Farmers’ Preference and Knowledge on Indigenous Multipurpose Browse Species Towards Their Feed Value in North Western Ethiopia

Abstract

<p><strong>Background.</strong> Nowadays, in Ethiopia crop production is the dominant practice and indigenous browse species can make a large contribution to livestock feeding during dry season. However, few researches has been undertaken on the nutritional value of indigenous multipurpose browse species in this region, which means indigenous knowledge of multipurpose browse species is not strongly supported by scientific information. <strong>Objective. </strong>A study was conducted in the highland and lowlands of north western Ethiopia, to assess farmers’ preference criteria, farmer’s preference between the indigenous multipurpose browse species and the relationship of farmers’ knowledge of multipurpose browse species (MPBs) foraging value with laboratory result. <strong>Methodology.</strong> Group discussions, preference ranking and scoring by a total of 60 farmers were conducted in two agro-ecologies. <strong>Result.</strong> The farmers’ preference among MPB species which are browsed by cattle sheep and goat were determined considering availability, biomass yield, foraging value, palatability, multi-functionality and growth and re-growth ability. In the highland, the comparison among indigenous MPB species for their benefits and desired tree characteristics showed that farmers preferred <em>Albizia gummifera</em> for its availability and multi-functionality. In terms of feed value, growth and re-growth ability and palatability, the score for <em>Vernonia amygdalina</em> was higher than other MPB species. <em>Ficus thonningii</em> was preferred for its biomass yield. There was also a strong relationship between farmers’ feed value score and laboratory results. Farmers were able to differentiate effectively MPB species that had high and low protein content and <em>in vitro</em> digestibility using their indigenous feed value indicator system. In lowland, the score for <em>Ficus sycomorus</em> followed by <em>Piliostigma thonningii</em> was higher for availability and <em>Cordia africana</em> was scored higher for multi-functionality and growth and re-growth ability. In terms of feed value and palatability, <em>Piliostigma thonningii</em> has the highest score. <em>Albizia malacophylla</em> was preferred and rated highest for biomass yield. But, the laboratory indicators were non-correlated (P > 0. 05) with the farmers’ assessment of feed value score. <strong>Implication.</strong> The result of this study confirms that farmers have their own criteria to evaluate browse species and can differentiate the browse species that had high and low fiber content based on their indigenous knowledge. <strong> Conclusion. </strong>Therefore, we conclude that when incorporating locally available resources, farmers’ preference criteria and indigenous knowledge is vital to efficiently utilize indigenous MPB species and to tackle feed shortage in the study area.</p><p><strong> </strong></p><p><strong>Antecedentes.</strong> Hoy en día, en Etiopía, la producción de cultivos es la práctica dominante y las especies de ramoneras indígenas pueden hacer una gran contribución a la alimentación del ganado durante la estación seca. Sin embargo, se han realizado pocas investigaciones sobre el valor nutricional de las especies autóctonas de ramoneo multipropósito en esta región, lo que significa que el conocimiento indígena de las especies de ramoneadores multipropósito no está fuertemente respaldado por información científica. <strong>Objetivo.</strong> Se realizó un estudio en las tierras altas y bajas del noroeste de Etiopía, para evaluar los criterios de preferencia de los agricultores, la preferencia de los agricultores entre las especies autóctonas de ramoneo multipropósito y la relación entre el conocimiento de los agricultores sobre el valor de búsqueda de especies de ramilletes multipropósito (MPB) con los resultados de laboratorio. <strong>Metodología.</strong> Se llevaron a cabo discusiones grupales, clasificación de preferencias y puntuación por un total de 60 agricultores en dos agroecologías. <strong>Resultados.</strong> La preferencia de los agricultores entre las especies de MPB que son buscadas por ganado ovino y caprino se determinó considerando la disponibilidad, el rendimiento de biomasa, el valor de forrajeo, la palatabilidad, la multifuncionalidad y la capacidad de crecimiento y rebrote. En las tierras altas, la comparación entre las especies autóctonas de MPB por sus beneficios y las características deseadas de los árboles mostró que los agricultores preferían <em>Albizia gummifera</em> por su disponibilidad y multifuncionalidad. En términos de valor alimenticio, capacidad de crecimiento y rebrote y palatabilidad, la puntuación de <em>Vernonia amygdalina</em> fue más alta que la de otras especies de MPB. Se prefirió <em>Ficus thonningii</em> por su rendimiento de biomasa. También hubo una fuerte relación entre la puntuación del valor del pienso de los agricultores y los resultados de laboratorio. Los agricultores pudieron diferenciar de manera efectiva las especies de MPB que tenían alto y bajo contenido de proteína y digestibilidad <em>in vitro</em> utilizando su sistema de indicador de valor alimenticio indígena. En las tierras bajas, la puntuación para <em>Ficus sycomorus</em> seguida de <em>Piliostigma thonningii</em> fue más alta en disponibilidad y <em>Cordia africana</em> obtuvo una puntuación más alta en multifuncionalidad y capacidad de crecimiento y rebrote. En términos de valor alimenticio y palatabilidad, <em>Piliostigma thonningii</em> tiene la puntuación más alta. Se prefirió <em>Albizia malacophylla</em> y obtuvo la calificación más alta en cuanto a rendimiento de biomasa. Sin embargo, los indicadores de laboratorio no estaban correlacionados (P> 0.05) con la evaluación de los agricultores del puntaje del valor del alimento. <strong>Implicación.</strong> El resultado de este estudio confirma que los agricultores tienen sus propios criterios para evaluar las especies de ramoneras y pueden diferenciar las especies de ramoneras que tenían un contenido alto y bajo de fibra según su conocimiento indígena. <strong>Conclusión.</strong> Por lo tanto, llegamos a la conclusión de que al incorporar los recursos disponibles localmente, los criterios de preferencia de los agricultores y el conocimiento indígena son vitales para utilizar de manera eficiente las especies nativas de MPB y abordar la escasez de alimento en el área de estudio.</p><p> </p><p> </p>

Nutritional Quality of Indigenous Legume Browse in the Southern Ethiopia: Farmers’ Preference and Correlation of Local Valuation of Feed Value with Scientific Indicators

“…The study indicated that farmers used multiple criteria such as feed value, multifunctionality, growth rate, biomass yield, and compatibility to evaluate the ILFTS which marked the farmers' preference measures for the ILFTS as multifaceted (Table 2). In agreement with the current study, various studies in Ethiopia have unveiled the multiple criteria employed by farmers to evaluate fodder trees (Ayenew et al, 2021;Mekoya et al, 2008); however, some emphasized certain criteria. For instance, availability and feed value were the major criteria to evaluate fodder trees in northwestern Ethiopia (Ayenew et al, 2021) and southern Ethiopia (Mitiku, 2018) due to critical feed shortages during the dry season.…”

“…In addition to flourishing with deep roots system capable of absorbing water far from the surface, they produce considerable biomass of leaves, twigs, fruits, and pods which can bridge the feed supply gap commonly observed during dry periods (Abraham et al, 2022;Lelamo, 2021). Fodder trees and shrubs have high nutrient content and digestibility, though this varies by species and season (Ayenew et al, 2021;Yayneshet et al, 2009). In particular, the crude protein (CP) content of fodder trees is above the minimum requirement for normal microbial function of the rumen, so it is usually recommended to supplement poor-quality fiber-based diets (Andualem et al, 2021;Brown et al, 2018).…”

Indigenous legume fodder trees and shrubs with emphasis on land use and agroecological zones: Identification, diversity, and distribution in semi‐humid condition of southern Ethiopia

“…For instance, Kodzo et al. (2018) reported 34 multipurpose fodder trees and shrubs in four land uses, which is higher than the current study, though (Ayenew et al., 2021) 16 in two niches, and (Chepape et al., 2011; Marius et al., 2017) 17 species, which is lower. The variation in the number of fodder trees and shrubs in different studies might be associated with the scope of the research, the type of land use, area of land coverage, and agroecological zone of the study.…”

“…Several authors described the multipurpose of legume fodder trees for their services and products such as biological nitrogen fixation, diversification of livestock's diets, shades, carbon sequestration, bee forage, timber, charcoal, firewood, biodiversity conservation, TA B L E 5 Species richness and the diversity of ILFTS in land uses with agroecological zones (N = 60) Franzel et al, 2014;Lelamo, 2021;Meaza & Demssie, 2015). Some of the ILFTS identified in the study resemble those characterised by some authors in Ethiopia (Abera & Yasin, 2018;Derero & Kitaw, 2018;Lelamo, 2021;Shenkute et al, 2012;Sisay et al, 2017;Weldemariam & Gebremichael, 2015) and other east Africa countries (Mtengeti & Mhelela, 2006;Rubanza et al, 2007) probably due to the and shrubs in four land uses, which is higher than the current study, though (Ayenew et al, 2021) 16 in two niches, and (Chepape et al, 2011;Marius et al, 2017) 17 species, which is lower. The variation in the number of fodder trees and shrubs in different studies might be associated with the scope of the research, the type of land use, area of land coverage, and agroecological zone of the study.…”

In-vitro gas production kinetics and methane emission potential of selected indigenous legume fodder tree and shrubs in the semi-humid condition of the southern Ethiopia

“…Recently, studies have been conducted to explore novel fodder trees and shrubs that have the potential forage resource for ruminants (Abraham et al, 2022;Ayenew et al, 2021;Shenkute et al, 2012). Yet, a wide variety of plant secondary metabolites found in fodder trees and shrubs challenges their nutritional contribution due to the manifestation of the adverse effects on animals when taken above a certain level (Naumann et al, 2017).…”