Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Improving the value of maize as livestock feed to enhance the livelihoods of maize-livestock farmers in East Africa
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Improving the value of maize as livestock feed to enhance the livelihoods of maize-livestock farmers in East Africa

3,010
views

Published on

Presentation by D. Friesen (CIMMYT) to the CGIAR Systemwide Livestock Programme Livestock Policy Group Meeting, 1 December 2009

Presentation by D. Friesen (CIMMYT) to the CGIAR Systemwide Livestock Programme Livestock Policy Group Meeting, 1 December 2009

Published in: Technology, Business

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
3,010
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
91
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Improving the value of maize as livestock feed to enhance the livelihoods of maize-livestock farmers in East Africa CIMMYT/ILRI/NARS Joint Project 2005-2009 BMZ Presentation: CGIAR Systemwide Livestock Programme Livestock Policy Group, 1 December 2009 ILR I International Livestock Research Institute
  • 2. Background:
    • maize is grown on about 5 million hectares in Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania.
    • maize grain provides on average for one third of the daily calories in the diets
    • maize is often grown in crop-livestock farming systems where maize stover can contribute to livestock feeding
    • livestock rearing contributes to household nutrition, cash income, asset building and employment.
  • 3. Justification:
    • shortage of arable land and water resources
    • shrinking and deteriorating common property
    • increasing demand for fodder
    • further pressure on feed resources
    •  increasing use of crop residues as fodder
  • 4. Maize stover for animal fodder…
  • 5. Current maize breeding programs:
    • Breeding programs focus on improved grain yield, and resistance/tolerance to biotic & abiotic stresses
    • stover traits are usually neglected in cultivar selection
    • stover quality and quantity in cereals is highly genotype dependent
  • 6. Project Goal
    • to investigate the potential of dual-purpose maize to enhance the livelihoods of resource poor crop-livestock farmers of East Africa where the concentration of mixed smallholders is highest and agricultural systems are undergoing further intensification
  • 7. Objectives:
    • To understand the influence of livestock related factors on farmers choice of maize cultivars.
    • To identify superior dual-purpose maize cultivars from existing maize germplasm for diverse agro-ecological zones.
    • To define opportunities and strategies for further genetic enhancement towards dual-purpose maize.
    • To develop new tools for quick and economical on-field assessments of stover fodder value in crop improvement work.
    • To propose additional selection criteria for variety releasing agents that take into consideration stover quality.
  • 8. Project partners:
    • ILRI
      • M Blummel, Salvador Fernandez
      • Mario Herrera
      • Ashenafi Mengistu
    • CIMMYT
      • S. Twumasi-Afriyie
      • H De Groote, W Mwangi, D Watson
    • EIAR, OARI, MAFS-Tz, KARI
      • Gudeta N, Demissew A, Dagne W, Birhanu T
      • Md. Hassena, Getachew D
      • P Matowo, S Lyimo, G Sonda
      • J Kang’ara
    • Haramaya U, Sokoine UA
      • Bekabil Fufa, Habtaamu Zeleke
      • Evelyn Lazaro
  • 9. Influence of livestock related factors on farmers choice of maize cultivars
    • CIMMYT and ILRI household data combined to determine potential areas for impact of improved food-feed-maize in AEZs and countries
      • 8 contrasting maize-livestock scenarios identified based on differences in:
        • Human population
        • Cattle density
        • Available feed resource characteristics
      • 3 study sites chosen in Ethiopia; 2 in Tanzania
  • 10. Cattle numbers, human population and feed resources in Ethiopia [Source: Mario Herrero, ILRI]
    • low potential feed deficits
    • Potentially 25% from maize
    • lowest potential feed deficits
    • Potentially 30% from maize
    • V. high potential feed deficits
    • Potentially 35% from maize
  • 11.
    • Hai
      • High pop./high cattle/low feed resources
      • Use of thinnings, strippings
      • Cut and carry dry stover (zero grazing)
    • Moshi
      • High pop./high cattle/high feed resources
      • Feed dry stover in situ
    Maize-Livestock Systems in NZ, Tanzania
  • 12. Use of stover in contrasting scenarios (PRAs in Bako and Awassa)
    • Much diversity in the way maize stover is used as fodder
      • depends on availability of grazing land
    • Stover becomes important as cropping expands onto grazing land
      • Bako: grazing land available
        •  livestock freely graze crop residues after harvest.
      • Awassa: pastureland scarce
        •  dry stover transported & stored at homestead
        •  sold in market
        •  (green cob production), green stover cut and sold
    • Farmers recognize differences among maize varieties in the quality of their stover as livestock feed.
  • 13. Maize attributes identified by farmers that determine choice of maize cultivars Food criteria Feed criteria Agronomic criteria Other criteria Taste of main dishes Nutritional quality Quality of ‘ferso’ Sweet green cob Flour mix-ability Digestibility Taste of kolo, mullu Flour yield Fermentation of the dough Thin bark of the stalk Thin stalk Soft stalk Wet stalk Green leaf Sweet stalk Stover biomass Number of tillers Yield by volume Yield by weight Cob size Grain size Number of ear per plant Plant height Drought tolerance Disease tolerance Pest resistance Weed resistance Uniformity (plant and color of tassel) Ear filling Husk cover Duration Seed color Seed re-use Cash investment Labor investment Market price Seed availability Fertilizer
  • 14. Importance of maize attributes by gender and maize/livestock scenario FOOD TRAITS FEED TRAITS
  • 15. Farmers’ evaluation of maize varieties with respect to major attributes Improved variety Local variety
  • 16. Factors influencing farmers’ choice of maize varieties
    • Experience in maize production
    • Sex of the farmer
    • Farmer’s education level
    • Family size of a household
    • Total livestock holding of a household
    • Total land holding of a household
    • Perception of inputs & credit availability
    • Walking time to nearest market
    • Walking time to nearest all-weather road
    • Participation in extension training
    • Study area where a farmer resides
    • Demand for food attribute
    • Demand for green cob attribute
    • Demand of large stover biomass
    • Demand for sweet stalk
    • Demand for yield attribute
    • Demand for good price at market
    • Choice of improved varieties:
      • Access to fertilizer +
      • Land holding +
      • Gender (male) +
      • Access to road −
    • Choice of local varieties:
      • Access to seed −
      • Land holding −
      • Gender (male) −
      • Extension training −
      • Demand for food & yield +
    • Stover biomass & sweetness did NOT influence choice
    Variable Y=Local only Y=IV only Y=IV-Local FAMSIZE 0.016 -0.008 -0.008 EXPYEAR 0.012*** -0.007 -0.005 TLU -0.012 0.003 0.009 ACCROAD 0.112** -0.094* -0.018 MARKET -0.063 0.000 0.063 LAND -0.108*** 0.082*** 0.025 ST_AREA -0.660*** 0.385*** 0.275*** SEX -0.231** 0.232* -0.001 EDU 0.041 -0.101 0.060 FERT -0.043 0.396*** 0.439*** SEED -0.209** 0.068 0.141 CREDIT 0.127 0.126 -0.253*** EXTN -0.306* -0.102 0.408*** FOOD d -0.180** 0.107 0.074 ISHET d 0.234** 0.087 -0.322*** BIOMS d -0.104 -0.063 0.167* SWTS d 0.159 -0.093 -0.066 YIELD d -0.300*** 0.178 -0.178 PRICE d -0.141 0.153 -0.012
  • 17. Livestock production potential of maize stover and its prediction by laboratory traits
    • a range of maize cultivars grown in 2003 (DZ), 2004 (DZ) and 2005 (Ambo) and fed to sheep
    • intake and LWG by sheep measured
    • samples analyzed for a wide range of chemical, in vitro and morphological traits (collectively called lab-traits)
    • simple and multi-variate regressions used to relate lab to animal data
    • lab traits validated for Near Infrared Spectroscopy calibration
    Fernandez-Rivera et al, unpublished
  • 18. Sheep performance on maize stover based-diets Fernandez-Rivera et al, unpublished 0.04 0.001 P < 10.5 3.5 LSD 30.0 45.8 2004/2005 SYN 32 29.4 45.1 2004/2005 SYN 2 25.6 46.2 2004/2005 SYN 1 27.9 45.3 2004/2005 PHB 3253 33.6 45.7 2005 KULENI 34.9 47.5 2004/2005 KATUMANI 30.3 46.7 2005 GIBE 1 23.5 44.6 2004/2005 BH 660 37.8 51.5 2004/2005 BH 542 QPM 26.3 44.0 2004 BH 540 27.9 47.2 2004/2004 BH 140 18.5 43.3 2005 A 511 Weight gain (g/d) Intake Years Cultivar
  • 19. Correlation between livestock productivity and lab quality traits in 71 individual treatments Fernandez-Rivera et al, unpublished <0.01 <0.01 0.20 0.80 <0.01 P>F -0.48 -0.53 -0.19 0.04 0.40 R 2004 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.80 0.22 P>F -0.58 -0.66 -0.50 -0.06 -0.26 R 2003 0.07 -0.22 Lignin (ADL) 0.09 -0.21 Cellulose (ADF) 0.04 -0.24 Cell wall (NDF) 0.01 0.29 In vitro digestibility 0.50 0.08 Nitrogen P>F R 2004 + 2005 Traits
  • 20. Correlation between livestock productivity and lab quality traits in 71 individual treatments Fernandez-Rivera et al, unpublished <0.01 <0.01 0.20 0.80 <0.01 P>F -0.48 -0.53 -0.19 0.04 0.40 R 2004 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.80 0.22 P>F -0.58 -0.66 -0.50 -0.06 -0.26 R 2003 0.07 -0.22 Lignin (ADL) 0.09 -0.21 Cellulose (ADF) 0.04 -0.24 Cell wall (NDF) 0.01 0.29 In vitro digestibility 0.50 0.08 Nitrogen P>F R 2004 + 2005 Traits
  • 21. Correlation between livestock productivity and morphological quality traits Fernandez-Rivera et al, unpublished
    • Better understanding of some of the morphological assessments required since they are linked to farmers perception and preliminary screening
    0.94 0.01 Leaf width 0.81 -0.04 Leaf length 0.94 -0.01 Number of leaves 0.40 -0.12 Stem diameter 0.31 -0.15 Plant height P > F R 2004 Traits
  • 22. New tools for quick & economical on-field assessment of stover fodder value for breeders
  • 23. Qualitative trait prediction in plant breeding based on Near Reflectance Infrared Spectroscopy (NIRS) Non-destructive c. 200 samples/d >30 traits Physico-chemical c. 60 000 US $ Calibration Validation NIRS equations sharable across compatible instruments
  • 24. Blind-prediction of pertinent laboratory traits by stationary Near Infrared Spectroscopy (NIRS) 220 0.91 Kinetics (rate) of fermentation 0.88 0.87 0.88 0.91 R 2 220 Cell wall (NDF) 220 In vitro digestibility 220 Metabolizable energy 220 Nitrogen n Laboratory trait
  • 25. U Hohenheim field NIRS instrument
  • 26.
    • However, sample preparation and presentation problematic
    Comparison of blind-prediction of maize stover lab quality traits by field and stationary NIRS Montes et al. (2008) 0.82 0.83 0.79 R 2 Field 0.88 In vitro digestibility 0.93 Cell wall (NDF) 0.95 Nitrogen R 2 Stationary Laboratory trait
  • 27. 2.0 0.95 2.9 0.89 In vitro digestibility 1.68 0.95 3.3 0.79 Cell wall (NDF) 0.06 0.92 0.16 0.44 Stover Nitrogen SEP R 2 SEP R 2 Stationary NIRS (ground maize stover) Field NIRS (chopped maize stover) Variable
  • 28. Conclusion
    • While predictive accuracy of field NIRS is less than of stationary NIRS it can be used for screening
    • Mobility needs to be further increased
    • Currently stationary lab NIRS more suitable for support of multidimensional crop improvement
    • Main constraint remains sample preparation
  • 29. Genetic Variability in Maize Stover Quality and Its Relation to Primary Traits
    • Two highland trials: Ambo, Holeta and Kulumsa ARC
      • 12 & 22 hybrids
    • Two mid-altitude trials: Bako, Hawassa and Jimma ARC
      • 63 entries; 16 inbred lines
    • Two trials planted in Tanzania (Selian ARI and Hai)
      • 56 genotypes
    • Measurements:
      • grain and stover yield
      • stover fodder quality traits (CP, NDF, ADF, ADL, OM, TIOMD, NDFD, N, ME, IVOMD)
  • 30. Phenotypic correlation between food and feed traits in 63 maize hybrids evaluated at 3 sites LSR SY N NDF ADF ME IVOMD GY 0.07 0.76** -0.28* 0.02 0.17 -0.09 -0.08 LSR -0.19 0.07 0.20 0.17 0.02 0.02 SY -0.33** 0.03 0.09 -0.13 -0.13 N -0.67** -0.19 0.67** 0.70** NDF 0.37** -0.52** -0.55** ADF -0.13 -0.12 ME 1.00**
  • 31.
    • High genetic variability observed among:
      • Highland crosses
      • Mid-altitude crosses
      • Mid-altitude inbred lines
    • GY & SY positively and strongly correlated  possibility for simultaneous increase
    • SY & GY not correlated with quality traits  possibility to improve GY & SY w/o affecting quality
    • BUT stover quality traits SHOULD be incorporated as evaluation criteria:
      • During inbred line development
      • Hybrid performance evaluation
  • 32. Heritability, heterosis and CA in maize SY and quality
    • Important to design future breeding strategies for the development of food-feed maize genotypes. Therefore:
      • Estimate heritability for stover feed quality traits in maize hybrids
      • Determine level of heterosis for GY, SY and quality
      • Determine the relative importance of GCA and SCA
    • Preponderance of additive gene effects
      •  most traits can be improved with simple selection
      •  Recurrent selection needed for complex traits like GY & SY
    • Heterosis:
      • increasing effect on: ADF (acid detergent fiber), ADL (acid detergent lignin), DCRY (digestible crop residue yield)
      • decreasing effect on: nitrogen (N), metabolisable energy (ME) and in vitro organic matter digestibility (IVOMD).
  • 33. Conclusions Implications of genetic variability and farmers’ choice on maize stover quality for breeding programs and variety release criteria
  • 34. Some Principles
    • Current release criteria with focus on grain remain important
    • Stover traits are additional criteria not substituting criteria
    • Go for win-win situations
    • Facilitate optimization of whole plant utilization (also beyond fodder)
    Some Approaches
    • Map demand areas/AEZs to decide on weighing criteria
    • Use stepwise approach, e.g., include stover yield as weighted criteria according to demand areas/AEZs
    • Phenotype submitted cultivars for variations in food-feed traits (hub?)
    Conclusions
    • Need to include diverse participants in the food-feed value chain
    • From exploration to implementation > 5 years
    • Stepwise process probably biomass yield
    • in addition to grain as 1st step
  • 35. THANK YOU