assessment of the dairy cattle feeding systems in east africa
DESCRIPTION
Presentation by B. Lukuyu, A. Duncan and I. Baltenweck for the 5th All Africa Conference on Animal Agriculture and the 18th Annual Meeting of the Ethiopian Society of Animal Production (ESAP), Addis Ababa, October 25-28, 2010.TRANSCRIPT
Assessment of the Dairy Cattle Feeding Systems in East Africa
B. Lukuyu, A. Duncan and I. Baltenweck
The fifth All Africa Conference on Animal Agriculture and the 18th Annual Meeting of the Ethiopian Society of Animal Production (EASP). October 25-28, 2010, Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia
Outline Preamble Objectives Design and tools Results Conclusions Recommendations
Representation of the EADD hub model along the dairy value chain
Introduction: Livestock production
• Major constraints: Animal health, Genetics, Feeds and Markets
• Main feed constraints:
• Feed resources - becoming less available or no longer suffice
• Seasonal variations in feed quantity and quality cause fluctuations feed availability and in animal productivity throughout the year
Objectives of Survey
The baseline survey has 2 main objectives: Assess farmers and community’s current
production and management situation
Identify key constraints farmers and other agents face, as well as their opportunities. This information was used in development of interventions to suit specific areas
Design: Sampling hubs
2 steps were followed: Characterised the project sites using 2
indicators: access to urban centre (market access) and an indicator of climatic characteristics (LGP).
Selected one site in each of the recommendation domains where the project hubs are located
Design: Sampling householdsAt each hubs, a total of 75 households were surveyed
Each survey site corresponded to the area of a circle, radius 20km, with each hub at the centre of the circle [irrespective of administrative boundaries]
Survey areas were divided into grids (urban areas and un-populated areas were removed)
75 grids were randomly selected from all the grids, the area of each grid was equated approximately to an average of 1 household per grid
Geographic distribution of surveyed households
Questionnaire The survey questionnaire was structured into
10 sections one of which comprised the feed and feeding module.
A third of the total respondents were
interviewed for this module. This paper reports the feeds and feeding sub component of the survey only.
Summary of number of sites and farmers surveyed
CountryNo of target households
No project hubs/sites
No surveyed hubs (1/3)
Sample size (household survey)
Sample size (Feed module)
Kenya 110,000 17 5 525 175
Rwanda 24,000 10 3 302 101
Uganda 45,000 15 5 450 150
Total 179,000 42 13 1277 426
Results: dairy farmers, breed and market orientation
Country Village/ hub % of cattle
keepers
% farmers keeping local
cattle only
% farmers keeping exotic
cattle only
% farmers keeping both
local and exotic breeds
% farmers selling milk
Uganda Bbaale 53 65 18 18 50Luwero T.C 37 75 7 18 25Masaka 41 74 19 7 32Mukono/Buikwe 57 40 23 37 35Kakooge 69 87 4 10 46Bumanya 48 97 3 0 28
Rwanda Bwisanga/Gasi 57 63 16 21 19Kabarore 53 58 5 38 45Mbare 69 38 11 51 72Nyagihanga 41 82 6 12 6
Kenya Kabiyet 93 0 97 3 90Metkei 93 38 60 3 51Siongiroi 92 48 42 10 55Siaya 57 84 2 14 21
Total 62 55 28 16 46
1. Less than 2/3 of households have cattle, majority of them keep local breed and less than half sell milk on a regular basis
2. Large variation across country and survey sites, which implies different strategies to mobilize farmers, and interventions
Average number of cattle kept (TLU) by cattle system
Kenya Rwanda UgandaAll
countries ANOVAF-test
(N=422) (N=126) (N=211) (N=759)
Only grazing (Free-range)8.2
(8.67)16.8
(21.65)21.7
(39.11)14.3
(26.65) 13.41 ***
Mainly grazing with some stall feeding
7.7 (7)
25.6 (45.84)
3.2 (3.48) 8.9 (17.15) 11.83 ***
Mainly stall feeding with some grazing
3.7 (3.22)
1.8 (1.03)
2.2 (0.73)
3.1 (2.71) 1.36ns
Only stall feeding (Zero grazing)
3 (2.05)
1.7 (1.03)
2 (1.09)
2.4 (1.76) 8.31 **
Figures in brackets are Standard Deviation (SD)
• Relatively large herd sizes held in predominant grazing systems
• Relatively large herd sizes kept in Rwanda and Uganda
Percent (%) of dairy farmers utilizing various cattle keeping systems now and 10 years ago for exotic and cross breeds
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
10 yearsAgo
Now 10 yearsAgo
Now 10 yearsAgo
Now
Uganda Rwanda Kenya
Perc
en
t (%
)
Only grazing (Free-range) Mainly grazing with some stall feedingMainly stall feeding with some grazing Only stall feeding (Zero grazing)
Message: the feeding system is changing towards stall feeding
Percent of dairy farmers utilizing various cattle systems
Kenya Rwanda Uganda All countries
(N=422) (N=126) (N=211) (N=759)Only grazing (Free-range)
53.6 43.7 81.0 59.6
Mainly grazing with some stall feeding
28.0 14.3 13.3 21.6
Mainly stall feeding with some grazing
4.0 4.0 2.4 3.6
Only stall feeding (Zero grazing)
14.5 38.1 3.3 15.3
Pearson chi-square=106.54 ***
Percentage of households with cattle farms growing and using forages
0 20 40 60 80 100
Cut Grass
Maize Stover Green
Weeds
Legume Hay
Maize Stover Dry
Grass Hay
Other Crop By Products
Napier Grass
Uganda Rwanda Kenya
Message: Napier grass and crop residues form a large proportion of the feed resources
Average percent of daily feed intake from grazing on dairy farms as perceived by farmers by country
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Uganda Rwanda Kenya
Ave
rage
(%
) co
ntrib
utio
n of
gra
zing
to fe
edin
g
•A large proportion of feed intake is perceived to come from grazing.
Percentage of dairy farmers citing various sources of fodder and forages
0 20 40 60 80 100
Bought from fodder shop
Bought from fodder farmer w ith cattle
Bought from fodder farmer w ith no cattle
Bought from feed company
Harvested from rented farm
Harvested from other farmer
Harvested from state land
Harvested from ow n residential farm
Uganda Rwanda Kenya
Percent (%) of dairy farmers buying fodder or crop residues
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Uganda (N=230) Rwanda (N=169) Kenya (N=458)
Per
cen
t (%
) o
f d
airy
far
mer
sSite Hubs Control Hubs
Uganda ____ Rwanda ____ __ _ ____Kenya __ _ ____A. Bbaale E. Mukono / Buikwe A. Bwisanga / Gasi A. Kabiyet E. SiongiroiB. Kakooge F. Bumanya B. Kabarore B. Kandara F. SoiC. Luwero T.C C. Mbare C. Kaptumo G. SiayaD. Masaka Municipality D. Nyagihanga D. Metkei
A CB
D
E
F
AB
C
D
A
B
D
C
F
EG
• Very few farmers buy fodder suggesting no feed surplus on surveyed farms
• However indicates emerging trend in fodder trade
Percent of dairy farmers sourcing fodder planting materials from various sources
• Main sources of planting material are from Government and projects
• Facilitating the entry of market-oriented input suppliers may face the challenge of competing with free or subsidized source of inputs.
Factors affecting uptake of fodder trees and legumes on farms
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Lack of labor
High cost
Don't know
Limited land
Lack of interest
Unavailability of planting material
Not aware of benefits
Lack of technical information
Uganda Rwanda Kenya
• forage legumes and fodder trees are not in widespread use (12%) , and there are significant constraints to their incorporation into the dairy cattle feeding systems
Percentage of dairy farmers feeding various concentrate feed types
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Maize germ
Mollasses
Home made rations
Other
Calf pellets
Maize bran
Rice bran
Dairy meal
Uganda Rwanda Kenya
•Dairy meal used by relatively few farmers in Rwanda and Uganda vs. Kenya •Most farmer use feed ingredients for supplementation
Percentage of households with cattle utilizing concentrate feeds
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Uganda Rwanda Kenya
10 years ago Currently
Message: Concentrate use is on the increase
Average distance (kms) covered from the homestead
Country System
Dry season Wet season0-5 0-10 0-5
Kenya
Grazing 0.7 7.3 0.6Grazing + Stall feeding 0.6 0 0.4Stall feeding + grazing 0.2 0 0.2Zero grazing 0.4 0 0.4
Rwanda
Grazing 1.8 6.7 1.6Grazing + Stall feeding 1.3 0 1.3Stall feeding + grazing 1.9 0 1.4Zero grazing 1.3 0 1.3
Uganda
Grazing 1.2 7.3 0.8Grazing + Stall feeding 0.7 6 0.7Stall feeding + grazing 2 0 0.6Zero grazing 0.7 0 0.7
Water is found > 5 km radius in grazing systems in the dry seasonWater if found < 5 km radius in all feeding systems in the wet season
% of dairy farmers covering distances (km) by system
Country System
Dry season Wet season
HH 0-5 0-10 HH 0-5 0-10
Kenya
Grazing 8 90 2 11 89 0Grazing + Stall feeding 25 75 0 30 67 0Stall feeding + grazing 31 69 0 37 63 0Zero grazing 25 75 0 40 60 0
Rwanda
Grazing 0 94 6 0 96 4Grazing + Stall feeding 0 100 0 0 100 0Stall feeding + grazing 20 80 0 20 80 0Zero grazing 2 98 0 2 98 0
Uganda
Grazing 1 95 4 4 96 0Grazing + Stall feeding 4 93 6 8 92 0Stall feeding + grazing 20 80 0 20 80 0Zero grazing 0 100 0 0 100 0
Conclusions Napier grass, crop residues and grazing are
the most important sources of feed in all surveyed sites
The feeding systems are changing and there will be increased opportunities for other forages (perhaps traded) and use of concentrate feeds as systems continue to evolve.
Conclusions Forage legumes and fodder trees are not in
widespread use, and there are significant constraints to their incorporation into the dairy cattle feeding systems mainly associated with knowledge gaps.
Concentrate feeding is fairly minimal in all study countries although it is on the increase
Water is not easily accessible to most households.
Intervention opportunities There is a wide variation in feeding systems
across the study countries and sites hence interventions need to be carefully targeted depending on the circumstances of each site
The appears to be significant potential for enhancing Utilisation of crop residues trading of both fodder and concentrate feed in all
study sites Pasture improvement
Thank you.
www.ilri.org