Presentation to Kenyan government and project leaders in agriculture in October 2017. ILRI and CCAFS low emissions development efforts, conducted with support from USAID.

1. Feasibility of Low Emissions Development
Interventions in the Kenyan Livestock Sector
Polly Ericksen and Todd Crane
13 October 2017

2. Why feasibility of LED for the livestock
sector?
Livestock production is significant source of
emissions from agriculture
• High intensity of emissions per unit of product
• Countries have now committed to reductions in NDCs
• Investment is needed to realize these commitments
• Low productivity of livestock in much of Africa both an
opportunity and a concern

3. Exploiting yield gaps is key to achieve environmental
benefits in ruminant systems
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
methane (CO2eq)/kg milk
Milk yield (kg/lactation)
Largest improvements in low producing animals
Gerber et al, FAO 2013

4. Sources of GHG emissions during livestock
production(Dickhoefer et al., 2014)

6. Interventions to reduce emissions
intensities
• Improvements in Feed Quality to increase
productivity
• Supplemental fodder from improved forage
species – Mixed crop-livestock
• Supplemental feeding with concentrates –
Intensive dairy
• Silage from maize – intensive dairy
• Managed grazing – extensive pastoral

7. Interventions to reduce emissions
intensities
• Manure management
• Biodigesters for methane capture – intensive (zero
grazing) dairy
• Manure storage in covered heaps – mixed crop-
livestock

8. Interventions to reduce emissions
intensities
• Improved animal husbandry
• Reduce chronic disease burden of intestinal
parasites – all systems
• Reduce age at slaughter – pastoral systems
• Artificial insemination for more productive breeds
- intensive dairy

9. Technical Mitigation Potential
• Improved feed quality: Opio et al (2016) suggest
26-28% reductions in intensities for lactating
cattle;
• Gerber et al (2013) suggest 5- 13% small
ruminants
• High quality silage: 48% in dairy (Opio)
• Concentrates up to 30% reductions in dairy
(Gerber).

10. Technical Mitigation Potential
• Managed Grazing – very uncertain
• Biodigesters – can avoid 60 to 80% of methane
emissions
• Manure storage – highly dependent on
management but can reduce N2O emissions
significantly
• Reduce parasite burden – 10% (Kenyon et al
Scotland)
• AI – unknown

11. Methodology
• Focused Group Discussions
– Approx. 3 hours long
– 2-3 practices per group (avg.)
– 8-10 participants
– Current practices
– Benefits and motivations
– Knowledge of upgrading
– Challenges to upgrading
• Busia (2)
• Oyugis (2)
• Molo (3)
• Narok (2)
• Thika (3)
• Meru (2)
• Isiolo (2)

12. Cross Cutting Themes
• Degree of market orientation is major
precondition for upgrading
• Even with market orientation, low milk prices
inhibit investment in upgrading
• Small land size as major limitation
• Low trust and accountability of input services

13. Barrier Categories
• Biophysical (e.g. land availability)
• Informational (e.g. technical knowledge, trust)
• Market (e.g. access, input availability, input and
output prices)
• Organizational (e.g. effective institutions to
facilitate collective action)

14. Incentive Categories
• What can motivate producers to adopt practices?
– Improved markets (access, input and output prices)
– Improved input quality and information to evaluate
– Improved efficiency/profitability
– Regulatory or governance change
– Direct benefits
– Price premiums
– Cash payment for ecosystem services
– Free services or information
– Others???

15. Improved Forages
• Barriers
– Low availability of land (B)
– Diversified cropping strategies (M, I?)
– Low accessibility of improved planting material (M)
• Potential incentives?
– ?
– ?
– ?
• NB: AI, dairy meal and silage become more
attractive when basal diet improves

16. Biodigestors
• Barriers
– High upfront cost (M)
– Maintenance requirements (I)
– Slurry transport (B)
• Incentives
– Household energy source (direct benefit)
– Improved household health (direct benefit)
– ?
– ?

17. Managed Grazing in Rangelands
• Barriers
– Require high institutional governance capacity (O)
– Expansive landscape commitment (O,B)
– Long time horizon to see substantial carbon
sequestration effects (B)
• Incentives
– ?
– ?
– ?

18. Which criteria are most important?
• Production system and area/ extent of
applicability?
• Technical potential
• Ability to create additional incentives

19. Donor acknowledgement
• Funded from USAID through CCAFS

20. This presentation is licensed for use under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence.
better lives through livestock
ilri.org
ILRI thanks all donors and organizations which globally support its work through their contributions to
the CGIAR system