Assessment of the dairy cattle feeding systems in East Africa

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