Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Nutrient composition of pastures in Kayunga District, Uganda: Implications for seasonal supplementation in grazing ruminants
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

Nutrient composition of pastures in Kayunga District, Uganda: Implications for seasonal supplementation in grazing ruminants

1,078
views

Published on

Presented by Ellen S. Dierenfeld, Ben Lukuyu and David Nyagaka at the Annual Production Society of Kenya (APSK) annual scientific conference held at Nyeri, Kenya on 11-13 April 2012

Presented by Ellen S. Dierenfeld, Ben Lukuyu and David Nyagaka at the Annual Production Society of Kenya (APSK) annual scientific conference held at Nyeri, Kenya on 11-13 April 2012

Published in: Technology, Business

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,078
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
1
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. Nutrient composition of pastures in Kayunga District, Uganda: Implications for seasonal supplementation in grazing ruminants Ellen S. Dierenfeld, Ben Lukuyu and David NyagakaPresented at the Animal Production Society of Kenya (APSK) annual scientific conference held at Nyeri, Kenya, 11-13 May 2012
  • 2. Introduction and brief background Carrying capacity of rangelands utilized in the Ankole grazing system in Uganda is highly dependent on rainfall patterns, thus subject to strong seasonality (Mulindwa et al. 2009). Pasture nutrient resources measured (DM production or CP content) were found to be highly variable; cattle body condition and productivity declines with the dry season and recovers during wet seasons. Although animals can respond to lower available forage in the dry season behaviorally through selective feeding and browsing, pasture nonetheless provides primary nutrition year-round.
  • 3. Introduction and a brief background Both quantity and quality characteristics must be considered in order to optimize nutritional strategies, including the need for supplementation. This study provides baseline information on proximal nutrient and mineral constituents of pastures utilized by grazing livestock during dry compared to wet season in the Bbale district of central Uganda.
  • 4. Ankole cattle
  • 5. Materials and methods Pasture samples (n=8 wet season; n=15 dry season) were randomly sampled from open rangelands grazed by Ankole cattle in Kayunga District, Bbale County,Collecting samples Uganda by hand-clipping all ground cover encircled in a 1 m2 open frame. Samples were weighed, air- dried in the field, and then oven-dried at 60°C at the Department of Animal Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala.Air drying samples
  • 6. Materials and methods Samples were ground through a 1 mm screen and analyzed by standard laboratory methodology (www.dairyone.com). Seasonal comparisons in nutrient content were evaluated using unpaired t-tests, with significance set at P<0.05.
  • 7. Results and discussion: Nutrient profiles Wet Dry SeasonalNutrient Unit Season Season Comparison Mean SD Mean SD P valueDry matter % 90.76 0.45 89.70 1.9 0.03Crude protein % 12.80 3.49 13.15 7.4 0.44Soluble protein % 44.25 4.57 57.21 21.5 0.03ADF % 38.70 4.40 34.31 12.3 0.09NDF % 62.41 3.30 57.39 16.6 0.14Lignin % 7.10 1.58 4.71 3.2 0.01NFC % 7.33 3.55 8.64 3.6 0.22Fat % 1.95 0.65 1.41 0.8 0.05Ash % 11.43 2.04 17.69 18.3 0.11
  • 8. Results and discussion: Nutrient profiles SeasonalNutrient Unit Wet Season Dry Season Comparison Mean SD Mean SD P valueCa % 0.44 0.08 0.31 0.1 <0.01P % 0.23 0.07 0.34 0.5 0.18Mg % 0.24 0.07 0.18 0.1 0.03K % 1.60 0.42 2.29 1.3 0.04Na % 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.1 0.19S % 0.17 0.06 0.18 0.1 0.34Fe ppm 1069 790 814.5 843.5 0.24Zn ppm 33.38 15.59 24.67 8.1 0.09Cu ppm 9.63 2.00 6.00 2.4 <0.01Mn ppm 195 89.5 107.60 26.4 0.01Mo ppm 1.20 0.77 1.03 0.5 0.30
  • 9. Results and discussion: Nutrient profiles Seasonal Wet Season SD ComparisonNutrient Unit (Mean) SD Dry Season (P value)Digestible Energy Mcal/kg 2.2 0.3 2.2 0.6 0.46Metab Energy Mcal/kg 1.7 0.3 1.7 0.7 0.48NE Lactation Mcal/kg 0.9 0.2 0.9 0.4 0.49NE Maintenance Mcal/kg 0.9 0.2 0.9 0.5 0.45Target dietary nutrient concentrations for various grazing ruminants (DM basis) Lactating Goat Reqt Cow Reqt Beef Reqt Sheep Reqt NRC, 1981, Nutrient Unit NRC 2001 NRC, 2000 NRC, 2007 2007 Metab Energy Mcal/kg 1.84-2.58 1.84-2.58 1.63-3.17 2.39 NE Lactation Mcal/kg 1.37-1.8+ NE Maintenance Mcal/kg 1-2.29 1-2.29 NE Gain Mcal/kg 0.45-1.59 0.45-1.59
  • 10. Summary resultsAlthough mean crude protein did not differ seasonallybetween samples, percent soluble protein was higher (P =0.03) in samples collected from the dry vs. the wet season.Protein content measured in this study (with one exception)was quite similar to mean protein recorded in 10 majorgrasses (mixed) sampled in 4 regions of Uganda (12.2%Acholi Lango area, 12.7% Eastern region, 15.7% Bugana-Busoga Lake shore, 5.97% Ankole zone; Bredon and Horell,1961, reported by Sabiiti and Mugerwa, 1990).
  • 11. Summary resultsNonetheless, crude protein in pastures (~13% of DM)appeared adequate to meet basal requirements for allspecies, except perhaps at highest stages of production.Overall fibre (NDF and ADF) concentrations did not varyseasonally in these samples, but the lignin content ofsamples collected in the dry season was lower than that ofwet season samples.
  • 12. Summary resultsOf the macrominerals analyzed, Ca and Mg were higher inwet season samples compared to dry season; the oppositewas seen with K (the latter observation suggesting a lessmature, perhaps slower growth stage of plant).Trace elements differed seasonally for Cu and Mn, with wetseason samples containing higher concentrations of thesenutrients.As with most forages, all pastures sampled were grosslydeficient in sodium relative to the dietary needs of ruminants,highlighting the essentially of providing a salt lick for grazinganimals.
  • 13. Summary resultsRelative to animal requirements, both Ca and P needs,particularly of lactating cows (either dairy or beef) could belimiting in pastures, depending upon the season andbioavailability (form) of macrominerals in the forages.Similarly, Mg and S supplied by pastures may provemarginal for dairy cows (and goats) in heavy lactation. Fe and Mn were found in relative excess, whereas Cuappears to be a limiting trace mineral across species andphysiological stages.
  • 14. Summary resultsZn nutrition may be marginal, depending upon species,season, and stage of production. In general, Zn needs oflactating dairy cows were not met by pastures in this study.
  • 15. ConclusionsBased on this limited sample, a high energy supplement withtargeted minerals (both macro and trace) may improveoverall animal nutrition, health and productivity of grazingruminant livestock in this region of Uganda, particularlyduring the dry seasons.A molasses-based block with added Ca, P, Mg, S, Cu andZn – and possibly I and Se – may prove beneficial acrossmultiple species.
  • 16. Thank you