Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Integrated livestock feed interventions

64 views

Published on

Presented by Ben Lukuyu, Leonard Marwa, Chrispinus Rubanza, Anthony Kimaro and Christopher Mutungi at at the Africa RISING ESA Project Review and Planning Meeting, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, 11-12 September 2019.

Published in: Science
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Integrated livestock feed interventions

  1. 1. Integrated livestock feed interventions Ben Lukuyu1, Leonard Marwa1, Chrispinus Rubanza2, Anthony Kimaro3, Christopher Mutungi4 1International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), 2Dodoma University, 3World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF), 4International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) Africa RISING ESA Project review and planning meeting 11 – 12 September 2019, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
  2. 2. Rationale • Planting of improved planted forages, fodder trees and shrubs, grasses, in the landscapes may have beneficial effects to provide feed and on reducing nutrient losses and water pollution • Crop residues, such as dry or green maize stover and bean haulms, are commonly fed to livestock but are also of low quality and they are poorly used by farmers
  3. 3. An Integrated Livestock Production System (ILPS) • How can we optimize feeds, forages and improved chicken nutrition and genetics for improved livestock and whole farm productivity, and for enhancing livelihood of rural households? • Innovation: • Improved chickens genetics (UDOM) • Improved chicken feeds and housing • Improved forages for feeds and land management • Better use of crop residues
  4. 4. Integrated Livestock Production System (ILPS) IMRPOVED CHICKEN GENETICS IMPROVED CHICKEN FEED & HOUSING CATTLE: CLIMATE SMART FORAGES CATTLE: BETTER USE OF CROP RESIDUESILPS INNOVATION: FORAGES/FODDER for LAND MANAGEMENT • Reduced soil runoff (mm of water) • Gain in soil water content (%) • Fuel wood supply (t/ha) FORAGES: MORE AND BETTER FEED • More forage quantity (t/ha) • Better forage quality (t/ha) • Better manure use (t/ha) HIGH QUALITY FEEDS FROM LIGNOCELLULOSIC BIOMASS • Better quality feeds (CP and ME) Other non-conventional feed sources e.g. fruit & vegetable waste (t/ha) IMRPOVED CHICKEN GENETICS BETTER FEEDING PRACTICES ADEQUATE BASAL RATIONS • Enough quantity (kg/animal) • Milk yield ( litres/lactation) BETTER SUPPLEMENTS (TMRs) • Improved quality (kg/day) • Milk yield ( litres/lactation) BETTER AND MORE MANURE BETTER ANIMAL AND MANURE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES BETTER CHICKEN HOUSING AND BROODERS • Reduced mortality rates (%) • Higher growth rates (g/day) BETTER FEED TROUGHS AND STORES • Reduced feed wastage (kg/day) • Improved feed intake (kg/day) BETTER MANURE MANAGEMENT FEED PROCESSING • Labour saving (4hrs/day) • Farmer preferences • Source of income • Reduces post harvest losses of crop residues SIAF indicators • Productivity (P) • Economic (Ec) • Social (S) • Environment (En) • Human (H) CROP AND LIVESTOCK MIXED FARM More milk, meat, eggs & income P, En. Ec, S P, En. Ec, S P, En. Ec, S P, Ec, S P, Ec, S P, Ec, S Ec, S ISFM • Crop residues • Toppings and strips
  5. 5. FORAGES: What have we have addressed? • Inventory of feed & forage resources, feeding practices, perceptions of farmers • Participatory screening of potential forages in the target areas with farmers • Assessment of fodder quality and farmers’ preferences. • A cost-benefit analysis to identify the most promising forages • Forages as land management strategy
  6. 6. Yield and quality of improved forages 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 ILRI 14984 ILRI 16803 ILRI 16835 ILRI 16837 Kakamega 1 Kakamega 2 %ofnutrients Ash Crude protein Fibre Lignin Digestibility 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Kakamega 1 Kakamega 2 ILRI 16837 ILRI 16835 ILRI 14984 ILRI 16803 Yield(t/ha) Humidhighlands Semi-humid uplands Semi-humid midlands
  7. 7. SIAF: Forages as livestock feed and land management strategy Interventions Productivity Data available (Y/No)? Economic Data available (Y/No)? Social Data available (Y/No)? Environment Data available (Y/No)? Human Data available (Y/No)? Forage for land management Yield (t/ha/season) Y Gross revenue N Gender N Soil erosion Y Capacity to experiment (% farmers testing) N Quality (no unit) Y Net revenue N Equity N Soil physical quality Y (Kizito) Labour requirement N Rating of technology (ranking) N Vegetative cover N Climate smart forages for feed Fodder yield (t/ha/season) Y Gross revenue Y Gender N Soil erosion control (%) Y (Kizito) Capacity to experiment (% farmers testing) N Quality (rating) Y Net revenue Y Equity N Soil physical quality Y Milk yield (kg/season) Y Labour requirement Y Rating of technology (ranking) N Vegetative cover N Fuel wood biomass t/ha) Y
  8. 8. Improved planted forages 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Productivity Economic EnvironmentSocial Human
  9. 9. Proposed research to fill the gaps in the integrated livestock production package • A survey study to asses drivers of adoption of improved forages of different farm typologies and farmers criteria for targeting forages to different niches of farms. • An analysis of different uses of fodder – as livestock feed, for soil fertility improvement (mulching, composting), fencing or for sale – on some selected farms with a SIAF lens
  10. 10. BETTER USE OF CROP RESIDUES: What have we addressed? • Took inventory of types and use crop residues in all production systems • Quantified stover yield on farm (ISM). • Conducted a participatory evaluation of techniques to improve the utilization of crop residues by farm households • Introduced and evaluated feed chopping technology with farmers
  11. 11. Crop residues in view of the sustainable intensification domains 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Productivity Economic EnvironmentSocial Human
  12. 12. SIAF: Improved crop residue use on farms Interventions Productivity Data available (Y/No)? Economic Data available (Y/No)? Social Data available (Y/No)? Environment Data available (Y/No)? Human Data available (Y/No)? Feed processing technology Residue production ( kg/ha/season) Y Gross revenue Y Gender Y Reduced GHG emissions N Capacity to experiment (% farming testing) N Quality of residue ( no unit) Y Net revenue Y Equity Y Reduced land compaction N Rating of rations (rating) N Labour requirement Y Rating of technology (ranking) Y Carbon sequestration ( t Co2/ha) Y (Anthony Kimaru) Yield (t/ha/season) Y Quality (rating) Y Milk/Egg yield (kg/season) Y Improved feed and watering troughs Yield (t/ha/season) Y Gross revenue N Gender N Reduced feed wastage N Capacity to experiment (% farming testing) N Quality (rating) N Net revenue N Equity N Feed residue management N Milk yield (kg/season) N Labour requirement N rating of technology (ranking) N
  13. 13. Proposed research to fill the gaps in the integrated livestock production package • Expand the analysis study for forages to include crop residues. Evaluate how farmers collect, manage and use crop residues feed/manure? Link to manure management • Scale improved feed troughs (fixed and mobile) that have successfully been tested in Ethiopia. Possibility of looking at improved water toughs as well.
  14. 14. Improved chickens: housing, feed and management • Poultry provides a pathway out of poverty for most smallholder farmers in Tanzania Improved chickens genetics (UDOM) Improved chicken feeds and housing (ILRI)
  15. 15. Poultry innovations • Improved feed rations, using vegetable wastes, waste grains and cereal by- products as feed components • Improved poultry housing and brooder 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Livebodyweight(gm) Age (weeks) Housed + rationed feeds Housed + non rationed feeds Partially housed + rationedfeeds Scavenging The affect of confinement levels x feeding regimes on live body weight
  16. 16. Mortality rates on farms 6.86 1.04 0.15 20.37 13.05 2.63 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 8 10 12 Mortalityrate(%) Age of chicks (weeks) Chicks supplied with feed package Chicks Supplied without fed package The influence of formulated feeds on mortality rate of local chicks during the first 4-weeks after their delivery to farmers The influence of formulated feeds on mortality rate of local chicks during the first 4-weeks after their delivery to farmers
  17. 17. SIAF: Chicken housing & nutrition Interventions Productivity Data available (Y/No)? Economic Data available (Y/No)? Social Data available (Y/No)? Environment Data available (Y/No)? Human Data available (Y/No)? Improved chicken housing and feed rations Meat (kg/animal) Y Gross revenue Y Gender N None (Gap) N Nutrition (total protein production) N Chick survival (%) Y Labour requireme nt Y Equity N N Capacity to experiment (% farming testing) N Eggs (No) Y rating of technology (ranking) N N Food safety (incedence of mycotoxins/otherpat hogens) Y (partly) Growth rate Y social cohesions (rating) N N Dietry diversity N Chickens (No/period) Y collective action (groups) N N Food consuption score N Manure (kg/unit) N Manure (kg/unit) Market partcipartion N
  18. 18. SIAF: Chicken breeding Interventions Productivity Data available (Y/No)? Economic Data available (Y/No)? Social Data available (Y/No)? Environment Data available (Y/No)? Human Data available (Y/No)? Improved Chicken genetics Meat (kg/animal) Y Gross revenue N Gender Y strain diversity (rating) Y Nutrition (total protein production) N Chicks (% hatchability) Y Net revenue N Livestock ownership Y Food security (months/year) N Chick survival (%) Y Labour requireme nt N Equity N Capacity to experiment (% farming testing) N Eggs (No) N Capacity to access information N Dietry diversity N Growth rate Y Social cohesions (rating) N Food consuption score N Chickens (No/period) Y Collective action (groups) N Market partcipartion N
  19. 19. Chicken production (housing and nutrition) 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 Productivity Economic EnvironmentSocial Human
  20. 20. Proposed research to fill the gaps in the integrated livestock production package • Scale the improved housing and brooder but focusing on the social, economic and human domains. What are the drivers of adoption? What is making farmers modify the design? e.g. gender issues, economics and benefits of the technology etc.
  21. 21. Africa Research in Sustainable Intensification for the Next Generation africa-rising.net This presentation is licensed for use under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence. Thank You

×