Quick Scan of Uganda’s Forage Sub-Sector - WUR
Transcript of Quick Scan of Uganda’s Forage Sub-Sector - WUR
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
ii
Quick Scan of Uganda’s Forage Sub-Sector
Netherlands East African Dairy Partnership (NEADAP)
Working Paper Supplement: Survey Diagrams and Questionnaire
Nairobi - November 2019
Authors: Jos Creemers (SNV Kenya / ProDairy EA Ltd)
Adolfo Alvarez Aranguiz (Wageningen UR, Livestock Research)
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
iii
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
iv
Quick Scan of Uganda’s Forage Sub-Sector
Working Paper Supplement: Survey Diagrams and Questionnaire
Netherlands East African Dairy Partnership (NEADAP) Jos Creemers - SNV Kenya Adolfo Alvarez Aranguiz - Wageningen UR, Livestock Research This Supplement is part of the Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan or Working Paper and includes the Survey Diagrams and the Questionnaire. The Working Paper describes Uganda’s forage sub-sector and looks at the current situation of available forage species and their quality, seasonality, preservation, forage seeds and planting material, fertilizer use, mechanisation, inputs and services, the forage market, education and training, innovations, environmentally sustainable forage production and policies and regulations affecting the forage sub-sector. The Working Paper identifies gaps and gives recommendations to enhance availability of quality forages. It is a reference document for the development of a Strategy Paper or Policy Brief under Theme 2: Forages and nutrition of dairy cows, of the Netherlands East African Dairy Partnership project (NEADAP). NEADAP is an initiative by the Netherlands government for learning and sharing amongst different dairy sectors and projects in East Africa.
This report can be downloaded free of charge from www.cowsoko.com/KMDP The user may copy, distribute and transmit the work and create derivative works. Third-party material that has been used in the work and to which intellectual property rights apply, may not be used without prior permission of the third party concerned. The user must specify the name as stated by the author or license holder of the work, but not in such a way as to give the impression that the work of the user or the way in which the work has been used are being endorsed. The user may not use this work for commercial purposes. NEADAP and the implementing partners SNV. Agriterra, Wageningen UR and Bles Dairies accept no liability for any damage arising from the use of the results of this research or the application of the recommendations.
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
v
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
6
Survey Diagrams
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
7
1. General Constraints
Figure 1.1. “Select the five most important constraints that prevent an increase in forage production and preservation in Uganda” (Q2)
Figure 1.1. Question 2 “Select the five most important constraints that prevent an increase in forage production and
preservation in Uganda”. Awareness, knowledge and skills is the biggest hindrance to improved forage production (16%),
followed by mechanization (14%), availability of forage seeds or plant material (13%) absence of a milk market (12%) and financial
constraints (9%) (Survey Diagrams; Figure 1.1).
16%
14%
13%
12%
9%
8%
8%
6%
5%
4%4%
1%
Awareness, knowledge andskillsMechanisation
Seed/plant materialavailabilityMilk market
Financial matters
Training/education
Land availability
Food/forage cropcompetitionContractor/serviceavailability
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
8
Figure 1.2. “List at least three important reasons why in Uganda production of quality forages (high nutritive value) is still deficient”. (Q3)
Figure 1.2. Question 3. “List at least three important reasons why in Uganda production of quality forages (high nutritive value)
is still deficient”. Likewise, 22% of the respondents mentioned Lack of knowledge and skills as the root cause along with lack of accessibility of seeds and planting material (17%). Low level of mechanisation (11%) comes before low milk prices (10%) it can be mentioned that those respondents who answered lack of milk market (5%) also had low milk prices in mind. , Agronomic forage management practices (9%) and financial contraints (8%) of the farmers.
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
9
2. Forage species and research
Figure 2.1. Intensive farming system (Q4.1)
Figure 2.1, 2.2, 2.3. Question 4. “What are the three most common forage species used by dairy farmers in different farming system?” Based on the response in the questionnaire in the intensive farming system Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum)) Maize (Zea maize) and Rhodes grass (Chloris gayana) respectively 31.8%, 19.7% and 10.6% are the most commonly used forages. In the system with grazing in fenced paddocks with improved pastures (semi-intensive farming system) Rhodes grass is the most used (26.9%) followed by Brachiaria ssp, Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum) and Natural grasses and legumes respectively 14.9%, 11.9% and 10.4%. In the Free Range-Natural grassland system (extensive farming systems) Rhodes grass (Chloris gayana), Natural grasses and Brachiaria (Brachiaria ssp) 16.4%, 11.5% and 9.8% are the most commented
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
3.0%
3.0%
3.0%
3.0%
3.0%
6.1%
7.6%
10.6%
19.7%
31.8%
Brachiaria grasses
Calliandra calothyrsus
Centrosema pubescens
Sorghum drummondii
Improved grasses
Cynodon Dactylon
Desmodium spp
Legumes
Medicago sativa
Pennisetum clandistinum
Crop Residues
Natural pasture grasses
Lab lab
Chloris gayana
Zea maize
Pennisetum purpureum
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
10
Figure 2.2. Semi – intensive farming system (Q4.2)
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
3.0%
3.0%
4.5%
6.0%
6.0%
7.5%
10.4%
11.9%
14.9%
26.9%
Cenchrus cilliaris
Digitaria abyssinica
Ipomoea batatas cv Mafuta
Cynodon dactylon
Stylosanthes guianensis
Glycine neonotonia wightii
Pennisetum clandistinum
Centrosema pubescens
Desmodium spp
Zea maize
Natural grasses & legumes
Napier grass
Brachiaria spp
Chloris gayana
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
11
Figure 2.3. Extensive farming system (Q4.3)
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
3.3%
3.3%
3.3%
3.3%
3.3%
3.3%
4.9%
6.6%
6.6%
6.6%
8.2%
9.8%
11.5%
16.4%
Banana leaves
Setaria splendida
Lab lab
Ipomoea batatas cv Mafuta
Macroptilium atropurpureum cv. Siratro
Sporobus
Cenchrus cilliaris
Glycine neonotonia wightii
Zea Maize
Pennisetum purpureum
Cynodon dactylon
Panicum maximum
Centrosema pubescens
Pennisetum clandistinum
Stylosanthes guianensis
Desmodium spp
Hyparrhenia ssp
Brachiaria spp
Natural pastures
Chloris gayana
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
12
Figure 2.4. Intensive farming (Q5.1).
1.3%
1.3%
1.3%
1.3%
1.3%
1.3%
1.3%
1.3%
2.6%
2.6%
2.6%
3.9%
3.9%
3.9%
5.3%
5.3%
6.6%
11.8%
15.8%
25.0%
Calliandra calothyrsus
Clitoria ternatea
Glyricidia sepium
Crop Residues
Setaria splendida
Stylosanthes guianensis
Azolla
Ipomoea batatas cv Mafuta
Centrosema
Sorghum drummondii
Medicago sativa
Brachiaria spp
Pennisetum clandistinum
Desmodium ssp
Improved pastures
Lab lab
Natural pastures & legumes
Chloris gayana
Zea maize
Pennisetum purpureum
Figure 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7. Question 5. “Which forage species, in order of importance, do you think give the best return for the
dairy farmer in the different farming systems?” Based on the responses given to the questionnaire (Survey Diagrams; Figure 2.4) Napier grass gives the best returns according to 25% of the respondence. Maize (Zea mays) is gaining in popularity (15.8%) as a forage crop in intensive farming systems. In Uganda the maize varieties used are the same as those used for human consumption due to the absence of forage maize varieties in the local market. In semi-intensive farming systems, responses to the questionnaire indicate that Rhodes grass (23.7%) gives the best returns for the farmers, followed by Brachiaria (15.3%), Napier grass (13.6%) and Desmodium (10.2%). (Survey Diagrams; Figure 2.5). In the extensive farming system Rhodes grass (30.6%) gives the best return for farmers followed by Brachiaria (16.3%) and Natural grass and legumes (12.2%). The Brachiaria species referred to are those occurring naturally in the pasture’s contrary to Kenya where Brachiaria is only referred t as hybrids or cultivars.
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
13
Figure 2.5. Semi-intensive farming systems (Q5.2).
23.7%
15.3%
13.6%
10.2%
8.5%
5.1%
8.5%
5.1%
5.1%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
Chloris gayana
Brachiaria ssp
Pennisetum purpureum
Desmodium spp
Natural grasses & legumes
Centrosema pubescens
Pennisetum clandistinum
Calliandra calothyrsus
Zea maize
Sorghum drummondii
Glycine neonotonia wightii
Glyricidia sepium
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
14
Figure 2.6. Extensive farming systems (Q5.3).
30.6%
16.3%
12.2%
8.2%
8.2%
6.1%
4.1%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
Chloris gayana
Brachiaria ssp
Natural grasses & legumes
Desmodium spp
Hyparrhenia ssp
Glycine neonotonia wightii
Panicum ssp
Centrosema pubescens
Sorghum drummondii
Cenchrus cilliaris
Pennisetum clandistinum
Pennisetum purpureum
Cynodon dactylon
Stylosanthes guianensis
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
15
Figure 2.7a. The 3 farming systems combined (Q 5.4).
Intensive0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
Pen
nis
etu
m p
urp
ure
um
Zea
mai
ze
Ch
lori
s ga
yan
a
Nat
ura
l gra
sse
s &
legu
mes
Imp
rove
d p
astu
res
Lab
lab
Bra
chia
ria
spp
Pen
nis
etu
m c
lan
dis
tin
um
Des
mo
diu
m s
sp
Cen
tro
sem
a p
ub
esc
ens
Sorg
hu
m d
rum
mo
nd
ii
Med
icag
o s
ativ
a
Cal
lian
dra
cal
oth
yrsu
s
Clit
ori
a te
rnat
ea
Gly
rici
dia
sep
ium
Cro
p R
esid
ues
Seta
ria
sple
nd
ida
Styl
osa
nth
es g
uia
ne
nsi
s
Azo
lla
Ipo
mo
ea
bat
atas
cv
Maf
uta
Gly
cin
e n
eon
oto
nia
wig
hti
i
Hyp
arrh
enia
ssp
Pan
icu
m s
sp
Cen
chru
s ci
lliar
is
Cyn
od
on
dac
tylo
n
Intensive Semi Intensive Extensive
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
16
Fig.2.8. Intensive farming system (Q6.1).
Figure 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.11. Question 6. “What are the main constraints for forage production in the dairy farming systems and for commercial forage producers?” In the intensive farming system, land availability (17.1%) and high cost of production/financial constraints (17.1%) are major constraint for forage production in Uganda. Mechanization is also perceived as a constraint (11.4%) (Fig.2.8). In semi-intensive farming systems, knowledge and skills, mechanization and availability, accessibility and affordability of forage seeds are equally (17.1%) seen as a major constraint. Followed by land availability (11.4%) In extensive farming systems, high cost of production/financial constraints (19.4%), mechanization (16.7%), knowledge and skills (16.7%), and availability, accessibility and affordability of forage seeds (16.7%) are all considered to be constraints (Figure 2.9, Figure 2.10). For commercial forage producers, according to the results of the questionnaire, the major constraint for forage production is seen as the market being inadequate, not ready, for commercially produced forages as well as the low level of mechanization in the sector (respectively 24.3% and 24.3%) followed by availability, accessibility and affordability of forage seeds (13.5%) (Fiigure 2.11)
17.1%
17.1%
11.4%
8.6%
8.6%
8.6%
8.6%
5.7%
5.7%
2.9%
2.9%
2.9%
Land availability
Financial constraints/accessibility - High production cost
Mechanization
Skilled Labour
Knowledge and skills
Access to quality inputs and services
Seed quality, accessibility, availability, affordability,awareness
Low milk price
Water management
Forage management practices
Forage crop diseases
Preservation technology and knowledge
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
17
Figure 2.9. Semi-intensive farming systems (Q6.2).
17.1%
17.1%
17.1%
11.4%
8.6%
5.7%
5.7%
5.7%
2.9%
2.9%
2.9%
2.9%
Knowledge and skills
Mechanization
Seed quality, accessibility, availability, affordability,…
Land availability
Skilled Labour
Climate change
Financial constraints/accessibility - High production cost
Access to quality inputs and services
Soil fertility
Low milk price
Forage management practices
Limited forage storage facilities
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
18
Figure 2.10. Extensive farming systems (Q6.3).
19.4%
16.7%
16.7%
16.7%
11.1%
8.3%
5.6%
2.8%
2.8%
Financial constraints/accessibility - High production cost
Mechanization
Knowledge and skills
Seed quality, accessibility, availability, affordability, awareness
Forage & pasture management practices
Climate change
Preservation technology and knowledge
Herd size
Traditional farming system.
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
19
Figure 2.11. Commercial Forage Producers (Q6.4).
24.3%
24.3%
13.5%
10.8%
5.4%
5.4%
5.4%
5.4%
2.7%
2.7%
Inadequate (forage) market availability/ accessibility
Mechanization
Seed quality, accessibility, availability, affordability, awareness
Knowledge and skills
Land availability
Lack of storage fascilities
Access to quality inputs and services
Financial constraints/accessibility - High production cost
Forage pests & diseases
Seasonal milk price
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
20
Figure 2.12. Intensive farming systems (Q7.1).
Figure 2.12, 2.13, 2.14, 2.15. Question 7. ” What new forage species (energy/protein rich) do you think can be introduced
in the dairy farming systems?” Figure 2.15 (Survey Diagrams) provides an overview of the three farming systems (intensive, semi-intensive and extensive) and the species the respondents found promising. The Figure shows that in intensive farming systems Calliandra (19.4%) and Lucerne, Maize and Lab lab all at (12.9%) are promising forage crops. Lucerne is seen as a crop with potential in intensive farming systems as well despite often discouraging results in practical situations. In the semi-intensive and extensive farming systems Desmodium (10.3% & 10.8%) Brachiaria (10.8 & 5.1%) , Rhodes (12.8% & 8.1%) and Natural grass and legumes (12.8% & 10.8%) are the most promising forage crop in these 2 systems.
19.4%
12.9%
12.9%
12.9%
9.7%
6.5%
3.2%
3.2%
3.2%
3.2%
3.2%
3.2%
3.2%
3.2%
Calliandra calothyrsus
Medicago sativa
Zea Maize
Lab lab
Sorghum drummondii
Ipomoea batatas cv Mafuta
Azolla
Centrosema pubescens
Trifolium ssp.
Desmodium ssp.
Panicum maximum
Glycine ssp.
Cenchrus celiaris
Eragrostis teff
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
21
Figure 2.13. Semi-intensive farming systems (Q7.2).
10.8%
10.8%
8.1%
8.1%
8.1%
8.1%
5.4%
5.4%
5.4%
5.4%
5.4%
2.7%
2.7%
2.7%
2.7%
2.7%
2.7%
2.7%
Desmodium ssp.
Brachiaria ssp.
Chloris gayana
Natural pasture grasses and legumes
Glycine ssp.
Zea Maize
Calliandra calothyrsus
Centrosema pubescens
Pennisetum clandistinum
Lab lab
Stylosanthes ssp.
Trifolium ssp.
Arachis pintoi
Glyricidia sepium
Medicago sativa
Pennisetum purpureum
Sorghum bicolor (var. sudanese)
Cenchrus celiaris
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
22
Figure 2.14. Extensive farming systems (Q7.3).
12.8%
12.8%
10.3%
7.7%
7.7%
5.1%
5.1%
5.1%
5.1%
5.1%
5.1%
5.1%
2.6%
2.6%
2.6%
2.6%
2.6%
Chloris gayana
Natural pasture grasses and legumes
Desmodium ssp
Centrosema pubescens
Stylosanthes ssp.
Brachiaria ssp.
Calliandra calothyrsus
Glycine ssp.
Pennisetum purpureum
Panicum maximum
Cenchrus celiaris
Glyricidia sepium
Medicago sativa
Arachis pintoi
Pennisetum clandistinum
Morus alba
Sesbania sesban
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
23
Figure 2.15. Overall of 3 farming systems (Q7.4).
Intensive0%2%4%6%8%
10%12%14%16%18%20%
Cal
lian
dra
cal
oth
yrsu
s
Med
icag
o s
ativ
a
Lab
lab
Zea
mai
ze
Sorg
hu
m d
rum
mo
nd
ii
Ipo
mo
ea
bat
atas
cv
Maf
uta
Des
mo
diu
m s
sp
Cen
tro
sem
a p
ub
esc
ens
Gly
cin
e ss
p.
Pan
icu
m m
axim
um
Cen
chru
s ce
liari
s
Trif
oliu
m s
sp.
Erag
rost
is t
eff
Azo
lla
Ch
lori
s ga
yan
a
Nat
ura
l pas
ture
gra
sses
an
d le
gum
es
Sorg
hu
m b
ico
lor
(var
su
dan
ese)
Styl
osa
nth
es s
sp.
Bra
chia
ria
ssp
.
Pen
nis
etu
m p
urp
ure
um
Gly
rici
dia
sep
ium
Ara
chis
pin
toi
Pen
nis
etu
m c
lan
dis
tin
um
Mo
rus
alb
a
Sesb
ania
se
sban
Intensive Semi intensive Extensive
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
24
Figure 2.15. Overall of semi-intensive and extensive farming systems (Q7.4a).
Semi intensive0.0%2.0%4.0%6.0%8.0%
10.0%12.0%14.0%
Des
mo
diu
m s
sp
Bra
chia
ria
ssp
.
Ch
lori
s ga
yan
a
Nat
ura
l pas
ture
gra
sses
an
d…
Gly
cin
e ss
p.
Zea
mai
ze
Cen
tro
sem
a p
ub
esc
ens
Styl
osa
nth
es s
sp.
Cal
lian
dra
cal
oth
yrsu
s
Pen
nis
etu
m c
lan
dis
tin
um
Lab
lab
Cen
chru
s ce
liari
s
Pen
nis
etu
m p
urp
ure
um
Gly
rici
dia
sep
ium
Med
icag
o s
ativ
a
Ara
chis
pin
toi
Trif
oliu
m s
sp.
Sorg
hu
m b
ico
lor
(var
su
dan
ese)
Pan
icu
m m
axim
um
Mo
rus
alb
a
Sesb
ania
se
sban
Sorg
hu
m d
rum
mo
nd
ii
Ipo
mo
ea
bat
atas
cv
Maf
uta
Erag
rost
is t
eff
Azo
lla
Semi intensive Extensive
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
25
5. Preservation of forage crops
Figure 5.1. Intensive farming systems (Q8.1)
Figure 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4. Question 8. “What are the three most common forage preservation methods used in the dairy farming systems and by commercial forage producers?” The response to the question shows that, overall in the 3 farming systems and commercial fodder production, hay making is the most common way of forage preservation while ensiling is increasingly important in intensive (45%) and semi-intensive (39%). Standing hay is used in grazing systems as an intervention to overcome with periods of scarcity.
45%
40%
13%
2%
Ensiling
Drying (Hay)
Haylage
No preservation method
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
26
Figure 5.2. Semi-intensive farming systems (Q8.2)
39%
28%
23%
10%
Ensiling
Drying (hay)
No preservation method
Haylage
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
27
Figure 5.3. Extensive farming sytems (Q8.3)
65%
31%
4%
No preservation method
Drying (hay)
Ensiling
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
28
Figure 5.4. Commercial Forage Producers (Q8.4).
45%
37%
10%
5%
3%
Drying (hay)
Ensiling
Don’t know
Haylage
No preservation method
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
29
Figure 5.5. Question 9. “List at least three most common causes for post-harvest losses in the forage production and preservation chain?”
21%20%
16%
13%
9%
6%5%
4%
2% 2% 1%
Lack of storage fascilities (incl. silo's pits and bunkers) Lack of good agricultural practicesFermentation Harvesting stageLack of skills, knowledge and expertise WeatherMachinery Pest InvasionLabour issues Poor logistics
Figure 5.5. Question 9. “List at least three most common causes for post-harvest losses in the forage production and
preservation chain?” According to the respondents poor storage of hay (dry place) and silage bunkers (21%), lack of good agricultural practices during crop production causes major post-harvest losses (20%) and fermentation (16%) (Anaerobic conditions for silage) are the other important causes of losses (Fig. 5.5).
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
30
Figure 5.6. Question 10. “What farming practices can dairy farmers adopt to prevent or reduce harvest and post harvesting losses?”
Figure 5.6. Question 10. “What farming practices can dairy farmers adopt to prevent or reduce harvest and post harvesting
losses?” The respondents rated right harvesting stage (26%), applying good practices during crop management (24%) and better storage (21%) as the key factors to reduce post-harvest losses (Figure 5.6).
26%
24%
21%
16%
11%
3%
Harvesting time Management practices from seeding to feeding
Storage Lack of knowledge on conservation process.
Mechanization Pest control
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
31
Figure 5.7. Intensive farming systems (Q11.1).
Figure 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 5.10. Question 11. “Which other conservation methods or technologies do you think could be
introduced in the current dairy farming systems?” Silage making is particularly seen as a potential method to improve intensive farming systems (44%). For more extensive farming systems, grass management is an important option (55)% for extensive farming systems and (18%) for semi-intensive farming systems. For commercial forage producers, silage making (50%) and hay (30%) are the preferred options (Fig. 5.7-5.10).
44%
32%
16%
4% 4%
Silage Hay making Drying & Pelleting Compaction of nutrient blocks Centralized forage banks
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
32
Figure 5.8. Semi-intensive farming systems (Q11.2).
43%
25%
18%
11%
4%
Silage making Hay making Grass management: paddocking, rotational grazing Drying & Pelleting Haylage
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
33
Figure 5.9. Extensive farming systems (Q11.3).
55%
23%
14%
9%
Grass management Hay making Silage making Haylage
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
34
Figure 5.10. Commercial Forage Producers (Q11.4).
50%
31%
8% 8%4%
Silage making Hay making
Commercial feed centers (PMR and TMR) Drying and pelleting
Compaction of nutrient blocks
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
35
Figure 5.11a. Intensive farming systems (Q12.1)
Figure 5.11a, 5.11b, 5.12a, 5.12b, 5.13a, 5.13b. Question 12. “Which forage crops and preservation technologies are best
suited to reduce the problem of seasonality?” In intensive farming systems, Napier, maize and Brachiaria are the prefered forage crops (29%, 26%, 13%). Silage making is the prefered preservation method (67%) and hay coming second (28%). Hay is the preferred option for Rhodes grass and other natural pasture grasses incl. legumes. In semi-intensive grazing systems, Napier, Rhodes, legumes and maize (23%, 17%, 14%, 14%) are the prefered forage crops. Silage making is also here the prefered way of preservation 52% and hay (43%). In extensive systems Rhodes gras, Brachiaria and mixed pastures ( 23%, 14%, 14%are the prefered forage crops. Haymaking (29%), Rotational grazing (24%) and standing hay (23%) ways to manage seasonality
29%
26%
13%
10% 10%
6%
3% 3%
Napier Maize Brachiaria Chloris Gayana Sorghum Alfalfa Hay Storage Caliandra
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
36
Figure 5.11b. Intensive farming systems (Q12.1)
67%
28%
5%
Silage
Hay
Haylage
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
37
Figure 5.12a. Semi-intensive farming systems (Q12.2).
23%
17%
14% 14%
11%
9%
6%
3% 3%
Napier Chlorisgayana
Legumes Maize Brachiaria Sorghum Kikuyu grass Cabbage Sweet PotatoVines
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
38
Figure 5.12b. Semi intensive farming systems (Q12.2).
52%43%
4%
Silage
Hay
Haylage
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
39
Figure 5.13a. Extensive farming systems (Q12.3).
23%
14% 14%
9% 9% 9% 9%
5% 5% 5%
Chlorisgayana
Brachiaria MixedPasture
Napier Desmodium Stylo Glycine Maize Kikuyu grass Panicum
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
40
Figure 5.13b. Extensive farming systems (Q12.3).
18%
29%
6%
23%
24%
Silage
Hay
Haylage
Standing hay
Rotational grazing
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
41
Figure 5.14. Future development of commercial fodder production (Q13).
7.8%
3.5% 2.6%
7.8%
0.9%
3.5%9.6%
8.7%
4.3%
3.5%
8.7%7.0%
8.7% 7.8%
15.7%
K A R A M O J A N O R T H E R N A N D E A S T E R N
C E N T R A L ( R U R A L ) C E N T R A L ( P E R I -U R B A N K A M P A L A )
S O U T H - W E S T E R N A N D M I D - W E S T E R N
Unlikely Maybe Very Likely
Figure 5.14. Question 13.” Where do you think commercial forage production will be developed in the future?” The respondents indicated that forage production is likely to develop in South-Western and Mid-Western parts of Uganda (15.7%) and Central (8.7%). The Northern and Eastern regions were less favored for forage crops (7.0%). In the urban and peri urban areas, commercial forage production is not expected to develop in the future due to the land pressure in these areas (Figure 5.14).
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
42
Figure 5.15. Future development of commercial milk production (Q14)
Figure 5.16. Question 15 “Which measures need to be taken - at various levels e.g. farm, policy, seed supply, mechanisation - to improve the quality or forages?” The most important measure mentioned to improve the quality of forages was the quality and supply of forage seeds (access, availability) (30.6%). Enhancement of mechanisation from seed to feed (24%) was also raised as a measure to improve forage quality (Survey Diagrams; Figure 5.16).
9.57%
2.61%0.87%
6.09%
0.87%
2.61%
12.17%
6.09%
4.35%
2.61%
7.83%
5.22%
13.04%
9.57%
16.52%
K A R A M O J A N O R T H E R N A N D E A S T E R N
C E N T R A L ( R U R A L ) C E N T R A L ( P E R I -U R B A N K A M P A L A )
S O U T H - W E S T E R N A N D M I D - W E S T E R N
Unlikely Maybe Very Likely
Figure 5.15. Question 14. “Where do you think commercial milk production will be developed in the future?”
The respondents indicated that in 3 areas, South Western and Mid Western, Central and Peri-Urban Kampala (16.5%, 13.0% and 9.6%), commercial milk production will continue to grow or develop in the future.
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
43
Figure 5.16. Which measures need to be taken to improve the quality of forages (Q15)
31%
29%
21%
19%
Policy
Knowledge & technology transfer
Agronomic practices
Seed
Figure 5.16. Question 15. “Which measures need to be taken to improve the quality of forages?” The respondents indicated that measures need to be taken at policy level (31%), knowledge and technology transfer (29%), agronomic practices (21%) and forage seed 19 (%) Fig 5.16
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
44
6. Seeds, planting material and fertilizer use.
Figure 6.1. In your opinion,what is the availability of the listed seeds/plant material in the market (Q16)
Figure 6.1. Question 16. “In your opinion, what is the availability of the listed seeds/plant material in the market? “ The respondents of the questionnaire have a general low opinion about the availability of forage seeds varieties. The planting material/seeds most easily accessible are Napier grass (planting material), maize, Brachiaria, and Desmodium varieties. With Rhodes grass and Calliandra seeds being perceived as fairly (medium) available. Availability of forage crops seeds is low (64%), with less than 10% of the respondents mentioning forage crop seeds/planting material being easily available and accessible. (Figure 6.1).
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Low availability Medium availability High availability
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
45
Figure 6.2. What are the reasons for low availability of seeds in the market (Q17)
31%
25%
13%
10%
6%
6%
3%
3%3%
Lack of knowledge/awareness by the farmersSeed production and multiplication companiesHigh costs of improved forage seedsPoor market and marketing strategies of forage seedInformal market supplies seedsLow quality of forage seeds therefor low demandCost of forage productionMajority of farmers are still dependent on natural mixed pasturesCompetition with food crops
Figure 6.2. Question 17.” What are reasons for low availability of seeds in the market (incl. new varieties or species not yet
registered in Uganda)?” The reasons the respondents of the questionnaire gave for the low availability of seeds are (i) lack of knowledge and awareness of the farmer about the benefit of forage crops (31%), (ii) absence of seed production and multiplication companies in Uganda (25%), and (iii) high cost of improved forage seeds (13%) (Figure 6.2).
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
46
Figure 6.3. How would you increase the availability of seed/plant material (Q18)
Figure 6.3. Question 18.” How would you increase the availability of seed/plant material?”
Based on the survey, the most needed action is (i) changing the government policies and regulations on forage seeds and planting material, e.g. simplify the importation, testing and registration processes (39%), (ii) encouragement of international seed producers to enter the Ugandan market with forage seeds (31%) and (iii) increase awareness and knowledge among farmers about the value of forage seeds and planting material (19%) (Figure 6.3).
39%
31%
19%
11%
Influence Policy/regulations
Encourage involvement of seedproducers
Knowledge (e.g. forage supply vs animalrequirements)
Network /market/commerce
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
47
Figure 6.4. How would you engage dairy farmers to useimproved forage seeds/plant material for planting (Q19).
Figure 6.4, Question 19. “How would you engage dairy farmers to use improved forage seeds/plant material for planting?” To encourage farmers to use the improved forage seeds in the future, respondents agreed that training of farmers in all farming systems (respectively 92%, 61%, 52%) will be necessary to reap the benefits of improved seeds/plant material (Figure 6.4).
92%
61%52%
4%
13%
20%
4%
9%8%
9%
4%
12%
4% 8%
INTENSIVE SEMI INTENSIVE EXTENSIVE
Mechanization
Creation of fodder seed banks at sub county and district level.
Marketing
Demonstration plots
Increase seed availability
Others
Awareness creation through education/extension/training
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
48
Figure 6.5. Which measures need to be taken to improve the quality of forages (Q20)
4%
96%
No, not necessary
Yes
Figure 6.5, Question 20.” When improved forage seeds/plant material are available to benefit farmers, do farmers need to improve agricultural practices at the same time? If so list agricultural practices that are limiting quality forage production.”
The figure 6.5 shows 96% of all respondents answered that agricultural practices need to be improved for forage production. Respondents mentioned in general that agronmic practices needed to improve and more specific soil testing, soil and water conservation, land preparation, manure application, planting, weeding, fertilizer application, cutting stage, mechanization and storage fascilities all needed improvement
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
49
7. Mechanisation
Figure 7.1. What is the mechanisation level for forage production and preservation in intensive farming systems (Q21)
Figure 7.1. Question 21. What is the mechanisation level for forage production and preservation for the intensive farming systems?
Respondents indicated that the mechanization level with the small holder farmers is low irrespective of the forage crop the farmers are growing.
13%
16%
13%
19%17%
5%
4%
6%
1%
2%2%
0% 1% 0% 1%
Low Medium High
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
50
Figure 7.2. What is the mechanisation level for forage production and preservation for rural dairy farmers (Q22).
Figure 7.2. Question 22. What is the mechanisation level for forage production and preservation for the medium and large scale dairy farmers? The mechanisation level on medium and large-scale farms is considered very low irrespective of the crops grown as the overall picture.
73%
95%
68%
95%86%
18%
5%
18%
5%
9%9%
0%
14%
0%5%
Low(%) Medium(%) High(%)
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
51
Figure 7.4. What do you think is the main mechanisation problem that is currently hindering the production, quality and utilization of forages on dairy farms (Q23)
Figure 7.4. Question 23. “What do you think is the main mechanisation problem that is currently hindering the production, quality and utilization of forages on dairy farms?” According to the survey, lack of appropriate machinery in terms of type and scale is seen by the respondents as the largest constraint for intensive mechanisation (from planting to harvesting to feeding out) ( more then 42%). Cost of mechanisation is rated second for all farming systems (> 10.0%). (Figure 7.4).
Intensive
Extensive
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
Intensive Semi intensive Extensive Commercial fodder producers
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
52
Figure 7.5. Whould you prefer to promote on-farm mechanisation or use of skilled contractors with appropriate machinery in different dairy systems (Q24).
32%23%
32%
32%
36%
41%
36% 41%
27%
I N T E N S I V E S E M I I N T E N S I V E E X T E N S I V E
On-farm mechanization Skilled Contractors Both
Figure 7.5. Question 24.” Would you prefer to promote on-farm mechanisation or use of skilled contractors with appropriate
machinery in different dairy systems?” While there is a demand for skilled contractors, on-farm mechanisation is also seen as a future solution to reduce the burden of an often-heavy workload on the farms and shortage of labour. (Figure 7.5).
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
53
Figure 7.6. What solutions do you suggest for enhanced mechanization of forage production and preservation in small holder, medium and large-scale dairy farms (Q25).
21%
15%
4% 4% 4%2%
15%
13%
13%
9%
0%
0%
S C A L E D M A C H I N E R Y A N D
E Q U I P M E N T
T R A I N I N G , S K I L L S A N D
D E M O N S T A R T I O N
E N A B L E C O N T R A C T O R S
F I N A N C I N G W O R K I N G I N C O O P E R A T I V E S
E M P L O Y M E N T O P P O R T U N I T I E S
Intensive Semi intensive & extensive
Figure 7.6. Question 25. ” What solutions do you suggest for enhanced mechanisation of forage production and preservation in small holder, medium and large scale dairy farms?” The respondents rated the option of scaled the machinery as another solution to enhanced forage production in Uganda (21% for SHF and 15% for M&LHF). Training and skills development is nearly the same 15% for SH and 13% for M&LHF. The importance and need of skilled contractors in small holder systems lower (4%) than in medium and large farms (13%) (Figure 7.6).
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
54
8. Inputs and services
Fig 8.1. What is your perception of the quality of the input suppliers and service providers in relation to forages? (Q26)
Figure 8.1. Question 26.”” What is your perception of the quality of the input suppliers and service providers in relation to
forages, on a scale of 1 - 5 (1 = poor, 5 = excellent)?” The perception of the quality of the input suppliers and service providers ranges from poor to below average. Services like supply of mechanization, agricultural contractors and feed laboratories are perceived as either low or not existing. Supply of seeds, training and inputs for silage making is perceived as below average to average. (Figure 8.1).
10%14%
43%
29%
48%
62%
52%
52%
29% 57%
29%
14%
33% 24% 14%
10%
14%10%
5%
10%
5%
5%
5%2% 1%
Seed/plant materialsupply
Training and advisory Mechanisationservices
Supply of inputs forsilage making
Agriculturalcontractors
Laboratories for feedtesting
Poor Below average Average Above average Excellent
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
55
Fig. 8.2. Which services, according to you, are missing in the Uganda forage market? (Q27)
Figure 8.2. Question 27 ”Which services, according to you, are missing in the Ugandan forage market?” Inadequate education/training and extention service was mentioned by (31%) of te respondents as missing in the Uganda forage market followed by lack of a quality feed lab and of feed standards ( 22%), Mechanisation services (19%), quality inputs and quality service providers (13%), regulations by government (6%).
31%
22%
19%
13%
6%3% 3% 3%
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
56
Fig 8.3. What improvements (maximum three) are required at the level of input suppliers and service providers to achieve improved availability and quality of forages? (Q28)
Figure 8.3. Question 28 “What improvements (maximum three) are required at the level of input suppliers and service providers to achieve improved availability and quality of forages?” To improve seed and plant material supply 50% of the respondents believe a seed certification system for forage seeds need to be put in place. Better accessibility and handling/ storage followed with 14% of the respondents giving these as required improvements.
50%
14%
14%
9%
9%
4%
Seed/plant material supply
Certification
Accessibility
Handling/storage
Affordability
Availability
Awareness
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
57
Fig 8.4. What improvements (maximum three) are required at the level of input suppliers and service providers to achieve improved availability and quality of forages? (Q28)
Figure 8.4. Question 28 “What improvements (maximum three) are required at the level of input suppliers and service providers to achieve improved availability and quality of forages?” To improve training and advisory 58% of the respondents answered extention service to the farmers needs improvement so there will be continueity in training. . Better linkages followed with 21% and farmers organisations with 16% of the respondents giving these as required improvements. (Fig 8.4)
58%21%
16%
5%
Training and Advisory
Extension/Continous training
Linkages
Farmer Organistion
Field Days/Demonstartions
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
58
Fig 8.5. What improvements (maximum three) are required at the level of input suppliers and service providers to achieve improved availability and quality of forages? (Q28)
Figure 8.5. Question 28 “What improvements (maximum three) are required at the level of input suppliers and service providers to achieve improved availability and quality of forages?” To improve mechanisation services 24%
answered contract services need to be available. Affordability (24%) and condition of machinery and Building local expertise followed with 19% of the respondents giving these as required improvements.(Figure 8.5)
24%
24%
19%
19%
9%
5%
Mechanisation services
Contract Services
Affordability
Condition of machinery
Build local expertise/operators
Partnerships
Financial Support
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
59
Fig 8.6. What improvements (maximum three) are required at the level of input suppliers and service providers to achieve improved availability and quality of forages? (Q28)
Figure 8.6. Question 28 “What improvements (maximum three) are required at the level of input suppliers and service providers to achieve improved availability and quality of forages?” To improve input supply 35% answered availability has of farm inputs needs to be better. While the inputs need to be standardized mentioned (22%) and 18% answered that the inputs need to be affordable. Followed by mechanisation 13%. (Fig 8.6)
35%
22%
18%
13%
4%
4%4%
Input Supply
Availability
Standardization
Affordability
Mechanisation
Alternatives
Consistency
Service Providers
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
60
Fig 8.7. What improvements (maximum three) are required at the level of input suppliers and service providers to achieve improved availability and quality of forages? (Q28)
Figure 8.7. Question 28 “What improvements (maximum three) are required at the level of input suppliers and service providers to achieve improved availability and quality of forages?” To improve contracting services 34% answered technical skills are required. While (22%) mentioned the contracting services need to be available and the same 22% mentioned registration of contracting services, recognising the services as an official business. (Fig 8.7)
34%
22%
22%
11%
11%
Contracting Services
Technical Skills
Availabilty
Registration
Affordability
Reliability
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
61
Fig 8.8. What improvements (maximum three) are required at the level of input suppliers and service providers to achieve improved availability and quality of forages? (Q28)
Figure 8.8. Question 28 “What improvements (maximum three) are required at the level of input suppliers and service providers to achieve improved availability and quality of forages?” To improve feed testing 59% answered
availability as the concern. (23%) mentioned lacal technicians need to be trained. (Fig. 8.8)
59%23%
6%
6%
6%
Feed Testing Labs
Availability
Local Technicians
Accuracy
Regulation
Farmer Sensitization
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
62
9. Forage market
Fig 9.1. What kind of forages can you find nowadays being offered for sale in the market ? (Q29)
Figure 9.1. Question 29.” What kind of forages can you find nowadays being offered for sale in the market (e.g. fresh/green
forages, imported forages, grass hay, wheat straw, silage, etc.)?” According to the respondents of the questionnaire, hay (46%) is the main product in the market, followed by silage (26%) and fresh cut forages (14%). (Fig. 9.1).
46%
26%
14%
6%
3% 3% 3%
Hay (grass) Silage Fresh cut forages Imported forages Sweetpotatovines silage
Straw By-products
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
63
Figure 9.2. How would you define the actual forage market? (Q30)
Figure 9.2. Question 30.” How would you define the actual forage market (e.g. seasonal, opportunistic, formal/informal, quality
control, standards, etc.)?” Forage trading is carried out through mainly informal channels. The informal channel includes farmers and small traders who directly buy from small producers – even the localized trading of fresh forage (e.g. Napier grass and grass cut along the roadside) between one farmer and another – and it is the dominant channel of forage trade. The formal channel comprises traders, and agro vets that purchase forage from medium- and large-scale producers and directly deliver the forage to dairy farmers. The respondents in the questionnaire defined the Ugandan forage market mainly as seasonal (57%) and informal (24%) (Figure 9.2).
57%
24%
9%
5%
5%
Seasonal Informal Opportunistic Not existing in rural areas No quality control
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
64
Figure 9.3. What opportunities are there in the commercialization of forages? (Q31.1)
Figure 9.3, Question 31.1. ” What opportunities and bottlenecks are there in the commercialization of forages? (List at least three in order of importance) The biggest opportunity the respondents see is the readily available and growing forage market (47%) while 17% of the respondents mentioned that there are good opportunities for commercial forage contractors and seasonality and climate change is mentioned by (10%) as an opportunity.
47%
17%
10%
7%
7%
3%
3%3%
3% Available market
Commercial forage contractors (nocompetition, raw materials)
Seasonality and Climate change
Availability of land
Adoption of improved breeds
Ability to sell on a check-off systemthrough cooperatives
Forage production gives high margins
Fertile soils
Willing, able and progressive dairyfarmers
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
65
Figure 9.4. What bottlenecks are there in the commercialization of forages? (Q31.2)
34%
13%
13%
10%
10%
7%
7%
3%3% Mechanization/equipments (cost,
availability, quality)
Available knowledge and skills
Seasonal market
Seasonal changes in climate
Seed: (Availability/quality/varieties)
Financing
Lack of standards (quality control,regulations)
Land availability
Willingness to adopt change
Figure 9.4. Question 31.2 ” What bottlenecks are there in the commercialization of forages? (List at least three in order of importance)”. The biggest bottleneck the respondents see in the commercialization of forages is the availability, cost and quality of mechanization of forage production (34%). Lack of knowledge and skills in entioned and the seasonality of the forage market are mentioned by (13%) of respondents.
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
66
Figure 9.5. Yield (Q32.1)
29%
25%
21%
9%
4%
4%
4%4%
Better management practices (inclsoilfertility)
Use improved varieties
Adopting new technoligices to preparesilage and hay
Storage of the forage
Irrigation
Soil testing & Feed standards
Edudation/training
Upscaling
Figure 9.5, 9.6. Question 32. ” What improvements and changes need to be made by commercial forage producers to improve
forage production in terms of yield and quality?” Q 32 and 33 which are presented at the end of the questionnaire, are presented here under the heading forage quality. According to the survey, the most effective improvements to increase forage yield are related with better management practices (29%), use of improved forage varieties (25%) and adopting new technologies to prepare silage and hay (21%) (Survey Diagrams; Figure 9.5). Forage quality is seen by the respondents as an important point to be addressed. This can be achieved through introduction of new forage species and varieties, but if not well managed it will not be effective. Equally better management of current forages in the market will be effective as well. The respondents to the questionnaire indicated that to improve forage quality, commercial forage producers need to implement better forage crop management practices (38%), followed better soil testing and feed standard facilities (25%) and feed by the use of improved/new varieties (21%). When a new species is introduced, this may require an extra investment if different machinery is required for planting and/or harvesting of particular forage crop (Figure 9.6).
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
67
Figure 9.6. Quality (Q31.2)
38%
25%
17%
8%
4%
4%4%
Better management practices (incl soilfertility)
Soil testing & Feed standards
Use improved varieties
Irrigation
Available land
Storage fascilities
Mechanisation
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
68
Figure 9.7a. What affects production levels and cost price of raw milk mostly: the quality of forages or of compounded feeds? (Q33)
56%
13%
13%
6%
6%
6%
Quality of forages
Climate change
Compounded feeds
Animal Diseases
Type of forage species
Storage of forages
Figure 9.7, Question 33.” What affects production levels and cost price of raw milk mostly: the quality of forages or of
compounded feeds (please explain)?” Give three examples of good quality forage crops Fifty six percent of the respondents indicated that forages in the ration of dairy cows affect production level and cost of production the most. The influence on production level and costs of production of climate change and compounded feeds (each 13%) was considerable smaller. As examples the respondents gave maize (24%), Rhodes grass (21%) Fodder Sorghum and Napier grass (each 10%) (Figure 9.7a 9.7b).
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
69
Figure 9.7b. Give three examples of good quality forage crops (Q33)
24%22%
10% 10%7% 7%
5% 5% 5% 2% 2%
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
70
Figure 9.8. The opportunity of on farm forage production in agro-forestry systems? (Q34.1)
65%
23%
12%
Good Opportunity
Some Opportunity
No Opportunity
Figure 9.8, Question 34.1. “What is your opinion on the opportunity of on farm forage production in agro-forestry systems?” 88% of the respondents see opportunities (65% good and 23% some) for forage production on farm in
combination with agro forestry systems.
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
71
Figure 9.9.The opportunity of commercial forage crop production in agro-forestry systems? (Q34.2)
38%
31%
31%
Good Opportunity
Some Opportunity
No Opportunity
Figure 9.9, Question 34.2. “What is your opinion on the opportunity of commercial forage crop production in agro-forestry systems? 69% of the respondents believe that forage production in agro-forestry systems can be commercialized. 38% responded that this is well possible while 31% responded it will somehow be possible.
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
72
10. Education and training
Figure 10.1. What is the availability and quality of education and training on forage production, preservation and inclusion of dairy cow ration formulation in the country? (Q35)
Figure 10.1. Question 35.” What is the availability and quality of education and training on forage production, preservation
and inclusion of dairy cow ration formulation in the country?” Among the respondents of the questionnaire, (i) 42% answered that availability of training is limited, (ii) 42% described the availability as very low to low (iii) Only 16% described the availability of the training as good. (Figure 10.1).
42%
37%
16%
5%
Limited Very low Generally good Low
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
73
Figure 10.2. What knowledge and skills are lacking in regard to forage production and preservation? (Q36)
Figure 10.2. Question 36.” What knowledge and skills are lacking in regard to forage production and preservation?”
Agricultural skills and best farming practices (from seed to feed incl. mechanization) is considered by 44% of the respondents as the key missing skill causing the gap in forage production and preservation in Uganda; 20% indicated that there is lack of knowledge and skills about preservation technology and methods. (Figure 10.2).
44%
20%
10%
7%
7%
7%
3% 2%
Agricultural skills and best practicesfrom seed to feed (incl. machinery)
Preservation methods and technology
Storage methods
Business skills
Total diet ration formulation
How to engagement of youths andwomen
Fodder seed selection and production,
Artificial drying systems
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
74
Figure 10.3. Who should provide this training? (Q37)
Figure 10.3. Question 37.” Who should provide this training?”
According to the survey, this training should be provided by either (i) government extension workers (41%), (ii) Non-governmental organizations (20%), or (iii) private sector players (9%), (Figure 10.3).
41%
20%
9%
7%
7%
4%
4%
4%
2%
2%
Government extension workers(NAADS)
NGO's
Private sector players
Farmer cooperatives/associations
Skilled lead farmers
Fodder seed companies
NARO-NaLIRRI
Agricultural & Forage contractors
Dairy practical training farms
Milk buyers/processors
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
75
Figure 10.4. Who should be trained? (Q38)
Figure 10.4. Question 38.” Who should be trained?” According to the survey, all the stakeholders involved in forage production need to be trained. These were rated as follows: (i) ) training and extension staff (18.7%), (ii) farmers (16.8%), (iii) agricultural contractors, commercial forage producers and farm workers (15.9%), (iv) dairy nutritionists (14.0%). (Figure 10.4).
18.7%
16.8%
15.9% 15.9% 15.9%
14.0%
2.8%
Trainers andextension staff
Farmers Agriculturalcontractors
Commercialfodder
producers
Farm workers Dairynutrionists
Private sectorplayers
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
76
11. Environmentally sustainable forage production
Fig 11.1. How do you rate the effect on the environment of current agricultural practices as regards forage production and preservation? (Q39)
Figure 11.1. Question 39” How do you rate the effect on the environment of current agricultural practices as regards forage production and preservation? Respondents consider that the effect of current practices of forage production and preservation on the environment is either neutral (35%), negative (35%) and positive (30%) (Figure 11.1).
35%
30%
35%
Negative Positive Neutral
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
77
Fig. 11.2. What is in your opinion the contribution of current forage production and preservation towards an environmentally sustainable dairy industry? (Q40)
55%35%
10%
Positive Neutral Negative
Figure 11.2. Question 40.” What is in your opinion the contribution of current forage production and preservation towards an
environmentally sustainable dairy industry?” According to the respondents 35% the contribution of current forage production practices as neutral, whereas 55% consider that current practices contribute positively towards a sustainable dairy industry (Figure 11.2).
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
78
Fig. 11.3 Which good practices, interventions would you recommend as regards the forage sub-sector to reduce the (negative) impact on the environment? (Q41)
Figure 11.3. Question 41 Which good practices, interventions would you recommend as regards the forage sub-sector to reduce the (negative) impact on the environment? The use of high quality forages was the option chosen by 28% of the responders, followed by improved manure management and grazing management (16%) (Figure 11.3).
28%
16% 16%
12%
8% 8% 8%
4%
High qualityforages
Improvedmanure
management
Grazingmanagement
Agroforestry Pastureimprovement
Landpreparation
Use of legumesin farm plan
Balancedfeeding
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
79
Fig 11.4 What other recommendation do you have – beyond forage production and preservation - for reduced environmental footprint of the Ugandan dairy industry? (Q42)
#
Afforestation & Incorporation of trees in forage production systems 5
Use of Biogas & manure management and decomposition 5
Establishe closed circular dairy systems to effectively recycle waste. 2
A strict breeding policy..... a proper rearing-fertility approach at dairy farms 1
Adopting intensive zero grazing practices 1
Creation of awareness amongest various stakeholders about climate change. 1
Dairy cooperatives should be supported financially. 1
Good perservation methods that produce quality silage for quality dairy products 1
Improving dairy cattle feed utilisation efficiency 1
Introduce new forage varieties 1
Manage stocking cattle rates on farms 1
Policies governing environment should be put in place 1
Forage improvement loans be introduced to dairy farmers. 1
Protocols on animal health& use antibiotics/medicines 1
Figure 11.4. Question 42.” What other recommendation do you have – beyond forage production and preservation - for reduced environmental footprint for the Ugandan dairy industry?” The three main recommendations the respondents gave to reduce the environmental footprint of the dairy industry in Uganda were (i) Encourage tree planting and afforestation (21.7%), (ii) installing and producing biogas at the farm level (21.7%), and (iii) recycle waste more effectively (8.7%) (Figure 11.4).
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
80
Fig. 11.5. Are there any regulations/policy requirements in place that you are aware of to reduce the environmental impact of livestock production systems? (Q43)
Regulations in place National Environmental Management Act
Environment Impact Assessment Regulation.
Uganda national climate change policy,carbon footprint policy
Regulations at regional level
United Nations Convention on climate change(UNCCC)
Figure 11.5. Question 43.” Are there any regulations/policy requirements in place that you are aware of to reduce the environmental impact of livestock production systems (national or County level)?” The majority of the respondents (53%) mention that there are regulations/policy requirements in place to reduce the environmental impact of livestock production systems on either regional or at national level (Figure 11.5).
53%
32%
10%
5%
Yes None Not sure Don't know
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
81
Fig. 11.6. Question 44. In your opinion, how likely do you think farmers/commercial forage producers will adopt practices that will contribute to a better environment, but may require an investment? What will trigger them? (Q44)
Figure 11.6. Question 44.” In your opinion, how likely do you think farmers/commercial forage producers will adopt practices
that will contribute to a better environment, but may require an investment? What will trigger them?” For farmers to adopt and implement practices that will contribute to a better environment the respondents believe that farmers would do so if they are being sensitized about the subject (26%). Other considerations included (i) increasing awareness by training and educating farmers (17.4%), good milk prices (17.4%) and economic incentives (13%) (Figure 11.6).
26%
17% 17%
13%
9%
4% 4% 4% 4%
Sensitization Training andeducation
Good milkprices
(qualitybased)
Economicincentive
Policy andregulation
Management Technologiesin fodder
production.
Capacitybuilding
Unlikely
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
82
12. Innovations
Fig. 12.1. During the past 5 years, you may have observed some of the innovations that are listed below. Please confirm by rating their impact (Q45).
Figure 12.1. Question 45. ”During the past 5 years, you may have observed some of the innovations that are listed below. Please confirm by rating their impact (high, low, or not observed)”. A total of 16 different innovative activities were listed in the questionnaire and the respondents were asked to rate the impact of each innovation. Those considered as having a high impact were the following: (i) introduction of baled/packed silage (> 60%), (ii) improved silage practices (>60%) and (iii) new fodder maize/sorghum varieties (>60%), (iv) use of conservation agriculture (50%) hay production (50%), (v) improved hay production (50%). (Figure 12.1).
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Nutrition Lab facilities
Digital knowledge transfer (apps)
Ration calculation tools
Standards for forage market
Intensification
Agric. Contractors Services
New legume species
Mechanization
New grass species
Shrubs/tree forages
Training / Skills
Improved hay production
Conservation agriculture
New fodder maize/sorghum varieties
Improved silage practices
Baled/packed silages
High Impact Low Impact Not Observed
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
83
Fig. 12.2. Which other innovations would you like to add Please indicate their impact (high/low) (Q46)
Compounded feeds with maize grains or their agro-industrial by-products as the main ingredient
High
Increase in agroforestry trees High
Total diet ration balancing Low
Soft loans to adapt to climate change Low
Farm mapping and paddocking Low
Protein extraction from forage Low
Training in permaculture and sustainable agriculture High
Figure 12.2. Question 46. ”Which other innovations would you like to add Please indicate their impact (high/low).”
The respondents consider that the production and use of compounded feeds with maize grain or the agro-industrial by-products of maize processing would have a high impact on the dairy sector. Others mentioned increase the use of agroforestry trees and training farmers in permaculture and sustainable agricultural practices would have a high impact (Figure 12.2).
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
84
Fig. 12.3. What aspects need to be considered before a new intervention is introduced or put into action? Please rate from 1 - 5 and explain (1 = low importance, 5 = high importance) (Q48).
Figure 12.3. Question 48.” What aspects need to be considered before a new intervention is introduced or put into action?
Please rate from 1 - 5 and explain (1 = low importance, 5 = high importance) According to the survey, all proposed aspects (policy, market, technology, knowledge and skills, finance, social/cultural behavior) need to be considered, especially with attention to finance, knowledge and markets (Fig 12.3).
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
7.0%
8.0%
Policy Market Technology Knowledge/skills Finance Social/Culturalbehaviour
Low Below average Average Above average High
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
85
Questionnaire Introduction This questionnaire is one of the tools that is used for the (dairy) Forage Quick Scans for Kenya, Uganda
and Ethiopia, referred to in the covering letter. This is a project under the Netherlands East African Dairy
Partnership (NEADAP) that includes Ethiopia, Kenya and Uganda.
In Uganda it is administered by SNV’s The Inclusive Dairy Enterprise (TIDE). TIDE is funded by the
Netherlands Embassy in Uganda. The questionnaire focuses on the current status of forage crops
availability, production and preservation practices, technologies, and innovations. This includes forages
produced and preserved by the farmer, by commercial forage producers and agricultural contractors.
The questionnaire further deliberates on relevant aspects that impact on the forage sub-sector, such as
knowledge and skills level, market needs and demands by different farming systems, agro-ecology,
availability of land and appropriate seeds, mechanization level/needs, and other factors that impact on
the performance of the forage sub-sector and – through it – on the dairy sector.
The questionnaire is designed for administration in Kenya, Ethiopia and Uganda. Please provide the
following information as requested in the pages below for Uganda only. The questionnaire, if so desired,
allows you to answer part of the questions, exit and continue later from where you left.
The answers to the questionnaire do not need to reflect the policies of the company/organization you
work for and will be treated confidential.
The farming systems used in the questionnaire are based on different forage crops, grasses and how
these forage crops are managed, used and/or fed in the different dairy farming systems. Other forage
crops, like sorghum, maize or lucerne may be used across the 3 systems as a cut and carry crop or in a
fully mechanized system.
The first farming system is the intensive/crop-livestock system (like zero grazing and semi-zero grazing).
This system – irrespective of farm size – is based on cut and carry fresh or preserved fodder crops, grown
by the farmers themselves.
The second system is semi intensive (grazing)- improved pasture is a system were particularly pasture
grasses are used as forage crops either in a stall-fed system or a paddock system with cows grazing day
and night or part of the day.
The third system: extensive grazing (e.g ranching and pastoral) is contrary to the other 2 systems making
use of the natural vegetation. This system is an extensive livestock management system characterized by
a small number (<1) of Livestock Units (LU) per ha.
For further explanation: Intensive and semi intensive are crop-livestock based system while extensive are
livestock based systems.
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
86
For any questions and submission of any other relevant reports or documents that you wish to share with
us to consider for the Quick Scan, please contact:
Kimbugwe Paul – SNV Uganda, Tel: +256 772 441146, Email: [email protected]
Rinus van Klinken - Project Manager-TIDE, Tel: +256 758 200793, Email: [email protected]
Jos Creemers - Senior Dairy Advisor, SNV/ProDairy EA LTD, Email: [email protected]
Nancy Kimaiyo - Data Analyst SNV Kenya, Email: [email protected]
1. Please enter your email address
Email Address
General 2. Select the five most important constraints that prevent an increase in forage production and preservation in Uganda.
Forage policies
Land tenure systems
Land availability
Milk market
Seed/plant material availability
Awareness, knowledge and skills
Training/education
Mechanisation
Food/forage crop competition
Contractor/service availability
Financial matters
Logistic-transportation-infrastructure
3. List at least three important reasons why in Uganda production of quality Forages (high nutritive value) is deficient.
1
2 3
Other
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
87
Forage Species
4. What are the three most common forage species used by dairy farmers in different farming systems (Intensive, Semi intensive and Extensive)?
Intensive (Zero Grazing/Semi zero grazing)
Semi Intensive (Grazing on improved fenced pastures)
Extensive (Rangeland/Natural grassland)
5. Which forage species, in order of importance, do you think give the best return for the dairy farmer in the different farming systems?
Intensive (Zero Grazing/Semi zero grazing)
Semi Intensive (Grazing on improved fenced pastures)
Extensive (Rangeland/Natural grassland)
6. What are the main constraints for forage production in the dairy farming systems and for commercial forage producers?
Intensive (Zero Grazing/Semi zero grazing)
Semi Intensive (Grazing on improved fenced pastures)
Extensive (Rangeland/Natural grassland)
Commercial Forage Producers
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
88
7. What new forage species (energy/protein rich) do you think can be introduced in the dairy farming systems?
Intensive (Zero Grazing/Semi zero grazing)
Semi Intensive (Grazing on improved fenced pastures)
Extensive (Rangeland/Natural grassland)
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
89
Forage Preservation 8. What are the three most common forage preservation methods used in the dairy farming systems and by commercial fodder producers?
Intensive (Zero Grazing/Semi zero grazing)
Semi Intensive (Grazing on improved fenced pastures)
Extensive (Rangeland/Natural grassland)
Commercial Forage Producers
9. List at least three most common causes for post-harvest losses in the forage production and preservation chain?
1.
2.
Others
10. What farming practices can dairy farmers adopt to prevent or reduce harvest and post harvesting losses?
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
90
11. Which other conservation methods or technologies do you think could be introduced in the current dairy farming systems?
Intensive (Zero Grazing/Semi zero grazing)
Semi Intensive (Grazing on improved fenced pastures)
Extensive (Rangeland/Natural grassland)
Commercial Forage Producers
12. Which forage crops (mention three) and preservation technologies (mention three) are best suited to reduce the problem of seasonality?
Intensive (Zero Grazing/Semi zero grazing)
Semi Intensive (Grazing on improved fenced pastures)
Extensive (Rangeland/Natural grassland)
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
91
13. Where do you think commercial forage production will be developed in theFuture?
Unlikely Maybe Very Likely
Karamoja Why Northern and Eastern Why
Central (Rural) Why
Central (Peri-Urban Kampala) Why
South-Western and Mid-Western Why
14. Where do you think commercial milk production will be developed in the future?
Unlikely Maybe Very Likely
Karamoja Why
Northern and Eastern Why Central (Rural) Why
Central (Peri-Urban Kampala) Why
South-Western and Mid-Western Why
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
92
15. Which measures need to be taken - at various levels e.g. farm, policy, seed supply,
mechanization- to improve the quality or forages?EADAP Forage Quick Scan-Uganda
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
93
Forage-Seeds or Plant Material 16. In your opinion, what is the availability of the listed seeds/plant material in the market?
Low availability Medium availability High availability
Kikuyu grass
Napier grass
Boma Rhodes
grass Brachiaria grass
Fodder Sorghum
Fodder Maize
Oats
Vetch
Lucerne
Sesbania
Calliandra
Leucaena
Tree Lucerne
Desmodium
African Foxtail
Masaai Love grass
Others (please indicate the availability(low, high or medium))
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
94
17. What are reasons for low availability of seeds in the market (incl. new varieties or species not yet
registered in Uganda)? If different per forage crops as listed in Q.16, please explain.
18. How would you increase the availability of seed/plant material? If different per forage crops as listed in Q.16, please explain.
19. How would you engage dairy farmers to use improved forage seeds/plant material for planting?
Intensive (Zero Grazing/Semi zero grazing)
Semi Intensive (Grazing on improved fenced pastures)
Extensive (Rangeland/Natural grassland)
20. When improved forage seeds/plant material are available to benefit farmers, do farmers need to improve
agricultural practices at the same time? If so list agricultural practices that are limiting quality forage production.
o No, not necessary o If Yes,what other practices (name three) on the farm do you think should be improved when seed/plan material is
improved
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
95
Mechanization of Forage Production
The following questions refer to the scale of dairy farms in relation to the level of mechanization. 21. What is the mechanisation level for forage production and preservation for the urban and peri-urban dairy farmers?
Low Medium High
Maize and Sorghum Why
Boma Rhodes, Kikuyu, Star grass, Why
Napier grass and Brachiaria Why
Lucern and Oats Why
Rangeland/Natural grassland Why
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
96
22. What is the mechanisation level for forage production and preservation for the rural-based dairy farmers?
Low Medium High
Maize and Sorghum
Why
Boma Rhodes, Kikuyu, Star grass,
Why
Napier grass and Brachiaria
Why
Lucern and Oats
Why
Rangeland/Natural grassland
Why
23. What do you think is the main mechanization problem that is currently hindering the production, quality and utilization of forages on dairy farms?
Intensive (Zero Grazing/Semi zero grazing)
Semi Intensive (Grazing on improved fenced pastures)
Extensive (Rangeland/Natural grassland)
Commercial fodder producers
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
97
24. Would you prefer to promote on-farm mechanization or use of skilled contractors with appropriate machinery in different dairy systems?
On-farm mechanization Skilled Contractors Both
Intensive (Zero
grazing/semi zero
Grazing)
Semi Intensive
(Grazing on
improved fenced
pastures)
Extensive (Range
land/Natural
grassland)
25. What solutions do you suggest for enhanced mechanization of forage production and preservation in small holder, medium and large scale dairy farms?
Small holder dairy farms
Medium and large scale dairy farms
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
98
Service Providers and Input Suppliers
26. What is your perception of the quality of the input suppliers and service providers in relation to forages, on a scale of 1 - 5 (1 = poor, 5 = excellent)?
1 2 3 4 5
Seed/plant
material supply
Training and
advisory Mechanisation
services Supply of inputs
for silage making
(plastic, inoculant, others)
Agricultural
Contractors Laboratories for feed testing
27. Which services, according to you, are missing in the Ugandan forage market?
28. What improvements (maximum three) are required at the level of input suppliers and service providers to achieve improved availability and quality of forages?
Seed/plant material supply
Training and advisory
Mechanisation services
Supply of inputs for silage making (plastic, inoculant, others)
Agricultural contractors
Laboratories for feed testing
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
99
Forage Market.
29. What kind of forages can you find nowadays being offered for sale in the market (e.g. fresh/green forages, imported forages, grass hay, wheat straw, silage, etc.)?
30. How would you define the actual forage market (e.g. seasonal, opportunistic, formal/informal, quality control, standards, etc.)?
31. What opportunities and bottlenecks are there in the commercialisation of forages?(List at least three in order of importance)
Opportunities
Bottlenecks
32. What improvements and changes need to be made by commercial forage producers to improve forage production in terms of yield and quality?
Quality
Yield
33. What affects production levels and cost price of raw milk mostly: the quality of forages or of compounded feeds? Give three examples of good quality forage crops available.
34. What is your opinion on the opportunity of forage production in agro-forestry systems? (e.g collection of biomasses, drying and pelleting)
On-farm (Give three examples) As a forage crop for commercialisation (Give three examples)
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
100
Education and Training 35. What is the availability of education and training on forage and quality of production, preservation and inclusion of dairy cow ration formulation in the country 36. What knowledge and skills are lacking in regards to forage production and preservation? (Mention three)
37. Who should provide this training? (Mention three)
38. Who should be trained?
Farmers Commercial fodder producers
Training and extension staff Farm workers
Agricultural contractors Dairy nutrionists
Other (please specify)
IDE/NEADAP Forage Quick Scan-Uganda
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
101
Environmental Footprint
39. How do you rate the effect on the environment of current agricultural practices as regards forage
production and preservation?
Positive Neutral Negative
40. Are you aware of greenhouse gas emissions on farms?
No
If yes, name three types of greenhouse gases. 41. What is in your opinion the contribution of current forage production and preservation towards an environmentally sustainable dairy industry?
Positive Neutral Negative
42. Which good practices, interventions would you recommend as regards the forage sub-sector to reduce
the (negative) impact of greenhouse gases on the environment? 43. What other recommendation do you have – beyond forage production and preservation - for
reduced environmental footprint of the Ugandan dairy industry?
44. Are there any regulations/policy requirements in place that you are aware of to reduce the
environmental impact particularly of greenhouse gases of livestock production systems (National or
Regional level)? 45. In your opinion, how likely do you think farmers/commercial fodder producers will adopt practices that
will contribute to a better environment, e.g. reduce Greenhouse gas emission, but may require an
investment? What will trigger them?
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019
102
Innovations 46. During the past 5 years you may have observed some of the innovations that are listed below. Please confirm by rating their impact (high, low, or not observed)
High Impact Low Impact Not Observed
New legume
species
New grass species
New fodder
maize/sorghum
varieties
Shrubs/tree
forages
Improved silage
practices
Improved hay
production
Baled/packed
silages
Standards for
forage market
Intensification
Mechanization
Nutrition Lab
facilities
Agric. Contractors
Services
Digital knowledge
transfer (apps)
Ration calculation
tools
Training / Skills
Conservation
agriculture
Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, October 2019
103
47. Which other innovations would you like to add? Please indicate their impact (high or low).
48. What aspects need to be considered before a new intervention is introduced or put into action? Please rate from 1 - 5 and explain (1 = low importance, 5 = high importance)
1 2 3 4 5
Policy
Please explain
Market
Please explain
Technology
Please explain
Knowledge/skills
Please explain
Finance
Please explain
Social/Cultural behaviour
Please explain