IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v131y2014icp11-22.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The ‘One cow per poor family’ programme: Current and potential fodder availability within smallholder farming systems in southwest Rwanda

Author

Listed:
  • Klapwijk, C.J.
  • Bucagu, C.
  • van Wijk, M.T.
  • Udo, H.M.J.
  • Vanlauwe, B.
  • Munyanziza, E.
  • Giller, K.E.

Abstract

Livestock is an essential component of smallholder farming systems in the East African highlands. The ‘One cow per poor family’ programme was initiated in Rwanda as part of a poverty alleviation strategy, aiming to increase the livestock population. A four month-study was conducted in Umurera village (Simbi sector), southern Rwanda with the objectives to (1) quantify the on-farm fodder availability, (2) quantify the amount and quality of fodder on offer to livestock, (3) analyse potential fodder availability under five future scenarios and (4) evaluate the implications and feasibility of the programme. Farmers’ surveys, measurements of field sizes, together with daily measurements of fodder on offer, milk production and fodder refusals were conducted. Feeds used were diverse, comprising grasses (53%), banana plant parts (25%), residues of several crops (9%) and other plants (10%). Herbs collected from valley-bottoms, uncultivated grasses and crop residues were predominant fodder types on poorer (Resource group 1 – RG1) farms while Pennisetum and Calliandra were predominant fodder types for moderate (RG2) and better resource endowed (RG3) farms. The amount of fodder on offer for cattle ranged from 20 to 179kg fresh weight animal−1day−1 (9–47kg DM). The milk yield ranged between 1.3 and 4.6Lday−1. The amount of Pennisetum and Calliandra fodder available decreased in the dry season with a concomitant increase in reliance on banana leaves and pseudo-stems. The poorest farmers (RG1) were not able to feed a local cow under all scenarios. RG2 farmers can sustain a local cow during both seasons when using all possible fodder resources, but can sustain a European cow under just two scenarios during the rainy season. RG3 farmers can feed a European cow during the rainy season under all scenarios and for four scenarios during the dry season. We conclude that the ‘One cow per poor family’ programme needs to be adjusted to increase its effectiveness. Our main recommendations are to shift to livestock that require less fodder, for example local cattle or small ruminants such as goats.

Suggested Citation

  • Klapwijk, C.J. & Bucagu, C. & van Wijk, M.T. & Udo, H.M.J. & Vanlauwe, B. & Munyanziza, E. & Giller, K.E., 2014. "The ‘One cow per poor family’ programme: Current and potential fodder availability within smallholder farming systems in southwest Rwanda," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 11-22.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:131:y:2014:i:c:p:11-22
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2014.07.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X14000924
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agsy.2014.07.005?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ansoms, An & Verdoodt, Ann & Van Ranst, Eric, 2008. "The inverse relationship between farm size and productivity in rural Rwanda," IOB Discussion Papers 2008.09, Universiteit Antwerpen, Institute of Development Policy (IOB).
    2. Mugabo, Josaphat R., 2003. "Farm-Level Incentives For Fertilizer Use In Rwanda'S Kigali Rural Province: A Financial Analysis," Graduate Research Master's Degree Plan B Papers 11109, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    3. Giller, Ken E. & Rowe, Ed C. & de Ridder, Nico & van Keulen, Herman, 2006. "Resource use dynamics and interactions in the tropics: Scaling up in space and time," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 8-27, April.
    4. Hall, Andy & Sulaiman, Rasheed & Bezkorowajnyj, Peter, 2008. "Reframing technical change: Livestock Fodder Scarcity Revisited as Innovation Capacity Scarcity: Part 2. A Framework for Analysis," MERIT Working Papers 2008-003, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nilsson, Pia & Backman, Mikaela & Bjerke, Lina & Maniriho, Aristide, 2019. "One cow per poor family: Effects on the growth of consumption and crop production," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 1-12.
    2. Bosire, Caroline K. & Krol, Maarten S. & Mekonnen, Mesfin M. & Ogutu, Joseph O. & de Leeuw, Jan & Lannerstad, Mats & Hoekstra, Arjen Y., 2016. "Meat and milk production scenarios and the associated land footprint in Kenya," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 64-75.
    3. Paul, B.K. & Frelat, R. & Birnholz, C. & Ebong, C. & Gahigi, A. & Groot, J.C.J. & Herrero, M. & Kagabo, D.M. & Notenbaert, A. & Vanlauwe, B. & van Wijk, M.T., 2018. "Agricultural intensification scenarios, household food availability and greenhouse gas emissions in Rwanda: Ex-ante impacts and trade-offs," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 16-26.
    4. Provost, Jennifer & Rosero, Gabriel & Brümmer, Bernhard & Schlecht, Eva, 2022. "To sell, not to sell, or to quit: Exploring milk producers’ approaches after a supply chain disruption in Northwest Cameroon," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    5. S., Sujatha & Bhat, Ravi, 2015. "Resource use and benefits of mixed farming approach in arecanut ecosystem in India," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 126-137.
    6. Nilsson, Pia & Backman, Mikaela & Bjerke, Lina & Maniriho, Aristide, 2017. "One cow per poor family: effects on consumption and crop production in Rwanda," Working Paper Series in Economics and Institutions of Innovation 462, Royal Institute of Technology, CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies.
    7. Hammond, Jim & Rosenblum, Nathaniel & Breseman, Dana & Gorman, Léo & Manners, Rhys & van Wijk, Mark T. & Sibomana, Milindi & Remans, Roseline & Vanlauwe, Bernard & Schut, Marc, 2020. "Towards actionable farm typologies: Scaling adoption of agricultural inputs in Rwanda," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    8. Paramesh, Venkatesh & Parajuli, Ranjan & Chakurkar, E.B. & Sreekanth, G.B. & Kumar, H.B. Chetan & Gokuldas, P.P. & Mahajan, Gopal R. & Manohara, K.K. & Viswanatha, Reddy K. & Ravisankar, N., 2019. "Sustainability, energy budgeting, and life cycle assessment of crop-dairy-fish-poultry mixed farming system for coastal lowlands under humid tropic condition of India," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nyakudya, Innocent Wadzanayi & Stroosnijder, Leo & Nyagumbo, Isaiah, 2014. "Infiltration and planting pits for improved water management and maize yield in semi-arid Zimbabwe," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 30-46.
    2. Klasen, Stephan & Reimers, Malte, 2017. "Looking at Pro-Poor Growth from an Agricultural Perspective," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 147-168.
    3. Andy Hall & Norman Clark, 2010. "What do complex adaptive systems look like and what are the implications for innovation policy?," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(3), pages 308-324.
    4. Berrueta, Cecilia & Giménez, Gustavo & Dogliotti, Santiago, 2021. "Scaling up from crop to farm level: Co-innovation framework to improve vegetable farm systems sustainability," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    5. Rufino, M.C. & Dury, J. & Tittonell, P. & van Wijk, M.T. & Herrero, M. & Zingore, S. & Mapfumo, P. & Giller, K.E., 2011. "Competing use of organic resources, village-level interactions between farm types and climate variability in a communal area of NE Zimbabwe," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 104(2), pages 175-190, February.
    6. Giller, Ken E. & Andersson, Jens & Delaune, Thomas & Silva, João Vasco & Descheemaeker, Katrien & van de Ven, Gerrie & Schut, Antonius G.T. & van Wijk, Mark & Hammond, Jim & Hochman, Zvi & Taulya, God, 2022. "IFAD Research Series 83: The future of farming: who will produce our food?," IFAD Research Series 322005, International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).
    7. Miyuki Iiyama & Athanase Mukuralinda & Jean Damascene Ndayambaje & Bernard Musana & Alain Ndoli & Jeremias G. Mowo & Dennis Garrity & Stephen Ling & Vicky Ruganzu, 2018. "Tree-Based Ecosystem Approaches (TBEAs) as Multi-Functional Land Management Strategies—Evidence from Rwanda," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-24, April.
    8. Hall, Andy & Dijkman, Jeroen & Sulaiman, Rasheed, 2010. "Research Into Use: Investigating the Relationship between Agricultural Research and Innovation," MERIT Working Papers 2010-044, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    9. Waldman, Kurt B. & Ortega, David L. & Richardson, Robert B. & Snapp, Sieglinde S., 2017. "Estimating demand for perennial pigeon pea in Malawi using choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 222-230.
    10. Berkhout, E.D. & Schipper, R.A. & Van Keulen, H. & Coulibaly, O., 2011. "Heterogeneity in farmers' production decisions and its impact on soil nutrient use: Results and implications from northern Nigeria," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 104(1), pages 63-74, January.
    11. Jayne, T.S. & Chamberlin, Jordan & Headey, Derek D., 2014. "Land pressures, the evolution of farming systems, and development strategies in Africa: A synthesis," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 1-17.
    12. Jayne, T.S. & Mason, Nicole M. & Burke, William J. & Ariga, Joshua, 2016. "Agricultural Input Subsidy Programs In Africa: An Assessment Of Recent Evidence," Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Security Policy Research Papers 259509, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics, Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Security (FSP).
    13. Kamau, Mercy W. & Smale, Melinda & Mutua, Mercy, 2013. "Farmer Demand for Soil Fertility Management Practices in Kenya’s Grain Basket," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150722, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Jabbar, Mohammad A., 2008. "Feed and fodder markets in South Asia and East Africa :A synthesis of four PRA case studies:," Research Reports 181847, International Livestock Research Institute.
    15. Mikhail Miklyaev & Glenn Jenkins & David Shobowale, 2020. "Sustainability of Agricultural Crop Policies in Rwanda: An Integrated Cost–Benefit Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-21, December.
    16. Nhantumbo, Nascimento S. & Zivale, Clemente O. & Nhantumbo, Ivete S. & Gomes, Ana M., 2016. "Making agricultural intervention attractive to farmers in Africa through inclusive innovation systems," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 19-23.
    17. Srivastava, Amit Kumar & Mboh, Cho Miltin & Gaiser, Thomas & Kuhn, Arnim & Ermias, Engida & Ewert, Frank, 2019. "Effect of mineral fertilizer on rain water and radiation use efficiencies for maize yield and stover biomass productivity in Ethiopia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 88-100.
    18. Gibbons, J.M. & Wood, A.T.A. & Craigon, J. & Ramsden, S.J. & Crout, N.M.J., 2010. "Semi-automatic reduction and upscaling of large models: A farm management example," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 221(4), pages 590-598.
    19. Tittonell, P. & van Wijk, M.T. & Rufino, M.C. & Vrugt, J.A. & Giller, K.E., 2007. "Analysing trade-offs in resource and labour allocation by smallholder farmers using inverse modelling techniques: A case-study from Kakamega district, western Kenya," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 95(1-3), pages 76-95, December.
    20. Giller, K.E. & Tittonell, P. & Rufino, M.C. & van Wijk, M.T. & Zingore, S. & Mapfumo, P. & Adjei-Nsiah, S. & Herrero, M. & Chikowo, R. & Corbeels, M. & Rowe, E.C. & Baijukya, F. & Mwijage, A. & Smith,, 2011. "Communicating complexity: Integrated assessment of trade-offs concerning soil fertility management within African farming systems to support innovation and development," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 104(2), pages 191-203, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:131:y:2014:i:c:p:11-22. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.