feeding forages to monogastric livestock - be-troplive · feeding forages to monogastric livestock...
TRANSCRIPT
Feeding forages
to monogastric livestock – opportunities and limitations for
smallholder farmers in the tropics
Brigitte L. Maass, Rein van der Hoek, Patricia I. Sarria & Siriwan Martens
Introduction –
Monogastrics in the tropics
• Monogastric livestock for family nutrition + income generation of smallholder farmers in the tropics
– Smallholder production systems –
opportunities for women
• Increasing market demand for monogastric products – “livestock revolution”
• Feeding monogastric livestock – globally increasing cereal prices, competition for human food
The ‘livestock ladder’ in eastern DRC
Cavies
Chickens
(Pigs)
Goats
Pigs
[Cattle]
Goats/(Sheep)
Other livelihood options
Other livelihood options
Other livelihood options
Increasing social status and wealth
Advances o
n t
he liv
esto
ck l
adder
with larg
er
anim
als
Source: modified from Maass et al. (In press)
Decreasing participation of women Increasing commercialization of livestock keeping
Intr
od
uct
ion
Outline
• Smallholder monogastric production systems – Farm-available feeds
• Digestive system and nutritional requirements of monogastrics
• Key characteristics of forages
• Experiences from feeding forages on farm – Feeding trials in Nicaragua: pigs;
in DRC: cavies + rabbits
• Outlook and conclusions
Intr
od
uct
ion
‘More Chicken and Pork in the Pot, and Money in
Pocket: Improving Forages for Monogastric
Animals with Low-income Farmers’ Fora
ges
for
Mo
no
gast
rics
• Research for development project 2009-2012 by CIAT’s Tropical Forages Program
• Main objectives: – Animal nutrition
• Assess + improve suitability of forage-based protein feeds for monogastric animals;
– Forage agronomy + conservation • Assist in connecting low-income farmers with new forage germplasm
+ associated feed management practices;
– Socio-economy • Examine possibilities of farmers extending animal + feed sales within
and beyond their community
• Partners • Field sites in Colombia, Nicaragua and Sud-Kivu/DRC • Universities of Hohenheim + Rostock/Germany;
Universidad Nacional de Colombia—Palmira; and Université Evangélique en Afrique, Bukavu/DRC
Smallholder monogastric
production systems
• Monogastric livestock species – Pigs – Poultry – Rabbits – Cavies
• Feeding systems – Kitchen + crop residues, cereals,
agricultural by-products – Scavenging around homestead,
free roaming or tethered – Rarely meeting adequately
nutritional requirements
Bac
kgro
un
d
Herbivores ‘Pseudo-ruminants’
Omnivores
Smallholder monogastric production
systems in Cauca Dep., South Colombia
• Typically backyard system – Very flexible but low productivity – Typically a few chicken (usually <30) and pigs (usually <3) – Receive small to moderate amounts of maize, concentrates + cassava
starch in addition to scavenging – Complemented with household waste + other feed sources obtained
around the homestead (i.e., seeds, insects, worms, etc.)
Bac
kgro
un
d
Source: modified from Holman & Burkard 2010b
Smallholder monogastric production
systems in Nicaragua & Honduras
• Context – Over 70% of smallholder families keep monogastric
livestock (swine + poultry) in backyard systems
– Important role for women + youth
• Constraints – Current feed resources
• Cereal grains, household + crop residues
• Poorly available + expensive concentrates
Low productivity
Competition with human food
Bac
kgro
un
d
Smallholder monogastric
production systems in eastern
DRC
• More than 80% of households keep monogastric livestock – Usually chicken (70%), pigs (50%), cavies
(50%)
– Typically owned and husbanded by women + youth
• Traditional feeding is based on – Tethering animals along roadsides
– Crop residues (e.g., cassava leaves + sweet potato vines)
– Collected forages from road + field sides
– Free roaming (poultry)
Bac
kgro
un
d
Smallholder monogastric production
systems: challenges
• Poor households low purchase power
• Food and nutrition insecurity
• Resource degradation • Low and decreasing
agricultural productivity • Inequity
• Livestock production – Feeding
• Competition with human with human food
• Concentrate feeds unavailable or (too) expensive
– Unreliable quality
• Dry season feed shortage
– Marketing
– (Road) infrastructure
– Animal health
– Various others according to location
Bac
kgro
un
d
Farm-available feed
• Cereals
• Starchy tubers + roots
• Leaves + vines
• Crop residues
• Kitchen scraps + left overs from meals
• Naturally growing herbs (‘weeds’)
• Rarely – Formulated concentrate feeds
– Agricultural by-products (e.g., press cakes, brans, whey)
Bac
kgro
un
d
Feeding constraints for smallholder
monogastric production systems
• Lack of essential amino acids is common
– Diets for monogastrics often consist of cereal grains or part of them (e.g., rice, rice bran, maize, sorghum, wheat bran) or cassava
• Concentrate feeds
– Relatively expensive (lack of cash flow)
– Variable + unreliable quality
– Often unavailable
Source: Martens et al. 2012 – review
Nu
trit
ion
al
req
uir
em
en
ts
Commelina sp., Sud-Kivu, DRC Commelina sp., SW Tanzania
Commelina sp., SW Tanzania Galinsoga parviflora + Commelina sp., Sud-Kivu, DRC
Fee
ds
&
fee
din
g
Mouth
Colon
Cecum
Esophagus
Duodenum Stomach
Pancreas
Small
intestine
Large
intestine
Rectum
Glands Liver
+ gall
Digestive system and nutritional
requirements of pigs
• Simple digestive system: – Limited uptake capacity
– Need for concentrated nutrients
– Need to complement feed with essential amino acids
Drawing source modified: http://cmapspublic.ihmc.us/rid=1H0VKC04X-1MPS2B0-SM7/TRACTO%20DIGESTIVO%20CERDO.cmap
Nu
trit
ion
al
req
uir
em
en
ts
Digestive system of monogastrics
• Ingested feed is – Digested by acid + enzymes in the stomach – Soluble components are absorbed in the small intestine
• Indigestible components (non-starch polysaccharides, resistant starch, protein that underwent Maillard reactions, some tannin- and fibre-bound proteins) – Reach cecum + large intestine (pigs), or ceca (poultry) – Fermented by inhabiting microbiota together with
endogenous secretions – Fermentation produces short-chain fatty acids (SCFA),
an important energy source for the host
Source: Martens et al. 2012 – review
Nu
trit
ion
al
req
uir
em
en
ts
Digestion and nutrient utilization in pigs
and chickens
• Little of microbially synthesised amino acids can be absorbed from large intestine in either pigs or poultry – in contrast to ruminants
Feed protein must be digestible by stomach enzymes to be absorbed in the small intestine
Amino acid profile of the feed protein should correspond to specific amino acid requirements of the animals
Source: Martens et al. 2012 – review
Nu
trit
ion
al
req
uir
em
en
ts
Canavalia brasiliensis, Karama Stn., Rwanda
Cratylia argentea, Karama Stn., Rwanda
Research strategy –
forages for monogastrics
• Field assessments – Agro-ecological
adaptability – Acceptability for farmers
• Laboratory assessments – Nutritional value for
monogastrics – Forage processing +
conservation
• On station + on farm feeding tests – Fresh herbage – Leaf meal – Silage
Fora
ges
for
Mo
no
gast
rics
Nyangezi, 1600 m asl.
Kamanyola, 1000 m asl.
Mulungu, 1600 m asl.
Tubimbi, 1100 m asl.
All 4 field sites in DRC, January 2010
Fora
ges
for
Mo
no
gast
rics
Agro-ecologically adapted
improved forage legumes
Legume species Cauca, Colombia
Nicaragua Sud-Kivu DRC
Herbaceous
Canavalia brasiliensis ++ ++ ++
Centrosema molle n.a. n.a. +
Desmodium uncinatum + D. intortum
n.a. n.a. ++
Lablab purpureus + + +
Stylosanthes guianensis + + ++
Vigna unguiculata ++ ++ --
Srub/tree
Calliandra calothyrsus n.a. n.a. ++
Cratylia argentea + + -
Leucaena diversifolia n.a. n.a. + Desmodium unc.
Leucaena div.
Desmodium int.
Canavalia bras.
Fora
ges
for
Mo
no
gast
rics
Nutritional value of improved forages:
Crude protein & digestibilities
• Forage legumes can contribute protein to monogastric diet – In many legumes, considerable portion of CP bound to NDF – Legumes containing high levels of tannins limit amino acid
digestibility
• DM + protein digestibilities for monogastrics of most tropical forages unknown
Fora
ges
for
Mo
no
gast
rics
0 20 40 60 80 100
Vigna unguiculata (pigs)
Stylosanthes guianensis (enzymatic)
Lablab purpureus (pigs)
Arachis pintoi (horses)
Centrosema molle (broilers)
CP digestibility monogastrics DM digestibility monogastrics
Source: Martens et al. 2012 – review
• Essential amino acids of forages can improve diet
• Particularly pigs may benefit from forage legumes
Nutritional value of improved
forages: Amino acid composition
Source: Martens et al. 2012 – review; Heinritz et al. 2012
General nutritional characteristics
of forages
Characteristics Consequences for monogastric feeding
Dry matter (DM): 11-25% of fresh matter
Very diluted nutrients Voluminous feeds
NDF: 30-70% of DM Limited digestibility
Crude protein: 9-26% of DM +
Lysin ++
Secondary plant metabolytes (phenoles, nitrogenous products, organic acids)
Limited bio-availability
Source: Martens et al. 2012 – review
Fora
ges
for
Mo
no
gast
rics
Effect of feeding Canavalia brasiliensis herbage meal to growing pigs
Parameter CLM Inclusion of CLM (%) in the diet
100% 0% 10% 20% 30%
Dry matter intake (g DM kg-75 BW) n.a. 101 96 101 96
Apparent digestibility of DM (%) 51.0 84.5a 81.8ab 76.4bc 74.7c
Gross energy (GE; %) 14.0 85.7a 81.5ab 70.0bc 66.8c
Apparent digestibility of CP (crude protein; %)
61.4 83.1 81.9 77.0 76.5
Source: Sarria et al. 2012
• Study under semi-controlled conditions inclusion of Canavalia herbage meal (CHM) in diet of yellow maize, wheat bran + soybean meal
• 24 commercial pigs of 39±5.4 body weight (BW)
• Digestibility coefficients by “difference method”, collecting data of intake and feces
CLM can be fed up to 10% for growing pigs as alternative protein supplement without compromising growth
Fora
ges
for
Mo
no
gast
rics
Effect of feeding Canavalia brasiliensis herbage meal to growing pigs
• Protein digestibility of Canavalia (12%) and protein digestibility coefficient (64.1%) of leaves alone acceptable – Better than other herbage meals(V. unguiculata, Thrichanthera gigantea,
Xanthosoma sagitifolium, cassava, Leucaena leucocephala or Morus alba (Sarria et al. 2010, Leterme et. al 2005, Phuc et al. 2000, Ly et al. 1998 and Laswai et al. 1997).
• In Canavalia brasiliensis 18.3% of CP is bound to NDF (Heinritz et al. 2012) – Higher on average for other tropical forage legumes, 27%
• In-vitro protein digestibility of diet with 25% Canavalia inclusion was 84.8% vs. 76.8% in vivo, thus overestimating the digestibility in pigs
Source: Sarria et al. 2012
Fora
ges
for
Mo
no
gast
rics
Week 0Week 1
Week 2Week 3
Week 4Week 5
Week 6Week 7
g d
ail
y f
eed
co
nsu
mp
tio
n
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
Control
Cowpea 15%
Cowpea 30%
Live weight gain and daily feed
consumption of pigs on station
Week 0Week 1
Week 2Week 3
Week 4Week 5
Week 6Week 7
Final
kg
Liv
ew
eig
ht
20
30
40
50
60
Control
Cowpea 15%
Cowpea 30%
• Experimental rationale
– To evaluate cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) herbage meal (VHM) in diet of growing pigs based on maize + soybean meal
• Major results
– Inclusion of VHM up to 33% of DM showed no significant differences in consumption, daily weight gain + feed conversion
Error bars = standard deviation;
Graph ignoring out of range values
Fora
ges
for
Mo
no
gast
rics
Source: Martens
& Sarria 2011
Legume silage for pigs during growth &
finishing (20-60 kg) on station
http://ciat.blip.tv/file/3768159/
Fora
ges
for
Mo
no
gast
rics
Source: Martens
& Sarria 2011
Fora
ges
for
Mo
no
gast
rics
Growth response of pigs supplemented with two
contrasting tropical legume silages in Colombia
• All three diets gave at least reasonably good weight gains
• Good quality forage silage of Vigna unguiculata offered most promising option to be included in balanced diets for growing-finishing pigs
• Canavalia diet had higher ADF and ADL contents, affecting digestibility in earlier studies
Source: Martens & Sarria 2011
On farm experiments feeding
pigs with forages in Nicaragua
• Rationale of experiments – Assess the effect of partial substitution
(25-30%) of cereal grains by silage and fresh foliage of cowpea, lablab or pigeon pea on live weight gain of pigs in smallholder systems
• Layout • Around 20 farmers during two years • Trials lasted 3 months, 3-4 animals per farmer • Initial weight of pigs varied from 10 (too light!)
to 25 kg
– Feed • Control: 100% sorghum + rice bran
/maize + ricebran • Treatment: 70% sorghum + rice bran
/maize + rice bran, 30% cowpea silage • Rations based on 85 x LW 0.75 (g)
Fora
ges
for
Mo
no
gast
rics
On farm experiments feeding
pigs with forages in Nicaragua
– 1st year three treatments (maize/sorghum + 0, 25, 50% fresh forage: cowpea or lablab),
– 2nd year two treatments (maize/sorghum + rice bran + 0 or 30% ensiled cowpea forage
• Key results – In general, no significant difference in live
weight gain between 100% cereal rations and rations with up to 30% inclusion of fresh or ensiled forage legumes (cowpea + lablab)
– Higher initial live weight increased live weight gain significantly (p<0.001)
– Improved pigs (crosses local x Yorkshire/ Landrace) gave better results than local ‘criollo’ pigs
Fora
ges
for
Mo
no
gast
rics
Fresh cowpea leaves for silage
making
Pig feeding on fresh cowpea leaves
Feeding forages to rabbits &
cavies in DRC
• Rabbits obtained from nearby monastry • Cavies locally from NGO and market • Animals kept in wooden cages, 0.4 m x 0.4 m x 1.5 m • Feeding ad libitum (1000-1200 kg FW/d) • Basic feeding (local check) on available, daily variable
feeds, especially sweet potato vines (Ipomoea batatas) • Legume treatments complemented 25% of diet,
concentrate 10%
Species Animals (no.) Treatments Trial duration
Rabbits 15 animals = 15 reps
Desmodium intortum, local check (no weights)
Sep-Dec 2011
Leucaena diversifolia, local check Dec-Feb 2012
Cavies 15 animals = 3 groups
Desmodium intortum, local check Sep-Dec 2011
Canavalia brasiliensis, concentrate, local check
Dec-Feb 2012
Fora
ges
for
Mo
no
gast
rics
Typical fodder available for
feeding rabbits & cavies in DRC
• Findings for rabbits and cavies very similar
• “Mass” feed: – Sweet potato vines
– Various Asteraceae
• Preferred: – Calliandra calothyrsus, especially when no other
legumes in the diet
– Few highly palatable grasses available (e.g. Setaria sp.)
• Addition of legumes like Canavalia brasiliens, Desmodium intortum or Leucaena diversifolia to the diet changed relative palatability of some other forages
Local herbs
Bidens pilosa
Ageratum conyz.
Crassocephalum
Fee
ds
&
fee
din
g
Live weight gain of cavies in DRC
Mean daily LWG
Desmodium intortum 0.97±0.24 g
Local check 0.71±0.26 g
Mean daily LWG
Canavalia brasiliensis 2.28±0.90 g
Concentrate 2.37±0.74 g
Local check 0.19±0.65 g
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
26-Dec-11 26-Jan-12 26-Feb-12
Live
we
igh
t (g
/an
imal
)
Local Canavalia Concentrate
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
27-Sep-11 27-Oct-11 27-Nov-11 27-Dec-11
Live
we
igh
t (g
/an
imal
)
Local Desmodium
Fora
ges
for
Mo
no
gast
rics
Feeding forages to rabbits &
cavies in DRC
• Relative palatability index showed slight differences when forage legumes were available for both rabbits and cavies
• Live weight gains were low in cavies but higher in rabbits; they may reflect low genetic potential or relatively old animals
• Live weight gains from forage legume treatments were comparable to or higher than those from the local check alone
Fora
ges
for
Mo
no
gast
rics
Outlook & conclusions
• Cultivating forages near the homestead would substantially save time to collect local herbs and crop residues
Ou
tlo
ok
&
con
clu
sio
ns
Time of harvesting forages about 2 hours per meal, needing 2 persons for trial management. To collect sufficient forages could take 7 km on some days, but usually 3 km.
Outlook & conclusions
Laboratory + on station work
• Herbage meals of cowpea + Canavalia brasiliensis have acceptable nutritional quality for growing pigs because of excellent consumption + good protein digestibility, restricted by low amino acid content + very low energy digestibility
• Feeding silage or leaf meals better than fresh forages
• Further studies needed on G x E – breeds x feeds and other forage legumes
Ou
tlo
ok
&
con
clu
sio
ns
Outlook & conclusions
On farm work
• A substantial proportion of grain cereals can be replaced by silage of forage legumes
• This work offers promising options for smallholder farmers, to improve food security + increase income
• Additional advantages (conservation for dry season use, easier transport + storage), important factors increasing the likelihood of adoption of this technology
• Further research needs of forages for monogastric animals especially regarding labour requirements (women!) + economic viability
Ou
tlo
ok
&
con
clu
sio
ns
Acknowledgment
• Local farmers for assessing and harvesting forages as well as husbandry of animals
• Our partner institutions in Colombia, Nicaragua + DR Congo
• BMZ/GIZ Germany for funding the project ‘More Chicken and Pork in the Pot, and Money in Pocket: Improving Forages for Monogastric Animals with Low-income Farmers’ conducted in Colombia, Nicaragua and Sud-Kivu/ DRC (2009-2012)
• Thank you very much – muchas gracias – merci beaucoup – asanteni sana!
Photos by BL Maass + Rvd Hoek
Free roaming chicken, SW Tanzania
Free roaming chicken, Sud-Kivu, eastern DRC
THE END
Shaded area of distribution after map by Ngoupayou et al. (1995)
Cameroon
Côte d‘Ivoire
DR CongoCongo
Tanzania
Mozambique
Nigeria
Guinea
Guinée
Malawi
Geo-referenced
Located from literature/key informant
Known from region only; importance unknown
From literature/key informant; not important
Only used as pet
Kenya
Burundi
Rwanda
Cavy distribution in Africa
Map in progress by Maass et al. (2012)
‘Livestock revolution’
• Increasing meat demand in the tropics
• Market chance for smallholder pig farmers in the tropics
Source: FAOSTAT 2012, cited from Sarria et al. 2012
Limitations
– Access to feed concentrates or
– Fluctuating, high prices
$US/ton soybeans YEAR USA Argentina
2008 366 282 2009 352 255 2010 430 260
Source: Source:http://www.faqs.org/sec-filings/100331/LAKE-AREA-CORN-PROCESSORS-LLC_10-K/,
cited from Sarria et al. 2012
Price fluctuations from 2007-2009
Soybean
meal
Comparative fermentative capacity
Sources: derived from Van Soest 1994, cited by Irlbeck & Pollock 2011
Image:
(% of total digestive tract)
Nu
trit
ion
al
req
uir
em
en
ts
Bird Cavy
Fibrous feeds for pigs
• Fibrous tropical feeds comprise leaves of crops, trees, legumes, and grasses. The chemical composition, the nature, and type of dietary fibre influence the voluntary intake of monogastric animals. Pigs can consume a maximum of only 3.0 kg DM per day of feed (DLG, 2005) or 100 g DM/kg metabolic live weight , but growing pigs need about 16-35 MJ metabolizable energy (ME) per day , i.e. about 13 MJ ME/kg feed.DF lowers the energy value of the diet since its apparent digestibility is only 0.40 – 0.50, varying widely depending on the fibre source (Close, 1993), while digestibilities of protein, fat, sugars, or starch are above 0.80 (Noblet & Goff, 2001).
• Intake increases with increasing fibre content to maintain the same amount of digestible energy in the diet (Savon, 2005), but the compensation is limited by gut capacity (Close, 1993). Pigs less than 50 kg liveweight cannot compensate for an energy concentration less than 14 MJ/kg, while pigs over 70 kg liveweight can compensate by increased feed intake if the energy concentration falls to 10 MJ/kg (Black et al., 1986). Young animals, particularly, require diets that are highly digestible.
Source: Martens et al. 2012
Fora
ges
for
Mo
no
gast
rics