Dry Season Feeding Technologies: Assessing the Nutritional and Economic Benefits of Feeding Hay and Silage to Dairy Cattle in South-Western Uganda

Abstract

Southwestern Uganda annually experiences prolonged drought that results in dramatic drop in milk production of dairy cattle. This study was conducted to assess the nutritional value and economic benefits of feeding silage and hay to dairy cattle in the sub-region. The cross-sectional study covered seven districts with 105 farmers interviewed during the wet and 45 others in the dry season. Up to 88 soil samples were collected and analyzed for soil texture, soil pH, organic matter and total Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium, Calcium, Sodium and Magnesium. Likewise, 148 forage (105 fresh, 25 silage and 18 hay) tissues from 21 pasture species were collected and analyzed for nutritional values. Using a questionnaire, data on production costs and milk revenues were collected for cost-benefit analysis. Results showed that silage of Napier grass treated with molasses (10.2 MJ/kg) and hay of naturally established pastures (10.6 MJ/kg) had the highest metabolisable energy (ME) values, while the lowest (8.30 MJ/kg) was for star grass. Hay of star grass presented the highest level of crude protein (21.4%) with maize (corn) showing the lowest (9.38%). Digestibility of hay of naturally established mixed pastures was the highest (64.4%), followed by that of silage of Napier grass treated with molasses (62.0%), while star grass hay had the lowest (52.6%). With exception of silage made from maize, all the other six forms of silage had a good crude protein (CP) content. Regardless of the good CP content (≥9.9%), all silage untreated with additives was poor in quality since its ME was less than 9.9 MJ ME/kg and ration digestibility less than 67%. Nonetheless, feeding of silage and hay increased milk yield and farm productivity with a benefit-cost ratio of 5.5 and 2.7 for silage and hay respectively.

Forage conservation in sub‐Saharan Africa: Review of experiences, challenges, and opportunities

“…and maize are the main ensiled forages for dairy production (Creemers & Aranguiz, 2019). In southwestern Uganda, where most of the dairy farming is concentrated, 76% of silage-producing farmers used napier grass and 24% used maize (Ntakyo et al, 2020). In the semi-arid region of Kenya, ensiled forages were limited to napier grass and maize (Njarui et al, 2011).…”

“…In the central highlands of Kenya where dairy farming is highly commercialized, ensiling of maize, napier grass, and forage sorghum in plastic tubes has been widely adopted as a result of promotion by the government and other development agents (Tufail et al, 2020). Maize stalks are either ensiled without or occasionally with ears (grain-plus-cob) (Ntakyo et al, 2020). Likewise, in many parts of the continent, farmers harvest maize ears for human consumption and ensile the remaining stover.…”

“…Molasses is commonly used in east African countries including Kenya (Snijders et al, 2004) and Ethiopia (Kebede, 2019). In a survey conducted in the southwestern Uganda, the most widely used additives were molasses (70%), maize bran (18.3%), microbes (6.8%), and MolaPlus (2.3%, MOLAPLUS, Ltd.) (Ntakyo et al, 2020). Examples of different fodder types ensiled using various treatments and the quality of ensiled product are in Supplemental Table S2.…”

“…Factors such as advanced maturity at harvest, associated high lignin and cell wall concentrations, and bulkiness of the forage impede compaction in the silo and prevent the proper exclusion of oxygen necessary for an ideal fermentation (Yang, 2005). Further, DM and quality losses for most storage methods, partly due to improper sealing of silos, can foster oxygen ingress and rainwater seepage into the silos (Bareeba, 1992;Ntakyo et al, 2020). Consequently, silage quality is often suboptimal in many production systems.…”

Table_1.DOCX

“…A. Commercial livestock production: Holmann, 2000, 2004a,b;Peters et al, 2001;Shelton and Dalzell, 2007;Murgueitio et al, 2015;Bowen et al, 2016;Schiek et al, 2018;Charry et al, 2019;Enciso et al, 2019Enciso et al, , 2020Chizmar et al, 2020;Ruden et al, 2020 (Continued) Pezo et al, 2007;Nakamanee et al, 2008;Gontijo de Lima et al, 2015;Negassa et al, 2016;Charry et al, 2019;Creemers and Alvarez Aranguiz, 2019;Harrison et al, 2019;Mwendia et al, 2019;Burkart and Urrea-Benítez, 2020;Ntakyo et al, 2020;Ohmstedt, 2020a,b;Dey et al, 2021;Neres et al, 2021 Co-creation of knowledge Peters and Lascano, 2003;Pezo et al, 2007;Bautista Solís, 2012;Geng et al, 2017;Dumont et al, 2019;David et al, 2020 Social values and diets Rudel et al, 2015;Gupta, 2016;Charry et al, 2019;Shapiro et al, 2019;Ruden et al, 2020Fairness Calle et al, 2009Broom et al, 2013;Cibils et al, 2015Connectivity Chakoma et al, 2016Lie et al, 2017;Lema et al, 2021 Land and natural resources governance…”