Artoaj MS Id 556022

Research Article Agri Res & Tech: Open Access J
Volume 17 Issue 3 - August 2018

Copyright © All rights are reserved by Tegene Negesse
DOI: 10.19080/ARTOAJ.2018.17.556022
Feed Resource Availability and their Nutrient

Contribution for livestock Evaluated Using Feed
Assessment Tool (FEAST) in Burie Zuria District,
North Western Ethiopia
Getahun Belay1 and Tegene Negesse2*
1
Department of Animal Science, Alage ATVET College, Ethiopia
2
School of Animal and Range Sciences, Hawassa University, Ethiopia
Submission: July 04, 2018, Published: August 21, 2018
Corresponding author: Tegene Negesse, Hawassa University, College Agriculture, School of Animal and Range Sciences, P. O. Box, 05, Hawassa,
*
Ethiopia, Tel: +251916827711; Email:
Abstract
Constraints of livestock production, major livestock feed resources and their nutrient contribution (% of respondents) and intervention
options in three agro-ecologies of Burie Zuria district, north western Ethiopia, were assessed from data collected between January 2017 and
February 2018. Agro-ecologies, kebeles and households (HHs) were selected using multi-stage sampling techniques. A single-visit multi subject
formal survey was conducted. The district was stratified in to high, mid and low altitudes and data were collected from February to April 2017
on 90, 30 and 30 HHs, respectively using focus group discussion, individual interview, key informant interview, secondary sources and personal
observation. Feed assessment tool (FEAST version 2.21), SPSS version 20.0 and general linear model procedure were used to analyze data. Feed
shortage, limited knowledge of farmers in livestock production, poor genetic potential of indigenous cattle breeds, disease and land shortage
were the main constraints affecting livestock production in all agro-ecologies in decreasing order of importance. Dry matter (DM) contribution
of purchased feeds is lower but of crop residues higher than that of other feed resources. DM contribution of purchased feed in high altitude
(11.22±1.4) is higher (p<0.01) than in mid (2.46±0.85) and low altitudes (7.45±1.48) and that of crop residues was higher in low and mid altitude
(p<0.01) than in high altitude. Highest (p<0.001) crude protein (CP) contribution was from crop residues in low (49.75±3.03) and mid altitudes
(42.33±1.75) than in high altitude (28.47±3.03) and lowest was from purchased feeds with highest CP contribution in high (10.78±0.75, p<0.001)
than in mid (2.44±0.43) and low altitudes (4.93±0.75). Highest (p<0.001) metabolisable energy (ME) contribution was from crop residues in
low (52.91±1.23) and mid altitudes (51.12±0.71) than in high altitude (31.67±1.23) and lowest was found from purchased feeds with highest
(P<0.001) ME in high altitude (11.55±0.88) than in mid (2.15±0.46) and low altitudes (6.78±0.88). In conclusion, the main feed resource is crop
residue which is of low nutritional quality. Chemical and biological treatments of crop residues and concentrate supplementation and training
farmers on feeding and grazing management would improve nutritional value total diet.
Keywords: Agro-ecology; Crude protein; Dry matter; Metabolisable energy
Abbreviations: FEAST: Feed assessment tool; CP: Crude Protein; HHs: Households; DM: Dry matter; ME: Metabolisable Energy; SPSS: Statistical
Package for Social Science; LSD: Least Significant Difference
Introduction
and conversion of grazing land in to crop lands as a result of
Livestock feed resources available in the study area are
increased human population [4,5].
natural pasture, crop residues, improved forage, hay, industrial
by products [1]. In Ethiopia natural pasture is the primary feed The total annual production of crop residues at global and
resource throughout the wet season while crop residues play a national level is estimated to be about 1.14 billion [6] and 30
substantial role during dry season [2]. The current report revealed million [7] tons of DM, respectively of which 70% is utilized
that 54.59, 31.06, 6.81, 1.53, 0.31 and 5.11% of the total livestock as livestock feed. Moreover, crop residues are providing a
feed supply of the country is derived from natural pasture, crop considerable quantity of dry season feed in most farming areas
residues, hay, agro-industrial by-products, improved forage and of the country [8-11], and contributed up to 30-80% of the total
other types of feeds, respectively [1]. Natural pasture accounts feed DM available for animals in the highlands of Ethiopia [12].
about 25% of total land mass of the country [3]. However, its However, crop residues are fibrous by products and their feeding
productivity in most parts of Ethiopia is extremely low [3] due to values are limited by their poor voluntary intake and digestibility
seasonal fluctuation of rainfall and poor grazing land management and low nitrogen, energy, mineral and vitamin contents [13].
Agri Res & Tech: Open Access J 17(3): ARTOAJ.MS.ID.556022 (2018) 0065
Agricultural Research & Technology: Open Access Journal
Feed shortage has remained to be the most limiting factor of A single-visit multi subject formal survey method was used for
livestock production in the highlands of Ethiopia [14]. The most the study [20]. The district was chosen based on the information
critical periods are from February to May, when all feed resources of Zone Agriculture Office that there is relatively large number
are virtually depleted, and conservation of crop residues is of animals. A reconnaissance survey was carried out to have an
inadequate in the highland of Ethiopia [15]. Crop residues are understanding of the study area and to select representative agro-
nonetheless of low nutritive value and cannot bear sensible ecologies before proceeding to formal survey. The district was
animal production. Livestock feed problem is more intense in the stratified into high (greater than 2,300 meters above sea level),
highlands of the country where more than 75% of both the human mid (1,500-2,300 meters above sea level) and low land (less
and livestock population are concentrated. As a result, livestock than 1,500 meters above sea level) based on the Ethiopian agro-
productivity is generally lower than the potential [16]. On the ecological classification [21] and secondary data obtained from the
other hand, availability and utilization of different feed resources district [17]. Kebele is the lowest government administrative units
varies depending up on agro-ecology, livestock production below district. Accordingly, Zalema, Wadera Gendeba and Tiya
system and seasons of the year. Hence, assessment of feed Tiya (from mid altitude), Fetam Sentom (from low altitude) and
resources helps to guide the development of effective intervention Jib Gedele (from high altitude) kebeles were purposively included
strategies to improve quality of feeds, feed use efficiency and in the survey out of the total 12, 3 and 3 kebeles, respectively, in
livestock productivity. Thus this study was carried out to evaluate consultation with the districts’ livestock expert based on the size
availability of potential feed resources and their utilization by of agro-ecological zones and the potential of livestock resources.
livestock in Burie zuria district of north western Ethiopia. Then two villages were purposively selected from each of the five
kebeles with the help of kebele administrators and development
Materials and Methods agents.
Main features of the study area
Prior to selecting respondents, a brainstorming session
The survey was conducted during January 2017- February was prearranged with the district livestock experts, kebele
2018 in Burie Zuria district. The district is located 400km North administrators and development agents on the objective of the
West of Addis Ababa and 148km South West of the Regional study, the permanent benefits of the farming community from
State capital, Bahir Dar, North Western highlands of Ethiopia at a the survey and the respondents selection criteria. Purposive
coordinate of 10˚15′N and 10˚42′29″N latitude and 36˚52′1″E and sampling technique was used to select respondents. Development
37˚7′9″E longitude with an altitude range of 700 to 2350m.a.s.l agents and kebele representatives of the chosen kebeles selected
[17]. Currently, the district had 18 kebeles [18] with a total human respondents based on land holding, wealth category (small,
population of about 104,784 and 13,940 male headed, 1,988 medium and large), HH headship (men and women HH head),
female headed and 15,928 total HHs [17]. age group (youth, middle age and elders), livestock holding and
According to Burie Zuria District office of Agriculture [18], the experience of keeping livestock.
total area of the district is 58,795 ha, out of which 52.2% and 5.2% The selection of respondents for focus group discussion was
is crop lands and grazing areas, respectively. The topography of done purposively by key informants. The respondents included
the district is dominated by plain type (76%) and the remaining in the survey had at least two species of livestock and two years
constitute mountain (10%), undulating (7%) and gorge (%). The of experience in livestock production. In each village, 15 HH
three agro-ecological zones found in the district are mid (82%), low heads (10 men and 5 women) for one group [22], were selected
(10%) and high altitudes (8%). Long term minimum, maximum for focus group discussion, giving a total of 150 farmers in 10
and mean temperatures are 14, 24 and 19 ˚C, respectively. villages. After the focus group discussion, according to FEAST’s
The rainfall pattern is uni-modal (May to September) and the recommendations, 9 farmers were selected from each village
minimum, maximum and mean annual rainfall is 1000, 1500 and (total of 90) for semi-structured questionnaire; then they were
1250mm, respectively. The livelihood of most of the population stratified into three wealth categories through stratified sampling
is agriculture. The major crops grown in the district are maize, techniques based on existing community standards [23], and were
finger millet, teff, wheat, barley, potato, pepper, onion, field pea interviewed independently. The number of respondents per agro-
and fava bean. The types of livestock reared in the district include ecology were designed to be proportional to total number of HHs
cattle, sheep, goat, equine and chicken [17]. The total population in each agro-ecology for focus group discussion (30, 30 and 90)
of cattle, sheep, goats, equines and chickens were estimated to be and for individual interview (18,18 and 54) from high, low and
about 98807, 31120, 11300, 9191 and 66705, respectively [18]. mid agro-ecologies, respectively.
Sample size determination and sampling techniques Data collection methods and tools
The number of HHs sampled in the study area was determined Qualitative and quantitative investigation was carried out
by N = 0.25/SE2, where N = number of sampled HHs, SE = standard using FEAST developed by International Livestock Research
error [19]. Considering, SE of 4.09% at a precision level of 5% and Institute [24], which offers a systematic and rapid methodology
95% confidence interval. Accordingly, 150HHs were selected. to assess feed resources availability and utilization at a site level
Multistage purposive sampling technique was used for the survey.
How to cite this article: Getahun B, Tegene N. Feed Resource Availability and their Nutrient Contribution for livestock Evaluated Using Feed
0066 Assessment Tool (FEAST) in Burie Zuria District, North Western Ethiopia. Agri Res & Tech :Open Access J. 2018; 17(3): 556022.
DOI: 10.19080/ARTOAJ.2018.17.556022.
with a view to developing a site-specific intervention approach related to feeding such as; the composition of diet, availability of
to improve and optimize feed supply and utilization through dry matter (DM), metabolisable energy (ME) and crude protein
technical or organizational interventions and characterize the (CP) in the diet. Calculation of these variables was based on the
livestock production system. FEAST differs from conventional feed quantities of purchased feed status by farmers and the level of on‐
assessment approaches that focus on the feeds nutritive value and farm crop residues and other feed resources production. Standard
ways to improve it. FEAST encompasses focused group exercises DM, ME and CP values for feed materials was obtained from FEAST
which provide an indication of the production system with a Software Version 2.21 [25].
particular emphasis on livestock feed resources and a simple and
Statistical analysis
succinct quantitative questionnaire intended to be completed by
professionals under the direction of FEAST facilitator. The tool was The collected data was managed and organized with MS-Excel
pretested on 5% of the sample size in a similar setting to evaluate and was analyzed using the updated FEAST software version 2.21
appropriateness of the design, clarity and interpretation of the [25], and statistical package for social science (SPSS) version 20
question by farmers, relevance of the questions and time taken [26], for further analysis with the procedure of general linear
for interview to make appropriate modification and corrections. model. Means were compared using least significant difference
The questionnaire was then amended, further refined and fully (LSD), adopting the probability level of 5%. In all univariate
structured for the final interview. analyses, p-value<0.05 was considered as a cut-off point for
statistical significance. The statistical model used for the
During the survey, information was mainly gathered through assessment of feed resource availability and utilization:
focus group discussion and individual interview. The focus group
discussion guide was designed to capture feed context/issues
like labour availability, cash/credit availability and availability of Where:
input delivery, availability of land for fodder cultivation, rainfall
patterns, utilization of livestock feeds and current problems Yij = the response of the; HH in the agro-ecologies
affecting livestock production mainly related to feed resource μ = overall mean
availability and potential solutions to these problems. The
individual interview questionnaire was designed to capture about αi = effect of agro-ecologies (i = 3)
on-farm feeding strategies and nutrient availability. In addition, eij = random error
key informant interview and discussion with district livestock
experts to confirm information obtained from group discussions Results and Discussion
and individual interviews and field observations were made to Land used for crop production
assess the feed utilization. Three key informants were made from
The dominant crops grown in the area are maize, pepper,
within participants selected from development agents, kebele
wheat, teff, barley, finger millet, field pea, fava bean, noug and
officials and elderly people who have detailed information about
potato (Table1). Land allocated for maize, wheat and finger millet
the kebele.
was higher (P<0.001) in mid and low altitude than high altitude
Secondary data accessible in the district, zone and region but, for barley it is the reverse. Land allocated for field pea was
agricultural offices were extensively used. Furthermore, secondary higher (P<0.01) in low altitude than mid altitude. Land allocated
data collected from all possible relevant sources (published for noug and teff was higher (p<0.01) in mid and low altitude than
and unpublished documents) were reviewed to strengthen the high altitude but, for fava bean it was higher (p<0.05) in mid than
information. Information from secondary sources were gathered high altitude. However, there is no significant difference in land
by reviewing different literatures between February and April allocation for the remaining crops among the three altitudes/
2017. agro-ecologies. The overall land holding per HH in the current
study was 1.8±0.12ha. However, there is a significant difference
Evaluation of feed resources
in land holding per HH among agro-ecologies. The higher land
Individual interview of farmers aims at collecting quantitative holding of farmers in low altitudes might be due to expansion
information on feed resource availability and quality. Responses of farmland without restriction by clearing of forest and low
collected during individual interviews were used to calculate population density of the area.
approximate average values on a per HH basis for key variables
Table 1: Allocation of land (ha, Mean ± SEM) for the production of different types of crops.
Agro-Ecology
Crops Overall (N=90) SL
Mid Altitude (N=54) Low Altitude (N=18) High Altitude (N=18)
Maize 0.57±0.04b 0.56±0.07b 0.20±0.09a 0.44±0.04 ***
Wheat 0.49±0.03c 0.34±0.06b 0.23±0.06a 0.36±0.03 ***

Pepper 0.52±0.07 0.66±0.10 0.21±0.25 0.46±0.09 NS
DOI: 10.19080/ARTOAJ.2018.17.556022.
Finger millet 0.30±0.02b 0.33±0.07b 0.24±0.03a 0.29±0.03 ***
Teff 0.30±0.03ab 0.44±0.05b 0.21±0.07a 0.32±0.03 *

Barley 0.27±0.02b 0.17±0.02a 0.50±0.06c 0.31±0.02 ***
Field pea 0.23±0.06a 0.38±0.04b - 0.31±0.04 **
Noug 0.28±0.028b 0.31±0.03b 0.22±0.05a 0.27±0.02 **
Faber bean 0.28±0.02b - 0.12±0.02a 0.2±0.017 *
Potato - - 0.17±0.04 0.17±0.04 NS
Total 2.03±0.14b 2.5±0.24b 0.84±0.24a 1.8±0.12 ***
Mean values with different superscripts in a row indicate statistically significant differences among agro-ecologies (p<0.05)
a, b, c
N:
Number of Respondents; SEM: Standard Error of Means; SL: Level of Significance; NS: Non-Significant
Species of livestock kept and reasons for keeping number of sheeps per HH in mid altitude than low altitude and
livestock goats holding were significantly higher in low altitude than high
altitude, due to the presence of larger area of browsing land in low
Cattle are the dominant livestock species in all agro-ecologies.
altitude and natural pasture in mid altitude. Number of horses and
The higher proportion of cattle holding in all agro-ecologies
mules kept per household were significantly higher in high and
could be due to high demand of oxen for cultivation and other
mid than low altitudes because of suitability of highlands for horse
farm activities. In the mid altitude there was the highest number
and mule rearing with lower incidences of diseases and larger
of cattle than low and high altitudes because of easy access to
natural pasture as compared to low altitudes.
veterinary services and feed resources. Significantly higher
Seasonality of feed resource availability (%)
Figure 1: Composition of livestock feed throughout the year in relation to rainfall pattern in mid altitude agro-ecology.
Figure 2: Composition of livestock feed throughout the year in relation to rainfall pattern in low altitude agro-ecology.
DOI: 10.19080/ARTOAJ.2018.17.556022.
Figure 3: Composition of livestock feed throughout the year in relation to rainfall pattern in high altitude agro-ecology.
Figure 1 & 2 and Figure 3 show composition of feedstuffs findings of this study. Feed is in good supply from June to October,
throughout the year in relation to rainfall pattern in mid, low as there is better growth of pasture, weeds and crop thinning
and high altitudes, respectively. availability of natural pasture which reconcile with earlier reports [27,31,32]. Purchased feeds,
and crop residues is governed by seasons of the year and rainfall conserved feeds and non-conventional feeds were used to cope
patterns which are nearly similar across agro-ecologies. There are the livestock feed shortage during critical periods which is similar
variations in availability of feed resources in terms of quantity with previous reports [33,30,27].
and type of feeds. Natural pasture is major feed resource in wet
Major constraints of livestock production
season. Crop residues and stubble grazing were reported to be
the major feed resources during the dry season. The availability The results of the focus group discussions, key informant
of natural pasture is positively correlated with rainfall pattern interview and field observations revealed that feed shortage in
and was increased from June to October but declined as the dry terms of quantity and quality, limited knowledge, poor genetic
season approaches whereas crop residues are more abundant potential of indigenous animals, disease and land shortage were
immediately following crop harvest from January to May (Figure the main constraints affecting livestock production in all agro-
1-3). This pattern of feed fluctuation in availability was similar in ecologies in decreasing order of importance (Table 2) and is in line
the three agro-ecologies. Most of the natural pasture was available with results reported in studies conducted in developing countries
to livestock during the rainy season and declined towards crop [10,34-41]. The following reports support the findings in this
harvesting period. Overall feed biomass availability was high from study. Feed shortage, livestock diseases, low productivity, water
June to October and was the least from April to May in all agro- scarcity and predators in descending order of importance were
ecologies (Figure 1-3). Purchased feeds, conserved feeds and non- earlier identified as major constraints [42]. Shortage of grazing
conventional feeds were used to copeup with feed shortage. land, diseases and parasites, inadequate veterinary service and
low milk production potential of indigenous cattle were the major
The study indicated that livestock feed accessibility and type constraints of livestock production [41]. Similarly, lack of quality
vary according to seasons of the year which is consistent with animal feed, diseases, lack of improved breed, shortage of land,
earlier reports [27,28,14]. Natural pasture is reported to be the lack of awareness on improved forage production and shortage of
major feed sources in wet season, and crop residues and stubble forage seeds/cuttings were major constraints in decreasing order
grazing during the dry season [29,30,11] which agree with the of importance [43].
Table 2: Pair wise ranking of major challenges facing livestock production.
Agro-Ecology
Overall
Identified Problems High Altitude Mid Altitude Low Altitude
Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank
Livestock feed shortage 4 1 3 2 4 1 3.66 1
Limited knowledge/awareness 3 2 4 1 3 2 3.33 2
Poor genetic make-up of animals 2 3 3 2 2 3 2.33 3

Diseases 0 5 1 4 1 4 0.66 4
Land shortage 1 4 0 5 0 5 0.33 5
DOI: 10.19080/ARTOAJ.2018.17.556022.
In addition, feed shortage, lack of initial capital, disease, high altitude, about 73% of the DM of livestock feed is obtained
market and labour (herder) were among the reported constraints from crop residues, natural pasture and cultivated fodder while
[44]. Likewise, feed shortage, disease prevalence mainly bovine purchased feeds and cut and carry accounted for the remainder.
trypanosomiasis, lack of initial capital, water and labor scarcity Similarly, in low altitude, the largest share of livestock feed DM
were identified as major livestock production constraints in (78%) is obtained from crop residues and natural pasture. Natural
decreasing order of importance [45]. Moreover, feed shortage, pasture and crop residues contributed 77% of DM of the total diet
water scarcity, disease and low productivity of animals were in mid altitude (Table 3).
assessed to be the major livestock production constraints [46].
Differences in DM contribution of crop residues, cultivated
Furthermore, feed shortage was found out to be the major and most
fodder, cut and carry and purchased feeds among agro-ecologies
important constraint of livestock production [27,37,42,44,47].
were significant (p<0.05). However, DM contribution of natural
Contribution of feed resources pasture was not significantly different among agro-ecologies. The
Dry matter contribution of available feed resources: The dry DM contribution of the crop residues were higher (p<0.01) in low
matter (DM) contribution of feed resources to livestock diets in and mid altitudes than high altitude. The DM contribution of cut
all agro-ecologies is shown in Table 3. Crop residues contributed and carry was higher (p<0.01) in mid altitude than high and low
the largest portion of feed DM. Natural pasture and cut and carry altitudes. The DM contribution of cultivated fodder (p<0.001) and
were the second largest contributors of DM to the total diet. In purchased feeds (p<0.01) was higher in high altitude than mid and
low altitudes (Table 3).
Table 3: Mean dietary DM, ME and CP contribution (%, Mean ± SEM) of available feed resources in sampled HHs.
Agro-Ecology
Feed Resources Overall (N=90) SL
High Altitude (N=18) Low Altitude (N=18) Mid Altitude (N=54)
Dry Matter (DM) Contribution (%)
Crop residues 28.2±2.06a 55.67±2.06b 54.23±1.19b 46.03±1.05 **
Natural pasture 24.20±1.21 22.27±1.21 22.94±0.64 23.14±.56 Ns
Cut and carry 15.75±0.76ab 13.32±0.76a 17.18±0.44b 15.41±.39 **
Cultivated fodder 20.63±1.84c 1.3±1.84a 3.15±1.06b 8.36±.94 ***
Purchased feeds 11.22±1.48c 7.45±1.48ab 2.46±0.85a 7.04±.75 **
Metabolisable Energy ( MJ ME/kg) Contribution (%)
Crop residues 31.67±1.23a 52.91±1.23b 51.12±0.71b 45.23±.63 ***
Natural pasture 23.79±0.96ab 23.49±0.96a 23.65±0.55a 23.64±.49 NS
Cut and carry 17.16±0.62ab 15.61±0.62a 19.69±0.36b 17.49±.32 **
Cultivated fodder 15.83±0.69c 1.22±0.69a 3.39±0.39b 6.81±.35 ***
Purchased feeds 11.55±0.88c 6.78±0.88b 2.15±0.46a 6.83±.41 ***
Crude Protein (CP) Contribution (%)
Crop residues 28.47±3.03a 49.75±3.03c 42.33±1.75b 40.19±1.54 ***
Natural pasture 23.96±1.06a 26.56±1.06b 27.96±0.61b 26.16±.54 *
Cut and carry 15.53±0.58a 15.88±0.58a 20.95±0.34b 17.45±0.29 ***
Cultivated fodder 21.26±0.3c 2.89±0.3a 6.33±1.73b 10.16±1.53 ***
Purchased feeds 10.78±0.75c 4.93±0.75b 2.44±0.43a 6.05±.38 ***
Mean values with different superscripts in a row indicate statistically significant difference between agro-ecologies (p<0.05)
a, b, c
SEM: Standard Error of Means; SL: Level of Significance; NS: Non-Significant.
Crop residues contributed the largest portion of feed DM The contribution of natural pasture to livestock feeds is
during the dry season which agrees with earlier report [9]. The generally declining due to expansion of crop farming [48]. The
DM contribution reported for crop residues in the current study DM contribution of natural pasture in the current study was
agrees with earlier reports [48,49]. On the other hand, the DM comparable [10,14,32], higher [52,53], but lower than those
contribution of crop residues in the current study was greater earlier reported [1,6,31,50,51]. This might be due to differences
[1,6,14,32,50,51], but lower than earlier reports [11,31,52]. These in environmental condition, size of natural pasture and forage
differences might be due to differences in variety of crops grown species/botanical composition in the natural pasture. Cut and
and soil fertility of the areas. carry has become important feed sources due to shortage of
grazing lands [48]. The DM contribution of cut and carry was
DOI: 10.19080/ARTOAJ.2018.17.556022.
comparable [40,41]; higher [41,48,54], but less than those earlier district (39.7%, 28.1%, 35.4%, 37.4%, 30.0%, 35%, respectively).
reported [14,49,42]. This might have been caused by differences This might be a reflection of differences in environment and
in soil fertility and forage species and crops grown. forage species found in the natural pastures. The ME contribution
of cut and carry was comparable with previous results [40,46,47],
The contribution of cultivated fodder as livestock feed is
but higher [52,41], and lower [14,35,42,45], than those reported
comparatively small in all agro-ecologies. The DM contribution
earlier. These differences might have been caused by variations in
of cultivated fodder in the present study was comparable with
soil fertility, forage species and environment. The ME contribution
previous findings [6,10,43]. On the other hand, the DM contribution
of cultivated fodder in the present study was comparable with
of cultivated fodder in the present study area was higher than
previous findings reported [41,48,49], but it was greater than
results earlier reported [1,14,33]. However, the finding in the
those earlier reported by [14,40,45]; however, it was lower than
current study was less than those reported earlier [42,53]. This
other reports [39,42,49], possibly due to differences in cultivated
might have been due to differences in variety of cultivated forages.
forage varieties and forage management.
The DM contribution of purchased feeds in the present study was
comparable with the previous results reported [6,41,49], but it The ME contribution of purchased feeds to livestock feed was
was higher [1,14], and lower than those earlier reported [44,53]. very low in all agro-ecologies studied which is in agreement with a
These differences might be due to differences in DM content of previous report [7]. The ME contribution of purchased feeds in the
purchased feeds. present study was comparable with previous reports [41,40,49],
but was higher [14,45,48], and lower [35,39,55], than other
Metabolisable energy contribution of available feed
reports. High cost and limited vailability of agro-idustrial by-
resources: Metabolisable energy (ME) contribution of feed
products and lack of awareness could be reasons for differences
resources to livestock diets in all agro-ecologies is shown in Table
in use of purchased feeds.
3. Crop residues contributed the largest proportion of ME. Natural
pasture and cut and carry were the second largest contributor Crude protein contribution of available feed resources:
for ME of the total diet. In high altitude, majority of the ME of The crude protein (CP) contribution of feed resources to livestock
livestock feed is obtained from crop residues; natural pasture diets in all agro-ecologies is shown in Table 3. Crop residues
and cut and carry while purchased feeds and cultivated fodder contributed the largest proportion of feed CP. Natural pasture
accounted for the rest. In a similar way, in low altitude, the largest and cut and carry were the second largest contributors of CP of
share of livestock feed is obtained from natural pasture and crop the total diet. In high altitude, largest proportions of CP of the
residues, which accounted for 76% of ME of the diet. In analogous total diet were supplied by crop residues, natural pasture and cut
way, natural pasture and crop residues contributed to the largest and carry; while in low altitude, it was crop residues and natural
proportions of ME of the total diet in mid altitude (Table 3). pasture. Natural pasture and crop residues contributed the largest
proportions of dietary CP in mid altitude (Table 3).
The ME contribution of crop residues, cultivated fodder, cut
and carry and purchased feeds were different (p<0.05) among Differences in CP contribution of crop residues, natural
agro-ecologies. However, ME contribution of natural pasture is not pasture, cultivated fodder, cut and carry and purchased feed among
significantly different among agro-ecologies. The ME contribution agro-ecologies were significant (p<0.05). The CP contribution
of crop residues was higher (p<0.001) in low and mid altitudes of crop residues were higher (p<0.001) in low altitude than mid
than high altitude. The ME contribution of cut and carry were and high altitudes. The CP contribution of natural pasture were
higher (p<0.01) in mid altitude than high and low altitudes. The higher (p<0.05) in mid and low altitude than high altitude. The CP
ME contribution of cultivated fodder and purchased feeds were contribution of cultivated fodder and purchased feeds was higher
higher (p<0.001) in high altitude than mid and low altitudes (p<0.001) in high altitude than mid and low altitudes. The CP
(Table 3). contribution of cut and carry was higher (p<0.001) in mid altitude
than high and low altitudes (Table 3).
Crop residues contributed the largest portion of feed ME
during the dry season. However, its contribution to overall dietary Protein is major limiting nutrient in feeding ruminant [51].
ME was quite low probably because of poor quality of crop Crop residues contributed the largest portion of feed CP in the
residues due to delay at harvest and poor storages [9]. The ME study area. However, its contribution to overall dietary CP was
contribution reported for crop residues in the current study were quite low probably because of poor quality of the crop residues
similar to previous result reported [45], but were higher [14,49], due to delay at harvest and poor storage [9]. The CP contribution
and lower than those results earlier reported [31]. This might be reported for crop residues in the current study was similar
due to variations in variety of crops, amount of rainfall and soil [35,45], but higher [14,39,41,42], and lower than [31], those
fertility of the areas. earlier reported. These variations might be due to differences in
variety of crops, cultural practices and soil fertility of the areas.
The ME contribution of natural pasture was comparable with
The CP contribution of natural pasture was comparable with
the preceding results reported [31,42], however it was greater
previous reports [14,31,52], but higher [35,39,42,45], and lower
[53], but lower than [14,39-41], those reported for Arbaminch
[40,41,47] than those of other reports. These variations could
Zuria, Bonke, Mirab Abaya, Arbegona, Bonazuria and Bensa
DOI: 10.19080/ARTOAJ.2018.17.556022.
possibly be due to difference in environment and forage species chemical and biological treatments of them; supplementing them
found in the pasture. The CP contribution of cut and carry in this with concentrates and training farmers on grazing management,
study was comparable with previous results reported [40,41,47] proper collection, conservation and utilization of available feed
but higher [39,50] lower [14,35,42,45] than earlier reports. These resources would improve their nutritional value.
differences might have been caused by variation in soil fertility,
References
forage species and environment [56-59].
1. CSA (2017) Agricultural sample survey. Report on livestock and
The CP contribution of cultivated fodder in the present study livestock characteristics (private peasant holdings). Central Statistical
was comparable with previous findings [41,47,49]; it was higher Agency (CSA): Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, p: 194.
than those reported earlier [14,35,45], but less than other reports 2. Gelayenew B, Nurfeta A, Assefa G, Asebe G (2016) Assessment of
[39,42,44,49]. These variations might be due to differences in livestock feed resources in the farming systems of mixed and shifting
cultivation, Gambella regional state, south western Ethiopia. Global
variety of cultivated forage. The CP contribution of purchased Journal of Science Frontier Research 16(5): 11-20.
feeds in the present study was comparable with previous
3. Ulfina G, Habtamu A, Jiregna D, Chala M (2013) Utilization of brewer’s
results reported [35,40,41]ssss, and is higher than other reports waste as replacement for maize in the ration of calves. Web Pub J Agric
[14,42,45,46], but lower than those reported by other authors Res 1(1): 8-11.
[15,39,49]. These differences might have been caused by variation 4. Kebede G, Assefa G, Feyissa F, Mengistu A (2016) A Review on some
in availability of such feeds and lack of awareness quality of feeds management and improvement practices of natural pasture in the Mid
of livestock holders. and High-altitude areas of Ethiopia. Int J Livest Res 6(5): 1-14.
5. Nigus A (2017) Pasture management and improvement strategies in
Intervention options: The following were found to be Ethiopia. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare 7(1): 69-78.
possible intervention options to mitigate shortage of feed in the
6. FAO. 2017. Africa sustainable livestock 2050-technical meeting and
study area in order of importance.
regional launch, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 21-23 February 2017. FAO
Animal Production and Health Report.No.12. Rome, Italy, p: 36.
a. Adequate training and follow-up on existing crop
residues management, improvement and utilization. 7. Tolera A, Yami A, Alemu D (2012) Livestock feed resources in Ethiopia,
challenges, opportunities and the need for transformation. Ethiopian
b. Training on improved forage development and animal feed industry Association, Addis Ababa, p: 132.
utilization. 8. Gurmessa K, Tolemariam T, Tolera A, Beyene F, Demeke S (2015) Feed
resources and livestock production situation in the Highland and Mid
c. Improve management and utilization of communal and altitude areas of Horro and Guduru district of Oromia regional state,
private grazing lands. western Ethiopia. Sci Technol Arts Res J 4(3): 111-116.
d. Provide supplemental feeds. 9. Gurmessa K, Tolemariam T, Tolera A, Beyene F (2016) Production and
utilization of crop residues in Horro and Guduru districts, western
e. Mixing improved/processed available feeds with legume Ethiopia. Food Science and Quality Management, 48: 77-84.
and concentrate supplementation. 10. Demeke S, Mekuriaw Y, Asmare B (2017) Assessment of livestock
production system and feed balance in the watersheds of North
f. Training on feeding management, feed conservation and Achefer district, Ethiopia. Journal of Agriculture and Environment for
utilization of conserved feeds. International Development 111(1): 175-190.
g. Grazing land management and improvement. 11. Gashe A, Zewdu T, Kassa A (2017) Feed resources in Gozamen district,
East Gojjam zone, Amhara region. J Environ Anal Toxicol 7(2): 1-12.
h. Production of improved cultivated fodder varieties. 12. Africa RISING. 2014. Africa Research in Sustainable Intensification for
the Next Generation, Ethiopian Highlands Project Technical report, p:
Conclusion and recommendation 14.
Crop residues, crop aftermath and natural pasture were 13. Chalchissa G, Mekasha Y, Urge M (2014) Feed resources quality and
the major feed resources. Crop residues contributed largest feeding practices in urban and peri-urban dairy production system of
proportion of feed DM, ME and CP in low, mid and high altitudes. southern Ethiopia. Tropical and subtropical agro-ecosystems 17(3):
539-546.
Highest crude protein (CP) contribution was from crop residues
in low (49.75±3.03) and mid altitudes (42.33±1.75) than in high 14. Gizaw S, Ebro A, Tesfaye Y, Mekuriaw Z, Mekasha Y, et al. (2017) Feed
resources in the highlands of Ethiopia: A value chain assessment and
altitude (28.47±3.03) and lowest was from purchased feeds intervention options. International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI),
with corresponding CP contribution in high (10.78±0.75), mid Nairobi, Kenya. p. 50.
(2.44±0.43) and low altitudes (4.93±0.75). Highest enery (ME) 15. Yami M, Begna B, Teklewold T (2013) Enhancing the productivity
contribution was from crop residues in low (52.91±1.23) and feeding strategies and utilization. Int J Livestock Production 1: 15-29.
mid altitudes (51.12±0.71) than in high altitude (31.67±1.23) and 16. CSA (2013) Agricultural sample survey. Report on livestock and
lowest was found from purchased feeds with ME contribution in livestock characteristics (private peasant holdings). Central Statistical
high (11.55±0.88), mid (2.15±0.46) and low altitudes (6.78±0.88) Agency (CSA): Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. p: 194.
and from that of cultivated fodder in high (15.83±0.69.), mid 17. IPMS (2014) Burie Pilot Learning Site Diagnosis and Program Design.
(3.39±0.39) and low altitudes(1.22±0.69 ). These major feed p: 91.v
resources found in the district are of low nutritional quality. Thus, 18. BZDOA (2017) Unpublished office report. Burie Zuria district Of
Agriculture, Ethiopia, p. 3.
DOI: 10.19080/ARTOAJ.2018.17.556022.
19. Arsham H (2007) Questionnaire design and survey sampling. SySurvey: Catchments of Jimma zone, south western Ethiopia. Global Veterinaria
The Online Survey Tool. 17(1): 78-94.
20. ILCA (1990) Livestock systems research manual. No.12, section 39. Mekasha Y, Biazen B, Tegegne A, Shewage T, Zewdie T, et al. (2015)
1.Working document. ILCA. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, p: 8. Spatio-temporal dynamics of natural grazing lands and livestock
holding in Sidama highlands of southern Ethiopia: Implications
21. Dereje G, Eshetu A (2011) Agro-ecologies of Ethiopia and major crops for sustainable grazing land development. Journal of Agricultural
grown; Collaboration with EIAR, p: 12. Engineering and Biotechnology, 3(3): 109-119.
22. ILRI (2015a) Feed Assessment Tool (FEAST) focus group discussion 40. Amole AT, Ayantunde AA (2016) Assessment of existing and potential
guide. ILRI Editorial and Publishing Services, p: 27. feed resources for improving livestock productivity in Niger. Int J Agric
23. ILRI (2015b) Feed Assessment Tool (FEAST) individual farmer Res 11(2): 40-55.
interview questionnaire. Nairobi: ILRI, p: 21. 41. Beriso K, Tamir B, Feyera T (2015) Characterization of smallholder
24. Duncan A, York L, Lukuyu B, Samaddar A, Stur W (2012) Feed cattle milk production system in Aleta Chukko district, southern
Assessment Tool (FEAST). Dzowela, (Eds.). Animal feed resources for Ethiopia. J Adv Dairy Res., 3(1): 1-8.
small-scale livestock producers. Proceedings, p. 21. 42. Umutoni C, Ayantunde A, Sawadogo JG (2015) Evaluation of feed
25. ILRI. 2015c. Feed Assessment Tool (FEAST) Data Application User resources in mixed crop-livestock systems in Sudano-Sahelian zone of
Manual. Nairobi: ILRI, p: 55. Mali in west Africa. International Journal of Livestock Research 5(8):
27-36.
26. SPSS (2011) Statistical Package for Social Science Inc. Chicago, Illinois,
USA. Version 20. 43. Wondatir Z (2015) Assessment of livestock production system and
feed resources availability at Melka watershed of Nile Basin, Jeldu
27. Debela M, Animut G, Eshetu M (2017) Assessment of feed resources district, western Ethiopia. Global Journal of Science Frontier Research,
availability and utilization in DaroLabu district, western Hararge zone, 15(9): 7-20.
Ethiopia. Journal of Natural Sciences Research 7(13): 50-57.
44. Abera M, Tolera A, Assefa G (2014) Feed resource assessment and
28. Emana MM, Ashenafi M, Getahun A (2017) Opportunity and constraints utilization in Baresa watershed, Ethiopia. International Journal of
of livestock feed resources in Abol and Lare districts of Gambella Science and Research 3(2): 66-72.
region, Ethiopia. Nutri Food SciInt J 3(4): 1-9.
45. Worku Z, Tilahun S, Tolemariam T, Jimma W (2016) Assessment of
29. Assefa F, Tigistu T, Lambebo A (2015) Assessment of the production prevailing cattle fattening practices in Jimma zone, south western
systems, major constraints and opportunities of sheep production in Ethiopia. Global Veterinarian 17(2): 105-113.
Doyogena district, KembataTambaro zone, southern Ethiopia. Journal
of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare 5(21): 37-41. 46. Altaye ZS, Kassa B, Agza B, Alemu F, Muleta G (2014) Smallholder cattle
production systems in Metekel zone, north west Ethiopia. Research
30. Lemma, M., Negesse, T. and Nurfet, A. 2016. Assessment of feed resource Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Management 2(3): 151-157.
availability and quality in Kedida Gamela district, southern Ethiopia.
International Journal of Environment, Agriculture and Biotechnology, 47. Assefa D, Nurfeta A, Banerjee S (2013) Assessment of feed resource
1(1): 31-39. availability and livestock production constraints in selected kebele of
AdamiTulluJiddo Kombolcha district, Ethiopia. Afr J Agric Res 8(29):
31. Gashaw M, Defar G (2017) Livestock feed resources, nutritional value 4067-4073.
and their implication on animal productivity in mixed farming system
in Gasera and Ginnir districts, Bale zone, Ethiopia. Int J Livest Prod 48. Hailemariam S, Mohamed A, Silassie GM, Gebeyew K (2017)
8(2): 12-23. Identification and nutritional characterization of major sheep and
goats feed resource in Jigjiga zone, Ethiopia Somali regional state.
32. Geremew G, Negesse T, Abebe A (2017) Assessment of availability and World Applied Sciences Journa, 35(3): 459-464.
nutritive values of feed resources and their contribution to livestock
nutrient requirements in Chire district, southern Ethiopia. Agri Res 49. Negesse T, Adugna G, Ajebu N (2016) Assessment of livestock feed
and Tech: Open Access J 7(4): 1-5. resource and effect of supplementing sweet potato vine hay on growth
performance and feed intake of grazing local goats in Aleta Chuko
33. Duguma B, Janssens GPJ (2016) Assessment of feed resources, feeding district, Sidama zone SNNPRS, Ethiopia. International Journal of
practices and coping strategies to feed scarcity by smallholder dairy Environment, Agriculture and Biotechnology 1(3): 466-475.
producers in Jimma town, Ethiopia. Springer Plus 5(1): 1-10.
50. Wondatir Z, Adie A, Duncan AJ (2015b) Assessment of livestock
34. Wondatir Z, Damtew E (2015) Assessment of livestock production production and feed resources at Kerekicho, Angacha district, Ethiopia.
system and feed resources availability in Hawassa Zuria district, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Nairobi, Kenya, p: 21.
Ethiopia. International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Nairobi,
Kenya, p: 21. 51. Kashongwe BO, Mwangi WL, Bebe OB, Matofari WJ, Huelsebusch
C (2017) Influence of on-farm feed formulations and hygiene
35. Mekasha A, Gerardd B, Tesfaye K, Nigatub L, Duncan JA (2014) Inter- interventions on milk yield and quality in smallholder dairy farms in
connection between land use/land cover changes and herders’/ Kenya. Int J Agr Ext 5(2): 11-17.
farmers’ livestock feed resource management strategies: a case study
from three Ethiopian eco-environments. Agriculture Ecosystems and 52. Muyekho FN, Siamba D, Agevi H, Etiang SA (2014) Characterization of
Environment 188: 150-162. the livestock production system and potential to enhance productivity
through improved feeding in Sabatia, Vihiga Country, Kenya.
36. Berhanu T, Abebe G, Thingtham J, Tusdri S, Prasanpanich S (2017) International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Nairobi, Kenya, p: 16.
Availability of feed resources for goats in pastoral and agro-pastoral
districts of South Omo zone, Ethiopia. International Journal of Research 53. Wondatir Z, Adie A, Duncan AJ (2015a) Assessment of livestock
Granthaalayah 5(3): 154-160. production and feed resources at Robit-Bata, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia.
International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Nairobi, Kenya, p: 22.
37. Biratu K, Haile S (2017) Assessment of livestock feed availability,
conservation mechanism and utilization practices in South Western 54. Duressa D, Kenea D, Keba W, Desta Z, Berki G, et al. (2014) Assessment
Ethiopia. Acad Res J Agri Sci Res 5(7): 461-470. of livestock production system and feed resources availability in three
villages of Diga district, Ethiopia. International Livestock Research
38. Husen, M., Kechero, Y. and Molla, M (2016) Availability, yield and Institute (ILRI), Nairobi, Kenya, p: 27.
utilization practices of livestock feed resources in Gilgel Gibe
DOI: 10.19080/ARTOAJ.2018.17.556022.
55. Umutoni C, Ayantunde AA (2014) Evaluation of feed resources in mixed 58. Tefera G, Tegegne F, Mekuriaw Y, Melaku S, Tsunekawa A (2015)
crop-livestock production systems in the Sudano-Sahelian zone of Mali. Effects of different forms of white lupin (Lupinus albus) grain
International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Nairobi, Kenya, p: 26. supplementation on feed intake, digestibility, growth performance
and carcass characteristics of Washera sheep fed rhodes grass (Chloris
56. Deresse A, Assefa T, Wondatir Z, Seifu T, Negassa J, et al. (2014) gayana) hay-based diets. Trop Anim Health Prod 47(8): 81-90.
Assessment of livestock production system and feed resources
availability at Melka watershed, Jeldu district, Ethiopia. International 59. Francis NM, Donald S, Humphrey A, Sebastian AE (2014)
Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Nairobi, Kenya, p: 21. Characterization of the livestock production systems and the potential
to enhance productivity through improved feeding in Sabatia, Vihiga
57. Olaniyi JB, Anandan S, Adedayo OS, Augustine AA, Iheanacho O, et country, Kenya, p: 15.
al. (2014) Characterization of the farming and livestock production
systems using the feed assessment tool (FEAST) in selected local
government areas of Oyo state, Nigeria. International Livestock
Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya, p: 26.
This work is licensed under Creative Your next submission with Juniper Publishers
Commons Attribution 4.0 License will reach you the below assets
DOI: 10.19080/ARTOAJ.2018.17.556022
• Quality Editorial service
• Swift Peer Review
• Reprints availability
• E-prints Service
• Manuscript Podcast for convenient understanding
• Global attainment for your research
• Manuscript accessibility in different formats
( Pdf, E-pub, Full Text, Audio)
• Unceasing customer service
Track the below URL for one-step submission

https://juniperpublishers.com/online-submission.php
DOI: 10.19080/ARTOAJ.2018.17.556022.

Artoaj MS Id 556022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Artoaj MS Id 556022

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Artoaj MS Id 556022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research Article Agri Res & Tech: Open Access J

Volume 17 Issue 3 - August 2018

Feed Resource Availability and their Nutrient

Ethiopia, Tel: +251916827711; Email:

Keywords: Agro-ecology; Crude protein; Dry matter; Metabolisable energy

Wheat 0.49±0.03c 0.34±0.06b 0.23±0.06a 0.36±0.03 ***

Finger millet 0.30±0.02b 0.33±0.07b 0.24±0.03a 0.29±0.03 ***

Teff 0.30±0.03ab 0.44±0.05b 0.21±0.07a 0.32±0.03 *

Seasonality of feed resource availability (%)

Table 2: Pair wise ranking of major challenges facing livestock production.

Limited knowledge/awareness 3 2 4 1 3 2 3.33 2

Poor genetic make-up of animals 2 3 3 2 2 3 2.33 3

Land shortage 1 4 0 5 0 5 0.33 5

SEM: Standard Error of Means; SL: Level of Significance; NS: Non-Significant.

Track the below URL for one-step submission

You might also like