Kenyan children weed a maize plot (photo on Flickr by Care of Creation).

‘A senior Kenyan government official has dismissed last year’s ban on the import of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into the country—calling it ill-advised and lacking the backing of law.

‘Romano Kiome, permanent secretary in the Ministry of Agriculture, says the ban cannot be enforced because it was imposed by the cabinet, which has no authority in law to do so.

‘Although a “political stand” could hold sway for a time it is no substitute for a considered professional judgement, Kiome told a journalist roundtable at the International Livestock Research Institute in Nairobi on 1 May.

‘The ban came into effect in November 2012 after a cabinet meeting, chaired by Kenya’s former president, Mwai Kibaki, directed the then public health minister, Beth Mugo, to ban GM food imports until the country is able to certify that they have no negative impact on people’s health.

‘But three years before the ban, Kenya had set up the National Biosafety Authority, tasked with supervising the transfer, handling and use of GMOs. The agency was established by the Biosafety Act, which was passed in the Kenyan parliament and became law by Kibaki’s assent in February 2009. It includes the aim of establishing “a transparent, science-based and predictable process” for reviewing the use of GMOs.

Kiome tells SciDev.Net that the biosafety authority is the only body legally mandated to manage GMOs and could not be bypassed by the cabinet.

He adds that the ban is not only unlawful but could also affect biotechnology research to boost food production in the country as there have been fears among Kenyan scientists that it could hold back progress research and development (R&D) on biotechnology in the country.

‘According to David Wafula, Kenya coordinator at the Program for Biosafety Systems—a partnership between USAID and the Kenya government supporting development and use of biosafety systems in agricultural innovation in Kenya—the ban has not been published in the Kenya Gazette, an official government publication containing new legislation and notices required to be published by law or policy.

‘”The ban was not informed by any evidence from competent authorities, including the National Council of Science and Technology, which is mandated to advise the government on research and policy issues,” he tells SciDev.Net.’

Read the article by George Achia at SciDevNet and AllAfrica: Kenya’s GMO ban has no legal basis, official says, 16 May 2013.

Filed under: Biotech, East Africa, Food security, ILRI, Kenya, PA, Policy Tagged: AllAfrica, GMOs, Kenya Biosafety Act, Kenya Ministry of Agriculture, Kenya National Biosafety Authority, Kenya Program for Biosafety Systems, Kenya Public Health Minister Beth Mugo, NCST, Romano Kiome, SciDevNet, USAID

Smallholder pig producer family in Kiboga, Uganda (photo credit: ILRI/Danilo Pezo).

‘Scientists in Kenya have launched research of a vaccine to be used against African swine fever. The study is still at an early stage where scientists at the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) are identifying antigens and best-bet delivery systems to be used.

‘“Research in this area, with the ultimate goal of generating resistant and productive domestic pigs, is just beginning,” said ILRI molecular biologist Dr Richard Bishop.

‘He said that ILRI has just been awarded major funding from BMZ for vaccine development in collaboration with FLI (Riems) Germany to help save the global pig industry that is worth $150 billion.

‘Africa-wide economic impacts of swine fever are hard to quantify due to a dearth of disease recording, especially as this infection rapidly turns lethal in pig herds and active surveillance for the infection is rare. The prevalence of the disease has thwarted investment in the smallholder pig sector.

‘The disease is still emerging in Africa and in the last 20 years, it has spread to parts of West Africa, Madagascar, Mauritius and most recently (in 2011) to Chad from Cameroon.

In Uganda, pig numbers have increased to four million today and continue to rise from 100,000 in the 1970s and pork consumption is now close to that of beef.

‘There were 20 recorded outbreaks of African swine fever in Uganda in 2010 alone.

‘“This is an underestimate due to a difficulty in diagnosing the disease and under-reporting of livestock diseases,” Bishop said.

‘Although the absolute total number of pigs kept in Africa remains relatively small (less than 50 million), pig keeping is very profitable for many of Africa’s rural poor, providing a flexible means of generating an income in the right environments. . . . .’

Read the whole article in the Daily Nation/Xinhua: Kenyan experts search for swine fever vaccine, 12 May 2013.

Filed under: Africa, Animal Health, ASF, Asia, Biotech, Chad, Disease Control, Emerging Diseases, ILRI, Kenya, PA, Pigs, Project, Uganda Tagged: Cameroon, Daily Nation (Kenya), Richard Bishop, Xinhua

Fulani boy in Niger herds his family’s animals (photo credit: ILRI/Stevie Mann).

Mobility to unlock scattered food, feed, water and other scarce and scattered essential resources is a human strategy as old as humankind itself—and one that remains key for pastoral livestock herders the world over. As the world warms and its natural resources become ever scarcer, it would profit all of us to take a long hard look at how livestock herders track those resources over time and space, and how their movement and that of their animal herds helps them stay resilient in the face of some of the earth’s most unforgiving, and now increasingly unpredictable and extreme, climates.

It appears the rest of us are going to need to adopt strategies for resilience sooner rather than later. Last Thursday, reports Polly Ericksen, scientist at the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), was a red letter day. On that day, 9 May 2013, the level of emissions of carbon dioxide reached an average daily level above 400 parts per million, a concentration not seen on the earth for millions of years.

Red Letter Day
The new measurement came from analyzers atop Mauna Loa, the volcano on the big island of Hawaii that has long been ground zero for monitoring the worldwide trend on carbon dioxide, or CO2. . . . Carbon dioxide above 400 parts per million was first seen in the Arctic last year, and had also spiked above that level in hourly readings at Mauna Loa. But the average reading for an entire day surpassed that level at Mauna Loa for the first time in the 24 hours that ended at 8 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on Thursday.’ — Heat-trapping gas passes milestone, raising fears, New York Times, 10 May 2013

Carbon dioxide, of course, is the most important heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere. So what do we know about what will happen as the world’s average temperatures rise with the increasing amounts of carbon trapped in our atmosphere? Well, not much, as even our most sophisticated and integrated models are unable to forecast likely changes after a certain threshold has been passed. But what we can surmise is grim, as the following plausible scenarios illustrate.

One degree, two degrees, three degrees, four . . .
With a global average rise of 2ºC, ‘Greenland’s glaciers and some of the lower lying islands would start to disappear. At 3ºC higher the Arctic would be ice-free all summer, the Amazon rainforest would begin to dry out and extreme weather patterns would become the norm. An increase of 4ºC would see the oceans rise drastically. Then comes the twilight zone of climate change, if the global temperature rises again by another degree. Part of once temperate regions could become uninhabitable, while humans fight each other for the world’s remaining resources. The sixth degree is what is called the doomsday scenario as oceans become marine wastelands, deserts expand and catastrophic events become more common.’ — Six degrees could change the world, National Geographic, 2012

Studies written by scientists at 14 of the 15 CGIAR centres and compiled and published last year by the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) (Impacts of climate change on the agricultural and aquatic systems and natural resources within the CGIAR’s mandate, 2012) provide a snapshot of how climate change is likely to affect key food crops and livestock farming and natural resources in poor countries, where these staple foods and resources remain the backbone not only of food security but also of national economies.

While nothing is certain, a few things are probable, writes Philip Thornton, scientist at CCAFS and ILRI and leader of the research study. First and foremost is that old-fashioned foods and food production strategies are likely to make some major comebacks.

Crops and animals till now neglected by major research initiatives, and now considered ‘old-fashioned’ by many, are likely to play an increasingly important role on global food production once again. Drought-resistant camels and goats, ‘famine foods’ such as heat-tolerant cassava and millet, and dual-purpose crops such as protein-rich cowpea (aka black-eyed peas) and groundnut that feed people and animals alike are all likely to come back to the fore in regions with drying or more unpredictable climates. In some drying regions, smallholders will be forced to switch from crop growing to livestock raising, and/or from raising dairy cows to raising dairy or other goats. — As the cooking pot turns: Staple crop and animal foods are being ‘recalibrated’ for a warmer world, ILRI News Blog, 1 Nov 2012

So herding livestock, the so-called ‘pastoral’ food production system, is likely to become much more important as we warm the globe. But as Mike Shanahan, press officer for the International Institute for Environment and Development (UK), reports this week, if we’re going to increasingly rely on livestock herding across the world’s current vast drylands, and across the lands now drying up, to help feed our increasingly crowded planet and support the lives and livelihoods of its poorest people, we’d better start rethinking the ways we perceive, talk about and approach pastoralism, now a neglected sector in many fast-modernizing countries, which tend to view it as ‘backward’.

Shanahan recently investigated how media reports on pastoralism in India, China and Kenya. ‘These policy narratives overlook both the dynamics of dryland ecosystems and how dryland communities have long learnt how to live with and harness variability to support sustainable and productive economies, societies and ecosystems.

The narratives ignore the ways that mobile herding can increase people’s resilience in a changing climate. They also ignore the three E’s—the economic value of pastoralism, the environmental benefits that herding brings to rangelands and the equity that should be at heart of good policymaking.

‘Once upon a time, not so long ago,’ says Shanahan, ‘we were all mobile. Movement was what enabled our ancestors to track resources that were here today, gone tomorrow. In parts of the world where water, pasture or good hunting are not constantly available, mobility is still the key that unlocks scattered resources. It is the key to resilience. And as the climate changes, this ancient strategy could become more important.

‘Yet in many countries, governments marginalise mobile pastoralists and would prefer them to settle instead of roaming the land. Dominant policy narratives cast pastoralism as a backwards, unproductive activity that takes place in marginal fragile areas, where unpredictable rainfall leads people to overgraze and damage the land.

Media stories both contribute to and reflect the dominant policy narrative around pastoralism.

‘In Kenya, pastoralists feature mostly in ‘bad news’ stories of conflict and drought. They appear vulnerable and lacking in agency. Stories make almost no mention of the benefits that pastoralists bring.

‘In China, the media presented pastoralists as the cause of environmental degradation and as (generally happy) beneficiaries of government investment and settlement projects.

‘In India, newspapers tended to portray pastoralists with more pity, as people whose rights to grazing land had been taken away and whose livelihoods were at risk as pastures dwindle and locally resilient livestock breeds disappear. . . .

Yet opportunities to reframe pastoralism abound. In Kenya, for instance, an alternative narrative could show how the new constitution could work best for the drylands and their communities. In India, an alternative narrative could show how herding is part of the wider dryland agriculture system that can increase food security in the context of climate change. In China, an alternative narrative can relate how support for pastoralism can increase food security and better manage rangelands for economic benefits. . . .’

Read the whole article by Mike Shanahan on the Agriculture and Ecosystems Blog of the CGIAR Research Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems: Pastoralists in the media: Three E’s please, 13 May 2013.

See Mike Shanahan’s full research paper or a four-page summary.

Filed under: Asia, China, Climate Change, Drylands, East Africa, Environment, Food security, ILRI, India, Kenya, LivestockFutures, PA, Pastoralism, Policy, Report, South Asia Tagged: CCAFS, CGIAR, IIED, Mike Shanahan, National Geographic, New York Times, Polly Ericksen

Distribution (density) of poor livestock keepers based on the international US$2.00/day poverty line in 2010 (published in a research brief by J Otte and R Leslie, Animal Health and Production Commission for Asia and the Pacific [APHCA], Jan 2013).

‘. . . [A]mong largely agrarian economies, which are home to the majority of the world’s poor, livestock are an integral part of smallholder crop-livestock farming systems. There is thus much greater scope for investment in livestock sector development for poverty reduction than generally realized, particularly in development that enables smallholders to take advantage of the growing demand for livestock products by more affluent members of society. . . .

‘Nearly three-quarters of the extremely poor—that is around 1 billion people—live in rural areas and, despite growing urbanization, more than half of the “dollar-poor” will reside in rural areas until approximately 2035. Most rural households depend on agriculture as part of their livelihoods and around 90 percent of the world’s extremely poor are small-scale farmers.

Smallholders—however they may be defined—account for a considerable share of agricultural production throughout most of the developing world, particularly in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. In South Asia more that 80 percent of farms are smaller than 2 hectares. Globally, the numbers of poor livestock keepers have been increasing at a rate of about 1.4 percent per year. In terms of the absolute numbers of poor livestock keepers (less than $2/day), South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa dominate: more than 45 and 25 percent of the estimated 752 million poor livestock keepers live in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa respectively. . . .

Many rural poor keep livestock so this form of animal husbandry can make important contributions to sustainable rural development; as the demand for livestock products is growing rapidly in developing countries, diversification into livestock and increased livestock productivity should form part of any strategy for poverty reduction and agricultural productivity. . . .

A combined strategy for livestock and staple crop productivity growth, exploiting the close linkage between these two sectors, would have the strongest income-multiplier and poverty-reduction benefits.

‘Although there are many positive social outcomes that can be associated with livestock sector growth in developing country regions, there are some negative effects that need to be addressed. Two highly significant effects are the emergence and subsequent spread of infectious diseases associated with livestock and concomitant negative environmental impacts. The magnitude of negative environmental and public health externalities associated with livestock will be strongly influenced by the ways in which the livestock sector grows to meet the increasing demand for animal products.

However the social benefits of supporting livestock-raising in low-income, largely agrarian economies significantly outweigh the negativities . . . .

‘The current expansion of markets for meat, milk and eggs in developing countries and their large degree of diversity represents enormous income potential for the rural poor, many of whom own livestock . . . . However, the benefits of growing urban food demand reaching rural smallholders and those that rapidly expand agrifood industries will depend to a significant extent on policy decisions. Regrettably, the potential of livestock for poverty reduction associated with appropriate sector development remains largely untapped. . . .

‘Most agricultural and rural households in developing countries constitute a group that is unlikely to be recruited directly into agrifood industrialization. Even intermediate stages of sector consolidation, like contract farming, appear to be undertaken at a scale well beyond that of the average smallholder farmer. Nevertheless, at the moment, urban demand growth represents an important opportunity for all domestic food producers, including smallholders, and this should be appreciated for its inclusive development potential.

To be successful, smallholder producers need to emphasize their strengths, traditional product varieties and low resource costs, while policies for inclusive development have to be implemented to facilitate their market access. More inclusive national livestock markets will only arise with determined policy commitments to overcome existing entry barriers, information and agency failures, and historic bias in favour of integrated agrifood enterprise development. . . .’

Read the whole research brief by J Otte and R Leslie: Investing in livestock sector development for poverty reduction, Animal Production and Health Commission for Asia and the Pacific (APHCA) / and the FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific (FAORAP), APHCA Research Brief, Jan 2013.

Filed under: Africa, PA, Pro-Poor Livestock, Report, Research, South Asia Tagged: APHCA, FAO, FAORAP, J Otte

Saulosi Tchinga is a potato, maize, soya, sheep and chicken farmer in central Malawi (photo credit: ILRI/Stevie Mann).

‘The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) on Friday called on African governments to implement policies that will help the continent’s small livestock producers to tap the growing demand for animal proteins.

‘FAO Livestock Economist Uga Pica-Ciamarra told journalists in Nairobi that due to a number of constraints the region is now a net importer of livestock products.

‘“The small scale farmers holders should therefore be positioned to benefit from the huge market for milk, meat and eggs that will come out of Africa in the next decades,” Pica-Ciamarra said.

‘He called on governments to develop a private sector model for the small industry players that is sustainable enough in order to avoid the heavy reliance on livestock imports which is a reflection of surging demand.

This comes even as African countries are yet to implement the 10 percent budgetary allocation on agriculture as agreed back in 2003. Uga Pica-Ciamarra noted up to 60 percent of rural households in Africa keep livestock.

‘FAO said that while the U.S. capita consumption of meat is estimated at 100 kg, Africa’s is slightly above 10 kg. Pica- Ciamarra added that a strong protein diet will also help reduce the high levels of malnutrition present in the region.

‘“Livestock products are known to contain vital micro-nutrients that are not found in grains,” he said.

FAO’s Global Market Analysis of 2012 indicated that most of the global meat production expansion in the future will come from the developing countries.

‘[The] Livestock Economist noted that Africa’s economy is growing very fast and with this comes growing purchasing power. “The continent will have to be innovative as it requires 8 kg of grains to produce one kg of beef,” he said. . . .

Yulita Cosmas is a chicken, maize and soya farmer in central Malawi (photo credit: ILRI/Stevie Mann).

FAO Agricultural Economist Nancy Morgan said that it is difficult to invest in Africa’s poultry sector due to underlying constraints. . . .

‘“This will present a huge challenge in feeding Africa’s cities which will require improved protein diets as more and more women move away from farms and work in urban areas,” she said.

Morgan noted that a study of Kenya’s 2010 drought showed that the livestock deaths reduced the country’s gross domestic product by 0.5 percent.

‘The FAO, World Bank and International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) are currently implementing a three year, 2.5 million U.S. dollars pilot project in Tanzania, Uganda and Niger dubbed the Livestock Data Innovation in Africa in order to improve statics collection in order to better manage the sector.’

Read the whole article at Xinhua News Service (China)/Coastweek (Kenya): African small holders need greater government support—FAO, 10 May 2013.

Filed under: Africa, Animal Production, Event, ILRI, MarketOpps, PA, Policy, Pro-Poor Livestock, Project Tagged: Coastweek (Kenya), FAO, Livestock Data Innovation in Africa project, Nancy Morgan, Uga Pica-Ciamarra, World Bank, Xinhua (China)

Bill Gates visits a site of the East African Dairy Development project, which is funded by his foundation; researchers based in Nairobi at the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), a CGIAR centre, provide technical and other backstopping to this project, which is led by Heifer International (USA) (photo on Flickr by EADD).

‘Investing in agriculture is essential if the fight against world poverty is to succeed, according to Microsoft founder Bill Gates, who spoke at an International Agriculture and Food Security Briefing sponsored by Farmers Feeding the World, a Farm Journal Foundation Initiative, and the Senate Hunger Caucus.

‘”It’s been proven that of all the interventions to reduce poverty, improving agricultural productivity is the best. All the other different economic activity—yes it trickles down. But nothing as efficiently as in agriculture,” Gates said to a packed conference room in the U.S. Senate office building. . . .

‘”I want to talk about why investments in agriculture make such a big difference in the lives of the poor,” Gates said. “Our agriculture program has become one of our biggest, and it’s one of our fastest growing. That’s because we’ve seen huge results, and without it we don’t see a way of achieving our goals, where kids can be healthy, their brains can fully develop, and they can have a chance to live a normal life.

Most of the poor people of the world are farmers—farmers with very small plots of land, who have to deal with a great deal of uncertainty because they don’t know what their yield is going to be, and in many years they are making just enough—or not even enough—to have the food that they expect.

Ezekial Rop, a small-scale farmer in Moiben, Kenya (photo on Flickr by Burness Global/Jeff Haskins).

‘”There is a history of success here. Certainly the green revolution is one of those unbelievable stories that’s quite exciting. . . . That revolution certainly saved hundreds of millions of lives. But it’s a revolution that’s not yet complete. And if we take the world as a whole, in the ‘80s and ‘90s, there was a shift away from agriculture, not focusing on what still had to be done. And particularly if we look at Africa, because of the breadth of eco-systems there, this green revolution, this increase in productivity, is not noticeable at all. . . .

So it’s time for a renaissance of the green revolution. Obviously we learned a lot in the first green revolution about sustainability, use of agriculture, making sure it reaches out to the very poorest farmers. This time around, as we redo what was done well, we can do it in an even smarter way.

The metrics here are pretty simple. About three-quarters of the poor who live on these farms need greater productivity, and if they get that productivity we’ll see the benefits in income, we’ll see it in health, we’ll see it in the percentage of their kids who are going off to school. These are incredibly measurable things.

The great thing about agriculture is that once you get a bootstrap—once you get the right seeds and information—a lot of it can be left to the marketplace. This is a place where philanthropy and government work, and market-based activity, meet each other.”

‘”It’s been proven that of all the interventions to reduce poverty, improving agricultural productivity is the best. All the other different economic activity—yes it trickles down. But nothing as efficiently as in agriculture.”

‘”Our agricultural program has a number of aspects. A fair bit of it is in the upstream area. We’ve become one of the larger funders of the CGIAR system. . . . [W]e’ve all got to be disappointed that funding is not even at peak levels. It’s come off from the peaks of a long time ago, and it needs to be renewed. In particular, given the opportunities of taking the genetic revolution and various digital approaches that track productivity and look at genotype and phenotype information, we have to dedicate ourselves to upgrade the tools and the skills that are in those centers, so that they are benefitting from the latest science.

I think we’ve lost track of the public goods here, whether it’s coming from the research centers or from the universities. We are under-investing.

That’s always a challenge in capitalism—innovation is under-invested in, and particularly innovation on behalf of the poorest. So all of us with our voices, and this is certainly one of the goals of the foundation, must not only fund agricultural research, but encourage others to do that as well.

‘”Of course just developing new seeds is not enough. You’ve got to get into the countries and look at the policies, the land policies, the Extension policies, the research policies, the acceptance of GMO techniques. And make sure every one of those things is managed in a very strong way. There’s a lot of research, a lot of benefits, that’s not getting out to the farmers who need it.

‘”The U.S. traditionally has played a key role in agriculture research. It has played a key role in food aid. What we see in the numbers, though, is that agricultural research has been flat-lined. . . .

‘”The leverage of that investment will be particularly strong because of new advances, new digital approaches. In fact, just recently the foundation announced an initiative with the Department of Agriculture about open data for agriculture. [We are taking] what’s called cloud techniques, or big data techniques, and gathering together all the information—whether it’s understanding which policies work, how to direct crop breeding activity, or the genotype, phenotype information data basis.

[We want] everybody leveraging everybody else’s work to move forward here. . . .’

Read the whole article at AgWeb: Bill Gates: Agricultural Productivity Is Key to Reducing World Poverty, 9 May 2013.

Filed under: Agriculture, Biotechnology, Food security, Livelihoods, Nutrition (human), PA, Policy, Presentation, Research, USA Tagged: AgWeb, Bill Gates, CGIAR, GMOs

Meat, ink and watercolour on paper (15 x 11″), created 25 April 2012 by artist Kristy Modarelli for the The Aldas Project: 366 Drawings for Good, a year-long project conducted by artist in 2012.

Vegan and conservationist Mark Tercek, president and CEO of The Nature Conservancy, the largest environmental non-profit organization in the Americas, had an interesting response this week to a question about eating meat and genetically modified foods—two of the most durable of the hot ‘foodie’ topics of the North, with vegetarian and carnivore consumers, organic and high-tech farmers, passionately entrenched in diametrically opposing views.

‘This week, I was asked an interesting question as part of the Q&A session following a talk I gave . . . .

‘To paraphrase journalist Marc Gunther, who moderated the evening: “You are a vegan. You also lead the world’s largest conservation organization. Why doesn’t The Nature Conservancy make changing people’s diets one of its strategies? Wouldn’t changes in diet lead to better environmental outcomes? And what about GMOs?”

‘Indeed, I have been a vegetarian for a long time, and I recently became a vegan. . . .

‘But it’s not quite so simple. Here’s why. . . .

‘[A]s global incomes rise, we will see—among many other positive outcomes—a trend toward improved nutrition. Tradition and culture suggest that this will mean an increase in protein-rich diets.

‘Instead of trying to change this trend, I think we should focus on producing more meat from existing pasture and farmland. That means paying more attention to soil health, water conservation and agricultural extension, giving farmers the support they need to produce more and do it smartly.

But in a time of shrinking budgets for many governments, in too many places public funding for agricultural research and extension is declining. This trend is disturbing. We should invest in solutions, even when public funding is tight. . . .

‘Getting more from land already under cultivation is key. Nevertheless, some expansion of farming and grazing is inevitable. So another vital challenge is to channel that expansion to areas where it will do less harm. This process inevitably involves some trade-offs, but we have the science to identify where controlled expansion could take place with relatively fewer environmental impacts and costs. . . .

‘Technology is also important. Precision agriculture, for example, could be a game-changer. By targeting inputs like water and fertilizer more accurately, farmers can improve environmental outcomes and produce more while using less.

Yet it’s still unclear how we can bring those technological changes to the people who could most benefit from them: smallholder farmers without access to the capital and knowhow available to richer farmers in richer countries. Making technology more accessible so that its benefits can be more widely shared is a major challenge.

‘Another agricultural technology we should consider carefully is genetic modification. The National Academy of Sciences has found no adverse health effects from GMOs, and also concluded that they can be environmentally beneficial in some ways.

Yet having a thoughtful debate on the merits and risks of GM foods has become nearly impossible. The arguments are often based not in science but in ideology.

‘Like all new technologies, biotech products should be carefully assessed on a crop-by-crop basis and appropriately regulated.

We would also be smart to put more focus on making GMO technology available to lower-income farmers, given the potential benefits that climate-resilient GMO crops could bring to the developing world. . . . We need passion on our side, but not at the expense of sound science and open minds.

‘My answer to Marc Gunther’s question is far from simple. . . . [I]n my view, our biggest hope for widespread change lies in “greening” our meat, for those who choose to eat it.’

Read the whole opinion piece by Mark Tercek in HuffPost Green: A new diet for the planet?, 1 May 2013.

Filed under: Biotechnology, Environment, Food security, Genetics, Opinion piece, PA, Policy, USA Tagged: GMOs, HuffPost Green, Livestock goods and bads, The Nature Conservancy

Cynthia Onzere, a staff member in the animal biotechnology laboratories of the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), in Nairobi, Kenya (photo credit: ILRI/Evelyn Katingi).

‘A newly elected government provides a country with a rare opportunity for a fresh start—and President Uhuru Kenyatta’s nomination this week of Felix Kiptarus Kosgey to become Kenya’s next Cabinet Secretary for Agriculture, Livestock, and Fisheries offers my nation a remarkable opening to make a hard push for real food security.

‘Success, however, will require President Kenyatta, his deputy Ruto, Agriculture Secretary nominee Kosgey, and the rest of our new government to set aside the bad mistakes of the recent past and embrace the bright future of biotechnology.

‘There’s every reason to hope that they will. At the launch of the Jubilee Coalition manifesto in February, Kenyatta and Ruto promised to “put food and water on every Kenyan’s table.” At his inauguration on April 9, Kenyatta reaffirmed his government will implement the manifesto in total.

‘This is both a tall order and a worthy goal—and one of the surest ways to achieve it is by accepting the latest advances in agricultural biotechnology, recognizing that they have become conventional practices in many countries and should become so here as well.

‘Everywhere farmers have had the chance, they have adopted genetically modified crops. Last year, more than 17 million farmers around the world planted more than 170 million hectares of GM crops, according to a new report from the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications.

‘This is an all-time high. Moreover, farmers in poor countries made it possible:

For the first time, developing nations accounted for more than half of the world’s GM crop plantings.

‘Unfortunately, as much as Kenyan farmers have hailed the Green Revolution of the 20th century, they have not yet participated in this Gene Revolution of the 21st century.

‘Our scientists have made strides toward developing biotech crops that would flourish in our soil and climate, but a toxic mix of scientific illiteracy and political pressure has prevented the commercialization of these promising plants. To make matters even worse, the previous government banned the importation of GM foods into Kenya and ordered the Ministry of Public Health and Sanitation to remove all GM foods from the shelves of grocery stores. . . .

‘Kenyatta’s cabinet, guided by Agriculture Secretary nominee Kosgey cannot move swiftly enough to overturn the previous government’s misbegotten ban on GM food. It may be the single most significant step they can take to improve our nation’s food security.

‘They should accept what respected organizations ranging from the American Association for the Advancement of Science and Britain’s Royal Society have said for a long time: GM food is safe to grow and eat. We have nothing to fear from it—and so much to gain. . . .

Last year, Sudan became only the fourth African country to permit the planting of GM crops, following the leads of Burkina Faso, Egypt, and South Africa. . . . It would be great to see Kenya join the global biotech movement. Even better, though, would be to watch a truly forward-looking Kenya not merely join, but lead.

Read the whole guest commentary in Truth about Trade and Technology: A forward-looking Kenya can lead the global biotech movement, 2 May 2013, by Gilbert Arap Bor, who  grows corn (maize), vegetables and dairy cows on a small-scale farm of 25 acres in Kapseret, near Eldoret, Kenya. He also teaches at the Catholic University of Eastern Africa, Eldoret campus.

Filed under: Biotechnology, East Africa, Food security, Intensification, Kenya, Opinion piece, PA, Policy Tagged: GMOs, Truth about Trade and Technology

The health of people and their farm animals in Kenya and other developing countries are closely linked (photo credit: ILRI/Charlie Pye-Smith).

‘While livestock contribute about 40 per cent of the value of agriculture and forms a crucial part of household wealth [in Kenya and many other developing countries], experts now say keeping animals is spreading disease and polluting the environment like never before.

‘They say that as smallholder agriculture intensifies—driven by increasing population, urbanisation and climate changes—livestock keeping is exhibiting its good and bad sides, impinging on the environment, poverty, food security and human health.

A recent study by the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) says that zoonotic diseases (those transmitted to people from animals) that have recently emerged from animals make up to one-quarter of the infectious disease burden in low-income countries. Animal diseases that threaten people’s health directly include food-borne illnesses such as diarrhoea. . . .

‘“A consensus is growing that a disconnection between agriculture, health and nutrition is at least partly responsible for the disease burden associated with food and farming,” ILRI Director General Dr Jimmy Smith said, at a media briefing last week. Smith said that unlike poor countries where human diseases that spread from animals are largely neglected, rich countries are investing heavily in global surveillance and risk reduction activities.

The problem is that many countries lack the veterinary staff, surveillance and other tools required to control diseases that come with this expansion,” he said. . . .

‘ILRI Director General Dr Jimmy Smith argues that the challenges related to livestock keeping are steadily becoming a matter of concern in urban areas.

‘He says that while urban livestock keeping improves food security, nutrition and health from livestock products, there are also risks since unsanitary conditions and weak infrastructure mean that livestock can be a source of pollution and disease.

‘ILRI experts feel that Africa suffers from the burden of neglected zoonoses, which the developed world is no longer paying much attention to. . . .

For the first time we are in a position to track an epidemic in real time, across risk surfaces to follow, and perhaps even anticipate its progress. We intend to intensify efforts towards tracking disease pathogens as they move among farms, processors and markets in place such as Nairobi,” says Smith.’

Read the whole article by Bernard Muthaka in the Standard Newspaper: Experts says keeping of livestock could lead to spread of diseases, 5 May 2013.

Filed under: Agri-Health, CRP4, Disease Control, Emerging Diseases, Health (human), ILRI, Kenya, MarketOpps, PA, Zoonotic Diseases Tagged: Jimmy Smith, Kenya, Nairobi, Standard Newspaper (Kenya)

Herding cattle in Kenya (photo on Flickr by davida3 [Davida De La Harpe]).

‘The [Kenya] government has unveiled a plan to improve trade in livestock by vaccinating 61 million livestock in the next financial year.

‘According to budget estimates released on Thursday, the animals will be vaccinated against foot and mouth disease and other trade-sensitive diseases.

‘Measures will also be put in place to strengthen disease surveillance and introduce an advanced reporting system using Digital Pen Technology.

‘Kenya has in recent years been trading in live animals, which are exported mostly to the Middle-East.

‘It has also been striving to create disease-free zones to improve on the marketability of its meat and meat products in Europe which has a stringent regime for products that are allowed into that market.

‘So far, parts of Coast region have been classified as disease-free zones and are used as holding grounds for cattle. . . .

The government has planned to reach 5.1 million pastoralists through field days, shows, farm visits and exhibitions, and rehabilitate 7,500 denuded rangelands.

In the year, 21 abattoirs will be constructed and commissioned and 260 farmers’ groups supported with value addition facilities in centres along the milk corridors. Stakeholders in leather industry totalling 440 will be trained on value addition.

. . . [A]griculture officials say Kenya could make as much as Sh1.6 billion annually if trypanosomiasis was eradicated in the country.

Dr Steve Kemp, leader of the animal Biosciences Program at the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), headquartered at Kabete, Nairobi, observed that ‘in tsetse infested areas, trypanosomiasis reduces the output of meat and milk by a half and was a threat to livestock production.

‘“Use of the right dosage is crucial in treating the disease. Unscrupulous traders who interfere with the drugs to [sell] more and earn more are not helping to contain the disease but are contributing to resistance to drugs,” Dr Kemp said.

The scientists spoke during a meeting with journalists at the Institute’s headquarters during a briefing on breakthroughs in research on diseases of livestock and people in developing countries.

They cited shortage of enough data to inform policy on best ways to control and treat diseases [as] the main challenge facing efforts to reduce human and animal infection rates.

Agriculture Permanent Secretary, Dr Romano Kiome admitted that trypanosomiasis still posed serious challenges to livestock production hence the need to build local capacity of Kenyan scientists to update relevant data that can help fight off the disease.

The PS who is also ILRI’s board member said the country cannot accumulate data without scientists coming to carry out research aimed at addressing challenges bedevilling this country.

“It is absolutely necessary we build data. Let’s support our scientists. The government has extended retirement age for scientists to 65 years besides other benefits as part of a deliberate strategy to give them ample time to do research,” said Dr Kiome.

He said Kenya was among the few countries with a fully-fledged trypanosomiasis research institute.

“We welcome research as we make great strides to combat this disease and improve livestock production. The global partners are important in helping Kenya achieve its development goals,” said the PS.

Read the whole article at Daily Nation (Kenya): State to vaccinate 61 million livestock to boost production, by Mwaniki Wahome and Dennis Odunga, 5 May 2013.

Filed under: Animal Health, Biotech, Cattle, Diagnostics, Disease Control, East Africa, ILRI, Kenya, Markets, PA, Pastoralism, Vulnerability Tagged: Daily Nation (Kenya), Romano Kiome, Steve Kemp, Trypanosomiasis

Cover of a special issue of ‘Nature’ on GMOs, 2 May 2013.

The leading British science journal Nature has published a special issue on GM crops: Promise and reality  (2 May 2013). This hub of updated science-based information on GM crops includes feature news stories, commentaries, a podcast and more.

‘Foreign genes were successfully introduced into plants for the first time 30 years ago . . . .  Ever since, genetically modified (GM) crops have promised to deliver a second green revolution: a wealth of enhanced foods, fuels and fibres that would feed the starving, deliver profits to farmers and promote a greener environment. In many ways, that revolution has arrived. Crops engineered to carry useful traits now grow on 170 million hectares in at least 28 countries . . . .

‘But to many, GM crops have been a failure. The market is dominated by just a few insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant crops. The environmental benefits are disputed, and activists question the safety of GM foods. Politicized and polarized, the war of words that surrounds GM crops ignores the complex truths.

‘In this special issue, Nature explores the messy middle ground. . . .

The battles are by no means over, but the hope is that science and reasoned debate can inform the future of these technologies.

An editorial in this special issue, Fields of gold, argues that GM research needs to happen outside of the industry (in the non-profit sector) so that developments are driven by objectives other than profit:

‘There is reason to stand up for the continued use and develop­ment of GM crops. Genetic modification is a nascent technology for which development has moved very quickly to commercialization. That has forced most research into the for-profit sector.

Without broader research programmes outside the seed industry, developments will continue to be profit-driven, limiting the chance for many of the advances that were promised 30 years ago—such as feeding the planet’s burgeoning population sustainably, reducing the environmental footprint of farming and delivering products that amaze and delight.

Transgenic technologies are by no means the only way to achieve these aims, but the speed and precision that they offer over traditional breeding techniques made them indispensable 30 years ago. They still are today.

In another article, Transgenics: A new breed, Daniel Cressey argues that:

The next wave of genetically modified crops is making its way to market—and might just ease concerns over ‘Frankenfoods’.

‘When the first genetically modified (GM) organisms were being developed for the farm, says Anastasia Bodnar, “we were promised rocket jet packs”—futuristic, ultra-nutritious crops that would bring exotic produce to the supermarket and help to feed a hungry world.

‘Yet so far, she says, the technology has bestowed most of its benefits on agribusiness—almost always through crops modified to withstand weed-killing chemicals or resist insect pests. This has allowed farmers to increase yields and spray less pesticide than they might have otherwise.

‘At best, such advances have been almost invisible to ordinary consumers, says Bodnar, a biotechnologist with Biology Fortified, a non-profit GM-organism advocacy organization in Middleton, Wisconsin. And at worst, they have helped to fuel the rage of opponents of genetic modification, who say that transgenic crops have concentrated power and profits in the hands of a few large corporations, and are a prime example of scientists meddling in nature, heedless of the dangers . . . .

‘But that could soon change, thanks to a whole new generation of GM crops now making their way from laboratory to market. Some of these crops will tackle new problems, from apples that stave off discolouration to “Golden Rice” and bright-orange bananas fortified with nutrients to improve the diets of people in the poorest countries.’

In another article of this special issue, Biotechnology: Africa and Asia need a rational debate on GM crops, ‘Christopher Whitty, chief scientific adviser at the UK Department for International Development, and his colleagues argue that the negative attitudes towards GM crops in the developed world undermine the technology’s potential in the developing one.’

The authors state that policymakers in developing countries should resist being swayed by the politicized debate around GM food and crops in Europe, a continent where food insecurity and malnutrition are not widely present. They also argue that developments in GM crop research will be key to addressing the challenge of feeding rising populations in the face of climate change.

In a Nature News Feature in this issue, Case studies: A hard look at GM crops, Natasha Gilbert reports on how the evidence is holding up on the ‘goods’ and ‘bads’ of  GM crops.

‘In the pitched debate over genetically modified (GM) foods and crops, it can be hard to see where scientific evidence ends and dogma and speculation begin. In the nearly 20 years since they were first commercialized, GM crop technologies have seen dramatic uptake. Advocates say that they have increased agricultural production by more than US$98 billion and saved an estimated 473 million kilograms of pesticides from being sprayed. But critics question their environmental, social and economic impacts. . . .

‘Here, Nature takes a look at three pressing questions: are GM crops fuelling the rise of herbicide-resistant ‘superweeds’? Are they driving farmers in India to suicide? And are the foreign transgenes in GM crops spreading into other plants? These controversial case studies show how blame shifts, myths are spread and cultural insensitivities can inflame debate. . . .

Herbicide-resistant GM crops
‘On balance, herbicide-resistant GM crops are less damaging to the environment than conventional crops grown at industrial scale. A study by PG Economics, a consulting firm in Dorchester, UK, found that the introduction of herbicide-tolerant cotton saved 15.5 million kilograms of herbicide between 1996 and 2011, a 6.1% reduction from what would have been used on conventional cotton. And GM crop technology delivered an 8.9% improvement to the environmental impact quotient—a measure that considers factors such as pesticide toxicity to wildlife—says Graham Brookes, co-director of PG Economics and a co-author of the industry-funded study, which many scientists consider to be among the field’s most extensive and authoritative assessments of environmental impacts.

‘The question is how much longer those benefits will last. . . .

‘To offer farmers new weed-control strategies, Monsanto and other biotechnology companies, such as Dow AgroSciences, based in Indianapolis, Indiana, are developing new herbicide-resistant crops that work with different chemicals, which they expect to commercialize within a few years. . . .’

Bt cotton in India
Regarding claims that introduction in India of Bt cotton, which contains a gene from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis to ward off certain insects, have led to an increase in farmer suicides, an ‘oft-repeated story of corporate exploitation since Monsanto began selling GM seed in India in 2002′,  scientists have found that ‘there has been essentially no change in the suicide rate for farmers since the introduction of Bt cotton.

That was shown by researchers at the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington DC, who scoured government data, academic articles and media reports about Bt cotton and suicide in India. Their findings, published in 2008 (ref. 4) and updated in 2011 (ref. 5), show that the total number of suicides per year in the Indian population rose from just under 100,000 in 1997 to more than 120,000 in 2007. But the number of suicides among farmers hovered at around 20,000 per year over the same period.’

ILRI head of South Asia Purvi Mehta-Bhatt (photo credit: ILRI).

One of the authors of that study is Purvi Mehta-Bhatt, who now heads the South Asia program of work of the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI). Mehta-Bhatt says that India’s adoption of Bt cotton has helped move the country from being a net importer of cotton to being a net exporter, and that household incomes have increased some 20–25 per cent as a result.

We’ve been talking about this in India for a very long time now. We’ve been hearing about the dangers of releasing GM crops. What we fail to hear much about are the dangers to India of not releasing such crops. India now has other genetically modified crops in the offing, many being generated by the public sector. India needs to make decisions on the way forward, and needs to make its decisions based on evidence, not on emotions.—Purvi Mehta-Bhatt

The Nature article goes on to report the following. ‘[S]ince its rocky beginnings, Bt cotton has benefited farmers, says Matin Qaim, an agricultural economist at Georg August University in Göttingen, Germany, who has been studying the social and financial impacts of Bt cotton in India for the past 10 years. In a study of 533 cotton-farming households in central and southern India, Qaim found that yields grew by 24% per acre between 2002 and 2008, owing to reduced losses from pest attacks. Farmers’ profits rose by an average of 50% over the same period, owing mainly to yield gains . . . . Given the profits, Qaim says, it is not surprising that more than 90% of the cotton now grown in India is transgenic. . . .’

Transgenes in Mexican maize
‘The scientific community remains split on whether transgenes have infiltrated maize populations in Mexico, even as the country grapples with whether to approve commercialization of Bt maize. . . . “It seems inevitable that there will be a movement of transgenes into local maize crops,” says [Allison] Snow. “There is some proof that it is happening, but it is very difficult to say how common it is or what are the consequences. . . . Snow says that there is no evidence so far for negative effects. And she expects that if the transgenes now in use drift to other plants, they will have neutral or beneficial effects on plant growth. . . .

Conclusion

Tidy stories, in favour of or against GM crops, will always miss the bigger picture, which is nuanced, equivocal and undeniably messy. Transgenic crops will not solve all the agricultural challenges facing the developing or developed world, says [Matin] Qaim: “It is not a silver bullet.” But vilification is not appropriate either. The truth is somewhere in the middle.’

Read the IFPRI research study
Bt Cotton and Farmer Suicides in India: Reviewing the Evidence, by Guillaume P Gruère, Purvi Mehta-Bhatt and Debdatta Sengupta, IFPRI Discussion Paper 00808, October 2008, Washington DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

Read more on this topic in the ILRI News Blog
New advances in the battle against a major disease threat to cattle and people in Africa, 1 May 2013.

And more on this topic from the ILRI Clippings Blog
GMOs good for Africa–Calestous Juma, Kenyan biotechnology expert and Harvard professor, 25 Apr 2013.
Kenya testing ground for GMOs, 15 Jan 2010.

Filed under: Agriculture, Article, Asia, Biotechnology, Environment, Genetics, ILRI, India, North America, PA, Seeds, USA Tagged: Bt cotton, GMOs, Herbicide-resistant GM crops, IFPRI, Mexico, Nature, Purvi Mehta-Bhatt, transgenic maize

This month’s issue of ‘Livestock Matter(s)’, explores a round-up of livestock development news, publications, presentations, images and upcoming events from ILRI and its partners. Download a print version – or sign up to get Livestock Matter(s) in your mailbox each month.

Corporate news

Livestock research for food security and poverty reduction: ILRI strategy 2013-2022

In April, ILRI’s strategy covering the period 2013-2022 was published. Under the tagline ‘better lives through livestock’, ILRI will improve food and nutritional security and reduce poverty in developing countries through research for efficient, safe and sustainable use of livestock. www.ilri.org/mission

Project news

Zimbabwe: Crop and livestock researchers unite to improve smallholder agriculture
In 2012, the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) and the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) launched a joint project called ‘ZimCLIFS’ to develop ways to increase agricultural production, improve household food security, alleviate poverty, and thereby reduce food-aid dependency in rural Zimbabwe through better integration of crop and livestock production and market participation.

ILRI-BecA goat project harnessing ODK on smartphones for data collection and analysis
To harness genetic diversity to improve goat productivity in Africa, the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) is testing the open data kit (ODK) in Ethiopia as a tool to collect baseline data on production systems and phenotypic characterization of goats. It will also be tested in Cameroon.

As a new round of bird flu hits China, livestock scientist advises to ‘panic slowly’
The initial news reports were slim on details but the reaction was swift. There were at least three people dead in China after apparently contracting influenza from birds. Then the death toll rose to five, virus samples were detected in pigeons, and in Shanghai authorities began slaughtering poultry flocks. Within a few days the death count was up to seven, then nine. And people started to wonder about a connection to all those pig carcasses floating down Shanghai waterways.

Corralling cattle to improve the productivity of pasture lands affected by termites
Researchers from the Department of Animal Science in Makerere University were excited, and with good reason, as they surveyed pasture land that had been corralled off in the cattle corridor of Uganda. The team had been looking at options to improve livestock water productivity (LWP) in the Nile Basin. To their surprise, a carpet of solid vegetation now covered the expanse of land, affirming their Ethiopian colleague’s suggestion that corralling cattle every night over a two-week period would allow the grassland to recover.

Africa RISING trainers in Ethiopia learn to use the SLATE sustainable livelihoods asset evaluation tool
In April, the Africa Research in Sustainable Intensification for the Next Generation (Africa RISING) and Nile Basin Development Challenge (NBDC) jointly organised a Training of Trainers workshop in the use of SLATE: A tool for Sustainable Livelihoods Asset Evaluation. Held in Addis Ababa and in Jeldu woreda, 30 participants from the Africa RISING’s 4 project sites and NBDC Innovation platforms attended the training. The training combined both conceptual and practical sessions.

• more from ILRI projects
• Subscribe to ILRI news by email

ILRI in the media

Livestock: The Good, the Bad, and the Facts
The International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) recently wrote two blog posts about one of their papers called The Roles of Livestock in Developing Countries, in which their authors argue that the livestock sector needs to be studied and assessed in a much more disaggregated manner in order to acknowledge the roles and impacts of livestock around the world – for better or for worse. Now, the motto of ILRI is “Better Lives through Livestock”, so I was originally hesitant whether they were really in a position to produce a reliably balanced account, but I was impressed both by the depth of their analysis and by their recommendations.

Balancing conservation and people’s access to land
In the great plains of northern Tanzania, close to the world-famous Serengeti National Park, a bitter row has broken out over an attempt to designate 1,500sqkm of Loliondo District as a game-controlled area. The Maasai herdsmen in the area say their cattle cannot survive without access to traditional dry-season grazing in the area.

• more media items …

CGIAR news – updates from the research programs we work in

Defining best-bet interventions for the Uganda smallholder pig value chain
The Livestock and Fish team working on the smallholder pig value chain in Uganda recently held a workshop to identify potential best-bet interventions based on the value chain assessment work.

Keeping cows in the city, chickens under the bed: ‘The Atlantic’ magazine explores Africa’s urbanization
It’s not only people who are rapidly urbanizing in Africa: people migrating from rural areas are bringing their livelihoods with them, which in Africa largely means their cattle, goats, sheep, chickens and pigs. A scientific report from researchers based in Nairobi, Kenya, investigating the benefits and harms of livestock keeping in two of Africa’s most crowded and sprawling cities —Nairobi and Ibadan — recommends that people ’keep on keeping cows’ but keep them more carefully so as to reduce the risk of diseases being transmitted from livestock to people.

Patricia Rainey new program support coordinator for Livestock and Fish
On 10 April 2013, Patricia Rainey joined the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) to be ILRI’s program support coordinator for the CGIAR research programs on Livestock and Fish and Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH). Rainey, a South African, has strong program management skills and a particular interest in research methods for development.

Adapting and adopting improved animal feeding systems in Southeast Asia
Until recently, livestock husbandry in Vietnam’s Central Highlands was not very productive. Animals were intermittently sold to free-up cash to put towards weddings or large purchases, and the rest of the time they were left free to graze on native pasture and crop residues. To help revitalize these livestock systems, researchers at CIAT have been testing different kinds of improved forages and developing improved management strategies with farmers.

• more news from our CGIAR work . . .

Recent presentations

• more presentations . . .

Recent ILRI publications

• Biosciences Eastern and Central Africa (BeCA) ILRI-hub annual letter 2012
• Guidelines for innovation platforms: Facilitation, monitoring and evaluation
• Directives pour les plateformes d’Innovation: Facilitation, suivi et evaluation
• Valuation of cattle attributes in the Malian humid and sub-humid zones and implications for sustainable management of endemic ruminant livestock
• Livestock research and development: Summary report of the ICAR‐ILRI partnership dialogue, New Delhi, India, 7 November 2012
• ILRI research on biotechnology to fight a major disease threat to cattle and people in Africa
• Smallholder dairy production and marketing systems in Ethiopia: IPMS experiences and opportunities for market-oriented development

more . . .

Multimedia

Contagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia (CBPP) is a highly contagious disease that affects cattle throughout most of sub Saharan Africa. It is one of the most serious livestock diseases with greatest impacts in pastoralist areas. Up to 15% of infected animals die: milk yields of infected cows drop by up to 90%: meat production is reduced, and infected draught oxen are less able to work. Existing vaccines have side effects and give limited protection. This short film explores the development of the Contagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia (CBPP) vaccine by researchers at ILRI.

ILRI under the lens

This month we feature amazing livestock portraits around the world.

Upcoming events

• 6-9 May: CIARD Global Partners Consultation: Addis Ababa
• 16-18 May: African Livestock Exhibition and Congress: Addis Ababa
• 28-29 May: East Africa farmer innovation fair: Nairobi, Kenya
• 29-31 May: Workshop on agricultural innovation systems in Africa: Nairobi
• 26–29 Jun: African Livestock Conference and Exhibition – Nairobi

• view more upcoming events

Follow us on:

Filed under: ILRI, KMIS, Livestock, PA, Roundup Tagged: Livestock matters

A Kenyan dairy farmer feeds her cow (photo on Flickr by eadairy).

‘A chilling tale of cows in Kenya shows how market access is key to impact investing. . . .

‘It started with a mid-term report I was handed called Milking for Profit. The report details a project that works to uplift subsistence dairy farmers in Kenya, Rwanda and Uganda run by a consortium of dairy experts called East Africa Dairy Development.

‘In 2008 the consortium started its first project in Kenya. The collapse of the state-owned processor in 1999 had opened the country’s dairy market to competition, which suited large-scale producers and further isolated the small farmer.

‘These folk typically produced and sold an average of three to five litres of milk a day, generating insufficient income to invest in stock and good feed to boost yields. Compounding their problems was the lack of facilities to chill milk, low standards in stock and poor animal care.

This is a common scenario: households that own a goat, a cow and a few chickens dot rural landscapes across the continent. . . .

East Africa Dairy Development ignored the traditionalists and took a business approach to the problem. Instead of providing funding and support to their beneficiaries, they connected their participants to markets.

Milk reception at Nyala Dairy in Kenya (photo on Flickr by eadairy).

‘They did this firstly by building chilling plants—22 to date—so that the quality of milk could be maintained. They signed up 90 000 farmers and ran extensive programmes to improve the quality of care for animals. They made the chilling plants accessible to farmers so that they could easily bring their milk to fill up the 10 000 litre tanks.

‘Within two years, those signed up were earning an average wage of $4 500 a year from the sale of milk and heifers—that is $12 a day, six times more than the previous income standard of $2 a day.

‘The chilling plants reported an average monthly profit of $1 300, giving investors a return on their investment within one year (though they are keen to point out that this is not the primary reason for the investment).

‘It is a remarkable story and a strong model, which East Africa Dairy Development is replicating in Uganda and Rwanda. . . .’

The chilling plant at Ol Kalou, Kenya (photo on Flickr by eadairy).

The International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) is one of the partner organizations supporting this project, which is led by Heifer International. Other partners in the East Africa Dairy Development project are TechnoServe, the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) and the African Breeders Service Total Cattle Management. The project is being implemented in Kenya, Rwanda and Uganda. The goal of this project is to help one million people—179,000 families living on small 1–5 acre farms—lift themselves out of poverty through more profitable production and marketing of milk. Following the completion of the first phase of the project in 2012, the second phase is planned for 2013 to 2017 and will include Ethiopia and Tanzania. The project is funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. For more information, visit the project’s page on the  ILRI website.

Read the whole article at the Mail & Guardian (South Africa): Milking profits, 26 Apr 2013.

Filed under: Cattle, Dairying, East Africa, ILRI, Kenya, MarketOpps, Markets, PA, Rwanda, Uganda Tagged: African Breeders Service Total Cattle Management, Chilling plant, EADD, Heifer International, ICRAF, Mail & Guardian (South Africa), TechnoServe

Calestous Juma, a Kenyan agricultural and biotechnology expert and professor at Harvard University, gave the keynote presentation at the 2011 launch of Bio-Innovate, at ILRI’s Nairobi campus (photo credit: ILRI).

Biotechnology and genetic engineering have the potential to do for agriculture what mobile technology has done for the communications sector in Africa, a renowned Harvard University scholar, Prof. Calestous Juma, has said.

‘Prof. Juma, who was in the country for a meeting with President Yoweri Museveni, advocated for the adoption of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) saying they would boost food and income security.

‘He however, cautioned that it would be detrimental to adopt GMOs without clear flexible and supportive biotechnology regulations, asking Parliament to pass the Biotechnology Bill. . . .

‘At [a] public lecture he emphasised the role of technology in transforming livelihoods, insisting that if Africa didn’t embrace GMOs in agriculture, the problems like climate change, pests and diseases that have dogged the sector over the years would devour production to shocking levels.

‘He cited the [b]anana bacterial wilt which has devastated banana growers in Uganda, saying the problem would be deterred i[f] farmers planted GMO banana varieties that are resistant to the wilt.

‘He decried the phenomenon of resisting new technologies, saying it won’t help Africa to develop.

On the safety of GMOs, he likened the current debate to the rumours that were circulated during the early days of mobile technology that the phones would cause brain cancer. . . .

“Biotechnology and in particular GMOs are not per se more risky than conventional plant breeding,” he asserted.

‘Prof. Zerubabel Nyiira, state minister for agriculture, said while science and technology were the tickets to economic development, genetic engineering would spur food and nutritional security.

‘Dr. Andrew Kiggundu of the National Agricultural Organisation (NARO), said they had begun using biotechnology to produce drought, pests and disease resistant crop varieties. . . .

Read the whole article by Francis Kagolo in New Vision (Uganda): GMOs good for Africa’s development, says Harvard don, 21 Apr 2013.

Filed under: Agriculture, Biotechnology, East Africa, Event, Food security, PA, Research, Uganda Tagged: Calestous Juma, GMOs, New Vision (Uganda)

The ultimate test: Do livestock eat this feed? Yes. (Photo on Flickr by Swathi Sridharan/ICRISAT).

In 2012, three CGIAR centres — the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), based in Africa; the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), based in Mexico; and the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), based in India — launched a joint project called ‘Integrating crops and livestock for improved food security and livelihoods in Zimbabwe, or ‘ZimCLIFS’ for short.

‘The goal of the project is to develop ways to increase agricultural production, improve household food security, alleviate poverty, and thereby reduce food-aid dependency in rural Zimbabwe through better integration of crop and livestock production and market participation. The inception workshop, held 17–19 October 2012, was attended by international project managers and local stakeholders, including research, extension, private-sector, and NGO personnel, and farmers, totaling 41 participants.’

This project has three big objectives:
(1) Increase the productivity of Zimbabwe’s many smallholder ‘mixed’ crop-and-livestock farmers in four districts and two very different regions, one with high potential for agriculture, the other with low potential.
(2) Increase access by these farmers to resources, technologies, information and markets by strengthening the value chains for cattle, goats, maize, sorghum and legumes in these two districts.
(3) Increase the knowledge and skills of Zimbabwe’s research, extension and agribusiness staff.

The ILRI coordinator for this multi-centre project on ‘Integrating crops and livestock for improved food security and livelihoods in rural Zimbabwe’ is Godfrey Manyawu (photo credit: ILRI).

Since its launch in late 2012, the project has established field trials on 102 farm sites and, in January of this year, conducted a data collection training workshop run by staff from ILRI and CIMMYT.

Also in January, project manager John Dixon, of the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) and a consultant visited ZimCLIFS the CIMMYT office in Harare and project sites to see how far the project had progressed.

They witnessed conservation agriculture trials in which maize is grown along with livestock-palatable and unpalatable legume species, with the palatable species used to feed livestock and the unpalatable species used to generate biomass for soil cover in the subsequent season, given that livestock graze communally in the area. . . . Dixon also visited a local abattoir and a goat market as part of appreciating the value chain in livestock production.’

The project runs until July 2015.

Read more about this project on the ILRI website, and on the CIMMYT Blog: ZimCLIFS integrate crop and livestock production research in Zimbabwe, 9 Apr 2013.

Filed under: Crop-Livestock, ILRI, PA, PLE, Project, Southern Africa Tagged: ACIAR, Cowpea, ICRISAT, Maize, Mucuna, Zimbabwe, ZimCLIFS

A farmer herds his cattle in Sindh Province, Pakistan. Some 30–35 million rural Pakistanis are engaged in livestock raising, with families typically keeping 2–3 cattle or water buffalo and 5–6 sheep or goats, which help them to generate 30–40% of their household income from livestock; find this and more recent information on Pakistan’s livestock sector here (photo on Flickr by Benny Lin [bennylin0724]).

‘University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences (UVAS) Lahore and International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) discussed possibilities of collaboration in research, training and value chain activities for the development of livestock sector. . . .

[A] two-member ILRI delegation, comprising its Agricultural Economist [N]ils Teufel and Regional Project Coordinator Sri Lanka Prof MNM Ibrahim, called on Vice-Chancellor Prof Dr Talat Naseer Pasha and discussed areas of collaboration between the two institutes. . . .

‘Vice-Chancellor Prof Dr Talat Naseer Pasha . . . said that UVAS was actively involved in development-oriented applied research . . . .

‘Prof Pasha told the delegation that UVAS had the largest DNA bank of different species of animals while University Diagnostic Laboratory conducted the highest number of ISO-certified conventional and molecular diagnostic tests for livestock and poultry.

‘UVAS Quality Operation Lab was also producing vaccines by using local strains against foot and mouth disease and hemorrhagic septicemia, which was quite effective in both diseases at the same time, he said, . . . .

‘The delegation members said the ILRI was working on improving food security and reducing poverty in developing countries through research for better and more sustainable use of livestock. They desired collaboration with UVAS in research, training and value chain activities in livestock sector.’

Pakistan’s Tharparkar cattle breed (called Brahman in Australia) is heat- and drought-resistant and provides 10 kg of milk daily (photo on Flickr by Dr. S. Ali Wasif).

Read the whole article at The News International (Pakistan): Research institute discusses collaboration with UVAS, 23 Apr 2013.

Filed under: Event, ILRI, Intensification, MarketOpps, Markets, PA, Pakistan, Partnerships, South Asia, Value Chains Tagged: Lahore, Mohamed Ibrahim, Nils Teufel, The News International (Pakistan), University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences

Former US Vice President Al Gore speaking at the Hunger, Nutrition, Climate Justice Conference in Dublin, 16 Apr 2013. CGIAR CEO Frank Rijsberman (second from left) looks on. Read more about this event. Photo credit: Vanessa Meadu/CCAFS.

‘What happens when some of the world’s thought leaders in hunger, nutrition and climate justice meet with innovators working at the frontlines of climate change in developing countries? At the Hunger, Nutrition and Climate Justice conference in Dublin yesterday, these pairings helped bring lofty theories down to earth, infusing discussions on rights, risk, knowledge and empowerment with touching and inspiring examples from around the world.’

Here’s what one participant said about ‘risk’:

‘William Ole Seki Laitayock, a pastoralist from the Ngorongoro area of Tanzania, explained that the Maasai culture, which revolves around cattle, is under threat due to competing commercial interests (mining, agriculture, tourism) that drive them off land or prevent them from moving freely. Climate change only aggravates this.

Laitayock explained that policies and interests that constrain the mobility and movement of pastoralists undermine their main tactic for staying resilient.

Maasai herding his cattle in Tanzania (photo on Flickr by Saadiq Rodgers-King).

‘Many countries are a long way from looking at their economic development strategies through the lens of climate change vulnerability — but this is what is needed. . . .’

Jimmy Smith, director of the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), headquartered in Nairobi, Kenya, agrees. He attended the Dublin conference and recently presented this overview of the history of our livestock-human relations: Taking the long livestock view, Jan 2013.

See also ILRI’s Shirley Tarawali, director of Institutional Planning and Partnerships, on Options for enhancing resilience in pastoral systems, Feb 2012.

And see ILRI scientist Polly Ericksen on Mapping hotspots of climate change and food insecurity across the global tropics, Mar 2011.

Read the whole article on the CCAFS Blog: Risks, rights, knowledge and empowerment: Connecting the dots, 16 Apr 2013.

Read a previous article about this conference on ILRI’s Clippings Blog: Hunger-nutrition-climate: Can the ‘centre’ hold? Is ‘climate-smart’ agriculture the answer?, 16 Apr 2013.

For more information, go here. Follow the conference on Twitter by searching for #HNCJ.

Watch a short (3.32-minute) animated video from Ireland, a country that should know, on modern links between great hunger and climate change.

Filed under: Climate Change, CRP7, Event, Food security, PA, Pastoralism, Vulnerability Tagged: HNCJ, Ireland, Jimmy Smith, Polly Ericksen, Shirley Tarawali

Rain clouds over a farming village near Iringa, Tanzania (photo on Flickr by United Nations /Wolff.)

A Hunger-Nutrition-Climate Justice Conference is in its second day of deliberations today (16 Apr) in Dublin. Lindiwe Majele Sibanda, head of the Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network (FANRPAN), in southern Africa, and chair of the board of trustees of the Africa-based International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), spoke today earlier on the need to focus on small-scale food producers and sellers, particularly women.

Unusually, the event is exploring links between climate change, hunger and nutrition. Unusually, it is placing farmers at the centre of development efforts to help eradicate global hunger and malnutrition. Unusually, it aims to do this by enabling global leaders, policy-makers and scientists to listen directly to the representatives of communities from Africa, Asia and Central America.

Frank Rijsberman, CEO of the CGIAR Consortium said, ‘We must focus on the needs of smallholder farmers – they have the least capacity to adapt and will be the most affected by climate change’.

Listening to the voices of those on the ground is vital in shaping the post-2015 sustainable development agenda.

Former US vice president Al Gore is speaking, as well as the president of Ireland, Michael Higgins; Mary Robinson, president of the Mary Robinson Foundation; and Ertharin Cousin, executive director of the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP).

To optimize the input of stakeholders from around the world, Rijsberman hosted a panel discussion, ‘Starting the dialogue: Reality check’, today (16  Apr). This session aimed to ensure that farmers voices are heard by high level representatives and included a live voting device to ensure everyone has a say in issues discussed.

The Hunger–Nutrition–Climate Justice 2013′ Conference has been designed to generate practical recommendations to support vulnerable households as the world reviews the UN Millennium Development Goals.

The Conference is supported by the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) and the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF).

Global leaders and policy-makers attending the event include:

• President of Ireland Michael D Higgins
• Frank Rijsberman, Chief Executive Officer of the CGIAR Consortium
• President of the Mary Robinson Foundation, Mary Robinson
• Former US Vice-President, Al Gore
• Ertharin Cousin, Executive Director, United Nations World Food Programme (WFP)

For more information, go here.

Follow the conference on Twitter by searching for #HNCJ.

Watch a short (3.32-minute) animated video from Ireland, a country that should know, on modern links between great hunger and climate change.

About CGIAR and CCAFS
CGIAR is a global agriculture research partnership for a food secure future. Its science is carried out by the 15 research centers who are members of the CGIAR Consortium in collaboration with hundreds of partner organizations. http://www.cgiar.org

The CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) is a strategic partnership of CGIAR and Future Earth, led by the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT). CCAFS brings together the world’s best researchers in agricultural science, development research, climate science and Earth system science, to identify and address the most important interactions, synergies and tradeoffs between climate change, agriculture and food security.

Filed under: Climate Change, Event, Food security, Nutrition (human), PA Tagged: CGIAR, CIFF, FANRPAN, Frank Rijsberman, HCCJ, IIED, Ireland, Lindiwe Majele Sibanda, WFP

Butcher shop in a slum in Kawangare, Nairobi, Kenya (picture on Flickr by Brad Ruggles).

It’s not only people who are rapidly urbanizing in Africa: people migrating from rural areas are bringing their livelihoods with them, which in Africa largely means their cattle, goats, sheep, chickens and pigs. A scientific report from researchers based in Nairobi, Kenya, investigating the benefits and harms of livestock keeping in two of Africa’s most crowded and sprawling cities —Nairobi and Ibadan — recommends that people ’keep on keeping cows’ but keep them more carefully so as to reduce the risk of diseases being transmitted from livestock to people.

Importantly, the study also finds that  peer pressure — not health codes — is the answer to more careful management of the growing livestock enterprises in Africa’s slums and urban centres.

The Atlantic, one of North America’s most popular and distinguished cultural and political magazines, explores this unusual aspect of Africa’s rapid urbanization. Some excerpts below.

‘One of the stranger aspects of Africa’s rapid urbanization is the influx of livestock in new, unplanned towns — and the diseases they bring with them. . . .

‘Today, about 40 percent of the African population lives in urban areas, a rapid migration that’s expected to triple in size over the next four decades.

But the people who are moving to cities aren’t entirely leaving their rural lives behind. Instead, they are bringing their livestock with them, often keeping them right in their backyards, even in densely populated areas.

‘As a result, low-income countries have started to see a dramatic spike in a class of disease known as zoonoses, which pass from animals to humans. These can cause everything from tapeworms to fatal diarrhea, and they’re concentrated near major cities in Africa and India.

A recent study by the International Livestock Research Institute found that zoonoses make up 26 percent of the infectious disease burden in low-income countries, but just 0.7 percent in high-income countries. Now, researchers are beginning to trace these ailments to the livestock that sleep just over the windowsill from the residents of the developing world’s newest cities.

‘In Dagoretti {in Nairobi, Kenya], one in 80 people keep cattle, and 60 percent of households have poultry. A typical house there might have a shed full of rabbits or chickens under the bed. A cow kept in the yard may graze by the roadside or munch potato peels from a local eatery.

‘But animals and cities don’t always mix well. Throughout history, as cities modernized and developed, any lingering livestock were soon banished to the countryside.

‘That’s not an option for people in places like Dagoretti, where there are still very few grocery stores, and low incomes mean many residents rely on raising and selling their own food. For the town’s infants and children, the nutritional benefits of ready access to milk outweighs some of the cow-related drawbacks.

“In cultures where you don’t do fridges or freezers, there’s a huge demand for milk and meat and it needs to be close to where it’s eaten,” said Delia Grace, a Nairobi-based researcher for the International Livestock Research Institute. . . .

‘For these and other reasons, Dagorettians won’t — and probably shouldn’t — get rid of their cows and other animals. . . .

‘Grace and her colleagues determined that the best way to stop the spread of [livestock diseases to people] was not to discourage the keeping of animals, but to get residents to do it more carefully. And the best way to accomplish that, they found, was peer pressure.

“Much of the conventional communication — ’don’t do this, it’ll make you sick’ — we know that’s not very effective. There’s a new approach that’s trying to change peoples’ behavior based on social norms,” Grace explained. “People are more concerned with how they appear in the community than following health codes.”. . .

Read the whole article by Olgo Khazanapr in The Atlantic: Rural Kenyans are bringing their cows with them to cities. What could go wrong?, 7 Apr 2013.

Delia Grace leads ILRI research on food safety and zoonoses. She also leads a component of the CGIAR Research Program on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health on Prevention and control of agriculture-associated diseases.

See a Factsheet on Urban Agriculture and Zoonoses in Nairobi, which provides key facts about urbanization, urban livestock keeping and the study in Dagoretti, where most residents are poor and many raise livestock inside city limits.

Read a previous ILRI blog on this study: Livestock in the city: New study of ‘farm animals’ raised in African cities yields surprising results, 15 Oct 2012.

Read a special supplement of the August 2012 issue of the journal Tropical Animal Health and Production on assessing and managing urban zoonoses and food-borne disease in Nairobi and Ibadan.

Filed under: Agri-Health, Article, CRP4, Disease Control, East Africa, Emerging Diseases, Food Safety, Health (human), ILRI, Interview, Kenya, MarketOpps, Nutrition (human), PA, Policy, Report, Zoonotic Diseases Tagged: Delia Grace, The Atlantic

Serengeti tree (photo credit: Jeff Haskins).

‘In the great plains of northern Tanzania, close to the world-famous Serengeti National Park, a bitter row has broken out over an attempt to designate 1,500sqkm of Loliondo District as a game-controlled area.

‘The Maasai herdsmen in the area say their cattle cannot survive without access to traditional dry-season grazing in the area. The government says the land is needed as a wildlife corridor between the Serengeti and the Ngorongoro Conservation Area. Besides, the Minister for Natural Resources told the press, 2,500sqkm had already been, as he put it, “released to the local population”; the rest would be used for conservation purposes for the benefit of the nation.

‘Typical of recent land-grab controversies, this row involves the use of rangelands rather than farmlands. While farmers can show quite clearly that their lands are being used, semi-arid grasslands in areas like Loliondo cannot support animals year-round, so surveys often show the areas lying apparently empty.

‘Such tracts of land are often attractive for commercial agriculture — in Ethiopia, for instance, a number of controversial large-scale agricultural concessions have been granted along the Awash River. But the Loliondo dispute is not about commercial agriculture; it’s a so-called “green grab”, where access to land is lost for conservation purposes. . . .

‘Here, one widely accepted good — the right of people to continue using their traditional lands — has collided with another — the need to conserve nature and biodiversity. . . .

‘Kenya’s new constitution, adopted in 2010 . . . offers what is to be called “community land” to any group formed on the basis of ethnicity, culture or shared interest.

Stephen Moiko, of the International Livestock Research Institute, told IRIN that a key difference this time is that the initiative will come from the group. “It’s possible for communities to come up together and, through a legal process, obtain ownership of key resources which they depend on for their livelihoods, and it has legal mechanisms to protect that land from alienation. I think the nice thing about this new provision is that it recognizes the role of communities as owners and protectors and users of local resources.”. . .’

Read the whole article at IRIN: Balancing conservation and people’s access to land, 4 Apr 2013.

Filed under: Biodiversity, Drylands, East Africa, Environment, Ethiopia, ILRI, Kenya, PA, Pastoralism, PLE, Tanzania, Vulnerability, Wildlife Tagged: IRIN, Maasai, Serengeti, Stephen Moiko