Considerations for exploring livestock as a 
nutrition intervention in the rural United 
States
Authors: Andy Sarjahani & Alison H. Harmon
This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published in Journal of Hunger & Environmental 
Nutrition on July 2015, available online: 
http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/19320248.2014.929541.
Sarjahani, Andy, and Alison H. Harmon. “Considerations for Exploring Livestock as a Nutrition 
Intervention in the Rural United States.” Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition 10, no. 3 
(July 2015): 390–408. doi:10.1080/19320248.2014.929541.
Made available through Montana State University’s ScholarWorks 
scholarworks.montana.edu 
Considerations for Exploring Livestock
as a Nutrition Intervention in the Rural
United States
ANDY SARJAHANI1 and ALISON H. HARMON2
1Department of Health and Human Development, Montana State University,
Bozeman, Montana, USA
2Foods & Nutrition and Sustainable Food & Bioenergy Systems, Department of Health and
Human Development, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, USA
Residents of rural communities in the United States typically have
poor access to high-quality protein. Internationally, livestock nutri-
tion intervention programs have been successful at increasing
access to high-quality dietary protein in rural areas; however, these
programs have not been largely explored in the rural United States.
Given its lack of support facilities, availability of land, lack of zon-
ing restrictions, and economic struggles, the rural United States is
an ideal setting to pursue a livestock nutrition intervention project.
What, then, would it take to establish an intervention? A num-
ber of community and livestock-related considerations need to be
addressed in preparation for a livestock nutrition intervention in
a rural community in the United States. Four examples of livestock
are discussed.
KEYWORDS rural communities, food security, nutrition
intervention, livestock, rural United States, sustainable agriculture
INTRODUCTION
Communities in rural America typically face higher food prices and poorer
access to food than communities in metro areas.1,2 Approximately 15% of
rural America, more than 7.5 million rural Americans, are food insecure.
Address correspondence to Alison H. Harmon, Foods & Nutrition and Sustainable
Food & Bioenergy Systems, Department of Health and Human Development, Montana State
University, 121 PE Complex, Bozeman, MT 59717, USA. E-mail: harmon@montana.edu
A large proportion of the 803 food desert counties in the United States are in
rural areas.2,3 Some suggest that food assistance has been relatively ineffec-
tive at reducing hunger and may even be a factor contributing to obesity.4−6
Community gardening and other food self-reliance projects related to fresh
fruit and vegetable access have been explored in urban and rural areas in
the United States and Canada.7−9 The purpose of this article is 2-fold: to
(1) substantiate the need to explore livestock nutrition interventions in the
rural United States and (2) offer considerations for embarking on a livestock
nutrition intervention project.
Multiple factors are contributing to high levels of food insecurity,
obesity, and diet-related chronic illness in rural America. Researchers have
shown that the rural food environment does impact food security and sug-
gest that food insecurity in rural communities needs to be addressed at the
community level rather than on the household level.10 Interventions there-
fore may need to be broader in scope and focus on the local system rather
than on individual diets. In terms of the food environment, affordable foods
that are most available in the rural United States are minimally nutritious
and more healthful foods tend to be more expensive than they are in aver-
age urban supermarkets.1,11 In both metro and nonmetro communities, food
stamp usage and hunger are associated with obesity and nutrition-related
health problems.4,5 Furthermore, due to logistical challenges such as lack
of transportation and other community infrastructure, rural America also
has a lack of support resources and facilities to address hunger and food
insecurity.1,2,12
Given the persistence and complexity of the chronic food and nutrition-
related issues facing rural America, there has been a call for multifaceted
and innovative nutrition interventions to address rural food deserts.2,13 Home
gardening and community gardening have been innovative methods of
increasing fruit and vegetable access in a variety of communities domestically
and internationally with mixed results.7−9,14 Domestically, little time has been
devoted to increasing access to high-quality dietary protein. Incorporating
more quality animal protein into the diet may alleviate risk of micronutrient
deficiency more efficiently than a diet without animal products.15 For exam-
ple, vitamin B-12, riboflavin, calcium, iron, and zinc can be low in vegetarian
diets.15
Though fast food and convenience store protein sources are typically
complete, they are highly processed and contain excessive amounts of
sodium, saturated fat, and preservatives.16,17 Contrary to popular opinion,
it is processed meat rather than red meat per se that is associated with
higher incidence of coronary heart disease and type 2 diabetes and stom-
ach cancer.18−20 Ironically, the majority of manufacturing jobs accessible to
rural Americans are in meat processing facilities.21 Given that the primary
affordable protein source at most food access points for rural communi-
ties is processed meat and that most innovative nutrition interventions have
primarily addressed fruit and vegetable consumption, avenues to improve
dietary protein quality in rural America should be explored.
The model that Heifer Project International (HPI) has created for
addressing food insecurity in communities internationally seems to be
worth greater domestic consideration. HPI has regularly demonstrated in
developing countries throughout the world that adding livestock to rural
communities can sustainably improve nutrition and economic viability.22 In
regards to HPI, Pelant et al22 stated that more than 20 different kinds of
food and income-producing animals have been provided for communities
and families in over 110 countries worldwide. Annually, HPI has projects in
approximately 40 countries. Intensive training in animal husbandry, environ-
mentally sound animal agriculture practices, and community development
are all part of HPI’s program. HPI has had a long history with using small
ruminants, from sheep and goats to llamas and alpacas, around the world.22
Though livestock have played a major role in enhancing nutrition and quality
of life in developing nations, few attempts have been made to explore live-
stock as a nutrition intervention in the United States.23 If managed properly,
ruminants such as cattle, sheep, and goats can enhance an ecosystem while
also converting inedible forage to high-quality complete protein for human
consumption.24 In addition to ecological benefits, Pelant et al suggested that
there are also unquantifiable societal benefits created through responsible
animal husbandry and the resulting relationship between livestock human
nutrition, health, and development.22
CHARACTERISTICS OF A LIVESTOCK NUTRITION INTERVENTION
IN THE RURAL UNITED STATES
For this article we examined a variety of literature on 14 different agricultural
aspects of establishing a livestock nutrition intervention in order to provide a
starting point for organizations that might be interested in mobilizing commu-
nity resources to address rural hunger in this way. We look at what is needed
for interventions that might involve rabbits, meat chickens, dairy goats, or
hogs in terms of land, infrastructure, labor, and resources and questions that
would need to be addressed such as differences in feed needs, harvest char-
acteristics, and animal care. We leave for another paper a discussion of the
community organizing or household grants that would be needed to imple-
ment such an intervention. But we envision interventions that could facilitate
household-level animal husbandry (with training as needed) such as those
implemented successfully with the HPI model. In this model, HPI provides
gifts of livestock and training, allowing families and communities to improve
their nutrition and generate sustainable income. Families who receive live-
stock agree to give one offspring of a gift animal to another family in need.25
HPI has implemented numerous projects in a sustainable manner overseas
for over half a century and funded similar projects in the United States,
though not on a large scale.25,26
Funding a Livestock Nutrition Intervention in the United States
Annual food stamp expenditures have increased every year since 2000 and
reached an all-time high of nearly $25 billion in fiscal year 2007.27 Using
these figures, just one tenth of 1% of annual food stamp expenditures could
fund approximately 100 livestock nutrition self-reliance projects in the United
States, assuming an approximate startup cost of $250 000. Initial startup funds
for a livestock nutrition intervention can be obtained through a combina-
tion of sources including public funding, nonprofits, area businesses, and
national foundations. Grants for food security projects have commonly been
provided through the National Institute of Food and Agriculture’s (NIFA)
Community Food Projects Competitive Grants Program (CFPCGP). CFPCGP
grants annually provide one-time awards of up to $300 000 funding 1- to
3-year projects. CFPCGP grants aim to promote self-sufficiency and food
security in low-income communities through community food projects (CFP)
and training and technical assistance projects. CFPCGP grants do require dol-
lar for dollar matching with the exception of training and technical assistance
projects.28 4-H Youth Development is also funded through NIFA and pro-
vides small grants for youth development and training while fostering civic
engagement in young people.29 The Sustainable Agriculture and Research
Education (SARE) program of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA)
funds projects that involve research and education of sustainable agriculture-
related issues. Three livestock nutrition intervention issues that SARE funds
could address include pastured livestock/rotational grazing; marketing; and
building sustainable communities.30
Livestock-Related Considerations
The underlying concept of a livestock nutrition project would be to match
a particular animal or animals to a particular community with the intention
of improving nutrition while enhancing the ecosystem in an economically
viable manner that builds social capital and strengthens civic structure in
rural communities in the United States. Ideally, a project would be designed
to enable a community to enhance its natural resource base through good
animal husbandry practices while improving the overall well-being of its
population. Ikerd suggested that for a rural community’s development pro-
cess to be sustainable, it must fully realize the value of geographically fixed
resources. These resources represent the link between developmental pur-
pose and place.31 Therefore, when choosing appropriate livestock for a
community, a thorough understanding of geography and natural resources
is necessary to achieve sustainability for a project. Tables 1–9 provide
information about the variety of geographic and natural resource considera-
tions that are necessary for planning projects around representative livestock.
METHODS AND BACKGROUND
The research for this article sought first to identify the agricultural con-
siderations that an effective livestock nutrition intervention would need
to address and then to review a variety of literature in order to provide
guidance for the requirements of each of the 4 animal protein sources
under investigation: meat rabbits,33−40 broiler chickens,41−47 dairy goats,48−52
and hogs.52−66 Fourteen livestock considerations were identified through
a total of 12 unstructured interviews with farmers, ranchers, farm educa-
tors, nutritionists, public health professionals, animal and range scientists,
and Extension specialists. Cooperative Extension publications from varying
states provided key information, as did Appropriate Technology Transfer
for Rural Areas (ATTRA) and National Center for Appropriate Technology
(NCAT) and the USDA. This limited number of interviews served to frame a
much more extensive examination of current literature. Other information
was obtained from various agriculture-focused nonprofit agencies, jour-
nal articles, conference proceedings, and book resources on small-scale or
subsistence agriculture. The resulting tables represent a synthesis of the most
TABLE 1 Land Use Considerations for a Livestock Nutrition Interventiona
Meat rabbit Broiler chicken Dairy goat Hog
Stocking density:
2.4 ft2/rabbit in
pasture
pen Management:
MIG
Rotation: Daily
Ideal resta: Varies
depending on
annual
distribution of
precipitation
Beginning
numbers:
20 does,
3 bucks
Stocking density:
1.5 ft2/bird in
pasture pen; up
to 1000 birds
(in smaller
flocks) on
1 acre
Management:
MIG
Rotation: Daily
depending on
annual
distribution of
precipitation
Beginning
numbers:
250–500 birds
Stocking density:b
Dependent on
several variables
Management: MIG
Rotation: When
forage is below
4 inches
Ideal rest: Varies
depending on
annual
distribution of
precipitation
Beginning numbers:
20 or fewer
producing does
Stocking density: Pasture
Feeder pigs: 1/4 acre
paddock/30–50 pigs
Sows: 8–11 farrowing pens/acre
Indoor
Piglet to weaners: 16 ft2/pig
Weaners to finished: 40 ft2/pig
Farrowing sow: 40 ft2/pig
Management: MIG
Rotation: 2–3 days (1/4 acre
paddocks)
Ideal rest: Varies depending on
annual distribution of
precipitation
Beginning numbers:
10–15 acres/100 pigs
aMIG indicates management intensive grazing, a labor-intensive method of managing livestock systems
that has been shown to be beneficial to animal health and land fertility.
bStocking density for dairy goats and ideal rest for all livestock require consideration of many
site-dependent variables. For more specific guidance.32
TA
B
LE
2
In
fr
as
tr
u
ct
u
re
C
o
n
si
d
er
at
io
n
s
fo
r
a
Li
ve
st
o
ck
N
u
tr
iti
o
n
In
te
rv
en
tio
n
M
ea
t
ra
b
b
it
B
ro
ile
r
ch
ic
ke
n
D
ai
ry
go
at
H
o
g
H
o
u
si
n
g:
P
as
tu
re
p
en
s;
h
u
tc
h
es
;
b
re
ed
in
g
ca
ge
s
o
r
p
en
s
C
o
st
:
Lo
w
;
re
cy
cl
ed
m
at
er
ia
ls
C
o
n
st
ru
ct
io
n
:
C
an
b
u
ild
o
n
e
p
en
in
h
al
f-
d
ay
Fe
ed
er
s:
M
et
al
to
p
-l
o
ad
fe
ed
er
s
W
at
er
:
N
ip
p
le
w
at
er
er
s
m
o
st
sa
n
ita
ry
;
au
to
m
at
ic
w
at
er
er
s
re
d
u
ce
la
b
o
r
Fe
n
ci
n
g:
E
le
ct
ri
c
n
et
tin
g
su
rr
o
u
n
d
in
g
p
en
s
m
ay
m
iti
ga
te
p
re
d
at
io
n
O
th
er
:
T
at
to
o
gu
n
;
w
in
te
r
lig
h
tin
g;
is
o
la
tio
n
ar
ea
fo
r
si
ck
ra
b
b
its
;
gu
ar
d
d
o
g(
s)
H
o
u
si
n
g:
P
as
tu
re
p
en
s;
p
as
tu
re
h
o
o
p
h
o
u
se
;
b
ro
o
d
er
h
o
u
se
(h
ea
tin
g
an
d
lig
h
tin
g)
C
o
st
:
Lo
w
–m
o
d
er
at
e;
re
cy
cl
ed
m
at
er
ia
ls
C
o
n
st
ru
ct
io
n
:
C
an
b
u
ild
o
n
e
p
en
in
h
al
f-
d
ay
;
b
ro
o
d
er
h
o
u
se
sh
o
u
ld
b
e
w
el
l
ve
n
til
at
ed
an
d
in
su
la
te
d
—
si
ze
/
d
if
fi
cu
lty
d
ep
en
d
en
t
o
n
fl
o
ck
si
ze
an
d
av
ai
la
b
le
h
o
u
si
n
g
Fe
ed
er
s:
M
et
al
to
p
-l
o
ad
fe
ed
er
s
W
at
er
:
A
u
to
m
at
ic
w
at
er
er
s
re
d
u
ce
la
b
o
r
Fe
n
ci
n
g:
E
le
ct
ri
c
n
et
tin
g
fo
r
p
as
tu
re
d
h
o
o
p
h
o
u
se
s
O
th
er
:
G
u
ar
d
d
o
g(
s)
H
o
u
si
n
g:
M
ilk
in
g
p
ar
lo
r
(h
er
d
s
gr
ea
te
r
th
an
50
);
w
in
te
r
b
ar
n
C
o
st
:
M
o
d
er
at
e–
h
ig
h
,
p
en
d
in
g
h
er
d
si
ze
;
re
cy
cl
ed
m
at
er
ia
ls
fo
r
b
ar
n
C
o
n
st
ru
ct
io
n
:
Se
ve
ra
l-
m
o
n
th
b
u
ild
in
g
p
ro
je
ct
fo
r
b
ar
n
an
d
p
ar
lo
r—
si
ze
/
d
if
fi
cu
lty
d
ep
en
d
en
t
o
n
h
er
d
si
ze
an
d
av
ai
la
b
le
h
o
u
si
n
g
Fe
ed
er
s:
B
in
fo
r
gr
ai
n
an
d
m
in
er
al
s
W
at
er
:
A
u
to
m
at
ic
w
at
er
er
s
re
d
u
ce
la
b
o
r
an
d
p
ro
te
ct
w
at
er
su
p
p
ly
Fe
n
ci
n
g:
Fo
u
r-
fo
o
t
b
ar
b
ed
w
ir
e
m
o
st
ef
fe
ct
iv
e
fo
r
p
er
m
an
en
t;
el
ec
tr
ic
n
et
tin
g
fo
r
p
ad
d
o
ck
d
iv
is
io
n
O
th
er
:
ID
sy
st
em
;
gu
ar
d
d
o
g(
s)
H
o
u
si
n
g:
P
o
rt
ab
le
h
o
g
h
u
ts
;
fa
rr
o
w
in
g
h
u
ts
/
p
en
s;
w
in
te
r
b
ar
n
C
o
st
:
Lo
w
-m
o
d
er
at
e;
re
cy
cl
ed
m
at
er
ia
ls
fo
r
b
ar
n
C
o
n
st
ru
ct
io
n
:
H
o
g
h
u
ts
ty
p
ic
al
ly
p
u
rc
h
as
ed
b
u
t
ca
n
b
e
b
u
ilt
in
h
al
f-
d
ay
;
b
ar
n
is
1-
to
2-
m
o
n
th
b
u
ild
in
g
p
ro
je
ct
—
si
ze
an
d
d
if
fi
cu
lty
d
ep
en
d
en
t
o
n
h
er
d
si
ze
an
d
av
ai
la
b
le
h
o
u
si
n
g.
B
ar
n
sh
o
u
ld
b
e
w
el
l
ve
n
til
at
ed
an
d
d
ry
Fe
ed
er
s:
Fe
ed
in
g
tr
o
u
gh
s
W
at
er
:
A
u
to
m
at
ic
w
at
er
er
s
re
d
u
ce
la
b
o
r
Fe
n
ci
n
g:
Fo
u
r-
fo
o
t
b
ar
b
ed
w
ir
e
w
ith
h
ig
h
-t
en
si
le
,
ch
ar
ge
d
lin
e
1–
2
ft
ab
o
ve
gr
o
u
n
d
;
el
ec
tr
ic
n
et
tin
g
fo
r
p
ad
d
o
ck
d
iv
is
io
n
O
th
er
:
H
o
ld
in
g
p
en
s
fo
r
h
o
gs
re
ad
y
fo
r
h
ar
ve
st
6
TABLE 3 Time/Labor Considerations for a Livestock Nutrition Intervention
Meat rabbit Broiler chicken Dairy goat Hog
Labor: Very
intensive
Type: Daily pasture
rotation
Feed/water
1–2 times per day
Extensive
recordkeeping;
breeding;
harvest/processing
Time: 200 hours per
year for 20 does
Labor: Intensive
Type: Daily pasture
rotation; feed/water
1–2 times daily;
harvest/processing
Time: N/A
Labor: Very
intensive
Type: Herd/pasture
management;
milking
2 times/day;
breeding
Time: 1.5 FTE per
100 does
Labor: Intensive
Type: Herd/pasture
management;
farrowing
management; feed
2 times daily;
harvest/processing
(when applicable);
sanitation/barn
management (when
applicable)
Time: N/A
Other: Producer labor
is more physically
demanding than
with smaller
livestock
TABLE 4 Breeding Considerations for a Livestock Nutrition Interventiona
Meat rabbit Broiler chicken Dairy goat Hog
Starting: Visit
breeder, start with
good stock
Breeding age:
4–6 months
Estrous cycle: N/A
Gestation: 31 days
Offspring:
8 kits/litter
Productive life:
2 years
Breeding cycle:
Yearround;
6–9 litters/year;
every 14–21 days
Mating: 1 buck:
8–10 does
Other: Breeding is
crucial for food
production and
profit
Starting: Purchase
chicks from
hatchery
Breeding age:
N/A
Estrous cycle:
N/A
Gestation: N/A
Offspring: N/A
Productive life:
N/A
Breeding cycle:
Purchase every
4–5 weeks to
stagger
production
Mating: Most
common to
purchase baby
chicks from
hatchery
Other: Seasonal
operation;
warmer months
Starting: Visit breeder,
start with good stock
Breeding age:
Yearlings
Estrous cycle:
18–22 days
Gestation: 21 weeks
Offspring:
1–3 kids/birth
Productive life:
7–8 years
Breeding cycle: Fall
breeding; spring
breeding possible
but with decreased
productivity
Mating:1 buck:
50 does; A.I. more
common
Other:
Production, milk
composition,
disease/parasite risk
differs greatly among
breeds
Starting: Visit breeder,
start with good stock
Breeding age:
5–8 months
Estrous cycle: 21 days
Gestation: 16
Weeks
Offspring:
9 piglets/litter
Productive life:
8–9 years
Breeding cycle:
Yearround;
2 litters/year
Mating: A.I. more
common
Other: Farrowing
management very
labor intensive
aA.I. indicates artificial insemination, a common breeding practice among livestock producers.
TA
B
LE
5
Fe
ed
an
d
N
u
tr
iti
o
n
C
o
n
si
d
er
at
io
n
s
fo
r
a
Li
ve
st
o
ck
N
u
tr
iti
o
n
In
te
rv
en
tio
n
a
M
ea
t
ra
b
b
it
B
ro
ile
r
ch
ic
ke
n
D
ai
ry
go
at
H
o
g
D
ie
t:
N
o
n
ru
m
in
an
t
h
er
b
iv
o
re
D
ie
t:
O
m
n
iv
o
re
D
ie
t:
R
u
m
in
an
t
h
er
b
iv
o
re
D
ie
t:
O
m
n
iv
o
re
P
ri
m
ar
y
n
u
tr
iti
o
n
:A
lf
al
fa
/
ce
re
al
m
ix
o
r
co
m
m
er
ci
al
ra
b
b
it
p
el
le
ts
P
ri
m
ar
y
n
u
tr
iti
o
n
:
C
o
rn
,
w
h
ea
t,
o
at
s,
b
ar
le
y,
so
yb
ea
n
s,
fi
sh
m
ea
l
P
ri
m
ar
y
n
u
tr
iti
o
n
:
H
ig
h
-q
u
al
ity
fo
ra
ge
,
o
at
s,
co
rn
,
w
h
ea
t,
b
ar
le
y,
b
u
ck
w
h
ea
t
P
ri
m
ar
y
n
u
tr
iti
o
n
:
C
o
rn
,
al
fa
lf
a,
so
y
A
lte
rn
at
iv
e
n
u
tr
iti
o
n
:
R
o
o
t
ve
ge
ta
b
le
s;
le
af
y
gr
ee
n
s;
le
gu
m
es
A
ve
ra
ge
d
ai
ly
re
q
u
ir
em
en
t:
1 / 4
–3
/ 4
lb
s
Fo
ra
ge
:
U
p
to
40
%
o
f
d
ie
t
P
ro
te
in
re
q
u
ir
em
en
t:
16
%
–1
7%
o
f
d
ie
t
M
in
er
al
s:
C
o
b
al
t,
co
p
p
er
,
io
d
in
e,
ir
o
n
,
m
an
ga
n
es
e,
sa
lt,
zi
n
c
FC
R
(l
b
s)
:
3:
1
E
co
n
o
m
ic
s:
C
an
re
d
u
ce
p
el
le
t
u
se
b
y
50
%
b
y
in
co
rp
o
ra
tin
g
ro
o
t
ve
ge
ta
b
le
s,
gr
ee
n
s,
le
gu
m
es
O
th
er
:
C
an
en
h
an
ce
m
ea
t
fl
av
o
r
b
y
fe
ed
in
g
h
er
b
s
(i
e,
ro
se
m
ar
y)
o
n
e
w
ee
k
b
ef
o
re
h
ar
ve
st
A
lte
rn
at
iv
e
n
u
tr
iti
o
n
:
Le
af
y
gr
ee
n
s;
in
se
ct
s;
fo
o
d
sc
ra
p
s
A
ve
ra
ge
d
ai
ly
re
q
u
ir
em
en
t:
1 / 4
–1
/
3
lb
s
Fo
ra
ge
:
U
p
to
10
%
o
f
d
ie
t
P
ro
te
in
re
q
u
ir
em
en
t:
20
%
o
f
d
ie
t
M
in
er
al
s:
C
o
b
al
t,
co
p
p
er
,
io
d
in
e,
ir
o
n
,
m
an
ga
n
es
e,
zi
n
c
FC
R
(l
b
s)
:
2.
92
:1
(R
ai
n
b
o
w
b
ro
ile
r)
2.
45
:1
(C
o
rn
is
h
X
)
E
co
n
o
m
ic
s:
M
o
st
ex
p
en
si
ve
as
p
ec
t
o
f
ra
is
in
g
b
ro
ile
rs
O
th
er
:
R
ai
n
b
o
w
b
ro
ile
rs
h
av
e
le
ss
ef
fi
ci
en
t
FC
R
b
u
t
lo
w
er
m
o
rt
al
ity
ra
te
s
an
d
ar
e
m
o
re
ef
fi
ci
en
t
fo
ra
ge
rs
A
lte
rn
at
iv
e
n
u
tr
iti
o
n
:
C
an
b
e
fe
d
10
0%
fo
ra
ge
an
d
b
ro
w
se
p
la
n
ts
if
h
ig
h
q
u
al
ity
(p
ro
d
u
ct
io
n
w
ill
sl
ig
h
tly
d
ec
re
as
e)
;
ve
ge
ta
b
le
sc
ra
p
s
A
ve
ra
ge
d
ai
ly
re
q
u
ir
em
en
t:
6–
8
lb
s
Fo
ra
ge
:
70
%
fr
o
m
fo
ra
ge
an
d
b
ro
w
si
n
g;
p
re
fe
r
w
o
o
d
y
p
la
n
ts
to
fo
ra
ge
(3
0%
fr
o
m
gr
ai
n
)
P
ro
te
in
re
q
.:
10
%
–1
2%
o
f
d
ie
t
M
in
er
al
s:
C
al
ci
u
m
,
p
h
o
sp
h
o
ru
s,
sa
lt,
se
le
n
iu
m
FC
R
(l
b
s)
:
1.
26
:1
E
co
n
o
m
ic
s:
H
ig
h
-q
u
al
ity
fo
ra
ge
es
se
n
tia
l
to
o
p
tim
al
p
ro
d
u
ct
io
n
O
th
er
:
FC
R
ch
an
ge
s
si
gn
ifi
ca
n
tly
w
ith
ag
e,
la
ct
at
io
n
cy
cl
es
,
se
as
o
n
,
b
re
ed
;
ge
n
er
al
gu
id
el
in
e
fo
r
FC
R
is
1/
3
lb
o
f
gr
ai
n
fo
r
ea
ch
p
o
u
n
d
o
f
m
ilk
o
ve
r
3.
3
lb
s/
d
ay
A
lte
rn
at
iv
e
n
u
tr
iti
o
n
:
Fo
o
d
sc
ra
p
s;
ro
o
t
ve
ge
ta
b
le
s;
“h
o
gg
in
g
o
ff
”
fi
el
d
cr
o
p
s
A
ve
ra
ge
d
ai
ly
re
q
u
ir
em
en
t:
5
lb
s
Fo
ra
ge
:
U
p
to
25
%
o
f
d
ie
t
P
ro
te
in
re
q
u
ir
em
en
t:
14
%
–1
8%
o
f
d
ie
t
M
in
er
al
s:
C
al
ci
u
m
,
co
p
p
er
,
io
d
in
e,
ir
o
n
,
m
ag
n
es
iu
m
,
m
an
ga
n
es
e,
p
h
o
sp
h
o
ru
s,
p
o
ta
ss
iu
m
,
sa
lt,
se
le
n
iu
m
,
zi
n
c
FC
R
(l
b
s)
:
3.
28
:1
E
co
n
o
m
ic
s:
U
p
to
60
%
–7
0%
o
f
p
ro
d
u
ct
io
n
co
st
O
th
er
:
M
an
y
o
p
p
o
rt
u
n
iti
es
fo
r
fe
ed
in
n
o
va
tio
n
a
FC
R
in
d
ic
at
es
fe
ed
co
n
ve
rs
io
n
ra
tio
,
an
an
im
al
’s
ef
fi
ci
en
cy
at
co
n
ve
rt
in
g
fe
ed
m
as
s
in
to
liv
e
b
o
d
y
m
as
s.
TABLE 6 Harvest/Slaughter and Processing Considerations for a Livestock Nutrition
Interventiona
Meat rabbit Broiler chicken Dairy goat Hog
Equipment:
Low–moderate
cost (scale
dependent)
Skill: Moderate
Labor: 2 people can
slaughter/process
10–12 rabbits per
hour with right
equipment
Amount required for
processing:
Minimal;
consumed and
sold whole
Other: Slaughter
equipment largely
influenced by end
use of carcass—
consumption or
market? If
intending for
market, research
should be
conducted on
local regulations
Equipment:
Low–moderate cost
(scale dependent)
Skill: Moderate
Labor: 2 people can
slaughter/process
15 birds per hour
with right equipment
Amount required for
processing: Minimal;
consumed and sold
whole
Other: Slaughter
equipment largely
influenced by end
use of carcass—
consumption or
market? Some areas
have mobile
slaughter/processing
units that are
USDA-approved
Equipment: Low–high
cost (scale dependent);
milking machine more
economical with herds
of 20+ goats
Skill: Moderate–high
Labor: Milk 2 times/day,
7 days a week, 8–10
months/year; gerding
goats in and out for
very milking;
hand-milking is about
7–15 minutes per goat
with several variables
Amount required for
processing: Minimal if
consuming raw;
extensive if selling or
converting to
cheese/yogurt
Other: Teat sanitation is
crucial step for safety;
pasteurization and
processing required for
market milk;
self-processing is
equipment and labor
intensive and may be
more economical to
sell to processor; raw
milk and value-added
other niche market
possibilities
Equipment:
Low–high cost
(scale dependent)
Skill: High Labor:
2–3 experienced
people; time
varies
Amount required for
processing:
Extensive;
influenced by
carcass use
Other: Slaughter
equipment largely
influenced by end
use of carcass—
consumption or
market? Hog meat
is very versatile;
market meat
should be
slaughtered/processed
at USDA facility
aUSDA indicates US Department of Agriculture.
consistent information. It should be noted that certain numbers such as
feed conversion ratio (FCR) can have a range of results because they are
influenced by numerous independent variables.
RESULTS
In interviews, community considerations came to light that we do not address
here beyond recognizing their importance to the design of a livestock
nutrition intervention: land available for public use, climate, geography,
natural resources/features, cultural preferences, population demographic,
population density, diet-related health problems, and desire/ability to learn.
TABLE 7 Average Daily Protein Yield and Harvest Age Considerations for a Livestock
Nutrition Interventiona
Meat rabbit Broiler chicken Dairy goat Hog
Daily protein
yield: Per
animal: 61 g;
Per AU: 610 g
Harvest age:
Confined:
8 weeks;
Pasture:
10–12 weeks
Daily protein yield:
Per animal: 3.6 g;
Per AU: 514 g
Harvest age: Confined:
6–8 weeks;
Pasture: 8–11 weeks
Daily protein yield: Per
animal: 97 g; Per
AU: 571 g
Harvest age:
Confined:
20–24 months;
Pasture:
20–24 months
∗Dairy goats bred as
spring yearlings will
begin lactation at
20–24 months
Daily protein yield: Per
animal: 47 g; Per
AU: 191 g
Harvest age:
Confined:
22–26 weeks;
Pasture: 28–32
weeks
aAU indicates animal unit, approximately 1000 lbs of a livestock species. Average daily protein yield
refers to how much protein an animal or AU can provide on a daily basis. An approximate AU value was
obtained by dividing an animal’s adult weight by 1000. Nutrition information was obtained using the US
Department of Agriculture’s Nutrient Database.67 For meat rabbits, this number seems disproportionately
high when compared to other species’ protein yields for 3 reasons: (1) the rabbit’s small AU factor
results in a high multiplier (100) to achieve one AU; (2) the breeding doe is, in essence, multiplying
itself 49 times per year; (3) the breeding doe’s offspring were not counted toward the AU factor for
the purpose of this specific calculation because they are seen as the dairy goat’s milk yield—protein.
This formula was derived strictly for the purpose of calculating protein yielding potential and in no way
reflects the extra cost or effort associated with an additional 49 rabbits, nor is it intended to minimize
the life of the 49 offspring. For a full explanation of the calculations for average daily protein yield per
animal and per AU, readers are encouraged to contact the authors.
The agricultural considerations we chose for further investigation were
the following:
1. Land use, which refers to animal stocking density or space necessary
per animal, the most sustainable land management style, pasture rotation
frequency, ideal rest periods for a piece of land and reasonable starting
numbers for a small-scale project (Table 1).
2. Infrastructure, which includes housing required for daily use and breed-
ing, housing cost, housing construction, feeding and watering equipment,
and fencing (Table 2).
3. Time and labor, which refers to the time commitment required to raise
each type of animal, the intensity of the labor involved, and typical
activities (Table 3).
4. Breeding, which addresses startup stock, breeding age, estrous cycle,
gestation periods, number of offspring per birth, productive life of a
breeding animal, breeding cycle, mating procedures, and other general
considerations (Table 4).
5. Feed and nutrition, which refers to the animal’s diet type (ie, omnivore,
herbivore), primary nutrition sources, alternative nutrition sources, aver-
age daily feed requirements, percentage forage in diet, crude protein
TA
B
LE
8
C
lim
at
e,
P
re
d
at
o
r,
an
d
D
is
ea
se
an
d
P
ar
as
ite
s
C
o
n
si
d
er
at
io
n
s
fo
r
a
Li
ve
st
o
ck
N
u
tr
iti
o
n
In
te
rv
en
tio
n
a
M
ea
t
ra
b
b
it
B
ro
ile
r
ch
ic
ke
n
D
ai
ry
go
at
H
o
g
C
lim
at
e:
P
er
fo
rm
p
o
o
rl
y
in
h
o
t,
h
u
m
id
cl
im
at
es
;
ra
re
ly
re
q
u
ir
e
ad
d
iti
o
n
al
h
ea
t
in
w
in
te
r
d
u
e
to
th
ic
k
co
at
s
P
re
d
at
o
rs
:
R
is
k:
H
ig
h
;
T
yp
e:
Sm
al
l
ro
d
en
ts
;
d
o
gs
;
fo
xe
s;
ra
cc
o
o
n
s;
b
ir
d
s
o
f
p
re
y;
P
re
ve
n
tio
n
:
R
o
o
fi
n
g,
el
ec
tr
ic
b
ar
ri
er
s,
an
d
gu
ar
d
d
o
gs
M
o
st
co
m
m
o
n
d
is
ea
se
s
an
d
p
ar
as
ite
s:
P
as
te
u
re
llo
si
s
an
d
in
te
st
in
al
co
cc
id
io
si
s
O
th
er
:
Fl
ie
s;
co
n
ju
n
ct
iv
iti
s;
en
te
ri
tis
co
m
p
le
x;
m
as
tit
is
;
h
ea
t
p
ro
st
ra
tio
n
;
ea
r
m
ite
s
P
re
ve
n
tio
n
:
M
IG
;
p
o
ly
cu
ltu
re
s;
p
en
/
fe
ed
sa
n
ita
tio
n
C
lim
at
e:
Se
as
o
n
al
;
p
as
tu
re
d
p
o
u
ltr
y
w
o
rk
s
b
es
t
in
w
ar
m
er
cl
im
at
es
b
u
t
se
n
si
tiv
e
to
ex
tr
em
e
h
ea
t
P
re
d
at
o
rs
:
R
is
k:
H
ig
h
;
T
yp
e:
Sm
al
l
ro
d
en
ts
;
d
o
gs
;
fo
xe
s;
ra
cc
o
o
n
s;
sk
u
n
ks
;
b
ir
d
s
o
f
p
re
y;
P
re
ve
n
tio
n
:
R
o
o
fi
n
g,
el
ec
tr
ic
b
ar
ri
er
s,
an
d
gu
ar
d
d
o
gs
M
o
st
co
m
m
o
n
d
is
ea
se
s
an
d
p
ar
as
ite
s:
H
ea
rt
at
ta
ck
an
d
jo
in
t
fa
ilu
re
(C
o
rn
is
h
X
);
co
cc
id
io
si
s;
O
th
er
:
R
es
p
ir
at
o
ry
d
is
ea
se
;
P
re
ve
n
tio
n
:
M
IG
;
p
o
ly
cu
ltu
re
s;
va
cc
in
at
io
n
at
b
ir
th
;
p
en
/
fe
ed
sa
n
ita
tio
n
C
lim
at
e:
P
re
fe
r
ar
id
co
n
d
iti
o
n
s;
ca
n
to
le
ra
te
co
ld
P
re
d
at
o
rs
:
R
is
k:
M
o
d
er
at
e;
T
yp
e:
C
o
yo
te
s;
w
o
lv
es
;
co
u
ga
rs
;
d
o
gs
;
b
ea
rs
;
P
re
ve
n
tio
n
:
H
er
d
m
an
ag
em
en
t;
gu
ar
d
d
o
gs
;
lig
h
tin
g;
p
ro
te
ct
iv
e
h
o
u
si
n
g;
p
ro
xi
m
ity
to
o
cc
u
p
ie
d
re
si
d
en
ce
M
o
st
co
m
m
o
n
d
is
ea
se
s
an
d
p
ar
as
ite
s:
C
o
n
ta
gi
o
u
s
ec
th
ym
a;
ca
p
ri
n
e
ar
th
ri
tis
-e
n
ce
p
h
al
iti
s;
m
as
tit
is
;
sc
ra
p
ie
;
O
th
er
:
A
b
o
rt
io
n
;
fo
o
tr
o
t;
Jo
h
n
e’
s
D
is
ea
se
;
ke
to
si
s;
P
re
ve
n
tio
n
:
M
IG
;
p
o
ly
cu
ltu
re
s;
b
re
ed
se
le
ct
io
n
C
lim
at
e:
P
o
o
r
h
ea
t
re
gu
la
tio
n
in
h
o
t
cl
im
at
es
P
re
d
at
o
rs
:
R
is
k:
Lo
w
;
T
yp
e:
B
ea
rs
;
co
u
ga
rs
;
w
o
lv
es
;
P
re
ve
n
tio
n
:
H
er
d
m
an
ag
em
en
t
M
o
st
co
m
m
o
n
d
is
ea
se
s
an
d
p
ar
as
ite
s:
T
ra
n
sm
is
si
b
le
ga
st
ro
en
te
ri
tis
;
tr
ic
h
in
a
w
o
rm
;
O
th
er
:
N
/
A
;
P
re
ve
n
tio
n
:
M
IG
;
p
o
ly
cu
ltu
re
s;
d
ew
o
rm
ed
in
fi
rs
t
3
m
o
n
th
s;
p
en
/
fe
ed
sa
n
ita
tio
n
a
M
IG
in
d
ic
at
es
m
an
ag
em
en
t
in
te
n
si
ve
gr
az
in
g,
a
la
b
o
r-
in
te
n
si
ve
m
et
h
o
d
o
f
m
an
ag
in
g
liv
es
to
ck
sy
st
em
s
th
at
h
as
b
ee
n
sh
o
w
n
to
b
e
b
en
efi
ci
al
to
an
im
al
h
ea
lth
an
d
la
n
d
fe
rt
ili
ty
.
TABLE 9 Products/Services and Cost-Effectiveness Considerations for a Livestock Nutrition
Intervention
Meat rabbit Broiler chicken Dairy goat Hog
Products/services:
Breeding; manure;
meat; pelts;
vermiculture
Products/services:
Insect control;
manure; meat;
microtillage; weed
control
Products/services:
Breeding; grazing;
manure; meat;
milk; value-added
products (ie,
yogurt, cheese)
Products/services:
Breeding; food
waste conver-
sion;manure;meat;
tillage
Average net profit:
$34/doe (annual;
100-doe rabbitry)
Average net profit:
$2–3/bird
Average net profit:
$104/doe (annual;
100-doe herd)
Average net profit:
$484/sow (annual)
Highest input cost:
Feed
Highest input cost:
Feed and labor
Highest input cost:
Labor
Highest input cost:
Feed
requirements, important minerals, FCR, feed-related economic issues, and
other general considerations (Table 5).
6. Harvest and slaughter, which refers to level of equipment needs, skill
level and labor required, and other factors that should be considered
when addressing protein harvest (Table 6).
7. Processing, which refers to the amount of processing required and related
considerations (Table 6).
8. Average daily protein yield,36,39,45,48,62−64,68 which refers to how much
protein an animal or animal unit (AU) can provide on a daily basis.
An approximate AU was obtained by dividing an animal’s adult weight
by 1000.68 Nutrition information was obtained using the USDA Nutrient
Database69 (Table 7).
9. Harvest age, which refers to the earliest that an animal could provide
protein, equipment needs, skill level, and labor required. Note that several
variables can impact harvest weight and age, including weather, climate,
feed, stress, and disease (Table 7).
10. Disease and parasite challenges, which refers to common diseases and
parasites in a given species and prevention methods (Table 8).
11. Climate issues, which includes climate-related impact on the animals and
production (Table 8).
12. Predation, which addresses how much a particular species is at risk to
predators, list of common predators, and common techniques for reducing
predation (Table 8).
13. Products and environmental services, such as products that a livestock
species is capable of efficiently producing or beneficial services a species
can offer to livestock producers of any scale (Table 9).
14. Cost effectiveness, which addresses average net profit per animal and
highest input cost(s). Note that net profits can vary greatly based on scale,
market demand, and skill and experience of producers (Table 9).
DISCUSSION
The preceding comparisons of livestock options shows that each species
of livestock has a unique set of characteristics that will impact the animals’
welfare and productivity, pending the surrounding environment. The rec-
ommended considerations are based on a limited number of structured
interviews followed by an extensive review of existing literature on the
highlighted livestock. The data in Tables 1–9 are not intended to be an
authoritative guide but rather a set of general considerations that would serve
as a resource to grant writers pursuing a livestock nutrition intervention, pol-
icymakers interested in publicly funding a project, nonprofit organizations
that conduct nutrition interventions, or civic leaders and public health pro-
fessionals seeking alternatives in their communities. In some cases, a range
of guidelines is given from the diverse set of references used. Variations
should be expected in all of the data when applied in an actual situation.
No 2 animals function exactly alike, even animals within the same gender of
the same species of the same breed on the same piece of land managed by
the same person. Beyond the 4 that were addressed in this article, numer-
ous other species of livestock would also be viable options in a livestock
nutrition intervention. For example, Tilapia, ducks, laying hens, sheep (milk
and meat), meat goats, and cattle (milk and meat) have proven to be reli-
able food-providing livestock in a variety of settings. Soy and quinoa are
complete plant proteins that may be more culturally appropriate than animal
products in some communities and so can also be considered.
Other livestock-related considerations not addressed in our study
include water consumption and needs, micro- and macronutrient profile,
and scale of livestock enterprise. Water and its availability is an increas-
ingly relevant topic as our population grows and the natural resource base
shrinks. Though micronutrient and macronutrient profiles for each animal
would differ based on numerous factors, it is nevertheless important infor-
mation that would be beneficial in a livestock nutrition intervention. Optimal
production scale would be best addressed alongside an assessment of a
community’s natural resource base. Cost effectiveness will vary according
to scale. For example, raising and harvesting 250 broiler birds takes only
slightly more land availability, labor, and inputs than raising 25 broiler birds,
yet 250 birds would yield significantly greater nutrition and economic benefit
to a community.
It should be duly noted that economies are dependent on ecosystems,
yet our economy has regularly rewarded natural resource extraction.70 The
ability to pursue any nutrition intervention comprehensively requires an
understanding that soil is where nourishment begins and all life springs.
Soil building and enhancement should be the common goal of every nutri-
tion professional and land manager.71 Food systems are complex entities that
are influenced first and foremost by the natural resource base.72,73
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
New approaches to address food insecurity and diet-related illness are
needed. Current innovations in food security and nutrition initiatives domes-
tically and internationally have utilized community and home gardening to
increase access to fresh fruits and vegetables—a model that can be mimicked
to improve high-quality protein access. Though very few Americans are at
risk for protein-energy malnutrition, the quality of dietary protein available
to many Americans is poor and ultimately can be harmful to health. A num-
ber of food security advocates have focused on improving food access and
nutrition in urban areas in the United States or developing nations interna-
tionally; however, little attention has been directed toward the rural United
States. Citizens of rural communities have a far greater distance to travel
to access food support facilities and major food retailers than citizens of
urban communities.12 Though some kinds of support facilities such as food
banks and assistance offices may not be feasible in rural communities due to
population density, other measures can be taken. Livestock nutrition inter-
ventions have been largely successful in international models but have yet
to be thoroughly explored in varied settings in the United States. The combi-
nation of bountiful reservoirs of land and a lack of zoning restrictions often
found in urban areas makes the rural United States an ideal setting to pur-
sue livestock nutrition interventions. A livestock nutrition intervention pilot
project is a realistic approach to potentially reversing the increase of food
insecurity throughout the United States. The benefits of such a project have
the potential to expand far beyond nutrition—economic growth, increased
social capital, and natural resource enhancement are all possible outcomes
associated with a project of this nature.
Implications for the Public Health Professional
Pursuing a livestock nutrition intervention project requires a community that
is aware of its food and nutrition needs while also being collectively willing
to work together to find solutions to meet these needs. Public health pro-
fessionals and nutritionists from inside or nearby a community must also be
willing to participate in working with the community to build food security
in a manner that assesses a community’s resources and capabilities compre-
hensively.74 This concept is embodied by the term civic dietetics, introduced
in 2004 by Jennifer Wilkins as a way for nutrition professionals to be engaged
with the food system at all levels to address food and nutrition-related prob-
lems.75 When civic dietitians, organizations, and agencies work together
to address food security,76 they can build the social capital that ultimately
establishes a stronger resource base to sustain community-based projects.77
Sustainability of livestock nutrition intervention projects requires a compre-
hensive understanding of a community’s needs, resources, and environment,
as well as a community’s willingness to be civically engaged. Given the need
for interventions to improve nutrition and increase food access in rural com-
munities, using livestock to build food security is an approach that should
be pursued, ideally through the collaborative engagement of agricultural
specialists, social scientists, and public health and nutrition professionals.
REFERENCES
1. Kaufman PR. Rural poor have less access to supermarkets, large grocery stores.
Rural Development Perspectives. 1999;13:19–26.
2. Morton LW, Blanchard TC. Starved for access: life in rural America’s food deserts.
Rural Realities. 2007;1:1–10.
3. Nord M, Coleman-Jensen A, Andrews M, Carlson S. Household Food Security in
the United States 2011. Washington DC: United States Department of Agriculture;
2012. Economic Research Service Report Number 141. Available at: http://www.
ers.usda.gov/media/884525/err141.pdf. Accessed June 28, 2013.
4. Dietz WH. Does hunger cause obesity? Pediatrics. 1995;95:766–767.
5. Dinour LM, Bergen D, Yeh MC. The food insecurity–obesity paradox: a
review of the literature and the role food stamps may play. J Am Diet Assoc.
2007;107:1952–1961.
6. Condrasky M, Marsh JGH. Food stamps and dietary intake of low-income women
in the rural south in the time of welfare reform. Top Clin Nutr. 2005;20:366–373.
7. Armstrong D. A survey of community gardens in upstate New York: impli-
cations for health promotion and community development. Health Place.
2000;6:319–327.
8. Kortright R, Wakefield S. Edible backyards: a qualitative study of household
food growing and its contributions to food security. Agric Human Values.
2011;28:39–53.
9. Wakefield S, Yeudall F, Taron C, et al. Growing urban health: community
gardening in south-east Toronto. Health Promot Int. 2007;22(2):92–10.
10. Garasky S, Morton LW, Greder KA. The effects of the local food environment and
social support on rural food insecurity. J Hunger Environ Nutr. 2006;1:83–103.
11. Sharkey JR, Johnson CM, Dean WR, Horel SA. Focusing on fast food restaurants
alone underestimates the relationship between neighborhood deprivation and
exposure to fast food in a large rural area. Nutr J . 2011;10:10.
12. Blanchard T, Lyson T. Retail Concentration, Food Deserts, and Food
Disadvantaged Communities in Rural America, Final Report for Southern
Rural Development Center–Economic Research Service Food Assistance Grant
Program. 2003. Available at: http://srdc.msstate.edu/ridge/projects/recipients/
02_blanchard_final.pdf. Accessed June 28, 2013.
13. Champagne CM, Casey PH, Connell CL, et al. Poverty and food intake in rural
America: diet quality is lower in food insecure adults in the Mississippi Delta. J
Am Diet Assoc. 2007;107:1886–1894.
14. Marsh R. Building on traditional gardening to improve household food security.
Food Nutr Agric. 1998;FNA/ANA 22:4–14. Available at: http://www.cnisbss.
org/Newsline/PDF/LJR_19092007/Building%20on%20traditional%20gardening%
20to%20improve%286%29.pdf. Accessed June 29, 2013.
15. Murphy SP, Allen LH. Nutritional importance of animal source foods. J Nutr.
2003;133:3932S–3935S.
16. Schlosser E. Fast Food Nation. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin; 2001.
17. Paeratakul S, Ferdinand DP, Champagne CM, Ryan DH, Bray GA. Fast-food con-
sumption among US adults and children: dietary and nutrient intake profile. J Am
Diet Assoc. 2003;103:1332–1338.
18. Schulze MB, Manson JE, Willett WC, Hu FB. Processed meat intake and inci-
dence of type 2 diabetes in younger and middle-aged women. Diabetologia.
2003;46:1465–1473.
19. Larsson SC, Orsini N, Wolk A. Processed meat consumption and stomach cancer
risk: a meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:1078–1087.
20. Micha R, Wallace SK, Mozaffarian D. Red and processed meat consumption and
risk of incident coronary heart disease, stroke, and diabetes mellitus: a systematic
review and meta-analysis. Circulation. 2010;121:2271–2283.
21. Drabenstott M, Henry M, Mitchell K. Where have all the packing plants gone?
The new meat geography in rural America. Econ Rev. 1999;84:65–82.
22. Pelant R, Chandra B, Pu J, Lohani M, Suknaphasawat N, Xu G. Small ruminants
in development: the Heifer Project International experience in Asia. Small Rumin
Res. 1999;4:249–257.
23. Randolph TF, Schelling E, Grace D, et al. Invited review: role of livestock in
human nutrition and health for poverty reduction in developing countries. J Anim
Sci. 2007;85:2788–2800.
24. Oltjen JW, Beckett JL. Role of ruminant livestock in sustainable agricultural
systems. J Anim Sci. 1996;74:1406–1409.
25. Heifer Project International. Our work. Available at: http://www.heifer.org/
ending-hunger/our-work/index.html. Accessed February 8, 2013.
26. Heifer International. Heifer in the US: seeds of hope in Arkansas. 2001.
Available at: http://www.heifer.org/campaign/fund-a-project/seeds-of-change.
html. Accessed February 8, 2014.
27. Young E, Oliveira V, Claassen R. 2008 Farm act: where will the money go?
Amber Waves. 6(5):1–6. Available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/
2008-november/data-feature.aspx#.VW2aMs9VhBc. Accessed June 28, 2013.
28. US Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
Program Synopsis: Community Food Projects. 2009. Available at: http://www.
nifa.usda.gov/funding/cfp/cfp_synopsis.html. Accessed June 28, 2013.
29. 4-H. Current grant & award opportunities. Available at: http://www.4-h.org/
resource-library/grants-awards/opportunities/. Accessed June 28, 2013.
30. SARE. Grants and education to advance innovations in sustainable agriculture.
2012. http://www.sare.org/. Accessed June 28, 2013.
31. Ikerd JE. Sustainable agriculture as a rural economic development strategy.
1988. http://www.cacaponinstitute.org/html/SUSTAINABLE%20AGRICULTURE%
20as%20rural%20development%20strategy_Ikerd.htm. Accessed June 29, 2013.
32. Savory A. Holistic Management: A New Framework for Decision Making.
Washington, DC: Island Press; 1999.
33. Bennett B. Storey’s Guide to Raising Rabbits. North Adams, MA: Storey Publishing,
LLC; 2001.
34. Schivera D. Raising rabbits on pasture. 2010. Available at: http://www.mofga.
org/Publications/MaineOrganicFarmerGardener/Winter20092010/Rabbits/tabid/
1392/Default.aspx. Accessed June 27, 2013.
35. Mississippi State University. Starting a rabbit enterprise. Available at: http://
msucares.com/livestock/small_animal/rabbit.html. Accessed June 27, 2013.
36. Wright M. Raising meat rabbits. 2005. Available at: http://www.
fingerlakesagriculture.com/involved/pdf/Raising%20Meat%20Rabbits.pdf.
Accessed June 27, 2013.
37. Smith MH, Meehan CL, Ma JM, et al. Rabbit nutrition: what you need to know.
2009. Available at: http://ucanr.org/freepubs/docs/8376.pdf. Accessed June 27,
2013.
38. Mississippi State University. Rabbit production: slaughtering and dressing rab-
bits. 2010. Available at: http://msucares.com/livestock/small_animal/slaughter.
html. Accessed June 27, 2013.
39. Fanatico A, Green C. Small scale sustainable rabbit production. 2012. Available
at: https://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/summaries/summary.php?pub=424. Accessed
June 27, 2013.
40. Maertens L. Possibilities to reduce the feed conversion in rabbit production. 2009.
Available at: http://www.asic-wrsa.it/documenti/giornate2009/01_Maertens.pdf.
Accessed June 27, 2013.
41. Washington State University. Organic farming systems and nutrient manage-
ment. Pastured poultry. 2009. Available at: http://puyallup.wsu.edu/soilmgmt/
SusAg_PasturedPoultry.html. Accessed June 27, 2013.
42. Berry J. Poultry for the small producer. Available at: http://pods.dasnr.okstate.
edu/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-2116/ANSI-8202web.pdf. Accessed
June 27, 2013.
43. Mobley R, Okpebholo F, Nurse G, Peterson T. Pastured poultry in an integrated
food production system. Available at: http://www.famu.edu/cesta/main/assets/
File/coop_extension/herds/Pastured_Poultry_1st_ed._2.pdf. Accessed June 27,
2013.
44. Fanatico A. Alternative poultry production systems and outdoor access. 2006.
Available at: https://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/summaries/summary.php?pub=222.
Accessed June 27, 2013.
45. Chisholm JL, Trott DL, Cox JG, Zivnuska CE. Feed efficiency of pastured poul-
try systems. 2003. Available at: http://agriculture.truman.edu/student_research/
jlc2003b.asp. Accessed June 27, 2013.
46. Jacob J, Mather B. The home broiler chicken flock. Available at: http://escambia.
ifas.ufl.edu/small_farms_livestock/poultry/Home_Broiler_Chicken_Flock.pdf.
Accessed June 27, 2013.
47. Damron BL, Sloan DR. Small poultry flock nutrition. Available at: http://
smallfarms.ifas.ufl.edu/livestock_and_forages/pdf/SmallPoultryFlockNutrition.
pdf. Accessed June 27, 2013.
48. Coffey L, Hale M, Williams P. Dairy goats: sustainable production. 2004. Available
at: https://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/summaries/summary.php?pub=213. Accessed
June 27, 2013.
49. Considine H. Dairy Goats for Pleasure and Profit. Medford, WI: Dairy Goat
Journal Books; 1996.
50. Harris B, Springer F. Dairy goat production guide. 2003. Available at: http://mysrf.
org/pdf/pdf_dairy/goat_handbook/dg6.pdf. Accessed June 27, 2013.
51. Hagstad HV, Hubbert WT, Stagg LM. Descriptive study of dairy goat predation in
Louisiana. Can J Vet Res. 1987;51:152–155.
52. Ekarius C. Small-Scale Livestock Farming. North Adams, MA: Storey Publishing,
LLC; 1999.
53. McWilliam G. Raising pigs at home. 2004. Available at: http://extension.unh.edu/
Agric/AGDLEP/docs/pigraise.pdf. Accessed June 27, 2013.
54. Virginia grazier Joel Salatin finds pigs can profitably create pasture from cut-
over forest lands. The Stockman Grass Farmer. June 7, 2007. Available at:
https://www.stockmangrassfarmer.com/articles/view.php?entryID=32. Accessed
June 27, 2013.
55. Haley M. Hogs and pork: background. 2012. Available at: http://www.ers.
usda.gov/topics/animal-products/hogs-pork/background.aspx#.UcycOtiwWyo.
Accessed June 27, 2013.
56. Farm Animal Welfare Council. Report on the welfare of pigs kept
outdoors. Available at: http://www.fawc.org.uk/reports/pigs/fawcptoc.htm.
Accessed June 27, 2013.
57. Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food, Environment and Engineering Branch
Extension Service. Low cost feeder pig housing (Plan S-304). 1993. Available
at: http://www.agriculture.gov.sk.ca/S-304. Accessed June 27, 2013.
58. Shurson J, Whitney M, Johnston L, Koehler B, Hadad R, Koehler D. Desigining
feeding programs for natural and organic pork production. 2008. Available at:
http://4h.umn.edu/distribution/livestocksystems/DI7736.html. Accessed June 27,
2013.
59. Reese DE, Liptrap DO, Parker GR, Cromwell GL, Stahly TS. Factors affecting feed
conversion in growing finishing swine. 1985. Available at: http://www.uky.edu/
Ag/AnimalSciences/pubs/asc104.pdf. Accessed June 27, 2013.
60. Losinger WC. Feed-conversion ratio of finisher pigs in the USA. Prev Vet Med.
1998;36:287–305.
61. Penn State Extension. Raising pastured pigs—a video series for beginning
farmers. 2012. Available at: http://extension.psu.edu/business/start-farming/
livestock/pigs/raising-pastured-pigs-2013-a-video-series-for-beginning-farmers.
Accessed June 27, 2013.
62. Oklahoma Department of Agriculture Food and Forestry, Division of Food Safety.
How much meat? Available at: http://www.ok.gov/∼okag/food/fs-hogweight.
pdf. Accessed June 27, 2013.
63. Gegner L. Hog production alternatives. 2004. Available at: https://attra.ncat.org/
attra-pub/summaries/summary.php?pub=205. Accessed June 27, 2013.
64. Schivera D. Raising organic pigs. Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners
Association Fact Sheet 16. Available at: http://www.mofga.org/LinkClick.
aspx?fileticket=jH9XkXCtD48%3D&tabid=133. Accessed June 27, 2013.
65. Sustainable Agriculture Network. Profitable pork: strategies for hog produc-
ers. 2003. Available at: http://www.sare.org/Learning-Center/Bulletins/Profitable-
Pork. Accessed June 27, 2013.
66. Carlson MS, Boren CA. Mineral requirements for growing swine. 2001. Available
at: http://extension.missouri.edu/p/G2322. Accessed June 27, 2013.
67. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). USDA National Nutrient
Database for Standard Reference. Washington DC: Agricultural Research Service
Natural Agricultural Library. Available at: ndb.nal.usda.gov. Accessed on June 1,
2015.
68. Minnesota Department of Agriculture. Animal unit calculation worksheet.
Available at: http://www.mda.state.mn.us/animals/feedlots/feedlot-dmt/feedlot-
dmt-animal-units.aspx. Accessed June 28, 2013.
69. USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference. Available at: http://
ndb.nal.usda.gov/. Accessed June 29, 2013.
70. Berry W. The Unsettling of America: Culture and Agriculture. San Francisco, CA:
Sierra Club Books; 1977.
71. Doran JW, Stamatiadis S, Haberern J. Soil health as an indicator of sustainable
management. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2002;88:107–110.
72. Tagtow A, Harmon A. Healthy land, healthy food, and healthy eaters. 2009.
Available at: http://www.uwyo.edu/winwyoming/pubs/healthyland%20healthy
food%20healthyeaters.pdf. Accessed June 27, 2013.
73. Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. Food and nutrition pro-
fessionals can implement practices to conserve natural resources and support
ecological sustainability. J Am Diet Assoc. 2007;107:1033–1043.
74. Hamm MW, Bellows AC. Community food security and nutrition educators.
J Nutr Educ Behav. 2003;35:37–43.
75. Wilkins JL. Civic dietetics: opportunities for integrating civic agriculture concepts
into dietetic practice. Agric Human Values. 2009;26:57–66.
76. McCullum C, Pelletier D, Barr D, Wilkins J. Agenda setting within a community-
based food security planning process: the influence of power. J Nutr Educ Behav.
2003;35(4):189–199.
77. Woolcock M. Social capital and economic development: toward a theoretical
synthesis and policy framework. Theory Soc. 1998;27:151–208.