The role of small-scale Livestock in food security in low and middle income countries

MFA Livestock and Food security finished

The benefits of small-scale livestock farming

Small-scale livestock contribute positively to food security for many people around the world. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), livestock may contribute up to 40% of the global value of agricultural output, and support the livelihoods and food security of almost 1.3 billion people. Livestock do this by providing calories, protein and micronutrients. Their manure can be used for buildings, fertilizers and fuel for fires. In rural areas with limited mechanization, they provide draft power for plowing and water harvesting. Lastly, they can improve food access among those too poor to own their own land, who have limited ability to cultivate crops.

Small scale livestock can increase food stability by buffering against disaster

Small scale livestock can improve food security by improving food stability. Livestock can act as an asset to borrow against, or as a store of wealth that can be drawn upon in tough times. One comprehensive study of 150,000 households in 19 countries found that small-scale livestock can buffer against the negative effects of drought. Families can sell or eat livestock in times of poor harvest. Whilst the study found that small-scale livestock farming increases food stability overall, the authors point out that some other studies fail to find that animal buffer families from crop failure and drought. This is because during these times, animals can also starve and even die. If they become thin and difficult to feed, their value decreases, so selling or eating them provides little benefit (e.g. Fafchamps and Lund, 2003, Kazianga and Udry, 2006). Furthermore, the study found that in extended droughts, families may still suffer from increased hunger and lost income if they feed limited gains to their animals to maintain breeding populations. In sum, small-scale livestock farming can improve the food stability of families in times of trouble, but this depends on the context as well as the severity of the trouble.

The benefits of gifting livestock to the world's poorest are uncertain

If small-scale livestock benefit food security, it logically follows that we can improve food security for many families by giving them livestock. Indeed, according to many international development organizations, giving livestock to food insecure families is an effective initiative. For example, one project championed on the FAO website distributed over 30,000 chickens, feed and equipment to 1000 families displaced by violence and war in Cameroon. They report that the initiative was a success, with many families profiting from selling the chickens and reporting better nutrition for their families.

However, the empirical research on food security benefits of gifting livestock is surprisingly weak. A systematic review by Blackmore et al. (2018) of “small livestock” (fish, goats and chickens) found only 29 studies, with most being “exploratory” studies that could only provide suggestive evidence of benefits. 18 of the studies assessed interventions where families were either given livestock or training on how to better care for their livestock. The studies reviewed showed that whilst gifts of small livestock seemed to improve metrics such as family income, other metrics such as female empowerment and childhood stunting did not improve. A common theme was that surface-level metrics improved when families were given small livestock. Families increased their herd sizes, and reported eating more animal products and a more diverse diet. However, these metrics are not inherently valuable and are primarily useful as proxies for other metrics. Dietary diversity and eating more animals are taken as proxies for improved nutrition, for example. However, studies that measured metrics more relevant to food security often note that these surface level metrics fail to translate into measurable food security.

Another systematic review assessed 23 high-quality studies of agricultural interventions to improve childhood nutrition. Interventions included bio-fortification, home gardens, small-scale fisheries/aquaculture, dairy development, and animal husbandry/poultry development. Similarly to Blackmore et al., animal farming initiatives improved surface-level metrics such as "more goods produced" and more “animal products consumed”, but this often didn't translate into higher income or reduced childhood stunting or wasting. The authors argue that this is more likely due to most studies being too small to detect benefits, rather than lack of benefits, but conclude that evidence of livestock gifting (and several other food security initiatives) is currently too weak to craft firm policy on.

A key thing to note is that both studies described above are systematic reviews, and so in principle contain all relevant published studies up to the year they were written. Both conclude that surprisingly, we do not have strong evidence to say whether gifting livestock to families will generally improve their food security.

Small-scale livestock may not improve food security for the most disadvantaged; a case study from India

The most effective food security initiatives are those that primarily help the most food insecure people. However, small-scale livestock farming can fail to meet this standard. Drawing on data from the Indian National Survey Office, Sarkar, (2020) argues that for the lower "scheduled" castes (SCs), livestock farming is unlikely to address their food insecurity. This is notable as SCs make up around 17% of India's population, some 200M people, and are almost by definition some of their most disadvantaged. SC livestock farmers are paid lower prices for the same product due to discrimination, and so they gain less from livestock in terms of Food access. The survey found that more than 75% of Scheduled Caste members surveyed reported being paid less than market rate for their milk products. They possess lower bargaining power, as they receive less state support, and are less likely to be accepted into agricultural cooperatives. Livestock may also be less profitable because they cannot access good veterinary services. This reduces their food access further, as well as food utilization, as disease in their livestock renders meat and dairy dangerous to eat or inedible. See the section for a detailed discussion of foodborne illness from animal products. The large companies driving the industrialization of India's agriculture play a key role in perpetuating these issues; less than 1% of SC members reported selling their livestock products to processors.

Of course, this problem is unlikely to be specific to livestock; members of Scheduled Castes may also be paid less for crops they produce. However, this serves to illustrate that benefits from livestock may be culturally dependent, and in this extreme case, not an option for those that are most food insecure.