about which i have only very little knowledge. I learned quite a lot!
There is however a reflection that keep puzzling me as I work for L&F.
Poor producers are interested in producing animal source products that reach high value on markets. I guess this is what we are looking at in small ruminant value chains.
But most of the poorer population who access animal source food, eat beef and chicken (maybe pig and fish?) that are produced in commercial if not industrial manner. Are we looking into this within this CRP?
are you sure about that? how do you know that most food consumed is from the industrial systems and not backyard operations?
we need more info on what's happening after the farm! most of our work, historically, has been focused on the farm.. and now we 'jump' to the consumers. Other people have made that comment: we need a better understanding of who consumes what, and through which channels?
Good presentation Isabelle! Stats on current consumption patterns and trends support this; the poor produce, the rich consume ASFs.
Lobbying policy makers to legislate for affordable prices would be a good step, along with exploring advanced breeding systems that enhance mass production ( this would make it affordable) and consumption of these products by the poor.
I wonder what the trade-offs would be though with regards to the income that come from sale of livestock and or products on poor households...
This presentation points out that this is a complex issue. It is about supply, access, allocation, policy and more. I am struck therefore that the solutions also need to be adaptive and various, somehow working together. On the supply side, we have issues of productivity. On the demand side, there is market dynamics. In the house there is gender stereotyping. Between all, there is power.
I am therefore not sure that we are capable of addressing human nutrition unless we take a broader research agenda that goes beyond supply. We need research questions that explore how different approaches combine to increase access to animal source foods.
Excellent presentation Isabelle and also may good comments raised above. Any thoughts on how the breeds & feeds technical flagships may be able to contribute to the L&F nutrition agenda (besides productivity focus)? ... is research on the links between breed / feed technologies and nutritional vales of ASF warranted or overshadowed by other issues e.g. availability, intra-household consumption patterns?
Karen, I really don't know.. this is where we need to get more expertise. On fish for example, I understand that WF is working on fortifying fish via fish feed (maybe in AAS) and in dairy, we know that local breeds produce higher fat milk. But how does that compare with price and income elasticity etc.. As I said in the presentation, we felt that 1 big step this year is to draft the L&F nutrition strategy, which would provide a framework on where to focus. Will be looking for all the flagship members to contribute!
Great - looking forward to helping where I can on the L&F nutrition strategy document
A good presentation. As an entry point I really think that we should be focusing on food safety issues. This seems to me to be a very hot topic and one on which we should try to build some sort of comparative advantage. I can only imagine that this will be an increasingly important issue area in the future.
Thanks Isabelle for the nice presentation. There are two points I would like to bring:
a. ASF part of unhealthy diets in the developed world and contributes to healthy diets in the developing world (as stated by Shirley). It depends of the level of intake of ASF, but also in the case of meat would depend on the fat content of that meat. My point is that there are more messages against ASF from those promoting vegetarian diets and animal welfare activists. There is a need for increasing public awareness on the contribution of ASF to meet the nutritional requirements of humans.
b. Frequently we refer to the potential direct effects of increasing animal production and productivity on improving the nutritional status of household members in smallholder farms, it may apply for milk and eggs, but is less clear for meat; however, selling chicken, pigs, small ruminants and cattle will contribute to increase income, and part of it is or could be used for improving the nutritional status of household members by increasing their access to more food (crop or livestock origin). With the results obtained in the nutrition studies we are conducting at household level, this hypothesis could be tested.
yes, and A4NH has a clear comparative advantage here. We've been linking with them in a couple of our VC work
can I try and stir up a bit the conversation ;) while preparing this presentation, we discussed whether L&F should focus more on increasing ASF availability (through e.g. increased productivity or reduced losses) versus accessibility (e.g. ensuring milk price is low through short chains, better marketing channels, or policy work)... what do you think?? [Stuart.. I hope I'm allowed to ask questions :))
From my naive perspective it seems that 'we' as researchers can have greater influence (attribution) to availability than to accessibility (contribution) because of the large number of external influences on accessibility. However, we need both to achieve changes (poverty reduction etc.) so this just comes back to the usual discussion about integration of our technology platforms which focus more on availability and VCTS which is more about accessibility. We just need to acknowledge, i think, that a lot of the work of VCTS must involve many different partners and actors outside of the program in order to achieve changes in accessibility.
In my perspective, attribution to research would only be at the level of testing interventions (both availability and accessibility) and generating evidence. Even at that level we have to partner with development and private sector players to make it happen. In order to achieve impact at scale, whether on availability or accessibility there is an interplay of external factors beyond our control, though we have a role to play in catalysing this, e.g. through productive partnerships and stakeholder platforms.
I think we should do both. Also isn't our ToC that increasing productivity would also lower prices?
I also like the idea of addressing availability, accessibility, as well as consumption patterns.
I actually agree with Froukje that we need to focus on both if we are to maintain the value chain approach. If we focus only on availability then we risk going back to traditional CG supply driven research.
Nice presentation, Isabelle. I think that many points and references to projects will be useful as we (CRP with KIT) reflect more on the strategic and integrated gender agenda within L&F! Particularily around the importance of social relations in increasing ASF and nutrition. This has relevance for both gender accomodative and gender transformative ends of the spectrum.
Very good presentation Isabelle
like your presentation as you captured many points and stimulate discussion on ASF and balanced food.
In some countries the picture may not be that simple. In Egypt there is problem in marketing fish and there is need to promote farmed fish consumption as means of improving nutrition of the poor as mentioned in the report posted by Malcolm. So in this case the we should focus on the role of fish in improving nutrition of the poor as tilapia is already consumed by the poor.
Thanks Isabelle for the good presentation! A few points that came to mind also after reading some of the comments:
- We can think of the pros of the poor producing meat for the rich and earning (good) money that allows them to buy cheaper food. However, I think we mostly focus on poor consumers? is this strategic?
- In crops there is common reference to 'subsistence crops' and 'market crops'. Do we need to think similarly in terms of species and combine related value chains within households? e.g. species for direct consumption at home (or for sale in the village) and species for the market to use the revenues to buy other food? a gender approach would need to be adopted of course.
- It would be interesting to look at some trends e.g. if large sections of the poor started consuming ASF, what would happen to meat prices? and the environmental impact?
- Access to food has a lot to do with marginalization. The work we will be doing to connect empowerment and intra-household nutrition will be very interesting in this respect
- Food sovereignty is also an interesting concept from a gender perspective because it focuses on control over the food system (i.e. from production to consumption). It might be interesting to explore the connection between food sovereignty in the livestock sector and intra-household nutrition with a gender lens.