Feed for livestock in urban and peri - urban areas in Uganda


Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Feed for livestock in urban and peri - urban areas in Uganda

  1. 1. Feed for livestock in urban and peri- urban areas in Uganda Jan Erik Lindberg C. Katongole, R. Lumu, L. Kasule, J. Nambi-Kasozi, F. Bereeba, M. Presto and E. Ivarsson
  2. 2. Background  Livestock keeping is increasing in Kampala – Attributed to rapid population growth and urbanization  Need to increase food production – To improve food security – To improve nutrition of rural and urban poor  Increasing demand for livestock products
  3. 3. Background  Lack of feed is the main constraint for smallholder livestock production in Uganda – Purchase of feeds is not an option  By-products from food crops and food waste are potential feed resources  Exists locally  Limited knowledge on nutritional properties
  4. 4. Aim  To get more insight into farmers knowledge of the nutritional quality of available feed resources.  To identify and nutritionally classify available feed resources in peri-urban and urban areas of Kampala.  To produce a data-base with chemical composition of selected feeds, and their predicted energy and nutritive value.
  5. 5. Methodology Stakeholders’ workshop  Held at Makerere University (July, 2011)  Attended by farmers, parish chiefs, extension workers & local leaders  Discussions on project objectives, activity plan, dissemination strategy, selection of project sites (parishes) for data collection
  6. 6. Methodology Focus group discussions (FGDs)  1 FGD per division (6 farmers, 1 extension workers & 2 local leaders) Questionnaire interviews  120 households (4 divisions)  Kawempe (32), Makindye (24), Nakawa (34), Rubaga (30)  Indigenous knowledge on nutritional quality  Available cattle, pig and chicken feed resources
  7. 7. Methodology Collection of feed samples  Most commonly used feed resources in cattle, pig and chicken production Nutritional quality evaluation  Chemical composition, in vitro digestibility and rumen degradability
  8. 8. Key findings  Constraints to livestock production Constraint Rank Feed scarcity 1st Diseases 2nd High cost of feeds 3rd High cost of drugs 4th Space limitation 5th Poor quality feeds 6th Expensive labour 7th Conflict with neighbours 8th  High cost of feed was ranked highly by chicken farmers:  Chicken production depends on concentrate feeds, which are expensive.  As a cost-saving strategy many mix their own feeds:  The feeds did not conform to recommended nutrient levels. • Lower in protein and energy • Higher in fibre and ash
  9. 9. Key findings  Coping strategies to feed scarcity Coping strategy Rank Change feed resources based on availability and cost 1st Purchase feed ingredients in bulk 2nd Use crop/food wastes 3rd Reduce herd size 4th Forages in open access lands 5th Grow fodder 6th Resort to free-roaming 7th  Strategies deal with the constraint of feed scarcity on a day-by- day basis.  Strategies are not sustainable.
  10. 10. Key findings  Major feed resources used % of responses Cattle Pigs Chickens Banana peels 100 86.8 23.4 Elephant (Napier) grass 74.1 - - Open access forages 43.1 23.7 10.1 Sweet potato vines 34.5 39.5 2.1 Brewer’s waste 20.7 2.6 - Sweet potato peels 13.8 26.3 - Maize bran 3.9 30.0 65.9 Left-over food - 67.5 4.3 Own-mixed feed - - 65.9  Banana peels for dairy cattle rations  Use of elephant grass is affected by: • Access to land • Poor agronomic practices • Napier stunt disease  Left-over food is vital for pig production  Concerns over contamination risks
  11. 11. Key findings  Indigenous knowledge for judging nutritional quality Cattle Pigs Chickens Resistance to diseases yes yes yes Rate of growth/body condition produced yes yes yes Amount of feed taken in yes yes yes Not too firm or watery faeces yes yes - Extent to which a feed is liked by the animals yes - - Amount of faeces produced yes - - Litter size produced - yes - Amount of lean on the carcass - yes - Number of eggs laid - - yes Number of eggs with broken shells - - yes
  12. 12. Key findings  Despite the indigenous knowledge  Farmers put more importance on availability and cost:  They perceived banana peels to be of low nutritional quality, but they were the most commonly used feed resource.  They were aware that adding banana peels to chickens feeds compromises the quality, but continue to use it in the feed.  They perceived brewer’s waste to be of excellent nutritional quality, but it was not used by many because of cost.
  13. 13. Recommendations To ensure better and more efficient utilization of available feed resources;  Encourage farmers to adopt coping strategies that can deal with the challenge of feed scarcity more sustainably.  Sensitize the farmers on the importance of nutritional quality.  Training in feed formulation.
  14. 14. Acknowledgements  Swedish ministry of Foreign Affairs for the funding  Farmers in Kampala
  15. 15. Thank you for Listening!