Integrating Characterization of Smallholders’ Feeding Practices with On-Farm Feeding Trials to Improve Utilization of Crop Residues on Smallholder Farms

Abstract

This study characterized wheat straw feeding practices in smallholder farms using cross sectional survey and the results informed the design of an experiment to improve the nutritive value of wheat straw with urea and yeast culture treatment. Three diets tested in 49 days' feeding trial were farmers' rainy season feeding practice (FP), addition of urea to wheat straw at the time of feeding (USWS), and 14 days' incubation of straw with urea (UTWS). Yeast culture (15 g/day) was mixed with commercial dairy meal at the point of feeding. Survey data identified farmers' strategies in utilizing crop residues of which most important were improving storage facility (77.6%), adding molasses (54.5%), and buying a shredding machine (45.1%). On-farm feeding trial showed that intake was higher for UTWS than ( < 0.05) for USWS while milk yield was higher with FP than ( < 0.005) with UTWS or USWS but not different ( ≥ 0.05) between UTWS and USWS. Results imply that farmers feeding practices of crop residues may be improved for dairy cows' feeding and therefore UTWS could be used to support maintenance and milk production during dry season. Improving farmers feed storage facilities and training on incubation of wheat straw for dairy cattle feeding were recommended.

Effect of Urea Treatment of Roughages and &lt;i&gt;in vitro&lt;/i&gt; Digestibility of Available Feed Resources in Maradi Area of Niger

“…Treating with urea generates gaseous ammonia and carbonic gas, which spread and treat forages and ensure good conservation and quality [4,3]. This ensures the breakdown of chemical bonds between lignin, hemicellulose and cellulose, which are respectively indigestible, partially digestible or completely digestible.…”

“…Consequently, ruminant animals largely depend on cereal straws which are low in protein and available energy [2,3]. Chemical treatment and/or supplementation with protein sources were used to improve the quality of these straws [2,4] However, research for development projects have accorded more attention on urea treatment due to its advantage of improving intake, digestibility and nitrogen content and reducing the use of concentrate [2,4].…”

Effects of Season Variation on Water, Feed, Milk Yield and Reproductive Performance of Dairy Cows in Smallholder Farms in Eastern Africa

“…Therefore, roughages, being more fibrous in nature during the dry season require that their quality be upgraded through supplementation for effective utilization by dairy cattle. [56], demonstrated that dairy cows fed with ureatreated wheat/rice straw had similar milk yield to that of cows feed with fresh grass. However, milk of the cows fed urea treated wheat/rice straw had a higher milk fat content and net income as compared with the milk produced by cows fed un-treated straw or fresh grass.…”

“…Further, also during the wet season period the nutrient content of natural grasses on average is about 25% dry matter; 10% crude protein; 6% ash and a fibre content of 35% crude fibre or 43% acid detergent fibre (ADF) [41]. As the dry season advances and conditions become severe, their nutritional quality declines to the extent that crude protein could fall to as low as 2% [56]. Ash values also decline to about 3 to 4% as a result of translocation to the root system, while fibre content increases in response to the process of lignification, and sometimes the crude fibre could be as high as 50 or 60% ADF [57,58].…”

Addressing variation in smallholder farming systems to improve dairy development in Kenya

“…Fodder scarcity is most severe in the dry season (Lukuyu et al, 2009). At the same time, several technologies for improving quantity and quality of fodders are available, such as improved fodder species, technologies for conserving fodder, ration formulation, and chemical treatments, such as using urea or ammonia, or biological treatment using fungi and bacteria to improve quality of straws (Kashongwe et al, 2017b;Kebebe et al, 2017;Lukuyu et al, 2011;Musalia et al, 2016;Thornton and Herrero, 2015). The adoption rate of feeding technologies by smallholders, however, is low, i.e.…”