Mulubrhan Balehegn
Adegbola T. Adesogan
Geoffrey E. Dahl- Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Livestock Systems, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS), University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States
Editorial on the Research Topic
Interventions for improving livestock productivity in developing countries
Livestock systems are foundational to developing economies, contributing significantly to economic stability, food security, and rural livelihoods. An estimated one billion people in Africa, Asia and Latin America depend on livestock for livelihoods, with smallholder systems providing critical income, nutrition, and resilience against economic shocks in developing countries. Animal-derived foods contribute approximately 37% of the global protein supply, and their role is particularly significant in arid and semi-arid regions, where limited rainfall and poor soils constrain crop production, making livestock a critical source of food and income (Smith et al., 2024). In most of sub-Saharan Africa, livestock contributes 20–40% of agricultural GDP, with some countries reporting figures as high as 80% depending on the structure of their agricultural sector and economy (Erdaw, 2023). Beyond direct outputs, livestock in developing countries supports crop productivity through draft power-utilized on approximately 250 million hectares for soil tillage, transport, and post-harvest activities (Harrigan, 2022), and through manure, which supplies about 12–23% of nitrogen inputs in mixed crop-livestock systems, thereby reducing the need for synthetic fertilizers (FAO, 2018). These diverse contributions demonstrate how livestock not only generates food and income but also underpins sustainable crop production and rural livelihoods in developing regions.
Livestock productivity in developing countries remains constrained by interconnected challenges. Limited supplies of feed are exacerbated by seasonal variability and low-quality forage (Balehegn et al., 2020; Baltenweck et al., 2020). Disease prevalence, compounded by fragmented veterinary services and limited vaccine access cause a significant reduction in livestock productivity in developing countries, in some cases causing a GDP reduction of up to 4% (Countryman et al., 2024). Socioeconomic barriers-such as limited access to credit (Yang et al., 2022), low rates of technology adoption, and underinvestment in livestock research and development continue to constrain productivity growth in developing countries Rosegrant et al., 2022).
Given the complexity and context-dependent challenges in livestock systems, sustainable productivity improvements demand context-specific integration of technological, managerial, and policy interventions (Kazanski et al., 2025). In this Research Topic, the 14 studies collectively advance actionable insights across three critical domains: (1) optimizing feed resources through circular, locally adaptable strategies, (2) enhancing genetic potential via participatory and genomic approaches, and (3) dismantling institutional barriers through gender-responsive policies and inclusive market systems.
1 Feed innovation and optimization
Chronic feed shortages and reliance on resource-intensive grains are tackled through circular and locally adaptable solutions. Chisoro et al. demonstrated that substituting 30–40% of conventional maize/soy with wild fruit byproducts (WFBP) in ruminant diets reduces methane emissions by 12–18% while maintaining productivity, offering a sustainable alternative for smallholders in arid regions. Similarly, Somparn et al. validated black soldier fly larvae oil (BSFLO) as a replacement for rice bran oil in broiler diets, preserving growth performance and reducing dependence on imported feed ingredients in Southeast Asia. In Ethiopia, Kebede et al. identified high-yielding forage crops like oats and vetch, which increase dry matter yields by 40–60% compared to traditional grasses, addressing feed scarcity in mixed crop-livestock systems. In an experiment by Mengistu et al. aimed at evaluating forage cultivars with potential for improving yields, Maralfalfa grass, tested in Ethiopia’s highlands, showed optimal productivity at 50 cm intra-row spacing, enhancing forage availability for dairy systems. Ashagrie et al. further highlighted the economic viability of nutrient-rich feed interventions, boosting milk yields by 33% in smallholder dairy farms. Similarly, Sanfo et al. investigated the performance of improved food–feed maize and cowpea cultivars under monoculture and intercropping systems among smallholder crop–livestock farmers in southern Burkina Faso, and found out that intercropping improved maize (Barka) and cowpea (KVx745-11P) cultivars significantly increases both grain and fodder yields, enhancing land-use efficiency, and providing higher quality fodder, offering a practical solution to seasonal feed shortages and supporting sustainable crop–livestock integration in the region.
2 Genetic and breeding improvements
Mismatched breeding programs and low genetic potential are addressed through participatory and genomic approaches. Zorobouragui et al. documented farmer-led selection of heat-tolerant Gudali cattle in Benin, prioritizing coat color and milk yield, which improved lactation performance by 17% in semi-arid agroecologies. Chafai et al. quantified negative genetic correlations (−0.89) between milk yield and fertility traits in Moroccan Holsteins, advocating for balanced breeding strategies to reduce culling rates. Epigenetic research by Rodrigues et al. revealed that creep-feeding in crossbred beef cattle alters methylation patterns in genes like IGF2, enhancing post-weaning growth by 15% in resource-limited systems. Moreover, Samuel et al. investigated the effect of the DGAT1 K232A gene mutation and breed differences on milk yield and composition in five Ethiopian cattle populations. They found that the DGAT1 K232A marker significantly influences daily milk yield, fat, and lactose content, suggesting its potential use in marker-assisted selection to improve milk production and quality traits in Ethiopian cattle after further validation in larger populations.
3 Socio-institutional and policy interventions
Gender disparities, market inefficiencies, and fragmented extension services are mitigated through inclusive and integrated strategies. Njiru et al. investigates the gender dynamics influencing the adoption and commercialization of Brachiaria forage among smallholder dairy farmers in Kenya, revealing that while both men and women benefit from Brachiaria’s high productivity and drought tolerance, women face greater barriers to adoption due to limited access to land, extension services, and cooperative membership. Ayantunde et al. mapped feed market dynamics in Burkina Faso, showing that transhumant pastoralists in the Sahel pay 40% more for crop residues during dry seasons, underscoring the role of decentralized feed networks. Hatew et al. demonstrated synergies in Ethiopia where combined feed, management training, and genetics increased milk yields by 25%, highlighting the importance of holistic interventions.
The studies in this Research Topic show that improving livestock productivity in developing countries depends on integrated, context-specific strategies that combine technical, genetic, and institutional innovations. Specific lessons include the use of alternative feeds and intercropping to boost yields and sustainability, the alignment of breeding programs with local environmental needs, and the removal of social and market barriers through inclusive policies. The significance of these results lies in demonstrating that only by blending practical, locally adapted solutions across multiple domains can livestock systems achieve lasting productivity gains, resilience, and equitable benefits for smallholders.
Key lessons from this Research Topic include the need to reinforce and expand context-specific interventions that address the diverse challenges facing livestock productivity in developing countries (Kazanski et al., 2025). Future efforts should prioritize bolstering feed improvement strategies, as inadequate and low-quality feed remains the most significant bottleneck for smallholder systems across regions (Tran et al., 2023; FAO, 2018). Integrating livestock productivity goals with climate change mitigation and adaptation is essential, not only to reduce emissions and build resilience but also to unlock climate finance opportunities that can support sustainable intensification and innovation (Bashiru and Oseni, 2025). Policy frameworks must encourage sustainable intensification and commercialization, which have been shown to stimulate investment and the adoption of improved inputs and technologies (Abay and Jensen, 2020). Finally, there is a need for focused research to close persistent gaps in feed resources, genetics, and socioeconomic constraints, and to ensure that new technologies and management practices are effectively transferred and adopted at scale. Only through a coordinated, evidence-based approach that combines technical, policy, and institutional innovations can livestock systems in developing countries achieve sustainable productivity, climate resilience, and inclusive growth.
Author contributions
MB: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AA: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. GD: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Abay K. A. and Jensen N. D. (2020). Access to markets, weather risk, and livestock production decisions: evidence from Ethiopia. Agric. Economics 51, 577–593. doi: 10.1111/agec.12573
Balehegn M., Duncan A., Tolera A., Ayantunde A. A., Issa S., Karimou M., et al. (2020). Improving adoption of technologies and interventions for increasing supply of quality livestock feed in low-and middle-income countries. Global Food Secur. 26, 100372. doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100372
Baltenweck I., Cherney D., Duncan A., Eldermire E., Lwoga E. T., Labarta R., et al. (2020). A scoping review of feed interventions and livelihoods of small-scale livestock keepers. Nat. Plants 6, 1242–1249. doi: 10.1038/s41477-020-00786-w
Bashiru H. A. and Oseni S. O. (2025). Simplified climate change adaptation strategies for livestock development in low-and middle-income countries. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 9. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2025.1566194
Countryman A. M., de Menezes T. C., Pendell D. L., Rushton J., and Marsh T. L. (2024). Economic effects of livestock disease burden in Ethiopia: A computa ble general equilibrium analysis. PloS One 19, e0310268. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0310268
Erdaw M. M. (2023). Contribution, prospects and trends of livestock production in sub-saharan africa: A review. Int. J. Agric. Sustainability 21, 2247776. doi: 10.1080/14735903.2023.2247776
FAO (2018). Nitrogen inputs to agricultural soils from livestock manure. In: Integrated Crop Management Vol 24. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Available online at: https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/793368d1-011e-46a4-86dd-b48ae52df282/content (Accessed March 15, 2018).
Harrigan T. (2022). Refining Animal Traction: Linking Physical and Social Processes. In: Staatliche Schlösser und Gärten Hessen, Kropp, Claus and Zoll, Lena (eds). Draft Animals in the Past, Present and Future. Heidelberg: Propylaeum. p. 197–210. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.11588/propylaeum.1120.c15616 (Accessed March 15, 2018).
Kazanski C. E., Balehegn M., Jones K., Bartlett H., Calle A., Garcia E., et al. (2025). Context is key to understand and improve livestock production systems. Global Food Secur. 45, 100840. doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2025.100840
Rosegrant M. W., Sulser T. B., and Wiebe K. (2022). Global investment gap in agricultural research and innovation to meet sustainable development goals for hunger and paris agreement climate change mitigation. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 6. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2022.965767
Smith K., Watson A. W., Lonnie M., Peeters W. M., Oonincx D., Tsoutsoura N., et al. (2024). Meeting the global protein supply requirements of a growing and ageing population. Eur. J. Nutr. 63, 1425–1433. doi: 10.1007/s00394-024-03358-2
Tran T. B. N., Nguyen T. T. G., Hoang X. T., Dao T. T. H., Nguyen T. M. P., Triana Ángel N., et al. (2023). Assessment of feedresources availability and use for cattle and pigs in Mai Son District, Son La Province, Vietnam. Available online at: https://cgspace.cgiar.org/items/b34773b4-2db9-4c09-ae24-fe6df3be1146.
Keywords: animal source foods, low and middle income countries, feed resources, genetic improvement, management
Citation: Balehegn M, Adesogan AT and Dahl GE (2025) Editorial: Interventions for improving livestock productivity in developing countries. Front. Anim. Sci. 6:1628166. doi: 10.3389/fanim.2025.1628166
Received: 13 May 2025; Accepted: 15 May 2025;
Published: 23 June 2025.
Edited and Reviewed by:
David L. Harmon, University of Kentucky, United StatesCopyright © 2025 Balehegn, Adesogan and Dahl. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Geoffrey E. Dahl, Z2RhaGxAdWZsLmVkdQ==