Practices of feeding dairy animals by SNV Client farmers and some recommendations for promising technologies

Presented by Solomon Mogus at the Fodder Roundtable Meeting, ILRI, Addis Ababa, January 27, 2011

I. Background of the Study• The study was initiated by the Multi Stakeholder Platform

(the “Coordination Group”) of the Milk Value Chain of SNV’s BOAM Programme .

• In total Five sites namely Chancho, Sululta, Debre Markos, Jimma and Addis Alem were visited.

• Innovative farms as comparison visited: the Genesis Dairy Farm, Franco Nardelli Dairy Farms at Debre Zeit, and the Sustainable Utilization of Natural Resources (SUN) Project in Oromia located in Northern Shoa

II. Introduction • Livestock productivity in Ethiopia is very low and the diary

production is not an exception. The low production of milk is attributed to a number of factors including the following:

 ▫ shortage of feed▫ Lower productivity of local breeds▫ limited access to technologies like AI services▫ Animal Diseases▫ High cost of improved breeds

Feed contributes up to 60-80% of cost of milk production

II. Introduction ….•  Current situation in the country in terms of milk production 

▫ The quantity and quality of milk production is very low compared to the number of livestock in the country

▫ Milk contributes 20-25% of the value of the livestock sector▫ Milk consumption is very low estimated at a per capita consumption

of 20 liters which is the lowest even among the neighboring countries

Objectives of the study • Identify and organize different research outputs of different dairy feeds

in improving quantities and quality of milk production • Recommend alternative feed sources which are cheaper in price and

better potential for milk production

 

III. Challenges of feeding dairy animals in the study sites 1. Feed is scarce and costly:

• No oil meals or flour meals in the environs of towns such as Jimma and Debre Markos exist.

• The breweries are too far from farmers to make haulage of wet brewer’s grain practical and economical.

• Therefore, the local cooperatives/dairy farmers currently need to bring wheat bran, noug cake and mixed dairy ration from distant towns.

 

2. Quality of forage is low and the price of forage high:

• Usually cut-and-carry system is practiced

• Forage is of poor quality and is mainly consists of unimproved pasture grasses .

3. Straw and forage are fed without being chopped.

• Farmers usually bring either cut-and-carry forage or straw and feed their animals without prior chopping.

• This leads to considerable wastage of straw and fresh forage.

• Practices of ensiling crop residue with molasses and urea spray for twenty one days has been observed at Sululta.

4. Shortage of land for forage development:

• Almost all farmers members of the Cooperative Association keep their animals in their homestead

• At times there is almost no space for animals to exercise let alone to graze.

• This is particularly the case in the urban settings of Jimma and Debre Markos.

5. Constraints to use of wet brewers’ grain:

• Wet brewers’ grain is fed in

Sululta, Chancho and Debre Zeit.

• At Chancho every two weeks a truck load of wet brewers’ grain is brought for distribution to the farmers.

 • In Nardelli farm for example a

concrete container is built for storage

• salt solution is used as a preservative.

•

6. Little utilization of improved forage species:

• In general there is limited utilization of improved forages by the smallholder farmers

• In the Debre Markos area, Land O’Lakes has popularized back yard forage production of Elephant grass, fodder beet, alfalfa, vetch, Rhodes grass and Sesbania

7. Use of “non conventional feeds”:

• Local Brewers grain (atela), false banana stem, and fines from cereals threshing grounds (“Geleba”) or cereal milling by products (“Bitare”) are widely used by smallholder farmers.

• These feeds could be incorporated into the formulation of least cost diets

8. There is some form of supplementation in practice

• Mixture of wheat bran, noug cake with brewers grain/Atela

• shredded barley straw mixed with brewers grain and noug cake .

IV. Some recommended feeding technologies

1.  Chopping of straw and forages:

• A small electric driven chopper for the dairy farmers is a potential input;

• it decrease both the wastage of feeding long straws/hay and forages.

• Through chopping the feed, intake will increase

• It thus reduces the need to purchase alternative costly feeds.

2.  Use of Molasses Urea Block (MUB) as Livestock Feed:

• This technology is not at all in use in the sites nor in the innovative farms at the moment

• the increase in the size of sugar factories will entail more molasses production in the country and its use in the formation MUB should be encouraged

3. Drying brewer’s grain at the breweries:

• Drying the wet by product and bagging it makes it easy to transport

• It makes it less perishable

4. Maize and grass silage popularization using plastic bags:

• During the main rainy season, farmers are able to prepare maize or grass silage.

• However, there are few cases of silage use.

• The unavailability of plastic sheet and absence of knowledge and skill of silage making , lack of chopper may be the limiting factors.

5. Provision of improved seeds/seedlings along with a training package in forage management:

• Providing starter seed • training farmers with

skill on proper raising, harvesting and feeding of the improved forages

6. Mixing one’s own ration (home mix):

The prerequisites are:

•The availability of

the feed ingredients

• The feed mixing know-how.

7. Proper timing of harvest of forage and its proper drying:

• Hay preparation is widespread in most of the sites visited.

• However, the grass is normally cut at late maturity.

• The use a drying tripod made of sticks and the provision of shelter to protect the stack from rain is important

• Furthermore, harvesting the hay forage at its nutritionally optimal stage of maturity is matter to be stressed for farmers.

 

8. Treatment of crop residue: • Chopping or grinding straw• Treatment of shredded wheat and barley

straw with urea, molasses, salt and water prior to feeding .

• Ensiling crop residues with urea treatment.

V. General Recommendations and Conclusion1. Strengthening the Cooperatives and Forming

New Dairy Cooperative associations• Creating a distribution center of feed

ingredients to the farmers: These feed ingredients could be oilseed cakes, wheat shorts or (dried) brewers grain or molasses.

• Setting up a feed mill with local ingredients to come up with least cost rations

• Setting up milk collection centers possibly with a cooler.

• Creating a sustainable market linkage for milk

V. General Recommendations and Conclusion ….2. Training model farmers and/or personnel of

coop• how to use feed ingredients to prepare home

mix using simple methods•  Pasture improvement especially over sowing of

Rhodes grass, the growing and utilization of forages

• Dry Season feeding as silage and hay making.• The use of pulverization/chopping of crop

residues to increase utilization• The treatment of crop residues, the use of MUB

V. General Recommendations and Conclusion ….3. The use of client farmers as a model

farmer in a smallholder community as used in SNV BOAM programme.

• The forum such as open days to bring together farmers and service providers

• Farmers exchange visits as that of the experience of the SUN project in Oromia.

4. Optimum utilization of brewers grain in the country should be foreseen.

• it is difficult to store wet brewers grain and to transport it as well

• there should be some provision to dry the wet feed at the factories ease transportation and storage.

• This is increasingly important now.

Acknowledgements

•Multi Stakeholder Platform (the “Coordination Group”) of the Milk Value Chain of SNV’s BOAM Programme for the initiation of this research;

•all value chain members – notably the producers visited in the course of the field work – for their co-operation

• SNV Ethiopia for providing the funds for the project.