From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 18 June 2001 17:31 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L:Introductory Paper on Area Wide Integration of C rop & Livestock Production INTRODUCTORY PAPER FOR THE ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION Worldwide there is a continuing rapid expansion of intensive livestock production. This expansion is fuelled by increasing demand for livestock products, driven by population growth (mostly in the urban areas), economic development, and changing food preferences. Many countries are meeting this demand through expansion of intensive livestock production units that enable them to take advantage of economies of scale. These intensive production units tend to be located near the urban demand where they benefit from relatively good infrastructure, services and energy supply, and lack of environmental regulations or their enforcement. Most of the feed inputs into production are produced elsewhere and transported to production facilities. Meanwhile the unused by- products are disposed of in the cheapest manner possible, often resulting in water and air pollution. The potential environmental risks due to disposal of the wastes in a manner in which the nutrients are not used are magnified as a result of the intensification of livestock, and the decreasing amount of land available for waste disposal. Manure (especially liquids) is in some countries directly discharged to surface water system, which causes eutrophication of watercourses and nitrate leaching to groundwater. Furthermore, there is a risk of spreading pathogens that can endanger human and animal health and that the population is harassed by odours. Although recycling is considered as a proper solution to dispose from wastes, inappropriate practices may also lead to environmental damage. For example, when wastes are land applied, excess nitrogen and phosphorous that is not taken up by plants may leach into the ground or flow into surface water causing eutrophication of local ponds and lakes, fish kills due to ammonia nitrogen, and decreased amounts of oxygen creating a negative externality. Heavy metals that are contained in manure may accumulate in the soils. Furthermore, if waste containing microbial pathogens is not treated before applied, the pathogens could end up in the surface water and on fruits and vegetables affecting both human and animal health. When water quality, air quality, and human health are adversely affected by agricultural production, society bears a cost not reflected in the market price for the agricultural product. Governments have typically addressed these problems through regulations. These regulations may take a command-and- control approach declaring a source-specific pollution problem in which a limit is set and backed up by threat of enforcement action. Examples of such regulations in much of the developed world are those surrounding clean air. Alternatively governments may try to solve the problem through the use of economic incentives which allow businesses and consumers to make their own choices by providing continuous inducements, financial or otherwise, for sources to make reduction in the environmental pollution they release. These policies attempt to correct market failures by adjusting the costs faced by the private decision-makers to reflect the full social costs of their actions. Examples include issuing tradable emissions permits or procurement policies whereby government uses their own buying power to stimulate development of markets -- e.g., for recycled products, or other types of monetary incentives that would change the market incentives for recycling waste, including direct subsidies, and the reduction of subsidies that produce adverse environmental effects, fees, or taxes. The goal of this conference is to find solutions that enable developing countries to address the environmental consequences associated with this move towards intensive livestock production so as to meet demand while encouraging rural production. One possible approach, Area-wide Integration (AWI) will be presented during the conference. AWI seeks to integrate specialised livestock production with cropping activities so that intensive livestock production becomes linked to a land-base system rather than an often profitable, but undesirable and polluting component of the urban industrial system. Under market pressure, and in a framework of weak regulations, traditional mix-farming systems have progressively specialised into crop and livestock activities that operate in different geographical areas and under different management rules. Roughly, intensive livestock operations are peri-urban, large-scale, and partially export oriented, when cropping is mainly rural, small-scale, and oriented towards national market. The main objective of AWI is to link those specialised activities on a regional scale to limit their environmental impacts and enhance social benefits. This through re- establishing links between these activities, such as nutrients fluxes (i.e. manure recycling, feed), economics (i.e. contracts, labor use), and environment protection (i.e. share of surface water use). To reach this objective, AWI proposes to develops technologies (i.e. water management on farm, manure recycling), but moreover policy instruments (i.e. removal of subsidies on imported concentrates, zoning, establishment of environmental standards). The main goal of the electronic conference and the subsequent physical conference is to discuss whether AWI can provide solutions and, if so, establish guidelines for AWI of specialized crop and livestock activities (or for "sound" land-livestock balances) from an environmental, social, and public and animal health perspective. To determine whether area wide integration is a feasible concept we will explore the following questions: * What are the various manure management options available? * Do markets or institutions exist that will facilitate the use of these various options? * To what degree do options impact on the environment? * How does the cost-effectiveness of the various options vary by type and size of operation? * What are the logistical issues and costs associated with moving manure? * What are the social impacts of different manure management options and facility siting, in particular on the poor? * To what extent do the alternative options control for hazards that may affect human and animal health? * To what extent can land use planning and related policies, through land-livestock balances and zoning contribute to development? * How does the AWI concept address solutions to the problem? * What type of infrastructure is needed? As we explore these questions, and further questions from the participants of the conference, we want to make sure that we keep reality in mind. Specifically, can the questions be answered in some way by examining cases where AWI has been successfully applied? If so, can we identify factors that contributed to success? If not, should we be concerned with these factors? Are some factors only important in specific circumstances? Are some conditions associate with unsuccessful cases? The goal behind this line of questioning is to identify what is needed to replicate the successful cases. The electronic conference will cover technical, policy and socio-economic issues in relation to the development, implementation, and transformation of AWI of intensive livestock production with land-based agriculture. The discussions of the sub-groups, which will form the body of this electronic conference will look at the: * Environmental impact and management options surrounding manure. * Animal and public health impacts associated with various forms of discharge and the spreading of manure. * Social aspects that need to be considered when implementing area wide integration. * Introducing livestock production in a spatial and planning context so as to understand what type of land use and rural planning that should be considered with regards to area wide integration. * Economics and policy options that can be put in place to facilitate the area wide integration. In the discussions we will be searching for technology and policy options that have proved to be workable and feasible for a more sustainable intensive livestock production. In discussing these options we may find that some solutions are more or less universal while others only work under certain circumstances. This means we should continuously consider the questions: * In which situations is AWI working and what factors are essential in making it work? * Would AWI work in other situations or areas and, if not, what adaptations are necessary to make AWI work elsewhere? * In what scale of operation is AWI working? Is there an optimal size for operations for AWI to work or are different solutions better for different size operations? * What are the factors that determine when one solution/option is preferred to another? Throughout the discussions we will consider some of the dilemmas in relation to the future potential, opportunities, constraints and even consequences of alternatives of the intensive industrial livestock sector. CONFERENCE AGENDA The conference will commence June 18-22 with a general discussion of the problem, various solutions, and what Area Wide Integration (AWI) is about. During the following 5 weeks the introductory papers from each of the subgroups listed below will be released one per week. The moderators of each of these subgroups have formulated an agenda to be discussed during that week. The discussion of that specific paper will begin that week, but continue into the others. A summary paper will be released on the 7th week (July 30th). The discussion of the various topics may continue beyond the official end of the conference. This we would encourage and we will keep the electronic conference mechanism open. The goal of each subgroup discussion and some of the questions that will be examined are listed below. The conference will end with a summary of the outcome of each group and a general discussion (July 15-August 3rd). We are looking forward to a fruitful discussion in all these subjects. GENERAL FORUM: JUNE 18-22 Goal: To discuss the problems and identify the issues surrounding Area Wide Integration. Moderator: Arend Jan Nell, IAC, The Netherlands TOPICAL FORUMS: JUNE 25-JULY 27 * Manure management and environmental impact (Paper introduced June 25th) Goal: To discuss the various options available for recycling manure. - How do we go about assessing nutrient management? - What are the various models/methods for assessing nutrient / mass balances? - Are there different concerns between pigs, dairy, cattle, and poultry? - What are the options for manure recycling? Moderators: Harald Menzi, Swiss College of Agriculture, Switzerland and Mauricio Rosales, FAO. * Animal and public health (Paper introduced July 2nd) Goal: To discuss the human and animal health impacts associated with various forms of discharge and the spreading of manure. - What are the public health issues? - What are the animal disease challenges? Moderators: Ranald Cameron, Consultant, Australia and Clare Narrod, FAO. * Livestock production in a spatial analysis and planning context (Paper introduced July 9th) Goal: To understand what type of land use and rural planning that should be considered with regards to area wide integration. - What are our experiences with the techniques for monitoring animal waste distribution and land-use? - How can spatial analysis be used to improve our understanding of critical areas? - How does the build up of non-point source pollution enter into land planning? - How can this be integrated to land use-planning policies? Moderator: Pierre Gerber, FAO * Social aspects (Paper introduced July 16th) Goal: To discuss the social aspects that need to be considered when implementing area wide integration. - What is the role of small rural producers in industrial livestock production? - How are the rural producers linked with the urban markets? - What are the policies or institutions facilitating such linkages? - Are there certain social and equity aspects that should be considered when promoting area wide integration? - Are there certain opportunities for and threats to employment that should be looked at more closely? Moderators: Paul Riethmuller, University of Queensland - Australia and Manuel Sánchez, FAO. * Economics and policy options (Paper introduced July 23rd) Goal: To explore whether certain policy instruments can be put in place to facilitate the area wide integration elsewhere - What are the successful cases? - How is legal liability involved? - Are there successful contractual arrangements between crop and livestock production? - What made these successful? - Does increased regulation result in relocation of production to other countries? Moderators: Søren Kjaer - Danish Minister of Environment and Energy, Denmark and Clare Narrod- FAO CONCLUDING FORUM: JULY 30-AUGUST 3 Goal: To summarize the outcome of each topic and formulate recommendations Moderator: Arend Jan Nell, IAC, The Netherlands From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 18 June 2001 17:39 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L:Welcome from the E-Conference Moderator To the Participants in the E-Conference on Area - Wide Integration of Crop and Intensive Livestock Production: Practical Experiences, Technologies and Policies Dear Colleagues and Friends It is my pleasure to welcome you to this E-conference where we want to share experiences on and explore new avenues for sustainable development of intensive livestock production in developing countries. A challenging introductory paper on the AWI concept from the LEAD-Initiative (Livestock Environment and Development) has just been presented to the participants and will be the topic for discussion this week (18 -25 June). In the period from 25 June to 27 July the conference will discuss 5 main topics: * Manure management and environmental impact (start 25 June) * Animal and human health issues in relation to Area - Wide Integration (2 July) * Land use and rural planning in Area-Wide Integration (9 July) * Social aspects in relation to Area-Wide Integration (16 July) * Policy options and policy instruments in Area-Wide Integration (23 July) Every week we will introduce a new topic, but the discussion on the other topics can continue until the end of the conference. The last week (30 July - 3 August) of the E-Conference will again be a plenary session with a synthesis of the results of the 5 sessions and discussion on the general conclusions and recommendations. We look forward to receive your contributions in the form of comments, experiences, relevant information and ideas, perceptions, questions and / or case-studies (send your comments and/or contributions to: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org I look forward to the discussions in the E-Conference and I wish you an enjoyable and fruitful participation. Best regards to all of you Arend Jan Nell From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 18 June 2001 21:39 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L: Agenda for the Conference AGENDA FOR ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION The conference will commence June 18-22 with a general discussion of the problem, various solutions, and what Area ide Integration (AWI) is about. During the following 5 weeks the introductory papers from each of the subgroups listed below will be released one per week. The moderators of each of these subgroups have formulated an agenda to be discussed during that week. The discussion of that specific paper will begin that week, but continue into the others. A summary paper will be released on the 7th week (July 30th). The discussion of the various topics may continue beyond the official end of the conference. This we would encourage and we will keep the electronic conference mechanism open. The goal of each subgroup discussion and some of the questions that will be examined are listed below. The conference will end with a summary of the outcome of each group and a general discussion (July 30-August 3rd). We are looking forward to a fruitful discussion in all these subjects. GENERAL FORUM: JUNE 18-22 Goal: To discuss the problems and identify the issues surrounding Area Wide Integration. Moderator: Arend Jan Nell, IAC, The Netherlands TOPICAL FORUMS: JUNE 25-JULY 27 * Manure management and environmental impact (Paper introduced June 25th) Goal: To discuss the various options available for recycling manure. - How do we go about assessing nutrient management? - What are the various models/methods for assessing nutrient / mass balances? - Are there different concerns between pigs, dairy, cattle, and poultry? - What are the options for manure recycling? Moderators: Harald Menzi, Swiss College of Agriculture, Switzerland and Mauricio Rosales, FAO. * Animal and public health (Paper introduced July 2nd) Goal: To discuss the human and animal health impacts associated with various forms of discharge and the spreading of manure. - What are the public health issues? - What are the animal disease challenges? Moderators: Ranald Cameron, Consultant, Australia and Clare Narrod, FAO. * Livestock production in a spatial analysis and planning context (Paper introduced July 9th) Goal: To understand what type of land use and rural planning that should be considered with regards to area wide integration. - What are our experiences with the techniques for monitoring animal waste distribution and land-use? - How can spatial analysis be used to improve our understanding of critical areas? - How does the build up of non-point source pollution enter into land planning? - How can this be integrated to land use-planning policies? Moderator: Pierre Gerber, FAO * Social aspects (Paper introduced July 16th) Goal: To discuss the social aspects that need to be considered when implementing area wide integration. - What is the role of small rural producers in industrial livestock production? - How are the rural producers linked with the urban markets? - What are the policies or institutions facilitating such linkages? - Are there certain social and equity aspects that should be considered when promoting area wide integration? - Are there certain opportunities for and threats to employment that should be looked at more closely? Moderators: Paul Riethmuller, University of Queensland - Australia and Manuel Sánchez, FAO. * Economics and policy options (Paper introduced July 23rd) Goal: To explore whether certain policy instruments can be put in place to facilitate the area wide integration elsewhere - What are the successful cases? - How is legal liability involved? - Are there successful contractual arrangements between crop and livestock production? - What made these successful? - Does increased regulation result in relocation of production to other countries? Moderators: Søren Kjaer - Danish Minister of Environment and Energy, Denmark, Carlos Pomareda - Consultant, Costa Rica, and Clare Narrod- FAO CONCLUDING FORUM: JULY 30-AUGUST 3 Goal: To summarize the outcome of each topic and formulate recommendations Moderator: Arend Jan Nell, IAC, The Netherlands From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 19 June 2001 13:36 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L:Comments from Melvin Landers to the Introductory Paper ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Melvin Landers, agrimel@yahoo.com Dear Participants: The introductory message asks, "How does the AWI concept address solutions to the problem?" You suggest that the main focus needs to be on policy instruments and manure handling technology. I would suggest that you increase your emphasis on improvements in infrastructure in order to provide rural farmers with access to urban markets and that you add to these strategies, an emphasis on identifying innovative technologies that would enable rural farmers to better compete with urban based producers by updating their farming practices. I, for one, will happily take the opportunity to introduce new manure handling technology next week. But, There are many other areas of technology which should be investigated, which may allow small rural farms in developing countries to replace these Urban based "Industrial Farms" with smaller, more sustainable, rural versions which would truly integrate the production of livestock and crops. It is probably too late in the "Bigger is Better" atmosphere of the developed nations, to progress toward small, sustainable agriplexes which mimic traditional small farm diversification. But, there is still an opportunity to do so in the developing countries where the majority of the people still make their living off of the land. With all of the innovations taking place today, surely there are enough low tech, low cost, low input technologies available to accomplish this. Then the AWI goal of integrating "specialized livestock production with cropping activities so that intensive livestock production becomes linked to a land-base system" would become a reality. If this line of investigation would be considered beyond the scope of this conference, it should at least be considered for a future conference. I realize that, given this late date, it would be difficult to search out such technologies. But, it is possible that participants know of enough various innovations to provide an adequate base of knowledge so that this could be included as a goal in the final summary. It is important to protect both the environment and the families that farm within that environment. Sincerely Melvin Landers General Manager Integrated Agrisystems Solutions for the growing World agrimel@yahoo.com From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 19 June 2001 15:25 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L:Comments from Ralph Kaufmann to the Introductory Paper ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Ralph von Kaufmann, ILRI I agree with Melvin Landers that rural infrastructure improvements are needed to improve the competitiveness of more remote farmers and thereby spread the demand on environmental services for the absorption of manure and other wastes. The state of rural roads has been found, in both Kenya and Ethiopia, to be a major factor in the adoption of more intensive smallholder dairy systems and in the marketing of cattle from remote areas. However, the provision of infrastructure, i.e., roads, water, electricity, phone lines etc. may involve hidden subsidies to large scale enterprises that have the commercial muscle to get the job done and/or are able to persuade governments that such infrastructural investments will generate employment through their large enterprises. This can be a valid argument, but careful analysis is required to ensure that the commercial advantage that it provides to large scale units does not make smaller enterprises unfairly less competitive and thereby reduce the net employment effect. And, that the polluter-pays rational is applied to ensure that the large scale units do not pass on their environmental costs to their smaller neighbours. Ralph From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 19 June 2001 16:39 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L:Comments from Tim Smith to the Introductory Paper ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Tim Smith, Timothy.Smith@btinternet.com I support both the comments received today, with a few extra points: 1) Smallholder dairying is taking off in Zimbabwe and at the moment the local market can absorb production. However, as the product has to move further from the point of production, processing will be needed. 2) Roads in rural areas tend to be bad, especially in the wet (production) season. 3) Increases in the price of fuel and the semi-collapse of the rural bus system are going to hit the smallholder sector hard. 4) in rural areas (where most people live, especially those needing a 'social security net') manure may be available without the draught power to move it. 5) Intensive peri-urban units depending on smallholder support for inputs do not usually recompense the provider adequately (e.g. crop residue purchases; cattle for fattening). The smallholder would potentially be better off producing a finished product. 6) Adequate extension messages (and choices) and training of farmers in new technologies. Tim Smith From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 19 June 2001 16:48 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L:Comments from Dam Van Tien to the Introductory P aper ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Dam Van Tien, Vietnam, tiendamvan@dng.vnn.vn Dear friends, I agree with the AWI goal because it meets our need as a developing country for promoting sustainable development in rural areas. However, I question whether it will really meet our farmer's needs. It is possible that what is needed is to design an extension program that improves farmer' environmental knowledge. I think that this may be a one of key points which we may need to address and discuss in our electronic forum. I do hope that we will have a productive conference. Cheers Dam Van Tien From: Nell, A.J. [A.J.Nell@IAC.agro.nl] Sent: 19 June 2001 17:14 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L Comments of Dam Van Tien on Landers and von Kauf mann ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Tien (HUAF) Vietnam t iendamvan@dng.vnn.vn Dear friends, I Agree with Melvin Landers and Ralph von Kaufmann that improvements in infrastructure is a good suggestion to open the gate for our farmers from remote areas to access to urban markets thereby it can increase their product prices by reducing a effect of middle buyers. In fact, in our Vietnamese case, the middle buyer "over-get" much more money from our farmer's income because of poor roods. Furthermore, Your suggestion may meet either short-term benefit of farmers or long-term run of sustainable development. However, This may cost much more money for improvement of infrastructure in the case of large and poor countries! Tien From: Nell, A.J. [A.J.Nell@IAC.agro.nl] Sent: 19 June 2001 17:40 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L Comments of Hans Askov on the smallholder concep t ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Hans Askov, askov@poultry-development.dk Comments to the smallholder concept. In Bangladesh is the smallholder sector by far the largest livestock sector. The sector has been developed through a smallholder poultry concept in which the first loan in a micro-credit programme is compulsory to poultry, but after that the smallholders are free to choose another activity. The second loan is often used to goats and after that to a cow. More than 2 million smallholders are now active in this program. The two most important elements in this development has been: 1. Establishment of an enabling environment: Inter alias, all supplies and services needed shall be timely available in the village. Such as, supplementary feed, vaccine, medicine, micro-credit and extension services, but also marketing facilities; 2. Comparative advantages: The smallholder technology shall be based on comparative advantages.The most important comparative advantage is the scavenging feed resource base. In the commercial poultry sector constitute the feed cost more than 70% of the total operational cost. In the smallholder concept constitute the scavenged feed the main part of the feed consumed. The cost of supplementary feed cost per egg produced is lower than the feed cost in the commercial sector. Another comparative advantages are the small flock size. In Bangladesh is there no subsidies involved at user level, all the elements constituting the model operate on pure business conditions. However, the concept is disseminated through donor supported projects. Hans Askov Jensen Freelance Consultant Teglgaardsvej 639,3.tv DK-3050 Humlebaek Denmark Phone: +45 49151456 Fax: + 45 49151006 askov@poultry-development.dk www.poultry-development.dk From: Nell, A.J. [A.J.Nell@IAC.agro.nl] Sent: 20 June 2001 10:20 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L : Message from the moderator ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dear Conference Participants, We had a good start with a number of interesting messages on the need to further develop rural infrastructure to support the smallholder sector to increase and intensify production. This topic will certainly continue to be on the list and will be further explored during the next sessions of the conference notably during the session on landuse and rural planning. We certainly welcome more messages on this subject but at the same time I wish to remind you that the topic of this Econference is broader. Other questions raised in the introductory paper are e.g.: * How can we address the environmental and other consequences which are associated with the move towards intensive livestock production frequently in the form of medium to large scale intensive livestock units (whether we want it or not these units do exist and cannot be ignored) ?; * How can intensive livestock production be integrated in the rural areas, what are opportunities, mutual benefits or constraints ?; We welcome examples and casestudies of situations where intensive livestock operations are integrated with rural agriculture production systems. Arend Jan Nell Conference Moderator From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 20 June 2001 10:34 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L:Comments from Melvin Landers to Introductory Pap er (2) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Melvin Landers, agrimel@yahoo.com Dear friends, The comments of Ralph van Kaufmann bring into better light the point I was trying to make. My own work has been for the poorest of farmers, to end their dependence on slash and burn techniques. So, you can see that it is the small farm that I am most concerned with. Ralph, Tim Smith and Dam Van Tien all did a better job of getting to the point that I wanted to make. If livestock production in developing countries is to be sustainable and non-polluting, the best strategy is for farmers who work small rural farms to be empowered to raise that livestock in a more cost efficient manner. This would provide the reasonably priced meat desired by the urban market while still protecting the livelihood of the rural population and at the same time protecting the environment. The owners of small farms tend to be keenly aware of their need to protect the land on which they and their children are dependent. If they are given the tools and knowledge to protect the environment, most will do it regardless of governmental regulations. Operators of a large "industrial Farms", on the other hand tend to care only about what they can get in the short term. I know I am generalizing. But, in general this is true. There is a different view of the world between industrialists and farmers, and many of these large operators have an industrialists point of view. Tim Smith made the point that increasing distances from the market require more processing. It is desirable that most rural producers do as much of their own processing as possible. This is another area where knowledge and the right tools need to be made available to them. As Tien has made clear, "middle men" are the ones who make the profit when it comes to food. This is true everywhere. In places like the Mekong Delta, where farmers can bring their boats right up to the marketplace, farmers that live within a reasonable distance of a city can sell their produce the day it is harvested. Most others are at the mercy of the middle men who will give them the least they can for their products. "That's business." As my friends and I have been trying to introduce important new systems to poor farmers around the world I have been overwhelmed at the vast number of aid agencies with which we must struggle to make contact. The larger the agency and therefor the more people they can reach, the harder it is to make contact with someone who understands what you are talking about. I would suggest that extension services and the various aid agencies make a concerted effort to operate on a cooperative basis to find, prove, and implement new cultural techniques and new technologies which would be of benefit to poor farmers. Since it is the stated goal of all such agencies that they are trying to improve the lives of the people they serve, there should be little resistance to such an idea. If this were accomplished, it would mean a giant step forward for poor farmers everywhere, and a more secure supply of food for everyone without, endangering the environment. These farmers face many and varied challenges. But, in many cases the technology already exists to meet those challenges. There needs to be a coordinated effort to get the tools and the knowledge to those who need it. Sincerely Melvin Landers Melvin Landers General Manager Integrated Agrisystems Solutions for the growing World agrimel@yahoo.com From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 20 June 2001 14:09 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L:Comments from Herb Brodie to Introductory Paper ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Herb Brodie, hlbrodie@bluecrab.org Dear Participants, Although the concept of improving small producer positioning in the marketing of agricultural products is desirable, we must remember the perms of the question. The major problem is the growth of urban regions needing to be fed. The problem of food availability is being met by the development of large production units. The two go hand in hand. While small remote dispersed production units can support rural and small urban centers they cannot provide the quantity of food on a consistent basis needed to support growing urbanization. Large production units can be environmentally responsive. The very same efficiencies and economics of scale that allow competitive production by large farms can be applied to waste treatment and utilization that cannot be afforded by smaller farms. The problem lies in the fact that some of the large farm companies are not required or do not understand their need to adopt such technologies. It is the role of government to make environmental concern a part of the agricultural production equation. One also has to ask about the environmental concerns of the growing urban center. What happens to the wastes produced and is it appropriate to combine these wastes with the nearby farm waste? Is it appropriate to tax urban citizens by some means to pay for the necessary capital and operating costs of such treatment? Herb Brodie Professor Emeritus Biological Resource Engineering University of Maryland From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 20 June 2001 14:51 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L:Comments from Dam Van Tien to Introductory Paper (2) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Dam Van Tien, tiendamvan@dng.vnn.vn Dear friends: I strongly support the first point of Tim's Smith that livestock product processing probably meet our farmer's need now. In our Vietnamese case, I would like to add a few points which may be need for small scale producers in remote areas and so we need: 1) Simple technology to meet indigenous knowledge of farmers. 2) Outputs of processing that can be stored long time at room temperature. 3) If additives are need it they must be a familiar flavour of local consumption in order to reduce the effect of food neo- phobia. 4) Women and children can contribute with their activities to the processing and so increase their knowledge by doing (learning by doing). I would like to have contributions and suggestions of a simple processing technology and I do hope that if possible, we need to address these issues in our conference. With warm regards Tien From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 20 June 2001 15:04 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L:Comments from Roberto Azofeifa to Introductory P aper ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Roberto Azofeifa, razof@mag.go.cr I think it is very important to develop new and innovative technologies for livestock systems. In Costa Rica the National Extension and Research Service at the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (and other Institutions) works to develop technologies which link production and conservation of the nature resources. We try to get more incomes per unit of area and to protect soil and water. That is being possible by different technologies: * Better pastures; * Manure recycling (bio gas; lombricompost); * Semi stabled systems; * Diversification (crops and livestock); * Use of fodder material produced at farm (example Cratylia argentea; sugar cane, Arachis pintoi); * Trees and pastures; · Etc. Experiences have been feasible in small and medium farmer systems. The results are economically and environmentally important. Thank you Roberto Azofeifa. From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 20 June 2001 15:22 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L:Comments from Dominic Smith to Introductory Pape r ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Dominic Smith, d.smith@agrifoodconsulting.com Dear all: I would like to make some brief comments on the concept and application of integrated livestock production systems and the spatial and productive specialization opportunities that this presents. I agree that development of infrastructure is vital to the development of livestock systems that allow the participation of peri-urban and rural producers, commercialized and smallholder producers and producers specialized in breeding, producing fattening stock or fattening stock for slaughter. However, infrastructure in these cases is not necessarily restricted to roads, railways and bridges. Informational infrastructure can play a vital role, as can the physical infrastructure of marketplaces. It is instructive to compare the experiences of livestock development in China and Viet Nam, two neighbouring countries with many similarities, but also obviously many differences. One primary difference is that China is much larger than Viet Nam, both in terms of land area and size of population. China is also more economically developed than Viet Nam. In the case of the Chinese beef industry, the development of the industry in the past ten years has been characterised by a massive increase in cattle numbers, cattle producers and beef production. Development of the industry has been characterised by increasing levels of regional specialization in different types of production. In the grasslands of Inner Mongolia, pastoral producers are specializing in the cow calf production, while in the central plains and north-eastern areas, producers are more specialized in production of feeder cattle in small intensive production units based on the home. Closer to major consumption areas, producers are becoming more specialized in the intensive fattening of cattle in small feedlots. Finally, commercial cattle fattening operations with large scale feedlots are operating in the peri urban areas close to Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou. The interesting feature of this industry development is that there are strong linkages between each production system, with large scale and active trading of cattle at all stages of production. Provinces or districts are not dependant on input supplies from their own area, nor are they dependant on finding markets for end products within their own areas. In Viet Nam, the situation of integration of livestock systems is different to that of China. Despite the fact that Viet Nam is much smaller than China and livestock production is undertaken in a relatively more concentrated area, integration of production systems and regional specialization is at a far lower level. There are very few linkages in evidence between rural and peri-urban production systems, or smallholder and commercialized systems. Production of pig and poultry can be categorized as being either subsistence (in remote areas), for local consumption (in agricultural areas) or commercialized (close to Ho Chi Minh City and to a lesser extent, Ha Noi). In a recent large scale survey (2200 producers and 400 marketers) in Viet Nam, we found that wholesalers and assemblers rarely traded beyond their own province. More importantly, almost 100 percent of producers sold livestock to assemblers and of these, the overwhelming majority sold their products at the farmgate. Most producers indicated that their sole source of market information was the assemblers who purchased their products. What are the reasons behind the different experiences in China and Viet Nam? One of the main factors is that in China there is a widespread network of livestock and livestock product marketplaces and a developing information flow. Producers are able to become active participants in the marketing process, rather than passive participants as is the case in Viet Nam. The existence of a network of markets means that producers have access to market information from a wide variety of sources and can base their production decisions on this information. In Viet Nam, there are very few livestock markets and this offers very limited opportunities for rural producers to become an integrated part of the development of livestock industries in Viet Nam. There is now a very real danger that in the "rush to modernise", the smallholder rural producers will be left far behind. Dam Van Tien is completely correct when he says that the producers in Viet Nam are disadvantaged by the actions of "middle buyers". However, an improvement in the road system to link rural and urban areas is not sufficient by itself. Merely improving the road system will make the activities of the trader easier, but will not necessarily benefit the rural smallholder. The key is to empower the rural smallholder by making them an active participant in the marketing process, and encouraging information flows, so that peri-urban commercialized producers realise that they can profitably link with their rural smallholder counterparts. Providing the physical infrastructure of marketplaces is a positive step in this process. I hope that this conference generates much debate and comment about the topic of area-wide integration. It is a vital topic and one that needs to be emphasised to ensure that "development" does not only benefit the few, but can assist the many needy smallholders in the less-developed world. Dominic Smith Agrifood Consulting International d.smith@agrifoodconsulting.com www.agrifoodconsulting.com From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 20 June 2001 16:30 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L:Comments from Mary Ann Rozum to Moderators messa ge on introductory paper ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Mary Ann Rozum, MROZUM@intranet.reeusda.gov In the U.S., some large integrators, especially poultry, have established a niche market for manure to support organic production and provide another high value commodity. From a food safety standpoint, it is important to pellet or properly compost the product to prevent contamination of the organic products with pathogens. Mary Ann Rozum USDA From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 20 June 2001 16:47 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L:Comments from Miguel Velez to Moderators message on introductory paper ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Miguel Velez, mvelez@zamorano.edu.hn How can we address.......associated with intensive livestock production...? For many years organic fertilizers were the only ones available and their value and use was (is) recognized and well established in Asia and Europe. It worked because livestock and crop production were integrated. Now that this is no longer true, faeces and urine are a "waste" for the specialized livestock producer and not always a welcome product for the crop producer, who has crop residues, and for whom chemicals are much easier to use. The state, representing society at large, has had to legislate and require from livestock producers a minimum of land where proper use of the manure can be made. Why try to rediscover the wheel? The same principles apply in poor countries: "You want to keep a cow, show the land where you will make proper use of its manure". Any thing else, like claiming that he is poor and therefore deserves a different treatment does not cut it. The environment does not distinguish between the manure from a poor mans cow (or pig or chicken) and that of a millionaire. Whether it will work in the corrupted atmosphere of most of our countries is another matter. Regards, Miguel Velez Zamorano University Honduras From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 20 June 2001 17:02 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L:Comments from Wolfgang Bayer to introductory pap er ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Wolfgang Bayer, WB.WATERS@LINK-GOE.de Dear all, Let me first introduce myself: I'm working as freelance consultant in Farming Systems Research and Development, extensive animal husbandry, pasture and forage management and have worked also in the sphere of animal production and environment. A number of comments indicated that infrastructure is a key element in AWI of livestock. I think we have to add also "infrastructure" within a household. Last year I did several consultancies in South Africa, where smallholder livestock farming and large scale production can be found side by side. Strangely enough live poultry in rural areas is more expensive than dressed, deep-frozen chicken in supermarkets. Farmers indicated that supermarket chicken need to be kept in a deep- freeze and these things are generally not available to farmers. An economic analysis showed that smallholder farmers cannot compete with large scale producers of poultry and pigs, at least as long as cheap, imported feed and energy is available and as long as the environmental costs, caused by large scale production, are not fully charged to those who cause it. The popular project of small scale, intensive broiler production is hardly economically viable because the large units have the advantage of economy of scale. If economic conditions change, large scale units are much endangered than small scale extensive units. This was clearly shown during the so called Asian crisis some year ago, when intensive poultry production in Indonesia apparently collapsed very quickly (and I think there are other examples around). This clearly shows some of the risks of intensive livestock production systems. The grain/liveweight price ratio is probably the most important single factor for the economics of intensive livestock production and this is a connection we should not forget that in the US about 80% of available grain is fed to livestock. More livestock products per capita will mean that more grain will have to be produced, so the environmental impact of livestock production goes beyond manure and manure emergencies in some areas with intensive poultry or pig production and the methane emission of (large) ruminants. Living in Germany and observing trends in the livestock product market (BSE-crisis, hysteria about foot and mouth disease, increasing rejection of meat among young people, at least in the circle of our acquaintances). here it is sometimes hard to believe that in other parts of the world. What seems to happen is that beef is increasingly out, whereas pork and chicken still enjoy a somewhat higher popularity. This confirms the prediction of the IFPRI study, which indicates increasing importance of the monogastric animals and therefore intensive animal production systems. Although farmers produce grain often on their own farm to feed it to livestock, the trends away from cattle (sheep are in Germany of lower importance) make the AWI of crop and livestock production more difficult. I found it encouraging in a (private) discussion with an eco- famer in East Germany that long-term manuring can apparently improve poor soils to an extend that grain yields can compete with those on much better soils. The farmer is of the opinion that cattle is needed in the crop rotation not only to produce beef but also to produce manure. However this is not an AWI of crop and livestock production on regional scale but an integration with a - admittedly large (for German standard) very large farm scale. Given the fact that certified ecological products command a considerably higher price than conventional products, the requirements of certification restrict an integration beyond the farm. Wolfgang Bayer Dr Wolfgang Bayer Rohnsweg 56, D-37085 Goettingen, Germany Tel. +49-551-485751, Fax +49-551-47948 Email: wb.waters@link-goe.de From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 20 June 2001 17:26 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L:Comments from Mohammad Jabbar to introductory pa per ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From Mohammad Jabbar, ILRI Dear Participants The proposed agenda is very thought provoking and exciting. I hope this will cover most of the issues related to AWI. However, one major issue related to concentration of commercial livestock production in urban/peri-urban areas is access to feed. This is also the reason, along with manure management issues, that AWI is being considered as an alternative. The agenda, therefore needs to give adequate attention to the feed production, supply issue. Unless this is done through a separate topic and paper, it is likely that this will remain unattended or on the sideline. I therefore request the organisers to rethink about the agenda topics. Mohammad Jabbar Agric Economist ILRI Po box 5689 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 20 June 2001 17:30 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L:Comments from Thomas Jandl to introductory paper ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Thomas Jandl, tjandl@earthlink.net Livestock farming creates large amounts of manure -- regardless of whether it's done on a large or a small scale. Many small farmers with cattle or pigs can pollute the water just the same, or even more, as they represent 'non-point pollution sources.' Especially in wet areas such as prevail in much of SE Asia, all the droppings go right into the water. Since the Mekong was mentioned in a previous mail, I will share with you briefly a project I visited in the Mekong where farmers were offered small loans to put in a biodigester. This device allows to create biogas from manure in a rather simple way (allowing even illiterate farmers to learn the process rapidly). Basically, the farmer washes the manure into a tank at a certain, predetermined ration of water and manure (predetermined by the project personnel depending on the number of cows, buffalo or pigs). Methane is created through natural processes and used on the farm to boil water. The leftover sludge is significantly less polluting, as many of the most common bacteria have died off in the process (I could provide more detail if there is interest). The farmer now only has to monitor a very simple, hand-made device measuring the gas pressure in the tank and vent the tank in case the family doesn't use enough gas to keep the pressure low enough. Obviously, venting methane is not great for the environment, but the gas would have escaped into the environment anyhow, so venting doesn't represent any additional pollution. Farmers have saved significant amounts of money in avoiding fuel wood purchases, or, where fuelwood is freely available (often not the case in the Mekong, where population density is high), saved significantly on collection time. This allowed women, who are responsible for fuelwood collection or purchase, to engage in other activities, at times moneymaking. I have more data on this project (when I visited in 1997, it was managed by the German GTZ -- Gemeinschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit) in collaboration with the University of Can Tho. Thomas Jandl Thomas Jandl 3960 Langley Ct. NW #623 Washington, D.C. 20016 Tel.: (202) 363-4013 Fax: (202) 363-9873 Email: tjandl@earthlink.net From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 20 June 2001 21:26 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L:Comments from Herb Brodie to introductory paper ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Herb Brodie, hlbrodie@bluecrab.org I agree with Roberto Azofeifa's comments about making innovative technologies work for communities. During a visit to Costa Rica last month I saw a confined poultry production operation functioning as one would expect anywhere in the U.S. but the waste was processed into a bagged compost product for sale by a cooperative of local community members. The community also used the compost to grow vegetables for their consumption. This shows that the economy of large scale animal production can be integrated with local small community values. The major problem is still the lack of infrastructure that allows efficient flow of materials to and from remote areas. Herb Brodie Professor Emeritus Biological Resources Engineering University of Maryland From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 20 June 2001 21:59 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L:Comments from Daniel Gross to introductory paper ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Daniel Gross, Dgross@worldbank.org I will quote from Melvin Landers recent contribution to this debate in order to take exception to it. The owners of small farms tend to be keenly aware of their need to protect the land on which they and their children are dependent. If they are given the tools and knowledge to protect the environment, most will do it regardless of governmental regulations. Operators of a large "industrial Farms", on the other hand tend to care only about what they can get in the short term. I know I am generalizing. But, in general this is true. There is a different view of the world between industrialists and farmers, and many of these large operators have an industrialists point of view. Tim Smith made the point that increasing distances from the market require more processing. It is desirable that most rural producers do as much of their own processing as possible. This is another area where knowledge and the right tools need to be made available to them. As Tien has made clear, "middle men" are the ones who make the profit when it comes to food. This is true everywhere. I take exception to the statement that "industrial farm[er]s only care about what they can get in the short term." First, because no evidence is introduced. Second, because it is known that investment horizons are not fixed ideas but variables that depend on the overall investment climate, credit markets, the stability of the currency, market fluctuations and other factors. Third, the generalizations are based on stereotypes and do not correspond to farmers such as the hog producers I am familiar with with. I am working with three states in southern Brazil where wastes from pig farms constitute a problem. In Paraná, Santa Catarina and Rio Grande do Sul, hog wastes from thousands of producers are polluting streams, affecting water supply downstream. These are generally small (10-20 Ha), relatively uncapitalized farmers, but they are highly oriented to technology and markets. Many have been farming for generations. The interesting thing about these Brazilian farmers is their intermediate status, somewhere between peasant and industrial producers. Most of them are highly diversified and run intensive operations including hogs, poultry, fish farming, and double-cropping of maize and soybeans. Farmers have long relied on these streams to carry the wastes off their land and have paid little attention to the downstream consequences. Now, however, with the increased scale of operations, the risk of pollution is greater. Farmers in Southern Brazil require more technical assistance and better access to capital to install effluent treatment systems, and to move their operations away from streams. They are concerned about preserving their assets and the general environment but also about feeding their families, educating their children, marketing their products, paying off loans, and other things. They are not unconcerned with the environment but the nature of their operations is such that they have limited time and resources to invest in environmental protection and not enough information. I also take exception to the "middle-men" bashing. Buyers of farm products typically have higher incomes than farmers, but that does not mean they can or should be eliminated. Buyers take risks, supply credit, capital and equipment, and provide a necessary service. Sometimes they take advantage of farmers by monopolizing credit markets or excluding competitors. They may also take advantage of seasonal price movements against which farmers cannot buffer themselves because of the perishability of products, lack of storage, etc. I am uncomfortable with the simplistic bashing of middle men as if eliminating them would automatically make life better for farmers and consumers. I would be most interested in hearing from others knowledgeable about hog production operations elsewhere in the world and about how the producers have addressed similar problems. Daniel Gross Lead Anthropologist Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Unit Latin America and the Caribbean Region The World Bank From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 20 June 2001 22:28 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L:Comments from Arend J van Bodegom to Moderators message on introductory paper ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Arend Jan van Bodegom, A.J.van.Bodegom@IAC.AGRO.NL Dear participants, As a person working in another discipline, viz. sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity, I would like to ask your attention for an aspect that was briefly mentioned in the introductory note, but not much elaborated: the use of concentrates by intensive livestock producers. I am worried about the way the concentrates are produced and the effects this production has on the natural environment far away from the place where the intensive livestock production takes place. In e.g. Brazil much soya is produced and exported as a component for concentrates. In order to produce more soya, more forests are cut to create more arable land. But the production of the soya itself does not always seem to be sustainable and at a certain moment the land has to be abandoned and new land has to be used to keep on producing. This leads to even more deforestation and loss of biodiversity. So I would be interested in a kind of labelling system for concentrates that guarantees (a)the sustainable use of the soil, (b)a production of concentrates on soils designated for agriculture and not e.g. within a protected area. Arend Jan van Bodegom Intern. Agricultural Centre (IAC,)Dept. for Sustainable Management of Natural Resources P.O. Box 88, 6700 AB Wageningen, Netherlands Phone: +31-317-495244 Fax: +31-317-495395 IAC has celebrated its 50th anniversary in 2001! Info at http://www.iac.wageningen-ur.nl From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 20 June 2001 22:41 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L:Comments from Fernando E. Madalena to introducto ry paper ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Fernando E. Madalena, fermadal@dedalus.lcc.ufmg.br Could some one provide factual evidence on the assertion that only large units may feed the urban populations? I do not believe that is true. Fernando E. Madalena Department of Animal Sciences School of Veterinary Sciences Federal University of Minas Gerais Postal address: Cx.P. 567, 30123-970 Belo Horizonte-MG, Brazil Phone: 55-31-3499-2180 Fax: 55-31-3499-2168 From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 20 June 2001 22:56 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L:Comments from Dam Van Tien to Introductory Paper (3) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Dam Van Tien, tiendamvan@dng.vnn.vn Dear AWI participants, I share Arend Jan Nell's ideas on how we could address main topics which may concern to our AWI goal in order to focus, as much as possible, ideas and experiences from different livestock production situations. I think that the topics involve not only forms of middle to large scale intensive livestock units but, also small ones and even semi-intensive production units. Because in most rural parts, especially remote areas in developing countries, are poor and small scale farmers that bear pollution from their livestock activities because of the lack of environmental knowledge and appropriate technology and other means to overcome the problem. For instance in the Vietnamese case, we encourage the poor farmers to increase pig production and scavenging birds as a key tool for reducing poverty but commonly the manure pollutes the air in the dry season and the surface water in the wet and/or sometimes flooding season. I just think that if the goal of the AWI is also to address semi-intensive livestock production systems it may attract more comments and ideas from our forum. With warm regards Dam Van Tien Faculty Animal Science The University of Agriculture and Forestry Hue city, Vietnam E-mail: tiendamvan@dng.vnn.vn From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 20 June 2001 23:17 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L:Comments from John Ryan to Introductory Paper ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: John Ryan, john.ryan@fao.org Dear all: In reply to Dominic Smith's message about the advantages of wide area integration of production systems in China, I would like to argue that we should not advocate further development of markets and widespread exchange and movement of animals without very careful consideration of the implications on disease control. In determining the benefits of the development and integration of production systems over such wide areas we must also account for externalities such as losses due to disease as a result of this extensive mixing of animals and infectious agents through markets. This is particularly true of transboundary animal diseases such as FMD & PPR but also of the common garden diseases such as Bovine Respiratory Disease Complex and Enteritis. (Please note the damage caused by the presence of FMD in Longtown market in the context of the 2001 FMD episode in the UK). The information that Dominic provides about the recent developments in the internal markets in China may help to explain the dramatic increases of FMD in countries surrounding China in the recent past - such as Mongolia, Russia, Republic of Korea, Japan and Taiwan, Province of China all with a history of freedom from FMD - and also in China itself. There is much merit in what Dominic proposes but only so long as biosecurity and infectious disease control are fundamental planks in these developments. From an animal welfare point of view and also from the perspective of someone who works on FMD control, I would much rather see animal products rather than animals on the move across China. All the best, John Ryan john.ryan@fao.org EUFMD http://www.fao.org/ag/aga/agah/eufmd/ C 537, AGAH, FAO of the UN HQ, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, tel: +39 06 57053326 Roma 00100, Italy. fax: +39 06 57055749 From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 20 June 2001 23:26 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L:Comments from Josef Blum to Introductory Paper ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Josef Blum, Josef.Blum@lu.ch Dear Participants Even in western European countries there is a tendency toward larger units for meat production and also a concentration in certain regions. From my experience as a farm consultant in ecology for almost 2 decades, I see that newer units have the size of 100 mother sows, 500-1000 fattening pigs or 10000 hens on a farm size of 10-15 hectares. The nutrient input in these cases is far beyond the need for the plant production. This tendency toward a concentration happens if we want it or not. Why this concentration toward bigger units and also toward certain regions? * nearness to market for meat * nearness to market for production means * high know-how is necessary * economic efficiency is higher with a certain production size * quality standards are easier to achieve * etc, etc To keep the environmental impacts low, there are different measurements necessary. Three different ways can help to reduce the problem: 1. Information and education of the farmers. We have introduced in the recent years the concept of feedstuff low in nitrogen and phosphorus. By this method the output of phosphorus per unit of pig can be reduced by about 50%. This concept has no big economical consequences for the livestock producer. 2. Regulations by the government Livestock producers are obliged to have contracts with land owners, which can use the manure as fertilizer. An infrastructure for storing, transporting and distributing the manure is necessary. 3. Economic measurements In the case a livestock producer can't prove the use of the manure as fertilizer he is fined. Even with such a concept to connect livestock and crop production, the concentration of livestock production within a certain region should be restricted. Reason: the costs for transport of manure or for treating it (separation, utrafiltration etc.) are high. Josef Blum Consultant in agricultural ecology Centralstr. 10 CH-6210 Switzerland From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 20 June 2001 23:43 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L:Comments from Mark Powell to Introductory Paper ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: J. Mark Powell, jmpowel2@facstaff.wisc.edu I would like to share two case studies where landless, peri- urban dairy operations appeared to be managing manure effectively. Actually, manure management was contracted. In both cases, manure had a good economic value. Both observations were made during a three weeks trip to China in 1999. MANURE CAPTURE: THE STATE FARM AT KUNMING, YUNAN 320 dairy cows, no cropland. The cleaning of manure and feed refusals from the barns and attached exercise yards was hired out. The salaries of the barn cleaners were based on manure sales, the price which is fixed between the cleaners and the manure buyers. Income from manure sales is shared evenly between the cleaners and the farm. Many of the manure buyers are the producers of the vegetables that are imported onto the farm. Unmarketable vegetables were a large part of the dairy diet. Total manure nitrogen export from the farm for crop/vegetable production was in the order of 35 to 40% (most all urine N is lost in this system). MANURE CAPTURE: THE BEIJING BREEDING BULL STATION The manure produced by the 87 bulls at the Beijing Breeding Bull Station is managed by a nearby village. The village assigns people to remove manure from the farm's barns and exercise areas. The manure is stacked on a cement pads and hauled to the village approximately every 20 days. Approximately 90% of the total manure is exported to the nearby village. In Wisconsin, many dairy herds are increasing in size without expanding their cropland base. Some producers are contracting haulers to move manure to crop farms. Some interesting arrangements between livestock and crop farmers are emerging. Regards, Mark **************************************** J. Mark Powell Agroecologist USDA-Agricultural Research Service Dairy Forage Research Center University of Wisconsin-Madison 1925 Linden Drive West Madison, WI 53706 phone: 608-264-5044 FAX :608-264-5147 e-mail jmpowel2@facstaff.wisc.edu From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 21 June 2001 00:05 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L:Comments from Martin Upton to Introductory Paper ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Martin Upton, m.upton@reading.ac.uk Before we are all carried away by the notion of reverting to mixed farming in rural areas, we should note the following. 1. Urban populations in the Developing Countries are growing at an explosive rate. 2. Linked with this is a very rapid growth in the demand for livestock products in Developing Countries. (This has been called the "livestock revolution"). 3. Poultry and pig production offer the best hope of meeting this fast growing demand, because their reproduction rates are much higher than those for ruminant livestock (other than rabbits). 4. There appear to be significant economies of scale in a) hatching/breeding and b) slaughter/processing. Hence it is understandable that large-scale commercial companies have become involved in these activities. 5. However, in many countries, much of the production is undertaken by smallholder "outgrowers" under contract to the large firms. One correspondent to this e-mail conference has suggested that the smallholders are "exploited" by the large firms. This requires careful investigation, along with other aspects of the vertically integrated systems to seek opportunities for improvement, particularly in the terms and conditions faced by the "outgrowers". 6. Of course the environmental problems associated with intensive poultry and pig production are important. Further research is needed to determine the most appropriate means of control (e.g. legal controls, pollution taxes, quotas, subsidies for pollution reduction etc.). Martin Upton Martin Upton (Professor Emeritus) The University of Reading From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 21 June 2001 09:33 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L:Comments from Dam Van Tien to Introductory Paper (4) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Tien, Hue, Vietnam tiendamvan@dng.vnn.vn Dear friends, I am happy with the comments of Dominic Smith. Now I add a few information of integration of crop and livestock in poor areas in our central part of Vietnam in order to support the idea of him that different countries and even zones in one country may have a different situations in terms of traditional practice which contains the mean of "sustainable" and needs appropriate technology in the way of sustainable development. Traditional farming in central part of vietnam, based on an integrated system of rice, vegetables, rood crops, livestock, poultry, especially small animals such as pig, duck and goat has been impressively established. However, the system is affected by hard climate, poor soil and poor water supply factors that lead to shortage and low nutritive value of feed, and combined with high disease incidence, add much more stresses on the animal. Given that a animal productivity is below par. The livestock sector is one of the most important agricultural sectors. In fact, there about 80 percent of the population has to make a living off the land by using very intensive farming practices to grow rice, sweet potatoes, beans, cassava to supply a food for human and fatten a pig and supplement a schavenching bird. This means that farmers in the region do not always send directly crop products to the market but use the such surplus as a supplementary feed for livestock, thereby their incomes are more increasing. Any surplus production both the crop and livestock is sold on free market and most families sell thee pigs, fifteen chicken or/and ducks a year to obtain cash to purchase other items of food which can not self-produce and other consumption such as clothing, educational fee of chidren, medicine, wedding and funeral as well. In addition, its role also includes provision of draught power for agriculture, supplier of organic fertilizer and a means of saving. It is emphasised that under the presently free market economy is the turbulent price situation and the majority of animal products are for a domestic consumption while the part, which goes for export, is minor because of low quality. Consequently, the farmer' s income is still very low and results in more difficulty in reducing poverty in rural areas. Since 1990 following of the Doimoi policy of Vietnamease government, we focus our implementing in some key goal: 1) Maximise the tropic agriculture advantage of use solar energy with high productive crop and trees to convert carbon dioxide into biomass for food security and reduce green house effect from agriculture activities. 2) Develop integrated system of crop, livestock production, aquaculture as well aimed the role of animals being synergistic in such system rather than as primary producers and recycle wastes to generate fuel and fertilizer to reduce environment pollution . 3) Determine potential feeds from agro-byproducts especially rich protein feeds such as the cassava foliage and duckweek in different eco-zones in order to establish approriate feeding system to partially replace expensively commercial feeds that do not aim at achieving maximum productivity but sustainable livestock development reducing pollution from more concentrate feed in the diet of small animals. 4) Promote animal intake of supplements from agro-byproducts especially grazing animals by matching their behaviour to locally existing feed resources in order to partially reduce soil erosion caused by overgrazing. 5) Use livestock production sector as a key tool to reduce poverty in rural areas. I think that the objectives mentioned above may meet the farmer' s need to have productively mixed farming operation with multi-purpose animals (as a mean of "sustainable") and to promote their income from livestock sector in order to reducing poverty and step by step increasing aspirations for a better standard of living in the rural areas and protect environment. Dam Van Tien Faculty of Animal Science The University of Agriculture and Forestry Hue city, Vietnam From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 21 June 2001 09:40 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L:Comments fromPeter Schachenmann to Moderators me ssage on introductory paper ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Peter Schachenmann, pschachenmann@dts.mg Dear Conference Participants, Arend Jan Nell, Conference Moderator welcomes examples and casestudies of situations where intensive livestock operations are integrated with rural agriculture production systems. I could not think of a better example then Switzerland, particularly the stockraising regions of the alpine foothills or even in the alps proper. Here you find an integrated livestock/crop production system which may include combinations of cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, poultry on the animal side. On the crop side the most common integration is pasture in annual or bi-annual rotations with different crops suitable to the climatic zone, etc. You find the full range from extensive in the higher elevations on alps above about 1900 m to semi-intensive near the mountain villages, to intensive near larger agglomerations. But most farmers in Switzerland can still be considered small to medium size production units (e.g. 10 to 30 cows for dairying or steers for fattening). Manure is recycled on farm after having been collected and stocked for some time (natural treatment against pathogens, etc). Recycling of manure is mostly on pasture, today by machinery, specially developed for the purpose and regulated to seasons which are less environmentally and socially noxious (e.g at the onset of winter) Off course, Switzerland has today a very highly developed infrastructure and transport system, but this was not so 30 and more years ago, when I left Switzerland. Intensification evolved gradually particularely in mountain landuse systems. Concerning the location of intensified systems, it was not necessary to move from rural areas to periurban zones. Until today, smallholder farming livestock/agriculture farming systems continue away from urban areas and in certain cantons the decentralised, individual household production unit (Canton Appenzell) remains the main landuse form. When transpot systems were still rudimentary, value added less perishable goods were produced and transported to the market from time to time (cheese, sour milk, yaourt, salted butter, dried and smoked meat, dried and smoked sausages, etc.), all products, which are today delicatesses in high demand and expensive to buy. The swiss integrated farming system has been exported/copied all over the world because it is sustainable (since centuries), environmentally sufficiently "friendly" (apart from foul oders, on days the manure is spread on the fields) and can be economically interesting, today with premium priced biological farming labels. In poor developing countries, such systems could be developed; the blockage is more cultural and political, then technical. So before re- inventing the wheel, it might be useful to look at the swiss integrated system in that country or where it has been copied and is practised today, e.g. I know in Kerala, South India (ex. Kerala Indo-Swiss Project). Here in Madagascar, where I work, the intensification is more as you describe, near urban market centres, near collection points, etc. Why, because livestock/agriculture has not co-evolved naturally by self- help initiatives, but was "introduced" with our economic logic and ready made recipies spoonfed to rural people by foreign funded and assisted projects. That's obviously not the way of learning-by-doing and adaptive management of theswiss farmer. Best regards Dr. Peter Schachenmann Villa Magali, Ivory nord 301 Fianarantsoa Madagascar Tel/Fax: ++261-2075-514.67 Mobile1: ++261-(0)3202-108.48 Mobile2: ++261-(0)3202-593.19 Email:pschachenmann@dts.mg From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 21 June 2001 09:54 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L:Comments from Jacky Foo to Moderators message on introductory paper ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Jacky Foo, foo@swipnet.se In reply to Arend Jan Nell, Conference Moderator who welcomes examples and case studies of situations where intensive livestock operations are integrated with rural agriculture production systems. There are certainly a good number of examples and case studies for integrated livestock-crop production systems; some of them can be viewed as papers presented in two recent Internet Conference that the IBSnet (Integrated Bio-Systems Network - http://www.ias.unu.edu/proceedings/icibs/ibs/ibsnet) has organized in 1998 (http://www.ias.unu.edu/proceedings/icibs ) and in 2000 (http://www.ias.unu.edu/proceedings/icibs/ic-mfa ) as well as in other activities of MIRCEN-Stockholm (Unesco Microbial Resources Center (http://home2.swipnet.se/~w- 25860/jacky/conf.htm ) The most recent project of mine is the one on organic fertiliser and poultry production using brewery wastes (http://www.ias.unu.edu/proceedings/icibs/ibs/info/samoa/nuu/m ap1.html ) in Samoa. *..How can we address the environmental and other consequences which are associated with the move towards intensive livestock production frequently in the form of medium to large scale intensive livestock units?... Through information dissemination of success stories / case studies, field visits and discussion with the experts and farmers. Many of the issues already raised by participants and they are all valid, each of them in different circumstances, country, etc . If I have to single out a top priority/recommendation, I would say - that we still need to implement more demo / development projects, preferably longer term ones with small farmers. Regards jacky offline: 22-29 June 2001 Coordinator-IBSnet (Integrated Bio-Systems Network) International Organization of Biotechnology and Bioengineering http://www.ias.unu.edu/proceedings/icibs/ibs/ibsnet current/forthcoming IBSnet activities: (a) E-seminar: 11-29 June. "Improvement of nutritive quality of crop by-products using bioprocess technique and their uses for animals" To join, email listserv@segate.sunet.se and use the subscription command: SUB ET-W2 yourfirstname yourlastname, country (b) E-seminar/Workshop: July (9-29 July, to be confirmed) "Design of an IBS Eco-Village for 300 Families of the Disabled in Cambodia" Registration: email foo@swipnet.se and write in subject line: SUB Eco-village Cambodia yourfirstname yourlastname, country From: Nell, A.J. [A.J.Nell@IAC.agro.nl] Sent: 21 June 2001 10:14 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L Message from the moderator ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dear Econference Participants, I feel the Econference is making good progress, we have received and put on the list a large number of interesting contributions with useful information, topics for discussion, and coping strategies and solutions. I wish to draw attention to a few of the main discussion topics sofar: * Quite a few participants stress the need for improved rural infrastructure, processing and marketing for small farmers to increase sustainable production ( e.g. Melvin Landers, Dam Van Tien and others), and nobody denies that this is urgently necessary. However, others (Brodie, Blum) express doubts if the small-scale rural sector is able to generate enough surplus livestock products to meet the increasing demand of the booming cities.As there is no disagreement on the need to improve rural infrastructure to improve production by small farmers I suggest that in this Econference we concentrate our discussions on the opportunities for the integration of the intensive livestock production sector in the rural sector (e.g. feed production by rural farmers, use of manure, contracts with rural farmers for fattening or broiler rearing etc) in order produce a surplus for the consumers in the cities. * The stratification of production as described by Dominic Smith for China (and the non - existence of it in Viet Nam) is an interesting example, the next question of course is: what are the environmental consequencs this stratification of production (rearing of calves on the plains and fattening in feedlots nearr the cities). However, this is challenged by John Ryan who points out the dangers of development of markets and widespread transport of animals from the animal disease point of view (consider the damage from the FMD outbreak in UK and the Netherlands), we will certainly come back on this topic when we discuss in a later session the animal and public health issues, in the mean time reactions are welcome; * Linking production with conservation of natural resources in Costa Rica (Roberto Azofeifa) with the example of composting poultry manure for rural vegetable growers (Brodie), I like to hear a bit more from the practical experiences in Costa Rica from Roberto Azofeifa or from others in other areas; * The statement of Melvin Landers ".. industrial farmers only care about what they can get in the short term" is challenged by Daniel Gross. Do we have more evidence or information to substantiate either of the two opinions? * Some people raised the question on the environmental consequences of increased feed supply (Wolfgang Bayer, Mohammad Jabbar) also in relation to loss of biodiversity and the suggestion to introduce certifying sustainable produced feed (Arend Jan van Bodegom); please comment. Please continue sending your messages I look forward to receive them and forward them to all participants Arend Jan Nell Conference Moderator From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 21 June 2001 10:35 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L:Comments from Andre Sorio to Introductory Paper ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Andre Sorio, andre.sorio@uol.com.br All the participants are corrects. But we don't forget the amazing potential of tropical countries in produce ruminants intensively in pasture. The management of manure is more easy, because the animals are responsible for spread in pasture. And the production cost is small than the confinement production. And this low cost is fundamental to improvement better compete power to farmers situate far from consumers. Here in Brazil and Paraguay we work with low environment impact technologies in the management of pastures, with dairy cows, sheep, goats and water buffaloes. A conference with productive change of information, is my hope to all. Andre Sorio Mato Grosso do Sul, Brasil From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 21 June 2001 10:51 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L:Comments from Stephane Klotz to Introductory Pap er ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Stéphane Klotz, klotz@cgit.com Dear All, First, excuse my English which is not very fluent. I know the situation in some African countries and particularly in pig production. I would like to say that there will be for a long time medium or high unit productions in the suburbs of towns belonging to inhabitants who don't manage directly their farm (they have other professional occupations). The only purpose of these "farmers" is to make money easily without big investments. This is a big problem because the employees are not sensibilised to these environmental aspects. I saw this case for example in Ivory Coast where a lot of pig farms are located in front of the sea around Abidjan. All manure is evacuated directly in the sea water. This problem of production in town areas is important for pig and poultry because it doesn't require agricultural surfaces where manure could be used as fertilisers. The costs of transports are very high and people don't want to pay for that. It is very necessary to propose cheep solutions to manage manure in these conditions of production. In addition there is no policy to oblige people to take care with manure. Also, if the policy exists the states are not able to control the farms (lack of cars, petrol, etc.). Stéphane Klotz Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement Département d'Elevage et de Médecine Vétérinaire Cirad-emvt - BP 427 97 204 Fort de France cedex Tel : (0) 596 73 17 82 Fax : (0) 596 73 19 47 Email : klotz@cgit.com / stephane.klotz@cirad From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 21 June 2001 11:54 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L:Comments from German Bottger to Introductory Pap er ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: German Bottger, geb@manant.unt.edu.ar Dear all, I will say about the theme of the conference that of my point of view I assume that the ruminants are the best processors of crops residues and other materials that the human can't consume. The large scale model of feed-lots and other way of concentrates large amounts of animals, are in a great form dependent of grains. These grains are human food too. The process isn't energetically efficient. I see that this forms of output-depending farms will continue, but the smallholder farming is the key in the world hunger solution. The smallholder farming that I think is not depending of large amounts of inputs, a good example was that of Thomas Jandl. By improving the productivity of these production models and increasing the productivity, the farmer can sold the excesses. These excesses are those that with the suitable channels of commercialization must be sold in the cities. Really, the production systems must coexist, but in the countries that do not have great feed-lots, it must have a world-wide tendency towards sustentables systems and not- dependency of external food. Thank You, German Bottger Ing. Zoot. German E. Böttger Cátedra de Lechería Departamento de Producción Animal Facultad de Agronomía y Zootecnia Universidad Nacional de Tucumán Dirección Postal: Florentino Ameghino s/n Bº.Mercantil, 4105 El Manantial, Tucumán, Argentina Tel: (54) (381) 439 0049 Fax: (54) (381) 439 2132 E-mail: geb@manant.unt.edu.ar URL: www.manant.unt.edu.ar/proanim/Lechería/Principal.html ICQ: 72290800 From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 21 June 2001 11:59 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L:Comments from Miguel Vélez to Introductory Paper ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Miguel Vélez, mvelez@zamorano.edu.hn From what I understand India's milk production proves that the level of production is independent from the size of the units. Another question is how much has to be produced to make a living. If it is too little the farmer ends mining his soil in order to survive. At the other end of the scale, the question is where does the "economies of scale" end and where greed becomes the driving force. A comparison of a 60 cow herd in West Germany and a 300 cow herd in the eastern part published recently in Top Agrar showed little difference in costs per kg between both. Where large units have an advantage is in being able to hire better accountants and lawyers which are important when considering taxes and subsidies. Regards, Miguel Vélez mvelez@zamorano.edu.hn From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 21 June 2001 12:04 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L:Comments from Horst W Doelle to Introductory Pap er ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Horst W.Doelle, doelle@ozemail.com.au Dear participants, I am always intrigued by reading all the contributions and realising that all are talking about animals, waste and pollution or environment problems. As a microbiologist I know that Nature has given us all the tools we need to combat these so-called problems. We have, however to start a new thinking. I have emphasized the importance of so-called Bio-refineries for sustainability. What are they ?Over the past 30 years of teaching in developing countries I tried to explain: a) in order to improve the plight of the farmer we have to give him a decent income and incentive to grow the maximal yield of the crop b) we have to teach as to how the crop can be maintained at high level by looking after the soil, that is using pathogen- free organic fertiliser. In an integrated biosystem such as a Bio-refinery, and with the understanding that there is NO waste in an agricultural system, we can turn the farm into a multiproduction system, almost self-sufficient. We have perfect systems for composting the lignocellulosic materials, which can also be further vermicomposted for fertilisers. All manure from human and animals MUST be either composted or anaerobically digested. These technologies are available from small scale , e.g. 6 m3 to 2000 m3. The gas gives wonderful cooking material. Apart from the normal crop, farmers can also use grass or other lignocellulosic materials into mushrooms etc etc. I could go on for a long time, what all can be done with all the 'wastes', which are really enormous renewable resources. The Maya Farm in the Philippines was one of the best examples of a self sustainable farming system. I have seen many farmers in the developing world only producing the crop they need for their families because they cannot sell it for a reasonable price. An integrated system would teach him to convert this crop into a second or a third crop which can be sold. If we are talking about management system for sustainability, we have to make a start on a new thinking, a socio-economic thinking, and look at the roots of the problem why the problem exists. In most agricultural areas it is absolute lack of diversity and imaginations and a lack of knowledge for turning the so-called waste, which I call wasted resources, into valuable products. For example, anaerobic digesters for animal manure can be supplied as polyethylene bags costing between US$ 50-100 for up to 20 m3. One has to remember that this is enough for a family to cook free of cost. I sincerely hope that this conference brings along some new ideas in terms of agricultural planning. But first, please, let us stop of talking about wastes. Animal manure is an excellent renewable resource for products in a human household, as it not only delivers cooking gas and/or electricity but also fertiliser for regeneration of the soil and thus crops, or animal feed in form of fish, or protein- enriched feed for the animal. With kindest regards Horst Doelle Horst W.Doelle, D.Sc., D.Sc. [h.c.] Chairman, IOBB FAX: +617-38783230 Email: doelle@ozemail.com.au From: Nell, A.J. [A.J.Nell@IAC.agro.nl] Sent: 21 June 2001 12:04 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L Guideline for casestudy ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dear Econference participants, A few times I have requested for casestudies and examples relevant to Area-Wide Integration of market-oriented intensive livestock production and crop production and the environmental and socio-economic impact. The following guideline might help you to prepare such a casestudy and it helps us to systematically collect information and experiences. I hope to get a good response Kind regards Arend Jan Nell -------------------------------------------------------------- Guidelines for cas studies: Basic information: 1. Your name and E-mail address 2. Geographic region and country 3. Eco zone 4. Dominant livestock system and species The following questions could be used as guidelines but feel free to add more information or delete questions if information is not available or not relevant. Add information of successes as well as of failures. Key questions 1. Livestock system and the underlying causes for the development of this system: Describe the livestock system, size, species, feed resources, type of operation, how long in operation, economic driving forces and trends, demand and market development; 2. Impact of the system on the environment Environmental problems and benefits, e.g. pollution from animal waste, impact on water, air and land, improvements in soil fertility, biodiversity, deforestation, animal and human health, etc. 3. Systems of use and distribution of manure, manure processing Collection, transport, distribution, quantities and cost contracts, stories of success and failures 4. Impact of production system on people (socio-economic effects) Loss or gain of employment and / or income generating opportunities, improved cropping or trade potential, role of small scale producers 5. Response and coping strategies on the impact Response from farmers, the local or regional authorities, institutions, research, government, development of technologies / policies / regulations, integration, land-use planning, contracts and legal instruments, what are the key factors which contributed to the success 6. Future trends Trends in demand, consumer concerns / preferences, food safety, policies and policy instruments, Main contact person or organisation(for further information): From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 21 June 2001 13:36 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L:Comments from Juhani Maki-Hokkonen to Introducto ry Paper ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Juhani Maki-Hokkonen, juhani.makihokkonen@fao.org The following is an opinion from inside the Animal Production and Health Division (AGA) demonstrating that there is no united front among the colleaques in the Division about the so called AWI concept: Congratulations to Melwin Landers for the wise words to the organizers of this email conference. AWI is, as I have said many times before in our internal divisional debates, an example of theoretical planning board concept (linear programming execise) for centrally guided and managed industrial livestock development. The past away socialist command economy applied a similar industrialisation concept for 75 years with sad results to the rural society and environment of the former socialist countries. Why should FAO be party to enhance the same mistake in a new wrapping only ten years after the fall of the totalitarian socialism. Large scale Industrial production systems in rural setting in developing countries associated with private greed, could be predicted to have even more disastrous consequences to environment, public health, social equity and biodiversity than they ever had under the socialist economy. Even rich Europe could not manage to protect high intensive animal production from the current BSE and FMD disastros. Personally I am all for intensification of rural integrated farming systems through policies and strategies which make ordinary rural producers accessible to markets and technologies applicable to their social and resource situation. Prompt positive response of intensification, specialisation and diversification has been demonstrated in many places where such enabling conditions have been created. Contrary to what is implied in the gloomy introductory paper delivering a doomsday message most of the peri-urban crop- livestock production is not large scale industrial production but in fact is a mosaic of highly diverse production systems which on rational basis make use of the market and livelihood opportunities, nutrient recycling opportunities between animal and crop/gardening systems and further make use of industrial by-products and residues from the human food systems (catering and household waste) These conclusion and many other positive cultural and social contribution of animals in urban areas come clearly out from the still un-published analysis of the numerous peri-urban case studies carried out by this division over past six years in the three developing continents. In fact those who have rushed to make a scenario on how to enhance translocation of large scale industrial urban/peri- urban animal production (where it exists? I have difficulty to know examples) into a more distant rural location should rather have first acknowledged the existence and usefulness of the peri-urban livestock production systems and then put the effort and the money to up-grade the quality of such systems (as they are there also to remain). In the rural areas emphasis should be on efforts as said above. Juhani Maki-Hokkonen Senior Officer Livestock Production Systems Livestock Production Group Animal Production Service Animal Production and Health Division Viale delle Terme di Caracalla 00100 ROME, Italy Tel. + 39 0657053091 - Fax. + 39 0657055749 email: juhani.makihokkonen@fao.org From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 21 June 2001 13:51 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L:Comments from Michael Hassig to Introductory Pap er ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Dr. Michael Hässig, hassig@vetgeb.unizh.ch Dear Participants, Back in 1988 the former president of the World Buiatric Association, Prof. Meyer from Israel, asked for a cow, which is only feed by grass and hey. In his statement, he told us, that such a cow can give up to 6000kg milk p.a.. He also told us that no child would die of starvation, if each cow would give 3000kg milk p.a., if the milk is distributed under optimal conditions. This leads to a question: We are talking a lot about manure and pollution and its disposal. With transportation of concentrate , grain and so on, we are not only transporting supplemental energy and protein, but also nitrogen and so on. This ends in additional manure and pollution on the premises where the animals are kept. Therefore shouldn't we also discuss which kind of animal should we breed in the future. The producing level should be adapted in the direction that an animal can produce milk and so on by using the food which is produced on the premise itself. The pollution by transportation would drop along with the pollution of land and air on the premise. The manure is produced by the land itself and can be better recycled on the same location. Sincerely Michael Hassig **************************************** Michael Hassig, PD Dr.med.vet. MPH FVH University of Zurich Clinic for obstetrics Section for herd health CH-8057 Zurich, Switzerland phone: ++41'1'635'82'60 fax: ++41'1'635'89'04 e-mail: hassig@vetgeb.unizh.ch **************************************** From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 21 June 2001 14:00 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L:Comments from Andrew Speedy to Introductory Pape r ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Andrew Speedy, andrew.speedy@fao.org The e-conference is generating some good discussion. I would like to add some issues of principle which should be taken into account. I believe that the growth of large intensive production units is not entirely demand driven. The movement of foreign capital is now a much greater factor in development than bilateral or international aid. The World Bank has also supported intensive livestock development in a number of countries. This is coupled to the availability of cheap (imported) feed and low energy costs already mentioned by Wolfgang Bayer. Ralph von Kaufman also alluded to hidden subsidies to the large scale from government infrastructure investment. Control of such distortions may lead to more rational balance of livestock enterprises and return comparative advantage to the smaller integrated farmer. On infrastructure and government investment, it must be recognized that the lack of government capacity and fiscal structure is a major constraint in many developing countries. The best plans for AWI may be difficult to implement in this economic environment. It is the private sector, and often foreign capital, which is driving the system. How do we address policy in the private sector when government has little influence? On the technologies, I think there are many existing technologies for manure management, plus some innovative new ones already mentioned, including composting and biodigestors. However, there is a limited set of such technologies to address the questions raised by Arend Jan Nell of how intensive livestock can be really integrated and the environmental consequences ameliorated. This requires some radical new thinking. (I have personally operated a slurry separator for some years and know the costs and difficulties of such techniques). Generally, I look forward to the discussion on livestock production in a spatial analysis and planning context. I have already seen some of the work by Pierre Gerber on this in FAO. There is a need here to take care with the scientific basis and detail of the models being developed. Nutrient balances are complex and there are major differences in soils, including problem soils and the particular case of alluvial soils and flood prone areas (mentioned by Dam Van Tien). It was good to have the intervention on southern Brazil by Daniel Gross. These medium scale pig farmers are interesting. There are well developed cooperatives in this area and a very modern meat company, Sadia. Such structures, i.e. medium scale units, farmers organizations and (decentralized) private sector processing plant may be the key to greater participation of smaller farmers in supplying the market. Dr Gross referred, of course, to the serious pollution problems in these areas which are just as bad as those created by large units. Similarly, the intervention on China and Vietnam differences by Dominic Smith. The strong linkages referred to in China also enable the participation of smaller farmers. The infrastructure is also there to enable production in more distant provinces, e.g. pig production in Sichuan. We should consider the possibilities for operating some kind of vertical integration in such chains, in order to address the real questions of animal diseases and public health raised by John Ryan. I echo Arend Jan Nell's request for examples and case studies of situations where intensive livestock operations are integrated with rural agriculture production systems so that we may address the specifics and get down to more detail. Thank you. Andrew Speedy Senior Officer Feed Resources Animal Production and Health Division Viale delle Terme di Caracalla 00100 ROME, Italy FAO From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 21 June 2001 14:07 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L:Comments from Sven Sommer to Introductory Paper ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Sven G. Sommer, SvenG.Sommer@agrsci.dk Dear colleagues, The AWI initiative may solve problems related to direct discharge of animal manure to rivers etc. The problem is how one can convince the farmers that recycling is beneficial to them. So either increased recycling of animal manure and optimum application of mineral fertilizers may be driven by legislation reducing the amount of plant nutrients per unit area the farmers may import in animal feed, organic manure and commercial fertilisers. Alternatively, the incentive to recycling would be a better economy in both animal and plant production through efficient use and recognition of mineral nutrients in manure. Used efficiently the animal manure and organic waste may substitute mineral fertilisers at a ratio of 1:1 for P and K and 0.6:1 for N. Thus, the manure is having value. It can furthermore be foreseen, that global demand of N and especially P and K will increase and prices will increase accordingly. This will also increase the focus for using animal manure for plant production. Pig, cattle and organic waste contains NPK as well as micronutrients essential for plant production and organic material, which will ameliorate the soil. The question is whether the specialised livestock farmers is paying any notice of the "marginal" value of the manure and therefore prefer to discharge the manure instead of contribute to the recycling. Yours sincerely Sven G. Sommer Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 21 June 2001 14:50 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L:Comments from Holden Hao to Introductory Paper ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Holden Hao, holden@mozcom.com Hello Everyone. Before I give out my comments I would like to introduce myself and our business. My name is Holden Hao and I am the Operations Manager of Bex Philippines, Inc. located in Davao City, Philippines. We are both a trader and manufacturer of Banana Meal and Powder (from rejects of the export market) used as a mixture in livestock feeds in the Philippines. Views on AWI: At first glance, the AWI concept seems to be a very good one because it is a holistic approach. It seems to solve the problem of having to transport feed crops to the urban or peri- urban areas where intensive livestock farms are mostly located. It also may solve pollution problems as manure can be used as fertiliser in crop farming. Thus a complete symbiotic relationship exists. However, I feel that this concept needs to be further investigated and studied. I have thought of some issues or problems with the AWI approach; * AWI requires vast track of land which is most likely available only in the rural areas. Although land in the rural areas is cheap, development costs tend to be more expensive as materials and equipment needed for development mostly comes from the urban areas. * Operating costs tend to be higher also as utilities (Power, Water, Communications) tend to cost much because the local community (consumers) is not large enough so the margin to be higher to sustain the operations of the utility companies. -With regards to human resources, cheap labor is abundant in the rural areas but highly skilled workers which most likely come from the urban areas tend to cost more. Plus, relocating these personnel add more costs. * Lack of or inadequate infrastructure in rural areas tend to add to higher costs. In the case of farm to market roads, if they are lacking or in poor conditions these can contribute to higher maintenance costs (trucks) and delays (making one delivery instead of two). * Costs involved in the movement of produce (whether live or processed) from the rural intensive livestock farms cost more than the movement of low-value feed crops. Reactions: * Although I have no exact figures I am not convinced that the proliferation of small farmers is the answer to the high demand of the urban market for livestock products. Just like what a participant mentioned that native chickens produced by local farmers of South Africa cost more than those from commercial ones, the same is also true here in the Philippines. Costs are simply higher in the rural areas. * "Middlemen", of which my company may be classified, are not necessarily bad for farmers. Mature and responsible "Middlemen" can broker between the needs of both large clients and small suppliers. We can give assurance to large companies of reliable, large-quantity, and high-quality produce. While at the same time we can extend credit and technical help to small farmers which is something that on their own they may find hard to avail of. Although I must admit that there are certainly those that take advantage of farmers. These companies, however, tend to learn in the long run that it is also not good for them to lose suppliers from bankruptcy or discouragement. Holden Hao Bex Philippines, Inc. Davao City Philippines From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 21 June 2001 14:57 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L:Comments from Gerrit Koeslag to Introductory Pap er ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Gerrit Koeslag, G.Koeslag@ipc-training.nl Dear conference participants, Due to other assignments I have managed to enter the discussion just now. I have, in the meantime, read some very valuable opinions and views but not yet all. That implies that most probably what I wish to add has already been contributed by somebody else. Although there is a tendency to negatively consider the development of the present livestock production system in the Western world because of its effects on environment, market distortion, etc. there are also opportunities to learn from the experiences and to avoid all or part of the negative aspects when considering livestock production in developing countries. My own experiences and work are mainly directed towards poultry and pig production and related sectors in quite some parts of the world. 1. Ideally, we would opt for mixed farms. But when livestock production or crop production intensify there is a move towards specialisation. And that gives not-desired side effects. In order to overcome this I strongly believe in co- operation between farmers to supply each other with intermediate products (manure, fodder, raw materials for concentrates, etc.). Not necessarily through co-operatives, but that could as well. In order to have an optimum cycle of nutrients it is essential that an integration of livestock and (fodder/feed) crops production exists. There are already examples of livestock and crop farmers who on the basis of mutual benefit have joined. In the biological farming sector, not surprisingly maybe, this is happening. 2. Rural livestock producers in developing countries should also become more aware for which market they produce. If that is an up-urban market for convenience food, then most probably the rural producers will have great difficulty in meeting the demands in terms of uniformity, quality and quantity and will be outmatched. Therefore they should be assisted in defining the best market for their type of production technology and available infrastructure. 3. In the same way I believe that with the present focus on public health it is essential that the rural (small) livestock farmers are part and parcel of the milk, eggs and meat production chains to ensure safety and quality. The latter will not only matter for urban consumers markets but also for consumers in rural towns and the countryside. If that implies that they have to team up with integrators then these have to accept these smaller producers as partners. Policy measures should be taken by governments to stimulate this e.g. by creating outlets for produce, etc. 4. Although in many developing countries 'co-operatives' are not favoured because they have political overtones, the example of co-operative movement in the Netherlands can serve as a model for such kind of production chain. 5. Finally, and here I am selfish but it is also a strong belief, governments should be much more aware that a well- trained and advised sector of livestock producers and others in the food chain is a must to arrive at sustainability and food safety. More attention should be given to this aspect of learning and life-long learning. Thank you, Gerrit J. Koeslag Ing. Gerrit J. Koeslag Head Department for International Training and Projects IPC Barneveld, P.O. Box 64 3772 AB BARNEVELD, The Netherlands Tel. + 31 (0)342 41 48 81 Fax. + 31 (0)342 49 28 13 E-mail: G.Koeslag@ipc-training.nl From: Rosales, Mauricio (AGAL) Sent: 21 June 2001 15:08 To: 'LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L@mailserv.fao.org' Subject: LEAD-AWI-ECONF-L:Comments from Ghirotti Mauro to Introductory Pap er ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON AREA WIDE INTEGRATION OF CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Ghirotti Mauro, ghirotti@esteri.it Just few comments and two possible topics for discussion. There is no doubt that urban/ rural inequalities are there as well as urban policy bias. Moreover, rural poverty must be the key political issue. However, it should be bear in mind that also urban poverty is a growing problem to be professionally addressed and, that from an environmental, economic and system point of view there is a continuum in rural, peri-urban and urban matters. Priorities are commonly selected according to economic criteria. Probably, more emphasis should be given to the social impact when choosing where to invest. M. Landers, T. Smith and D. V. Tien highlighted a subject already discussed in Wageningen at the 1997 LEAD International Conference: i.e., whether, in order to meet the increasing demand for livestock (and other) products, it is worthy to improve the efficiency and linkages of mixed farming systems (MFS) rather than promoting AWI. In the choice of the most appropriate strategy also the social costs and benefits have to be assessed. Probably, production through MFS allows a broader distribution of the benefits and a reduced concentration of resources in the hand of few although bottleneck are found at a latter stage (e.g., processing). The creation of employment opportunities is a key political issue, notably in urban areas where you can also find MFS. Bearing in mind the needs of the urban poor, small-scale livestock raising is already a source of employment for women, adolescents and elderly people. It is becoming clear that intensification will hardly lead to new jobs as far as the production component of the "filiere" (commodity chain) is concerned. They will be rather created by processing and marketing activities, including street food. Ralph statement about the development of physical infrastructures is quite pertinent. It can be further added that also the opportunity costs at social level should be taken into account and that sustainability issues should be included in the planning exercise. For example, during a EU meeting on Transports and Poverty held in Brussels, November 2000, the experience of different development organisations clearly suggested that the present budget of many development country does not allow a proper maintenance of existing infrastructures, also because of poor revenue taxation systems. The need (or hunger) for new roads and transports should be weighted against the future overall costs and benefits. The choice must be made defining where to build the infrastructure