 My name is Michael Plummel, I work for Illyria, where I'm responsible for a project on intensification of livestock systems. Where feed is a key issue, feed is a key issue in terms of determining livestock productivity, the overall economics of a livestock system. But also how much natural resources are we really using, how much are we affecting the environment in terms of greenhouse gases. So feed is really at the interface of positive and negative effects of livestock. So to me the concluding sessions we had today was very interesting because obviously a lot of work has been conducted in the past on feed resources with an overall very mixed success. And obviously looking at all those very well-sought new approaches in terms of innovation systems, in terms of value chains, which were applied in the effort for the adoption project in three sites, Syria, Vietnam and Ethiopia. We had the potential to really come up with new messages and trying to new insights, trying to understand where can we do better in the future than in the past, what were key errors we committed in the past, how can we remedy them and so on. And a lot of the concluding sessions really was trying to find those kind of key messages in terms of what we can do better in the future. What kind of concepts were developed and proven by those projects. For example, look at feed resources in a wider context. Look at feed resources in terms of systems, look at feed resources in terms of how they help to connect people to markets, how they can improve value chain. I guess that key message came, was really realized and accepted by all the very diverse people in the different groups I was talking to, which is certainly a very promising kind of outcome of that project. Because it used to be different in the past. People were much more technical, much more focused on very limited entry points. So that's certainly a very good outcome of the project and the workshop today. A couple of key issues where people felt we need to do more was trying to understand those kind of feed gaps, feed demand better. Better in a way. Are we looking at current kind of production aims? Are we only satisfying looking more at the kind of subsistence idea of Leicester production? Or are we really committed to something we call Leicester revolution that we know demand for meat and milk will increase tremendously, particularly in developing countries, which gives tremendous opportunities for small holders to produce for those kind of markets. However, to be successful in producing those markets, they need to produce more, they need to produce more from fewer animals, they need to be competitive. And a couple of key issues around those challenges also came out very clear from the workshop and from the kind of computing meeting we had. And one was really trying to understand what is a feed gap, are we defining feed gaps in terms of how much more one farmer to produce more in different scales, a household scale, could be at a country scale. So they were very, very good ideas and insights in terms of how we can improve those kind of feed resource demand and predictions. And of course, mitigation strategies coming from it in the future. A couple of interesting discussions in terms of are we focusing too much on the positive side of feeds, feed supporting higher milk, higher meat production, higher income, and other neglecting so-called trade-off effects. What do we need to produce the feed? We obviously need land, increasingly we need water, water is an issue, water scarcity is an issue. So there were serious discussions about do we need to do much more in terms of balancing positive and negative effects. It's a very difficult decision and to me it was interesting to see that all the people from, or most of the people from all the sites and from very different groups, be it research, be it extension, very down the value chain, they seem to agree that we should focus on transition, trying to move people out of poverty by increasing productivity, by increasing their production for the markets and believing that once they can move out of agriculture by education, by higher income or what so ever, that we are essentially looking at a new system in a couple of years down the line. Perhaps less focus on very small holdings like 0.5 hectares, 1 hectares, which is the case in Vietnam and in Ethiopia, just because people haven't moved out of agriculture in the last couple of years.