CGSpaceA Repository of Agricultural Research Outputs
    View Item 
    •   CGSpace Home
    • CGIAR Research Programs and Platforms (2012-2021)
    • CGIAR Research Program on Livestock and Fish
    • Livestock Fish Flagship: Feeds and Forages
    • View Item
       
    • CGSpace Home
    • CGIAR Research Programs and Platforms (2012-2021)
    • CGIAR Research Program on Livestock and Fish
    • Livestock Fish Flagship: Feeds and Forages
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Global impacts from improved tropical forages: A meta-analysis revealing overlooked benefits and costs, evolving values and new priorities

    Thumbnail
    Authors
    White, D.W.
    Peters, Michael
    Horne, P.
    Date
    2013-09
    Language
    en
    Type
    Journal Article
    ISI journal
    Accessibility
    Open Access
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Share
    
    Citation
    White, D.W., Peters, M. and Horne, P. 2013. Global impacts from improved tropical forages: A meta-analysis revealing overlooked benefits and costs, evolving values and new priorities. Tropical Grasslands 1 :12 - 24
    Permanent link to cite or share this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10568/35004
    External link to download this item: http://www.tropicalgrasslands.info/index.php/tgft/article/view/31
    DOI: https://doi.org/10.17138/tgft(1)12-24
    Abstract/Description
    The wider use and improved performance of planted tropical forages can substantially change social, economic and environmental landscapes. By reviewing impact-related studies published in the past two decades, this paper shows how evolving development priorities have influenced the types of impacts being documented. A meta-analysis was used to examine 98 studies according to: (i) breadth of reported effects, as related to development goals of social equity, economic growth and environmental sustainability; (ii) extent of effects, ranging from intermediate to longer-term impacts; and (iii) measurement precision (identification, description or quantification) of impacts. Impacts have been assessed for fewer than half of the documented 118 Mha with improved forages. Although Brazil accounts for 86% of the known planted area, widespread irregular reporting of technology adoption affects accuracy of global estimates. Over 80% of the impact-related studies reported economic effects, while fewer than 20% were quantitative estimates of longer-term economic impacts. Inconsistent valuation methods and assumptions prevented valid summation of total economic impacts. Social effects were reported in fewer than 60% of studies and emphasized household-level outcomes on gender and labor, with most reported effects being non-quantitative. Environmental effects were reported slightly more often than social effects, with recent increases in quantitative estimates of carbon accumulation. Few studies analyzed tradeoffs. Independent reviewers conducted approximately 15% of the studies. Newer development priorities of environmental sustainability, system intensification, organizational participation and innovation capacities require broader approaches to assess impacts. Increased marketing and coordination with development and environmental organizations can generate greater demands for improved forages.
    CGIAR Author ORCID iDs
    Michael Petershttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-4237-3916
    Other CGIAR Affiliations
    Livestock and Fish
    AGROVOC Keywords
    environment; research; forage; animal feeding
    Subjects
    ANIMAL FEEDING; ENVIRONMENT; FORAGES; RESEARCH;
    Organizations Affiliated to the Authors
    International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas; International Center for Tropical Agriculture
    Collections
    • CIAT Agrobiodiversity [666]
    • CIAT Articles in Journals [2635]
    • Livestock Fish Flagship: Feeds and Forages [186]
    • Livestock Fish journal articles [290]

    AboutPrivacy StatementSend Feedback
     

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    Browse

    All of CGSpaceCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesBy AGROVOC keywordBy ILRI subjectBy RegionBy CountryBy SubregionBy River basinBy Output typeBy CIP subjectBy CGIAR System subjectBy Alliance Bioversity–CIAT subjectThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesBy AGROVOC keywordBy ILRI subjectBy RegionBy CountryBy SubregionBy River basinBy Output typeBy CIP subjectBy CGIAR System subjectBy Alliance Bioversity–CIAT subject

    Statistics

    Most Popular ItemsStatistics by CountryMost Popular Authors

    AboutPrivacy StatementSend Feedback