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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Acknowledgements

Swedish ministry of Foreign Affairs for the funding

Farmers in Kampala

Thank you for Listening!