PRGA
Livestock management

DocumentsDate added

Order by : Name | Date | Hits [ Ascendant ]
file icon Evolution toward transdisciplinarity in technology and resource management researchhot!Tooltip 11/20/2008 Hits: 807
Jabbar, M.A., M. A. Mohamed Saleem and H. Li-Pun. 2001. Evolution toward transdisciplinarity in technology and resource management research: the case of a project in Ethiopia. pp.167-172. In: Klein, J.T., W Grossssenbacher-Mansuy, R Haberli, A Bill, R W Scholz, M Welti (eds). 'Transdisciplinarity: Joint Problem-Solving among Science, Technology and Society'. Birkhauser, Basel, Switzerland.  Among the top ten papers presented at the transdisciplinarity conference, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich, Switzerland, 2000.
file icon Efficacy of participatory development of technologies: experiences with resource-poor goat-keepershot!Tooltip 11/18/2008 Hits: 760
Conroy, C., Y. Thakur and M. Vadher. 2002. The efficacy of participatory development of technologies: experiences with resource-poor goat-keepers in India. Livestock Research for Rural Development 14(3) 2002.The adoption by resource-poor livestock-keepers of technologies developed by livestock and forage researchers has been poor. It has been argued that a participatory approach to technology development can help to ensure that new technologies are more appropriate to livestock-keepers’ needs and circumstances, and hence increase the likelihood of adoption. This paper describes trials conducted in India by a goat research project that adopted a participatory approach, and assesses to what extent the postulated benefits of participatory technology development have been realised, and the factors affecting this. It describes trials involving two of the most promising technologies developed by the project. It then discusses: (a) the prospects for adoption of these and other technologies investigated by the project; (b) methodological issues relating to control groups; and (c) the challenges associated with achieving a high degree of participation by livestock-keepers. Finally, it identifies what conclusions can be drawn, and lessons learned, from the project’s experiences.
file icon Economic and social benefits of new forage technologies in East Kalimantan, Indonesiahot!Tooltip 11/18/2008 Hits: 841
Bosma, R.H., R.L Roothaert, Ibrahim. 2001. Economic and social benefits of new forage technologies in East Kalimantan, Indonesia. CIAT Working Document No. 190. Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical, Los Banos, Philippines, 61 pp..
file icon Developing agricultural solutions with smallholder farmers - how to get started with participatoryhot!Tooltip 11/20/2008 Hits: 851
Horne, P. and W. Stür. 2003. Developing agricultural solutions with smallholder farmers -- how to get started with participatory approaches. ACIAR Monograph No. 99 120 pp.Contents1 - Before you start2- Why should I use participatory approaches3 - A participatory approach that has worked for us- Selecting villages- Agreeing on issues - Participatory Diagnosis- Searching for technology options with the focus-group- Testing and evaluating options - starting small- Reporting back to the village- Integrating promising solutions on farms- Reaching other farmers in the village- Sharing successful technologies with other villages4 - Communication and facilitation skills- Why is it important to be neutral?- What type of questions should I use?- How do I facilitate group meetings?- Using cards to analyse ideas5 - Tools- Ranking,scoring and weighting- Village walks- Village resource maps- Wealth analysis- Historical calendars- Seasonal calendars- Problem-cause diagrams- Preference analysis6 - Just do it!7 - Where can I get more information
file icon An Overview of Community-based Natural Resource Management and Rural Livelihoods in Khoadihot!Tooltip 11/20/2008 Hits: 771
Vaughan, K. and Katjiua, J. 2002. An Overview of Community-based Natural Resource Management and Rural Livelihoods in ≠Khoadi //Hoas Conservancy. Kunene. WILD Working Paper 5.Peoples’ livelihoods within the ≠Khoadi //Hoas conservancy area comprise a dynamic mix of using and accessing a variety of resources and dealing with complex and diverse transforming processes (for example, different kinds of localised power relationships, rules, and institutions and the effects of national policy and legislation) People are critically dependant on the natural resource base, with drought being seen as the major influence on vulnerability. Water and grazing are the most critical assets and are directly related to livestock keeping activities. The importance of these assets varies depending on people’s primary livelihood strategies and their location within the conservancy. Some people live in population centres and can therefore be considered more urban based, and reliant on formal employment. Others live in the more rural areas and rely primarily on livestock farming. The numbers and types of stock owned differentiate people. Wildlife utilisation ranging from insects to small mammals plays a critical role in sustaining livelihoods, with some types of wildlife being seen as beneficial whilst others cause conflict with existing livelihood activities (for example predators killing livestock).The impacts of the conservancy programme on household livelihoods are both positive and negative with costs and benefits associated with impacts. Whilst the broader community appears to support the conservancy initiative the majority see little if any direct benefits and are in some instances still incurring costs associated with living with wildlife such as predator and elephant threats and damage. The community has so far seen limited and few tangible and direct benefits. At present those benefiting most are either directly employed through the conservancy, or are closely linked to conservancy employees and committee members. Greater levels of localised control on illegal hunting activities may have reduced hunting or made hunters change their behaviour away from commercial to more subsistence forms of hunting. Poorer and marginal households who have traditionally relied on wildlife utilisation to secure their household livelihoods especially in times of vulnerability and stress may have been unduly or adversely affected.
file icon Talking with Torra. Proceedings of a Participatory Livelihoods Workshop with Torra Residentshot!Tooltip 11/20/2008 Hits: 1554
Vaughan, C., Katjiua, J.B. and Branston, N. 2003. Talking with Torra. Proceedings of a Participatory Livelihoods Workshop with Torra Residents. WILD Working Paper 17.People employ a highly diverse mix of livelihood assets and livelihood strategies depending on access. The majority of Torra resident’s have a primary dependence on the natural resource base and livestock farming to achieve their livelihood outcomes. Thus, people do not follow one singular activity but apply a mix of assets, resources and strategies to achieve livelihood outcomes.2. Participants reported 17 factors that made their livelihoods vulnerable and affected security. Other than sudden death or severe illness the next top factors were associated with drought, stock theft and predator damage to stock and livestock illness. They questioned whether the conservancy could not play an increasing role in supporting their livestock systems, including support for marketing and disease outbreaks and reducing predator damage.3. For livelihood problems participants identified 22 factors. The top five issues relate to a lack of employment and training opportunities, and access to cash income and financial support. A number of the key problems, e.g. lack of employment and financial income, are key priorities for Torra Conservancy Committee (TCC), while others fall outside the scope of their remit and capacity.4. Participants identified a variety of policies, institutions and processes affecting livelihood outcomes – both formal rules and regulations, and social norms or informal rules of the community. Participants stated it was unclear at times who was responsible for what, e.g. conservancy and elephants. A businessman who had applied for a Permission to Occupy (PTO) from the Traditional Authority, but had been refused by the conservancy gave another example. Participants stated the conservancy should provide information to clarify conservancies’ roles, responsibilities and actual jurisdiction and develop local conservancy policies with the community.5. Participants identified positive (good) and negative (bad) changes or impacts resulting from conservancy development interventions. The Conservancy Committee need to review further the costs and benefits of the conservancy and incorporate the findings into management plans.6. Participants identified over 25 potential community development options. The variety of options identified shows the community has a wealth of potential ideas about how Torra could spend its money. These options could be consolidated to a top ten (building on visioning work) and tabled at a series of special meetings, fed into the development of TCC action plans for benefit distribution and community development planning.7. Participants identified over 22 critical factors affecting a conservancy’s success. Topics included conflict within the community, lack of information, lack of clarity on decisionmaking and no financial support to members. TCC should review these factors together with the options for a successful conservancy process (below) to ensure strong community support.8. Participants developed options for a successful conservancy process. Top options centred on community involvement in decision-making and awareness of conservancy activities including transport for meetings, farm visits and transparency in management decisions. The conservancy and community need to identify ways to support conservancy successes by reviewing identified options.
file icon Economic and social benefits of new forage technologies in Mindanao, Philippineshot!Tooltip 11/20/2008 Hits: 916
Bosma, R.H., R.L. Roothaert, P. Asis, J. Saguinhon, L.H. Binh, and V.H.; Yen, 2003. Economic and social benefits of new forage technologies in Mindanao, Philippines and Tuyen Quang, Vietnam. CIAT Working Document No. 191. Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical, Los Baños, Philippines, 92 pp..
file icon Developing forage technologieswith smallholder farmers: How to select the best varieties tohot!Tooltip 11/21/2008 Hits: 841
Horne, P.M. and W.W. Stur. 1999. Developing forage technologieswith smallholder farmers: How to select the best varieties to offer farmers in Southeast Asia. ACIAR Monograph No. 62. ACIAR/CIAT.Livestock are an important component of upland farming systems in Southeast Asia. In the past, feed resources were plentiful. On many farms this is no longer the case, so farmers have to spend more and more time finding feed for their animals. Planting forages can help to overcome this problem. However, no two farms have the same resources and needs. Forages that are suitable on one farm may not be suitable for other farms. The best way to develop the 'right' forage technologies for each farm is for farmers to evaluate promising forage technologies and adapt the best options to their situation.In this participatory approach the role of the development worker is to give farmers information about forages that may solve their problems. There are many forages and ways of growing them on farms. Not all will be suitable for a particular situation and need. This booklet will help development workers to select appropriate forage options to offer farmers.

Program on Participatory Research & Gender Analysis