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.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Improved planted forages
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
Productivity
Economic
EnvironmentSocial
Human

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Chicken production (housing and nutrition)
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
Productivity
Economic
EnvironmentSocial
Human

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. 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