NATURAL PASTURE & CROP RESIDUES AS

LIVESTOCK FEED:
Situation analysis, yield estimation and management

Training organized for experts engaged in livestock feed

extension (MOLF)

12 – 17 December 2016
Holetta Research Center
PRESENTATION OUTLINE

 THE LIVESTOCK RESOURCE BASE IN BRIEF

 THE FEED RESOURCE BASE – Potentials, limitations and
management options

 Natural pastures
 Crop residues

 SUMMARY REMARKS
I) Livestock Resource (CSA, 2014/2015)

Species Number (million) Breeds/types

Cattle 56.7 30
Sheep 29.3 14
Goats 29.1 14
Donkey 7.43
Horse 2.03
Mule 0.4
Camel 1.16 4
Chicken 56.87 5
Bee hives 5.89 5 (Honey bees)
Livestock contribution to national economy

15
Total GDP

19
Export earnings

31
Total agricutural employment

40
Agricultural GDP

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Livestock contribution (%)

Contribution to the immediate producers

Sources of farm power - main

aim of cattle raising
 More than 12 million oxen provide
draft power (more than 12 million ha
land under cultivation) – use of
mechanization negligible
 Manure for fertilizer, fuel
Income Generation (Economic contribution)

Market place scene

o Routine income source for

producers (40 – 60% in
the highlands)
Women economic empowerment (sale of livestock products)
Livestock are the only sources of livelihood for about
10 million pastoral communities in the lowlands
Transportation of goods and people
Food and Nutritional Security
 High value diets via conversion of the otherwise wasted
resources into highly essential products (milk, meat, eggs etc)
and their derivatives

 Other various social and cultural functions which can not be

interpreted in direct economic terms
Per capita consumption of milk (kg/year)

Ethiopia 19

Sub Saharan Africa Average 27  Beef: 10

kg
India 91

World Average 100

Developed countries 200

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

WHO recommendation:- 285 g/person/day  104 kg/yr

Ethiopia:- 52 g/person/day
 Fig. Per Capita Annual Egg Consumption

160 148
140

120
Kg/capita/year

100

80

60 38
40
0.4 1.7
20

0
Ethiopia Kenya African Average World Average
 Projections of population growth and demand for milk in
Ethiopia
Population (Million) Demand for milk (Million T)

183
200
180
160
129
140
106
120
100 80
80
60
40 9.7 11.7 16.7
7.3
20
0
2010 2020 2030 2050
Year

Current potential production  5 million tone

In general,

Low livestock productivity in the country

Very low per capita consumption of animal products despite huge

livestock resource compared to the other African countries

Substantial imports of products mainly dairy products

For example in 2014, around 2,544,579 Kg of dairy

products were imported at a cost of 15,156,394 dollars
( 303,127,880 Birr)
Contributing factors to low productivity

 Poor genetic make-up of indigenous breeds

 Feed shortage (quantity, quality, seasonality, distribution)
 Prevalence of various diseases
 Overall inadequate attention given to the sector

 Among the factors, feed related problems are the most overriding
– as feed cost accounts for about 70% of all costs associated with
livestock production & dairy in particular
II) The Feed Resource Base

 Major feed resources

 Natural pasture
 Crop residues
 AIBS
 Improved fodder crops
 Other feed resources (sugarcane tops, horticultural
byproducts, etc)
Availability/contribution (CSA, 2014/15, sedentary areas)

1% Grazing
13%
4% Crop Residues
37%
13% Hay

32% Agro-industrial
byproducts

Improved Forage

Others
 A) Natural pasture
 More than 50% livestock feed supply (grazing, hay)
 The current scenario: - Significant reduction both in area &
productivity of grazing lands esp. in the highland mixed farming
systems (2-3 million ha)
o Expansion of cropping to meet subsistence needs of the ever
increasing human population
o Expansion of urbanization (housing & recreation areas, industrial
development, various dev`t investments) at the expense of grazing
lands
o Poor management and utilization systems
 Total Land Use Area Disaggregated by Land Use Types for Private Peasant
Holding (CSA, 2014/15 ) – Sedentary Areas

18,000,000
16,000,000
Area (ha)

14,000,000
12,000,000
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
0
Temporary Permanent Grazing land Fallow land Wood land Other land All land use
crop area crop area use

Land use

 75% (94.6 Million) of the total grazing & browsing livestock (126.12 Million) –
highland mixed farming systems
 Grazing land + Fallow land - 1,758,518 + 577,164 = 2,335,682 ha
 Natural pasture…
 Generally, the available grazing lands are highly fragmented &
limited to areas where conditions are adverse for cropping due to
topographic, edaphic and climatic factors:
(Sloppy/hilly areas, Seasonally waterlogged areas, Highly degraded
and bare/rocky areas)

 Could be grouped into three categories

 Up land grazing areas

 Arable land grazing areas
 Valley bottom land grazing areas
 Up land grazing areas

o Sloppy areas & highly liable to erosion

o Very shallow soil profile and low soil
nutrients
o Very low pasture productivity
(0.5 to 1 t DM/ha)
 Arable land grazing areas

o intermittent fallows b/n cropping cycles,

road sides, crop boundaries & stubble
grazing after crop harvest
o Productivity could range from 1 to 2 t
DM/ha
 Valley bottom land grazing areas

o Areas affected by frost, water logging

and seasonal flooding
o Relatively fertilize due to deposition
of debris washed up from upland areas
o Productivity could range from 3 to 4 t
DM/ha
o inaccessible to livestock during the
rainy season & used for hay production
in some highland areas
Dominance by Pennisetum in the highlands

Unpalatable species
Dominance by Pennisetum in the highlands
In the low land pastoral & agro-pastoral areas
 Relatively vast area of grazing land
 However, a number of factors limit pasture productivity and
utilization
 Recurrent droughts
 Bush encroachment
 Expansion of termite mounds
 Rangeland degradation
 Water shortage
Emerging threat to Pasture and rangelands
Parthenium hysterophorus

Parthenium Weed

It reduces pasture carrying capacity by 90 %

Special Features of Parthenium
 Temperature insensitivity
 Day-neutral habit
 Absence of seed dormancy
 High drought tolerance

 15,000 seeds per plant

 Dispersal through wind, animals, and water
 Adaptability to variety of soils and climate
PARTHENIUM HYSTEROPHORUS Distribution

█ Heavy infestation
█ Scattered infestation
 Seasonality and distribution
 Seasonally excess pasture awaiting
drying & fire in some lowlands,
while the cattle have taken to their
gut fill and less eager to graze

 Collection and storage for dry season

and also possible mobilization to
other needy areas not adopted
Dry matter yield estimation
Requirements

 Quadrates (1*1m2, 0.5*0.5m2)

 Weighing scales (different capacity)
 Drying oven
 Technical capability

 Difficulty to obtain the facilities to apply

under field condition
 Example:
Suppose fresh pasture yield from five 1m2 quadrates (5m2) =20kg
An estimated yield from 1ha (10,000 m2) = 10,000m2 x 20kg
divided by 5m2 = 40,000kg (40t/ha)

Take a sample of 200gram and incubate in an oven at 100°C

overnight (12h) to determine dry matter percentage
Let the dried pasture weight be 50gram, then DM percentage
= 50gram divided by 200gram multiplied by 100% = 25%
 Then pasture DM yield per ha = 25% x 40 t/ha
= (0.25 x 40 t/ha) = 10 tDM/ha
Basis for rough estimation under field condition:
Studies under three scenarios:

 Scenario 1 – Under continuous livestock grazing

 Scenario 2 – Under seasonal resting (3 to 4 during main
rainy season for hay making)
 Scenario 3 – Under full protection
 Scenario 1: Two years average DM yield of natural pasture under continuous grazing
(Galessa area in the central highlands of Ethiopia)

Month DM yield (t/ha)

September 0.86
Remark:
October 0.87
November 1.42 Average productivity of natural pasture
December 0.90 under continuous grazing
January 0.77
February 0.54 Degraded highlands  0.68 t DM/ha

March 0.87 Better highlands  1 t DM/ha

April 0.62  Better low lands  1.5 t DM/ha
May 0.32
June 0.28
(General range  0.5 – 1.5 t DM/ha)
July 0.26
August 0.39
Mean 0.68
Scenario 2: Thirty two years average DM yield of natural pasture under seasonal resting
(Holetta Research Center): 1984 - 2015

Year DM yield (t/ha)

1984 5.06 Remark:
1985 3.79
 With application of proper
1986 3.54
management practices
1987 3.85
1988 4.16 – Weeding
– Manure /fertilizer use
1989 4.45 – Legume oversowing
1990 4.54 – Adequate rest period (~4 months)
. .
 General range: 3.5-5.5 t DM/ha
. .
. .
2014 7.32
2015 8.64
Mean 5.28
Scenario 3: Average annual DM yield of natural pasture under full protection
(Holetta Research Center)

Clipping month DM yield (t/ha) CP (%)

August 2.80 9.9
September 4.50 9.4
October 6.20 6.2
November 5.10 5.0
December 5.20 4.1
January 3.20 3.1
February 4.80 2.8
March 4.20 3.0
April 3.10 3.7
May 4.00 5.3
June 4.80 5.0
 Natural pasture improvement options

 Removal of invasive weeds

 Legume oversowing (e.g. vetch in the highlands)
 Manure/fertilizer application
 Adequate rest period
 Timely harvesting, proper drying, baling and storage
 Proper stocking rate
Removal of invasive weeds
Supervised/careful firing
Removal of invasive weeds (የጅብ ሽንኩርት)
Removal of invasive weeds
Replacement with improved forages
Removal of invasive weeds
 Legume oversowing (vetch in the highlands)

Proper time of oversowing – April to May (short rains), better results

with manure coating
 Proper harvesting, collection and storage

Optimum harvesting stage- full flowering (25 – 30% DM)

Proper harvesting, collection and storage

Efficiency - Scythe : Sickle is 1:7

Fig. Dry matter and estimated nutrient yields of native pasture during the different
times of harvest

05/17/2024 47
Proper harvesting, collection and storage

3-5 days of drying depending on weather condition

Storage
 Fig. Forms of storage of hay in
Table . Method of storage of hay
the study areas
in the study areas

Loose hay Baled hay Method of

storage Sululta G/Jarso Ejere Overall
31.7 35.9 100 22.5 (N=59) (N=25) (N=47) (N=131)
100%
90%
80%
% of respondents

70% % % % %
60%
50%
77.5
40% 68.3 64.1 Under shelter
30%
38.3 25.6 20.8 29.3
shade
20%
10%
0%
In open air 55.0 61.5 58.3 57.8
Sululta G/Jarso Ejere Overall
Using plastic
6.7 12.8 20.8 12.9
cover

Total 100 100 100 100

05/17/2024 50
 Forms and method of storage of hay under farmers condition

Loose hay Baled hay

Storage under grass thatched Storage using plastic cover Storage in open air
roof

05/17/2024 51
Fig. Dynamics in nutritional values of hay as affected by storage method
and storage duration (Crude Protein)
Under shade In open air Under shade In open air
100 80

80
60
CP (g/kg DM)

CP (g/kg DM)
60

40
40
Mid October harvest Late October harvest
20 20
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Storage duration Storage duration
(1=at storage, 2=two months, 3=four months, (1=at storage, 2=two months, 3=four months,
4=six months, 5=eight months) 4=six months, 5=eight months)

Under shade In open air Under shade In open air

80 80

60 60
CP (g/kg DM)

CP (g/kg DM)

40 40
Mid November harvest Late November harvest
20
1 2 3 4 5 20
1 2 3 4 5
Storage duration Storage duration
(1=at storage, 2=two months, 3=four months, (1=at storage, 2=two months, 3=four months, 52
05/17/20244=six months, 5=eight months)
4=six months, 5=eight months)
Fig. Dynamics in nutritional values of hay as affected by storage method
and storage duration NDF
Under shade In open air Under shade In open air
720 750
NDF (g/kg DM)

NDF (g/kg DM)

680 700

640 650
Mid October harvest Late October harvest
600 600
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Storage duration Storage duration
(1=at storage, 2=two months, 3=four months, (1=at storage, 2=two months, 3=four months,
4=six months, 5=eight months) 4=six months, 5=eight months)

Under shade In open air Under shade In open air

800 800

760
NDF (g/kg DM)

760 NDF (g/kg DM)

720 720

680 Mid November 680 Late November

640 640
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Storage duration Storage duration
(1=at storage,
05/17/2024 2=two months, 3=four months, (1=at storage, 2=two months, 3=four months, 53
4=six months, 5=eight months) 4=six months, 5=eight months)
Table 2. Three years-average Dry matter yield (t/ha) of Natural pasture as affected by
different levels of N and P2O5 fertilization at Holetta
P level N level (kg/ha) Mean
(kg/ha)
0 40 80 120

0 2.46 - - - 2.46
80 3.68 5.76 7.92 9.43 6.70
160 4.73 5.57 8.37 11.33 7.50
Mean 3.62 5.67 8.15 10.38 5.55

Remark: 6 tone  400 bales * 60 Birr = 24, 000 Br/ha

proper stocking rate - Traditional grazing land utilization
(Continuous overgrazing)
Recommendation:

 2 to 3 mature cattle/ha/year
 10 to 15 sheep/ha/year
 B) Crop Residues

 10 – 50% contribution to the annual livestock feed budget

depending on the farming system
 Cereals (Tef, Maize, Sorghum, Barely and Wheat) account for
about 90% of crop residue supply, while the rest 10% is
contributed by different pulse crops
 70% used as livestock feed while field losses and other
alternative uses (construction, fuel, cash, etc) account for the
rest 30%
Estimation methods – conversion factors developed for different crops for
estimating crop residue yield from grain yield (FAO, 1987)

Crop Factor
Tef 1.5
Sorghum 2.5
Millet 2.5
Maize 2.0
Barley 1.5
Wheat 1.5
`Aja` 1.5
Pulses 1.2
Rice 1.3*

*Kossila, 1988
Example: Estimated crop residue production from grain yields of different
crops (CSA, 2014/15)

Crop Grain (qt) Estimated Crop Residue Yield

qt Tone
Tef 47,506,572.79 71259859.19 7125985.92
Sorghum 43,391,342.61 108478356.50 10847835.65
Millet 9,153,145.18 22882862.95 2288286.30
Maize 72,349,551.02 144699102.00 14469910.20
Barley 19,533,847.83 29300771.75 2930077.18
Wheat 42,315,887.16 63473830.74 6347383.07
`Aja` 508,059.26 762088.89 76208.89
Pulses 26,718,344.54 32062013.45 3206201.35
Rice 1,318,218.53 1713684.09 171368.41
Total 262,794,968.92 474,632,569.61 47,463,256.96
 47.46
50 44.25
45
40
35 Residues from :
Million Tons

30  Oilseeds
25  Vegetables
20  Fruits
15  Root crops
3.21
10  Sugar cane
5  Enset, etc are
0 unaccounted for
Cereals Pulses Total

11.7 million ha total land cropped with cereals &

pulses
Crop residue limitations in smallholder farmers contexts

Inherently low nutritional value (esp low CP, minerals) –

limited intake – can be improved by different treatment
methods
Bulkiness – difficult to transport and use in areas where needed
most (loss in some areas where excess is produced)
Poor conservation systems:
 Mainly under open air condition with the consequent deterioration in
quality
 Significant field loss in quantity & quality due to delays in collection
and stacking
 Lack of balers for proper stacking and storage
 Some are left on the field and wasted (distribution)
Loose stacking and storage under open air exposure

Decomposition & wastage

High level of field loss due to unwise utilization
High level of field loss due to unwise utilization…
Baled wheat straw around state farms– to be transported to
urban and peri-urban dairy production systems
 Crop residue conservation practices
Table .
Fig. Forms of storage of crop
Method of storage of crop residues
residues in the study areas
in the study areas

Loose Baled Method of Sululta G/Jarso Ejere Overall

storage (N=60) (N=39) (N=48) (N=147)
97.7 2.3
Overall

% % % %
100
Ejere

Under shelter
100 71.2 60.0 72.3 69.5
G/Jarso shade

Sululta
94.9 5.1 Under open air 25.4 32.0 27.7 27.5

Using plastic
3.4 8.0 - 3.0
0%

%
%
0%
%
%

%
10

40

60

80
90
20
30

50

70

cover
10

% of respondents

Total 100 100 100 100

05/17/2024 65
 Method of storage of crop residues under farmers condition

Storage in open air

Storage under corrugated iron Storage using plastic cover

roof
05/17/2024 66
 Fig. Dynamics in nutritional values of teff & wheat straws as affected by
storage method and storage duration
Under shade Under open air Under shade
6 5

5 4
CP (% DM)

CP (% DM)
4 3

3 2
Teff straw Wheat straw
2 1
Zero 2 months 4 months 6 months Zero 2 months 4 months 6 months

Storage duration Storage duration

Under shade In open air Under shade In open air

86 86.0
83 83.0
80 80.0
NDF (% DM)

NDF (% DM)

77 77.0
74 74.0
71 71.0
68 Teff straw 68.0 Wheat straw
65 65.0
Zero 2 months 4 months 6 months Zero 2 months 4 months 6 months

05/17/2024 Storage duration Storage duration 67

 Utilization of stored feeds
Table. Duration of feeding all stored feeds to dairy cattle in a year in the study areas

Sululta (N=60) G/Jarso (N=39) Ejere (N=48) Total (N=147)

Duration of feeding
(months) % % % %

5-7 8.3 - 12.5 7.5

8-10 51.7 - 50.0 37.4
11-12 40.0 100 37.5 55.1
Total 100 100 100 100
11.9a (11-12)
Mean 10.0
Hay (6-12)
b
Crop residues 9.7 (5-12)
Total (hay + crop residue)
b
10.4 (5-12)
11.9
12.0
10.0 10.5
Average duration of feeding

9.7
10.0 8.5
7.5
8.0
(months)

5.4 5.4
6.0
3.5
4.0

2.0

0.0
Sululta G/Jarso Ejere
05/17/2024 68
Estimate of feed requirement, availability and deficit
Total Livestock = 46.2 TLU
Maintenance daily feed
46.6
requirement = 3% of live wt
Estimated feed deficit 7.5 kg DM/TLU/day =
2.74 ton DM/TLU/year

80 Annual deficit = 37% - far

Estimated total feed more during drought
available

126.6
Estimated total feed required

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Million tones/year
Some indicators of feed shortage
Heavy concentration of cattle on relatively better grazing
land – overgrazing
During drought in lowland pastoral areas
Improvement opportunity with better management
(On-station overview)
 SUMMARY
 Despite large livestock resource base, availability and per capita
consumption of animal products is very low in Ethiopia even by the sub-
Saharan African standard
 Potential contribution to the overall national economy yet untapped
 Among the determining factors, feed shortage sets the major limit to
livestock production and productivity – annual deficit of up to 37%
estimated at maintenance level in any normal year, goes up to 60% when
drought occurs
 Need for concerted effort to ensure proper management and efficient
utilization of available feed resources
 Re-orienting thoughts towards possible application of other available
technologies to improve feed supply & quality – e.g. Improved forages
በኢትዮጵያ (ከየመጣችሁበት ክልል/ዞን/ወረዳ) በእንስሳት ሀብት/መኖ ልማት
ዙሪያ ያለዉ የኤክስቴንሽን ሥራ እንቅስቃሴ ምን ይመስላል???
 THANK YOU

05/17/2024 76